Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Template removal & incivility...

Unresolved

Restored from archive... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Back on September 20, 2009, Chao19 (talk · contribs) was blocked for removing article maintenence templates and incivility. He was removing {{fact}}, {{refimprove}}, and {{references}} templates from assorted Creed articles... he was given fair warning, and his only replies the the warnings were that no references were needed and I was an asshole for restoring the templates. After the block, that user was inactive for a while, although there were one or two IPs (67.167.33.47 (talk · contribs) and possible others) that continued the pattern, even going so far as to continue the incivility on my user talk page (this and the following half dozen revisions)... within a minute of the IP's last comment, Chao19 had logged in, and replied to his own IP comment (Chao19's first edit since the block)... Since that edit, the IP has not made any further edits, and Chao19 has continued the incivility[1] and removal of maintenence templates without reason... I filed a report at AIV, and was going to file a report at SSP, but was told it would be better brought to ANI...

It is obvious that the IP is a sock of Chao19, and it is also obvious that Chao19's original block did nothing to change his editing habits... his counter-productive editing and harassment of other users has become more than an average bother to me, and I would like someone else to look into this... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes this behavior is pretty bad. Comments like "Why do you expect everything to be referenced? Jesus.." leave me with doubt that this person has the willingness to comply with Wikipedia's most basic editing rules. If this was a new editor I would suggest that a person have a talk with them about the necessity of verifiability but seeing that they've been an active editor for over 9 months with over 600 edits I'd consider any ignorance of rules at this point to be willful. -- Atama頭 19:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

For the last month I have tried to explain this to him, and have been met with nothing but stubborness and incivility every step of the way... I just sat down to find his latest revelation, "And from what ive seen over the year and a half ive been on here, your the only once who truly gives a flying fuck about the unreferenced stuff."... Anyone that takes a look at my conversation with him so far, will see that this guy obviously does not care about Wikipedia's policies, and plans to continue doing what he wants with no regard for them. Add to that the incivility, and you've got the makings of someone who (while not a blatent vandal) will do nothing but cause harm to the project in the end... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Although, I am still looking forward to my Worst Admin Ever award... LOL - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll get started on an excremental barnstar for you. :) -- Atama頭 19:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sa-weet... that'll be number three in as many years... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Back to the original comment, the editor in question has now begun vandalizing my user page, and continues the incivility on my talk page... Someone with tools please do something about this... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Adolphus79. That last comment was completely out of line.--Crossmr (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur. A block per WP:NPA would seem to be in order if this happens again. --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

His being blocked a month ago for it, and coming back to continue harassing me isn't enough? Or the contsant and blatent template vandalism, which also continued after the last block? I can guarantee that the harassment and template removal will continue, it's not a matter of if... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet accusations

I have been accused of a sockpuppet but no case has been filed and I consider this a slur on my wiki-name. I have never been blocked or involved in sockpuppetry and I am concerned with how this will impact on my reputation. If no case is filed, can I remove it or ask for it to be removed?

What I also find disturbing about this is the editor who has added the report names two other editors who they say it could be - surely, editors cannot accuse multiple editors of being a sockpuppet and hope that one sticks? It looks like they wish to run a fish-tripping on multiple editors.

In addition, they deleted a reply of mine to that page where I noted that I had received an email about this matter to make it look like it was something I was trying to hide rather than someone I noted myself. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed it. You're BOTH (you and Benjiboi) admonished to put up or shut up regarding sockpuppet accusations and WP:BITEing. I totally agree that its likely that user is not a new user, but you have no basis for who they could possibly be a sock of. If they are a new user, you both bit them in an attempt to bully the other. If you can establish who they might be, you're free to bring a CU request but until then neither of you should reinstate those sock notices. Syrthiss (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - I hold my hand up on that - and will offer my apologies to the user about that - my anger at the false accusation got the better of me and I should have known better. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's clear this is - yet another - attempt at WP:Baiting me and it's unfortunate that Cameron Scott invests sooo much energy in following me around. I guess I should be honoured they are obsessed with me. -- Banjeboi 14:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I don't particularly like having my good name thrown around by User:Benjiboi in all this as well. - Schrandit (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record both you and Cameron Scott have continued to heap piles of bad faith on me and this claimed concern about your wiki-reputations rings quite hollow, actually. If you didn't support banned editors using anon socks, blanketing articles with {{COI}} and {{fact}} tags with apparently no interest but in deleting material you apparently don't approve and, possibly most chilling - defending attackers and murderers as unjustly accused of hate crimes against LGBT people - none of this would likely be going on. Instead, bolstered by Wikipedia Review you nip at my heels and throw muck at my work until you hope something sticks. Essentially you're playing the worst sort of game and playing the community for fools. If you don't approve/like/condone LGBT people and culture than work on some of the other three million articles. If you don't care for another editor? Then avoid them, don't continually target articles they work on when you obviously have little to no interest in them. In short, move on. Your actions are disruptive and are counter to building good content. You work will make or break your reputations. -- Banjeboi 14:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This really isn't the place for more of the same vague accusations of bad faith that you have made previously and started this section. If you have a problem with my edits, I invite you to start a RFC and I'll be happy to stand on my record.Other well respected editors in the LGBT project have stated previously that they are happy with my edits and therefore I feel there is no case to answer. Otherwise I have no further comment to make here (as it only seems to encourage you in your accusations) unless invited to do so by an administrator or anyone else who is seeking answers. Otherwise I consider this matter resolved. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if that was too vague for you. Leave me alone, stop harassing me, stop accusing me of COI editing, stop trying to out me or whoever you think I am, stop WP:Wikihounding me. Hope that is more clear and we can all more on from here. -- Banjeboi 15:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Benji, your edits have shown time and time again violations of policies and guidelines. Anyone has every right to scrutinize them, and hiding behind the flag of homophobia is against common decency and WP:AGF. Please strike your accusations, apologize to the user and move on. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of vague accusations. If you have some tangible concern of my "time and time again violations of policies and guidelines" please present them in a proper forum so some non-biased eyes might see what merit your concerns hold. I'm hardly hiding behind anything, homophobia exists on Wikipedia but most editors are willing to act civilly towards one another despite their beliefs. We don't suspend our civility in order to make a point or enforce some other policy. There is never a reason to harass other editors. -- Banjeboi 05:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who knows Benjiboi's real name will see that this is an obvious attempt to annoy or harass him. While this shouldn't give Benjiboi license to accuse others of sockpuppetry, perhaps the account should be blocked. On the other hand, if Benjiboi was more open about his connections to the subjects that he edits, I suspect that the editors he accuses of being obsessed with him would find other things to do. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Impressive sleuthing DC, that does put many a suspicion to rest. - Schrandit (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It had already been raised in this discussion, where the putative conflict of interest was relevant. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• No comment on the other matters at play, but I have blocked the account indefinitely for harassment. –xeno^talk 17:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• My connection was answered here. And even if it hadn't been answered there is never an excuse to harass other editors here. No matter someone's background they need to act civilly toward others or find another website to express their ideas. -- Banjeboi 05:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

So let's see if I understand this:

• At least as early as January 2008, Benjiboi is asked (during the first AfD for the now deleted bio of DJ Pusspuss) about his connection to DJ Pusspuss and Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P.
• In early September, the COI questions noted in the first AfD were brought up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P.
• For the past two months, at this ANI thread, this WP:COIN thread, and a couple of AfDs, Benjiboi has steadfastly denied any conflict of interest in DJ Pusspuss, Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P., Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, etc, etc
• Now that a diff from 2006 is produced in which Benjiboi states that he is "the archivist for the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, Inc. in San Francisco" with the same email used by DJ Pusspuss, Sister Kitty Catalyst, and the freelance journalist who shell not be named, Benjiboi states that the diff "was made by someone else" using his account.

It seems odd that after so much fuss, Benjiboi didn't earlier offer that "someone else" had used their account. And if "someone else" was responsible for the 2006 diff, it can only be assumed that the same "someone else" went back in May 2007 to remove only the email address from that comment.

I am fully aware of WP:OUTING and I understand that editors may not wish to have their WP usernames connected to their real life identities, but at some point the presumption of good faith is overwhelmed by the evidence to the contrary. Benjiboi claims that because he edits LGBT articles he is at risk of becoming a victim of a hate crime. Since all of the personas in this mess (Sister Kitty, DJ Pusspuss, unnamed freelance journalist) are openly gay LGBT activists and "homo-propagandists" (their term, not mine), it is hard to see how this can be rationalized. Rather than simply avoid editing the articles where the "someone else" who used Benjiboi's account would have a conflict of interest, Benjiboi has edit warred and blustered about being harassed by accusations of COI. This has become a low-level but constant distraction and has now blossomed into actual harassment of Benjiboi by anon IPs and abusively named accounts.

Ignoring the problem hasn't made it go away. Can we find some constructive way to deal with this issue, please? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, despite - yet another - rehashing of this alleged problem you have shown a connection likely exists, it has been acknowledged. That is different than an actual problem, as has been pointed out out repeatedly. Yet you choose to dredge it all up again to publicly flog. Luckily we don't reward bad behaviour even if perpetrated by anon vandals bolstered by Wikipedia Review. The COIN thread, where apparently COI problems are reported, is rather explicit that our civility policies should not be swept aside in order to conduct witch-hunts. If you have any evidence of actual COI editing problems you can make your case there rather than enabling incivility of a handful of editors, some already shown to be socks of banned editors. I'll repeat my same admonishment - Delicious carbuncle please leave me alone. -- Banjeboi 03:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean this in a snarky way, but I can't parse your first sentence. Can you please rephrase that? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It was confusing to me too but in context with the rest of the comment, I believe that Benjiboi is saying that yes, there's a COI and it is acknowledged, but a COI in and of itself is not a problem unless it's paired with disruptive editing. Which is true. I'm sure that you have a belief that there is disruptive editing otherwise I doubt you'd be pursuing this in multiple places, but that's the point that Benjiboi is disputing. -- Atama頭 19:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

there's a COI and it is acknowledged, Where? --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Benjiboi just did. I think that the COI is undeniable with the diff you provided. So Benjiboi basically said, "Yes there's a COI but so what? It hasn't caused a problem." Saying that the COI "has been acknowledged" is an acknowledgment, isn't it? If this COI is acknowledged after a long denial, of course, that in itself may be a cause for concern. -- Atama頭 15:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If Benjiboi is finally acknowledging a COI, that would be a welcome and refreshing change. My reason for bringing this up again here is that it seems to be at the root of this latest ANI report and Benjiboi's current disputes with other editors. I hope that Benjiboi does not cease his diligent work with LGBT subjects, but if he could stop editing the small number of articles where he does have a conflict, it would probably make the drama go away entirely. I'm not asking for a ban of any kind, just a voluntary action for the sake of peace. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle, you and a few other editors are self-appointed hall monitors creating drama where there is none. Similar to your treatment of David Shankbone, your stated concern seems somewhat reasonable. But with any discernment reads as you wish to compel others to disclose, by inducements or relief from harassment, a compiled list of various articles they do or may have a COI on. We don't operate like that. Every article doesn't carry with it an alert tag "Warning: the following editors are compromised here" nor does every editor come with a list of articles and subjects where they are or are not allowed. Instead we look at content and behaviours. So no, I don't believe "the drama go away entirely" at all as before this I have been stalked and harassed by anons and quite a few since banned editors. And no, it wasn't for COI issues but a variety of LGBT-related subjects where I primarily work. I don't care if it's the same person or a small group working in a collaboration. I don't even care why someone is harassing me just as I wouldn't care why any other editor was being harassed. We don't allow it no matter what point someone is trying to make. If have have any actual COI problems - that is where a real or perceived COI is manifesting in COI editing please start a thread at COIN and make your case there. A connection was shown a COI problem was not. Feel free to get in the last word if you must. -- Banjeboi 03:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Benjiboi's assessment. In my case, the same person--User:Delicious carbuncle--that was raising a fuss was the same person saying that 'all this will go away if you do what I think you should do' despite everyone on the board telling DC, to the point of exasperation, that he was unable to show any problems. It's similar to how the mafia operates; they create problems that you must then bend to their will to have solved. He targets people who have completely stuck within policy simply because he doesn't like them or feels they should do what he thinks they should do. Instead, he maligns the people (including Benjiboi and Peteforsyth) who pointed this out to him. He nominates a very notable foreign film for deletion (Ping Pong Playa) as "unremarkable", templates User:Ynotswim, upsetting him, all because he Googled the wrong phrase. I spend five second Googling the correct phrase, and when he closes the AfD says "I'm sure someone will be along in 6 or 7 months to add references". He created a situation, was in the wrong, and doesn't do anything to actually improve the article nor apologize to Ynotswim. Over on Outlaw motorcycle club he tells User:Dbratland that his word is no good (despite that user providing in good faith six sources to back himself up, with links DC could easily check for himself). Here he is going at Benjiboi. Only on ass-backward Wikipedia can I undertake routine linkspam removal and have it presented by Carbuncle on Wikipedia Review as an attempt to "strongarm the competition", have him enter a delicate discussion with personal attacks, and then have nobody do anything about it on this board except for Manning Bartlett to characterize it as a "misunderstanding" despite all evidence to the contrary. And people wonder why content contributors get fed up? All of this just in the law few weeks. -->David Shankbone 12:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

David, to be so brutally and publicly attacked by one Wikipedia's most renowned editors is especially painful to me because I though that our problems had been resolved. I had hoped that your appearance on several articles I was editing was a sign that you thought we could work constructively together. Unfortunately User:Ynotswim is a serial copyright violator, but nonetheless I am sorry if they are upset. My initial impulse was to ask for Ping Pong Playa to be CSD'd for copyright violation, but I went the AfD route to allow for discussion. I closed the AfD when you showed me my mistake. As I said in closing it, I made a mistake when searching for evidence of notability. You'll find many more mistakes if you search through my contribution history. Let me apologise again for the misunderstanding that lead to your recent ANI thread about me. Since you obviously feel that I am a destructive influence here, perhaps you should start another thread instead of further clouding the already murky discussion here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi, I don't mean to minimize the harassment you and other editors receive for your work on LGBT subjects, but in relation to a very specific set of articles I honestly do believe that the current situation will be resolved by a voluntary pledge not to edit articles where you have a conflict of interest. We can ask the editors who have in the past tagged those articles as COI if they agree. There is no witch hunt or intimidation intended here since your connection has already been shown. After literally years of denial, you have finally admitted what has been obvious for a long time. It is therefore understandable that some editors may not let go easily. I am proposing a way forward with this persistently disruptive pattern. Are you willing to try it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle, just stop. There was no years of denial as much as never revealing who I was, and I explained why. Every one of those COI tags has been removed insisting - as we have pointed out here and every other time - that you show actual problems instead of inventing a narrative bolstered by various Wikipedia Review socks, six - by my count - have been blocked so far. The way forward is for you to drop it, you've wikihounded and I simply am not going to take your word on behalf of a group of disruptive vandals that now they will act like adults. It's unfortunate you don't see the problems your causing by re-opening closed issues and attempts to air "concern" publicly. If all the editors involved simply focused on the content and not the contributor - per policy, none of this would have been a drama to begin with. Walk away and know that your mission here is done. In the future if you think someone is COI editing take it to COIN and show a problem exists not a connection. And avoid even the appearance of outing people - it remains a form of harassment. -- Banjeboi 16:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have already described the problem - there is a low-level but long term disruptive edit war going on at a number of articles with which other editors perceive that you have a conflict of interest. I am not speaking on behalf of anyone. I am suggesting we ask editors such as User:Cameron Scott and other editors in good standing here who have been in conflict with you on this issue whether they would accept my proposed solution. Since your identity is already known (because of your own edits) there is no "outing" going on here. I realise that this is probably a touchy subject for you, but please consider my proposal seriously, rather than simply assuming that I am trying to harass you. Wouldn't this reduce the amount of friction for you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle, I don't know how to make this more clear - you are the source of friction here. Everyone else seems to have moved on to actually build articles. You have described a connection, based on who you think I must be even though that was confirmed to be untrue. The edit-warring was by those looking to add {{COI}} tags on numerous articles - all of which have been removed as described above. Thus you are the only one still WP:Beating a dead horse. Move on. Show actual COI exiting persists and perhaps do so at COIN following the guidelines there. -- Banjeboi 18:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi, I find it hard to keep track of where we are in this conversation. User:Atama interpreted your earlier statement as confirmation of your connection to DJ Pusspuss/Sister Kitty Catalyst. I expressed my doubts, but you seemed to confirm it when you said "A connection was shown a COI problem was not". Are you now retracting that admission? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you got your response, but hey we can rewrite the COI guidelines, 'simply refuse to discuss your COI and if pushed cite the Benjiboi precedent'. The fact that one of the sources that they add is from the his organisation's website and for all we know, they write it to support their need for a source - no problem, it's all good. Reliable sources? pfff independent sources? what you talking about? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh? how is a film company my organization? Please find something better to do. -- Banjeboi 18:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Removing all my edits

Zen-in methodically removes all my edits without any discussion and insults me on talk pages. I would like to get some admin intervention against his brutal actions. See: Emitter-coupled logic, Transistor–transistor logic, CMOS, Differential amplifier, Negative impedance converter, Talk:Negative resistance, Negative resistance. Thanks. Circuit-fantasist (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• possible edit warring according to this and this. You are both good editors editing almost the same articles (Zain, Circuit ft). I suggest you both read wp:3RR. We are all good in what we think we are. if we meet other good people in our field, there is no guarantee that we shall agree on every subject. best to read wp:3rr. all the best mate. Ecoman24 (talk page) 16:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• I think somebody with more familiarity with the topic should review. Zen-in was told that he was mistaken in some of his assertions, but also that he could roll back all of CF's edits on Emitter-coupled logic. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• They seem to ve been in possible edit warring since FEBRUARY 2009. A good solution to need to be found. My suggestion still remains for both to understand WP:3RR. any fighting is not good and is not accepted at wiki. talk pages are not battle grounds. No one gets paid to contribute to wikipedia. we will never meet most editors we communicate to. They don't really matter in our day to day lives. Make peace for whatever the price, even lowering your integrity, do it. you will loose nothing. Ecoman24 (talk page) 17:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• There has been a lot of discussion concerning CF's non-stop edits to electronics pages. Once CF starts editing a page he is like a pit bull and will not let go of it. If anyone tries to edit the same page he will revert the edits and/or complain to admin. After 50-150 edits, with no other contributions, he will move on to another page, to do the same. There are many editors who completely disagree with his way of presenting electronics because the result is confusing to read. A few months ago we went through all of this with Negative resistance. I and several other editors completely re-wrote this page. I believe that maintaining the quality of Wikipedia articles is more important than letting everyone's edits stand.Zen-in (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• If you scrutinize my contributions, you will see that all my insertions are accompanied with concrete summaries and comprehensive explanations on the according talk pages about the root of the matter. I have been inviting many times Zen-in and other wikipedians responsible to these pages to join discussions. Conversely, if you examine all Zen-in's contributions, you will see that, as a rule, his edits are not equipped with accompanying explanations on the talk pages. Instead, his comments on talk pages are full with personal attacks, insults (e.g., "pit bull":) and offensive characteristics directed mainly against me. I have not ever managed to discuss in essence the contents of these pages with Zen-in. So, I begin restoring sentence-by-sentence my edits (removed by Zen-in) commenting all my insertions on the according talk pages and inviting Zen-in to discuss them. Circuit-fantasist (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• CF you should not take the criticism of your edits as a personal attack. Several other editors have stated to you that your writing is unsuitable for publication on Wikipedia, as it relies heavily on your personal opinions and insights (i.e, it is original research). Unfortunately there is a noticeable degradation in the quality and readibility of pages you have extensively edit, at the exclusion of others. You should not take this observation as a personal insult and you should be used to hearing it by now.Zen-in (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Hrm, do we have an issue with self-promotion, conflict of interest here? I note a recent tussle over links to wikibooks, e.g. b:Circuit Idea/Revealing the Mystery of Negative Impedance, which all seems to point back to www.circuit-fantasia.com. Tarc (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• User talk:Zen-in, this statement (Once CF starts editing a page he is like a pit bull and will not let go of it) is/could be interpreted as a personal attack. please, avoid using such statement. they don't help to solve a problem. You both have valid points, defending your actions. You have both made some good contributions to wiki. best thing you can do both is to compromise, not fighting any more. one of you will need to step back. you will loose nothing. worse scenario is, one or both of you may be disciplined. I don't want to see that. you are both veteran editors. Hope you can both compromise. may some one add a section called compromise below. Thank you. This case may also be a content dispute. Ecoman24 (talk page) 20:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Is this better? Once CF starts editing a page he will not let other's modify it. If you look at the history of the pages listed in CF's initial complaint you will see they all have long unbroken periods when CF edited them. The root of the problem is CF's use of Wikipedia to promote his university's alternative method of describing electronic circuits, as noted by Tarc. A good example of this can be found on the Negative differential resistance page. This is what CF's edits eventually become. CF's edits promote original, unverified research. I have had the good fortune to have studied electronics at a very good university and I have worked as an electronic and computer engineer for many years. I think every editor and administrator on Wikipedia owes it to the users of Wikipedia to maintain the highest quality and readibility of its technical pages. Sometimes that means rolling back one person's edits so that an earlier, well written article is restored. CF has been told in the past, by more experienced editors than I, that he should confine his alternative pedagogical method to his own personal pages because it is WP:OR and WP:POV. As much as I would like to compromise I cannot because to do so would be to participate in CF's conflict of interest.Zen-in (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you zain. thank you also Tarc for that information. Zain and CF, You are both here to find a long lasting solution. I see, you have been warring since february. i see that you are not willing to compromise. would you suggest a solution to this problem, (up to five bullet points, if you don't mind). Circuit-fantasist, could you also do the same. consider your friend in drafting the solution. Thank you guys. Ecoman24 (talk page) 21:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• We have not been edit warring since February. I, along with several other editors re-wrote Negative resistance page, against CF's objections. Since then I have not done much editing on Wikipedia, while CF has done a lot. Before any talk of compromise should occur action should be taken on CF's conflict of interest. My edits have been directed to restore articles to their original quality whereas CF's have done the opposite. If this is not apparent to you maybe someone who has a better understanding of electronics should weigh in. I can suggest SpinningSpark, Secret Squïrrel, Rogerbrent, and Timberframe since they have dealt with this issue in the past. That is my offer of a compromise. Zen-in (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

A compromise suggested by:

Zen-in:

This is my offer of a compromise to end any so-called edit warring between Circuit-fantasist and myself, Zen-in

• Circuit-fantasist to desist from editing any electronic articles on Wikipedia because of his long-standing WP:OR, WP:POV and WP:COI activities that have degraded the quality of many of these articles. He is welcome to edit other non-technical pages.
• Zen-in, with the help of other editors, will restore the numerous electronics pages edited by Circuit-fantasist to their earlier quality and will not revert or otherwise "edit-war" against Circuit-fantasist on the non-technical pages he does edit. Zen-in (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ecoman24:

• Both Zen-in and Circuit-fantasist to stop editing any disputed article, ADMIN to protect pages mentioned below.
• In future, both Zen-in and Circuit-fantasist should not edit the same article more than twice in one week or revert the others contribution more than twice in two weeks. Any one doing so will be considered edit warring, and an initial 24hrs block may follow.
• Zain should not edit the following pages Emitter-coupled logic, Transistor–transistor logic,
• Circuit-fantasist not to edit the following pages Negative impedance converter, Operational amplifier applications,
• both of you not to edit the following pages CMOS
• Admin to to protect the following pages - Negative resistance
• Both of you should not use any PERSONAL ATTACK LANGUAGE, see WP:PA, strict rules may apply
• If you ever found in wanting to edit the same article, please step back, or discuss on the article talk page.
• YOU SHOULD AT NO TIME PUT DOWN your friends personal information on wikipedia. That may be considered HARASSMENT, see Wikipedia:PRIVACY#Posting of personal information.

I hope this is a neutral solution to the problem that will satisfy both veteran editors, contributing in the area where more editors are needed. Ecoman24 (talk page) 08:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• The above is agreeable to me. I can abide by these terms. Zen-in (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see the additional comments below. EyeSerene^talk 17:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you are painting the problem with an overly-broad brush. Zen-in needs to reign in the emotions a bit and adhere to WP:CIVIL, but I do not see a problem with his editing per se, as what he (and others) have been trying to do is keep Circuit-fantasist's self-published original research from weakening otherwise scientifically-valid articles. Again, I will point out www.circuit-fantasia.com as well as Circuit-fantasist; this person's general aim/goal is apparently to introduce science in "laymen's terms" for the Wikipedia, using his own diagrams and books. Circuit-fantasist is the one that should be kept away from scientific articles in general until he demonstrates an understanding and acceptance of basic editing policy. Perhaps WP:COIN would've been a better venue for this. Tarc (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Tarc. Zen needs to rein in their frustration, but I see the real issue as being Circuit-fantasist's editing methods and philosophy. They may indeed have some WP:COI issues, and certainly need to listen to advice from other editors. There also seems to be some misapprehension about what we're trying to build here; I wonder if Wikiversity might be more what they're looking for?

One question - is there a clear consensus among our regular subject editors/experts in this area that the type of material Circuit-fantasist is introducing is unwelcome? EyeSerene^talk 17:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to go along with Ecoman24's compromise to keep the peace. My concerns with Circuit-fantasist's edits over the past year are expressed well by Tarc. I will not go into more detail for obvious reasons. The WP:COI needs to be addressed or this dispute will re-surface later on. Circuit-fantasist's statement below "you will see that he does not understand even the most elementary circuit concepts" speaks for itself. I recommend that Tarc and/or EyeSerene, since they has have been until now uninvolved, present the facts on WP:COIN. It is better that I not get further uninvolved in this at this point.Zen-in (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would I want to make a report at COI/N? I'm responding as an admin here :) I acknowledge that there's a probable COI issue, but that can be resolved easily enough if Circuit-fantasist keeps inserting links to their website or other promotional material (a number of options exist, including blocking the editor and, in extreme cases, blacklisting the site). There is, however, a WP:USERNAME issue that demands immediate attention, about which I've left Circuit-fantasist a note on their talk-page. I hope this, and the clear advice I've left below, will resolve the problem. If it resurfaces, feel free to drop a note on my talk-page (or post back here of course)... and where there are genuine content disputes, remember WP:BRD, keep calm, and follow the advice on WP:DR ;) EyeSerene^talk 20:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

OK I understand the problem has been discussed here and there is no need for any further action right now. Is someone going to remove the Circuit idea links from the above mentioned pages Negative impedance converter, and Negative resistance? Zen-in (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Tarc (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

A compromise suggested by Circuit-fantasist:

Ecoman24, I comply on the whole with your recommendations and will do the following to resolve or to soften the conflict:

• I will revise my edits removed by Zen-in and will correct them if there is a need; then, I will place these texts first on the according talk pages to discuss them with wikipedians. I will invite Zen-in to discuss them and will await his answers. If he has adduced reasonable arguments, I will correct my edits again. Then, I will insert them in the main articles.
• I will place all my future edits on the according talk pages to discuss them first with wikipedians and will urge specially Zen-in to comment my insertions.
• I will equip my insertions with links to reputable sources if it is needed; but I won't do that if they are extremely clear, obvious and based on common sense.

Ecoman24, I would like to say some words as a conclusion. I understand you; you have to extinguish the conflict. But please do not place Zen-in's work on the same level as my work; you make me feel pained. I do not mean the number of edits (240 versus 3206); I mean the content of edits. I am a creative person that has managed to reveal the basic ideas behind circuits and to present them in an attractive manner to readers. I have been continuously trying to find reputable sources presenting the circuits in the same manner; when I manage, I place links to them. If there are not such sources, I use clear, obvious and based on common sense explanations that are not original research. As you can see, the greatest part of Zen-in's contributions consists of cosmetic edits and removing else's insertions as a reaction to these "interventions" (imagine he has even wrecked my attempt to tidy up our discussion here thus mutilating it!!!) What is more, his assertions are frequently wrong (for example, if you dig over the old discussions about negative resistance, you will see that he does not understand even the most elementary circuit concepts). As a conclusion, while my mission in Wikipedia is to create, Zen-in's mission is to destroy the creation... Circuit-fantasist (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, Zen-in wasn't the one who re-factored this section, I was, because there was no need for sub-sub-headings cluttering up the contents list.

Secondly, your undertaking to discuss edits before inserting them into articles is welcome. However, with all due respect for Ecoman24's well-intentioned intervention, I think what you need to take away from this is that your idea of what makes an attractive presentation to readers is not necessarily compatible with Wikipedia's mission as a serious encyclopedia, or the normal conventions of presenting such information, or the styles other editors have adopted over years of collaborative working in these areas. Your editing currently gives the impression that you're on a mission to advocate the www.circuit-fantasia.com approach. You should take a look at WP:NOT, particularly the sections on original thought and soapboxing. As I mentioned above, other websites, such as perhaps Wikiversity, might welcome your approach and your ideas... but please don't persist in using them here. EyeSerene^talk 19:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the response and for the advices. I have useful resources (circuit stories, pictures and flash movies) located on circuit-fantasia.com that can help understanding circuits; that is why I placed links to them a few years ago. Zen-in has removed all of them. Then I began creating Circuit idea wikibook and placed these links there. If they are the main problem, I will remove them from there as well. Circuit-fantasist (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, we have no involvement in wikibooks and what they allow or not. The problem seems to be with you putting links to there from articles here. Tarc (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - although Wikibooks is hosted on the Wikimedia Foundation servers, it's a completely separate site from Wikipedia with its own content inclusion criteria. I'm positive your work is a valuable addition to their corpus and very welcome there. However, it's important to understand that our mission on Wikipedia is to inform, not to instruct; it's a subtle difference, but I think all the difference in this case. Our guideline on external links is to keep them to a minimum of directly relevant material that wouldn't be found in the article text if the article was FA-standard. Since FA requires comprehensivity of its articles, this deliberately excludes almost everything :) It's true that many articles fall far short of this ideal and linkspam can sometimes get out of control, but the state of other articles isn't always a good guide to what is permissible. The sort of material that's ideal for an external link would be something like a copy of an important historical document that couldn't be reproduced in the article for reasons of space and perhaps copyright. An unsuitable link might be one that covers the same material as is in the article, even if from a different perspective. EyeSerene^talk 16:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I was heavily involved in the cleanup of the negative resistance article and agree that much of what C-F writes is unacceptable for Wikipedia. I will come on to the problems with C-Fs editing in a moment, but first a few words about Zen-in whose attitude makes this problem ten times harder to deal with than it needs to be. Zen-in edit wars with C-F simply reverting him wholesale, a tactic that had so miserably failed to improve negative resistance over the preceding year that Zen-in resorted to creating a fork article and then left C-F to his "own" article. The first battle at negative resistance, consequently, was not with C-F, but with Zen-in persuading him that the fork had to go before any further progress could be made. Zen-in has shown his attitude above in his proposed "compormise", whose first point is that C-F should be forbidden from editing electronics articles. I do not believe C-F should be forbidden from editing, sometimes he makes a valid point, but because his style is not liked, inevitably the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater in a total revert.

I also do not think that C-F's edits fundamentally have a COI issue as has been suggested by several editors above. The links to Wikibooks and his own website are by and large substitutes for edits of his that have been deleted rather than an attempt to promote those sites. In C-F's eyes the links would not be necessary if he was allowed to write the articles as he wished. The problem is much more one of OR, C-F uses methodology and terminology that has no provenance in the sources, compounded by language difficulties. When challenged, C-Fs response is usually to post extremely long explanations and discussions on the talk page, often retrieving large chunks of text from the talk page archives from a previous round of the same discussion. He thinks that merely the logical force of his own arguments are enough to justify his edits and simply doesn't get the need for reliable sources. A further bone of contention with C-F has been the quality and style of his graphics, which appear to be photographs of lecturing whiteboards. Again, many of these have been reverted, not because of issues with their technical content (although that as well sometimes) but because they include childish "stick men". This is again throwing out the rubber ducks with the waste water.

I am not sure that I want to propose any community restrictions at all here. The essential issue to my mind is to persuade C-F that to write on Wikipedia he must use reliable sources (which does not include his own site or Wikibooks). However, if any restrictions are to be imposed, here is my recommendation for what it's worth;

• Circuit-fantasist not to make any edit in article space, other than uncontroversial maintenance, without providing an inline citation to a reliable source.
• Circuit-fantasist not to directly insert non-vector graphics into article space. He mus first have his graphics processed by WP:GL/I into svg format or some other format that other editors can easily correct and amend.
• Zen-in is not to revert any edit by C-F. He may correct and amend such edit but he may not delete them in their entirety.

SpinningSpark 20:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Spinningspark. I ran into CF about two years ago while editing the Virtual ground article, where I had a lot of the same problems as several of us here had with the negative resistance one, namely OR and unsuitable diagrams. The discussion (and my interest) eventually fizzled, so not as much progress was made as I would have liked. I do believable CF is quite knowledgeable and a valuable contributor, but his ideas are non-standard, often un-encyclopedic and likely OR. I do side with CF that Zen-in has not been as civil and patient as he perhaps should have been.

I think Spinningspark's suggestions are a good idea. With the addition that CF make all his talk page discussions shorter and more concise. -Roger (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

EyeSerene, Spinningspark, -Roger, thank you for the unprejudiced words! I was at the border of despair wondering what to do first - to change my user name (that sounds quite humiliatingly for me) or to remove the links from Circuit idea wikibook pointing to some useful resources located on circuit-fantasia.com....or just to cease my Wikipedia and even Wikibooks contributions and to retire to my site... Because I abandoned my site a few years ago and began contributing Wikipedia and lately Wikibooks with only one thought in my head - to say the truth about circuits to people. If you look at my site, you will see that I updated it for the last time on February 10, 2009! Imagine I have not time to change the date as I have been using every spare time to contribute Wikipedia and Wikibooks. As a result, I have only few subscribers since then! What conflict of interest can you see here? My interest should be to write (pseudo)scientific papers and articles, to make a PHD and then to habilitate. Instead, I have been contributing Wikipedia and Wikibooks and even involving my students to great Wikibooks idea. I have been continuously thinking about basic circuit ideas since (1986) I have been teaching analog circuits and now I know the truth about the most of them. And all I want is to say this truth to people. For example, I want if someone curious reader writes "negative resistance" in the Google window and then clicks on the leading Wikipedia page to really understand what negative resistance is... to learn that there are two kinds of negative resistances - absolute and differential... and to come to know the simple truth that the absolute negative resistor is actually not a resistor but a dynamic source and the differential negative resistor is actually a dynamic positive resistor. Unfortunately, reading the present article, our curious reader will not understand what negative resistance is.

I have been thinking and wondering about this psychological phenomenon: Why when (Wikipedia)people see that someone else (Wikipedian) has managed to find a simple, clear, obvious and powerful explanation of some never explained (circuit) phenomenon they do not admire his/her achievement and they do not help him/her? Why instead they do all the possible to destroy his/her work? Please, tell me why since as far as I know Wikipedia is based on a completely different principle - the mutual aid. An example: please, tell me why you (Zen-in and other English native speakers from these pages) having an exquisite style not once have corrected my imperfect grammatical constructions? Is this a typical behavior for Wikipedians?

I would like to note that my recent Wikipedia edits (in Emitter-coupled logic, Transistor–transistor logic, CMOS, Differential amplifier) were more concise and (IMO) they satisfied more closely the Wikipedia requirements; Zen-in has removed them mechanically without reading them. Circuit-fantasist (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree, on a factual basis, with most of what Spinningspark and Roger have said. I am a newbie on Wikipedia and I get bit for trying to do what I think is right. My first impression of CF's work, a little more than a year ago, was that it appeared to promote his pedagogical style and that it didn't belong in an encyclopedia. Feb. 7 2009 is when I started editing Negative Impedance (renamed by CF earlier) but my edits were immediately reverted by CF. A negative impedance is a capacitive reactance, and not the right name for the quasi-DC effect seen with tunnel diodes.

I haven't yet learned how to word-by-word rewrite an article that a) has poor grammar, b) has a difficult to follow analysis, c) has diagrams with childish stickmen (Spinningspark's description). Especially when earlier versions of the same article were very well written. I will admit things did heat up in Feb, but not for over a year as stated above "so miserably failed to improve negative resistance over the preceding year". I encountered a lot of inertia in my quest to rehabilitate this one page and acknowledge playing hardball just to get some forward momentum. I think if I had not acted that way, it would have been a repeat of the Virtual ground article, which is still complained about. I worked with several editors on the Negative Resistance page, contributing to what you now see. negative differential resistance is what negative resistance looked like back then.

The agreement at the time (Feb '09) was that other pages, that had developed this same malaise, would be edited, and that CF would somehow change his editing style. Instead, from Aug through Oct. additional pages were significantly changed by CF, with links to his Circuit idea, etc. This was done after CF was told by others that his WP:OR and WP:POV were not welcome. It is these pages I reverted earlier this week. Most editors, when they looked at these pages, are not interested in trying to fix them with piece-wise edits, for the reasons I have stated.

CF initiated this complaint because of a recent tussle over links to wikibooks, e.g. b:Circuit Idea/Revealing the Mystery of Negative Impedance, my response to CF's impugning Bob Pease, and edits to several pages. I admire CF's enthusiasm about electronics and I think his work at his university introducing electronics to non-technical students is very good. However his oft-stated claim to "know the truth" about electronics doesn't help his cause. His viewpoint is counter to scientific analysis and commonly accepted methods for describing electronic concepts. Incremental analysis, and the use of accepted mathematical techniques are not agreeable to CF. Analogies and comparisons to common place physical effects are useful in an introductory setting, but are not part of mainstream network theory. I think almost everyone in this discussion will agree with this. Pasting banners on the tops of these electronics pages hasn't produced any result. No-one wants to edit them since they are all so far gone. I am the only editor who has done what's necessary to rehabilitate Negative resistance, Emitter-coupled logic, Transistor–transistor logic, CMOS, and Differential amplifier. Some are now being actively worked on by other editors, again. There remain several other pages with the same banners these ones had and similar comments in the discussion area. Most have been that way for a few years and no-one wants to touch them. Zen-in (talk) 05:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Zen-in, I have said many times and will say again: equations do not explain circuits; their place is not at the beginning of the article. At this initial stage we have to show the basic idea (the essence, the clever trick) behind circuit and only then to analyze it. To do that we need qualitative but not quantitative tools; we need imagination, intuition and even emotions than sterile logical reasoning. We have first to answer questions WHY and HOW and only then HOW MUCH. At this stage we must treat people as human beings not as computers. It is a big misconception to explain qualitative things by quantitative tools and v.v. Negative impedance converter is a good example of such a misconseption. Can someone understand what NIC is from this page? Can he/she see what the op-amp does in this circuit? Where and why currents flow? How and why the voltages change? Circuit-fantasist (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into the conduct issues but the content issues seem fairly clearly, original research and promotional edits such as this should be reverted on sight. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Further - and it seems to me, when taken in conjunction with his edits, his userpage is promotional in nature and needs dealing with. we aren't here to promote his teaching method. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree that C-Fs editing can be characterised as promotional. If he were using his editing to try to sell a training course or a book for instance, that would be promotional, but he is not, everything from C-F is free, the same as any other Wikipedia editor. I am willing to take part in cleaning up articles C-F has been editing, but not if it starts turning into a war of extermination of everything C-F has ever written. If that's what's wanted, I'll leave it to those who are best at that sort of thing.

As I said above, the problem is more one of OR and C-Fs strange ideas, a situation neatly summed up in a quote above from C-F himself: Why when (Wikipedia)people see that someone else (Wikipedian) has managed to find a simple, clear, obvious and powerful explanation of some never explained (circuit) phenomenon they do not admire his/her achievement and they do not help him/her? Once again C-F, let me try to "reveal the mystery of Wikipedia" to you; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia summarising the knowledge of the world. It is not a platform for new ideas. Promotion of new, unpublished ideas on Wikipedia is called original research and is a bad thing. The reason the encylopedia does not help you with your "simple, clear, obvious and powerful explanation" is that Wikipedia does not know that that is what it is and no amount of explanation or persuasion from you will change that. We need first reliable sources to tell us that it is "a simple, clear, obvious and powerful explanation", then all editors are able to verify this by reading the source and everyone will be happy with the edit. Unfortunately, there do not appear to be any mainstream publications you can refer to to back up your methods so you cannot use this approach on Wikipedia. You must either conform to conventional presentations or take the material elsewhere. SpinningSpark 11:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That seems a fair summary to me. The outcomes at this point as I see them are:

• Circuit-fantasist has agreed to change their username, which is the first step towards getting away from the promotional allegations. The next step is, as I've noted on their talkpage, to accept that Wikipedia is not a teaching resource or a publisher of non-mainstream conceptual thought - while their innovative approach may indeed be very valuable in aiding understanding, until it's been adopted by textbooks and academic publications we can't reflect it here. They have also agreed to propose potentially controversial edits on the appropriate talk-pages before making them.
• Zen-in has been reminded to follow WP:BRD, engage constructively on talk-pages, and follow WP:DR if necessary. Their attention has been drawn to WP:CIVIL, and they should also be very careful to ensure they have consensus before reverting anything that's not obvious vandalism; where feasible, improvement is better than reversion.

Obviously further breaches on either side will lead to sanctions, but I hope things are now moving in a more positive direction. Unless there's anything more to discuss, can we consider this closed? EyeSerene^talk 12:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record here are the other pages that were on my hit-list. Voltage Drop, Virtual ground, Current-to-voltage converter, voltage-to-current converter, Wilson current mirror, Oscillation, LC circuit, and negative differential resistance. I wager a year from now they will still have unreliable content. Zen-in (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No-ones stopping you (or anyone else) from editing them; you just need to be careful about unilateral wholesale reversions. If rolling an article back to a previous version demonstrably has consensus support, that's different. I've no idea if you've already done this, but it might be worth contacting WikiProject Electronics (or even WikiProject Physics) to see if you can get additional views on how to bring those articles back into compliance. EyeSerene^talk 17:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing worth keeping in Voltage Drop, Virtual ground, Current-to-voltage converter, and voltage-to-current converter. negative differential resistance should have been removed in Feb. Unfortunately there is always someone who will want the "alternative viewpoint" represented by these pages to remain. Any attempt by me to edit these pages will make me look like the "bad guy" and I'll just get slapped around some more by a syncophant. I've been there and done that. In a year's time the list of awful electronics pages on Wikipedia will just get longer. Zen-in (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has helped me to realize what to do in the future. I will concentrate primarily on Wikibooks modules and circuit-fantasia.com where my heuristic approach is the most appropriate. I will contribute more episodically Wikipedia with small edits on the article pages and concise suggestions on the talk pages. Regarding the pages listed above, I won't impede them to be corrected according to Wikipedia requirements. Circuit-fantasist (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

User Yogesh Khande

The user Yogesh Khandke comments are in clear breach of Wikipedia NPOV policy.. his quote; "Dickens was a b****y, f*****g, r****t. A white chauvinist p*g. No offence ment to the later. This aspect of his personality is absent in this biographical article of him, and the void has been filled imho by my additions"

With his set agenda and extreme bias this user is contravening one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. He also has unfounded issue with Anglo-American POV on Wikipedia. He has repeatedly highlighted certain unqualified comments to fit his set agenda, whitewash. As a repeat offender i propose user ban from this article. BobSilverman (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Notified user of this section--Iner22 (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have used *** so that invectives are alluded to. I have been stone walled. I have written hundereds of lines which would not be possible to repeat here unless I go in for a huge copy paste exercise. Would the concerend authorities kindly refer to the discussion on talk:Charles Dickens, please? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I am repeating my reply to BS's charges, they have appeared on talk:Charles Dickens.

Your clear breach of NPOV, no

self admitting set agenda, yes

swearing, no I have used ***, to remain civil.

racist slurs, no The system is biased, Wikipedia says so, I have not meant to make personal attacks, I have contested views, which I think is fair, freedom of speech

issue with Anglo-American POV yes, is that a reason to be banned???

repeated breach of one of the five pillars of wikipedia, no

i have no alternative but to contact administration. I do not know how to react to this.

Please it is 1.04 am local time here and I need to call it a day, will get back asap. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Censoring yourself does not make your comments civil. You admit above that you were alluding to invectives. How is this any different from saying them outright? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, interesting that he admits to having an agenda...combined with the incivility...I'm not really sure what to make of this user. A problem, for certain. --Smashville^talk 20:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

All of that nonsense should come out of the Talk page anyway, WP:NOTFORUM. The invective about a long-dead write who can't defend himself has nothing to do with the article. Who cares about US activity in Afghanistan, and what does that have to do with Charles Dickens? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Charges and my reply

See some charges here Talk:Charles_Dickens#The_five_pillars_of_Wikipedia

I am sorry but you are jumping to conclusions, which is not appropriate, despite your disclaimer, that you have not looked into the matter in detail.

Please there must have been hundreds of lines written on the subject. Do not jump to conclusions. Go through the entire discussion before making comments.

1. Except for the disguised invectives all the other points above are unwarranted allegations. I merely used them to describe Dickens in everyday language, devoid of scholarly euphemisms. But I have alluded to invectives. I perhaps should have used the words, today Dickens would, using everyday language be called a *** *** etc. English is not my first language, and though I understand words and their meanings, I do not know what the fine line between colloquiallity and profanity is, in the Anglo-American cultural context. The discussion page is as far as I understand a little more informal than the article. The American movies that we watch are many times full of profanity, even when families with members of different ages and genders are shown interacting. I have seen atleast one instance of a Wikipedia policy article using a word like jerk which wikitionary marks as (US, slang, pejorative), and gives some synonyms as asshole and bastard. I have no idea what goes and what does not. However in my native tongue, and personally I abhor profanity, and if I come across as profane, I tender an unconditional apology, as I cannot expect others to be sensitive when I am not sensitive to their feelings.
2. There have been no edit wars, so your advice though generally sound is unwarranted in this case.
3. I have not synthesised, I have not indulged in original research, the charge of wp:undue is unwarranted and not based on evidence,also you have to prove that only a minority of reliable sources hold the view that Dickens held racist views. Please quote one non-white non-Christian source that exonerates Dickens of the charge of racism.
4. Please read the discussion carefully before making charges, though your disclaimer says that you have not arrived to indict anyone.
5. As far as I can judge the situation, the editors involved are comfortable with their differing views, and I have stated that I do not need arbitration, or rfc, but am prepared to wait, for other editors to come in. Please go through the entire discussion before forming opinions.
6. wp:FREE which says editing Wikipedia is a privilege granted to you by the permission of the Wikimedia Foundation, and can be revoked at any time for whatever reason that organization sees fit to do so. Have I abused my privilege as an editor, unless criticising imperialism and slavery and white supremacist ideology is construed as a violation of this privilege. In that case I am prepared to relinquish my editing privilege, not on this article but on Wikipedia as then Wikipedia would not be worth to be around imho.
7. I have written that I have contested views and not attacked individuals. I have supported my arguments even on the talk page with reliable sources. I have gone through wp:LEDE and have quoted it above. It seems to confirm my arguments, but if there is no consensus I will not indulge in edit wars, this was and is my stated position.
8. I have not violated wp:V as every word I have written in the article has been sourced from good reliable sources. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• For context, I believe this is in reply to an attempt I made to mediate / intervene. For those who'd like to see the comments Yogesh is responding to, they're either here on the articles talkpage or in the box below (reproduced for convenience). --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments that are responded to above
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Alright, I have no idea who the two of you are, or what started this dispute, so I consider myself uninvolved here. (So, this is based on a cursory review of the discussion, and is not an attempt to indict anyone in specific). So here goes: There's no need (or excuse) for cursing out the subject of an article. Doesn't matter if they're dead or alive, or if you spell it out or use asterisks. See WP:TALK if you need clarification. We work by consensus. Just because you think something doesn't mean it should be in the article. If you want to enact controversial changes, you need the support of others. To put it another way, we don't actually have free speech here. All edits need to follow WP:NPOV and WP:V, and that takes precedence over ones own opinion. Any controversial statement needs to be backed up by sources. For example, if you feel that Dicken's is racist against the swiss because in one chapter he has a character shovel other swiss characters into a meatgrinder, that's not enough. It would be original research or synthesis to make that claim. You'd need to find reliable sources that analyze the material and make the claim themselves. (Ie, you can't cite his chapter and then cite another source saying that writing chapters about people getting put into meatgrinders is indicative of the author's racism, that's synthesis). And if you do find such sources, you need to be sure that they are not given undue weight. That is to say, if only a minority of people hold the view that Dickens was racist against the swiss, it should described as such in the article.Note:after reading through the article, it would appear that there are at least enough sources to justify the racism section at least in part. The WP:LEDE should summarize the key points of the article. I don't currently see a justification for including the race issue there. And lastly, Wikipedia is not a battleground. The viewpoint that prevails in the end will be the one with consensus, not the one that makes the most edits. If you make edits that are continually reverted, you need to build consensus for your views, or if consensus goes against you, recognize that. If you feel a wider viewpoint is needed, start a Request for Comments, don't repeat edits against consensus. Hope that helps some. --Bfigura (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Links for the referred comments has been given above already. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to charges here

1. I have replied to charges of incivility, though incivility is usually used in the context of other editors, also I have an agenda: try to make wikipedia articles multidimensional, and not just a perpetuation of the Anglo-American world view and bias (which has been acknowledged by Wikipedia, while following all Wikipedia rules,) is that a problem?
2. The charge of Wikipedia:NOTFORUM#FORUM is unwarranted. A reliable source which is mentioned in the article has referred to Fagin and the Holocaust in the same breath, events which had a hundred year gap. Do you wish I come up with reliable sources that connect Dickens' white supremacist attitude with US actions in Afghanistan and Iraq?
3. I do not claim to be perfect. But I have no hidden agenda, all my cards are on the table, and I am pledged to play the game by its rules. Is that a problem? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

1. WP:CIVIL does not require you to be incivil to a specific editor. Claiming that articles show an "Anglo-American bias" is a loaded accusation so, yes, it is a problem.
2. Connecting Dickens to modern American wars would be original synthesis and against the rules.
3. We're not here to play a game, so neither should you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

One source for 2 above

This one is not first class, let other editors judge.[[2]] It can atleast prove that I am not a mad railer imagining things. Dickens was a white-supremacist and a racist and a imperialist. Remember more people died in the Bengal famine than all Romas, Romas, Slavs and others in the Holocaust. Imperialism was a seriously damaging ideology, based on white supremacy, whose supporter was Dickens. He was an active campaigner, Jamaica, Rae, 1857-India, he used his weight, to further its end. (Do you want wp:rs for this, check his article.) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You're using what looks like a socialist blog to prove Dickens's imperialist racism. That's not only not "first class" but it would take a great deal of effort to find a less reliable source than that. You seem to be editing simply to make a point which I assure you is not going to be successful. -- Atama頭 21:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, as you said previously, Wikipedia just may not be for you. We do not allow people to slant articles to fit a particular point of view, nor do we allow racism (regardless of which race it's against). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yogesh Defends

It is amazing that people here just do not have the patience to read, but simply want to jump to conclusions and condemn. I will reply in the order of appearance above.

1. On the issue of civility please see Charges and my reply point 1.
   1. I am not claiming that articles show Anglo-American bias, Wikipedia acknowledges that English-Wikipedia shows an Anglo-American bias as a systemic limitation. (to see internal link, check talk page of Dickens) I am merely pointing out that the Dickens' article is one such.
2. Connecting Dickens' to American imperialism is not my fantasy, just as there is a connection between Fagin and the Holocaust, events 100 years apart. This replies to Atma too. The cited source is a site with 3.4 million hits, too bad it is socialist. Are socialists the new Untermensch? (Atma in Sanskrit is soul, just a randon musing). Atma (please read before rushing to accuse), I have not used the source to prove Dickens white supremacist ideology, there are other sources and they are there in the article. Please check. It is a pity that I started on a back foot about the source though, it is pretty sound. I did that because blogs are not considered good sources irrespective of the blog's ideology, or quality.
3. To play the game by its rules is a phrase, if you are not aware of its usage it is not my fault. Phrases to my knowledge (which is limited though, considering that English is not my first language) are not shredded to pieces. Just to help you here is one example of usage: [3]
4. I am editing Dickens' because I sincerely believe that Wikipedia should not be uni-dimensional, is that a crime? I repeat if Wikipedia is here to perpetute a certain vision, sweep the unpleasant under carpets, it is not worth any sane person to spend good time with it? What my views are and what my agenda is, is hardly important as long as I do not violate Wikipedia principles and practices. The Dickens' article was and remains slanted, to borrow your term, I'll give you one example, the Inuit-Franklin controversy was hidden between verbiage, even an editor who spent lots of time dueling (a figure of speech, don't take it literally) on the discussion page could not find it. How would a casual reader? The Dickens article was/is like the Tower at Pisa, I am merely putting/have placed counter weights to straighten it. I have not been the first one and hopefully not the last.
5. Theoretically racism can be in any direction, but have hundreds of thousands of white slaves ever been shipped to Africa? If they have it is equally reprehensible. Even if one has it is atrocious. For my other disclaimers and views on racism please see my user page, Dickens' talk page and my talk page. As I said my cards are on the table. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Atma's Allegation that I have climbed a soapbox

Please come up with instances where I have

1. indulged in propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment
2. indulged in writing opinion pieces.
3. Scandal mongered, indulged in self-promotion or advertising.

Either prove or withdraw this allegation. Please. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yogesh, you're starting to exhaust the community's patience here. Your entire purpose seems to be to advocate a position ("Dickens was a racist") and your persistent single-mindedness on this topic is what's causing the friction here. Several members of the community have pointed out to you that your actions are not within Wikipedia's rules, and your attitude has been very confrontational. I suggest you let this matter drop. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

A few members have alleged that I have broken rules, I have demonstrated above that such allegations are false, unwarranted and unfounded. There has been no heat generated on the Dickens' talk page. Yes my entire purpose for the moment with reference to the Dickens' article is to ensure that the said aspect of Dickens' personality is adequately represented in the article, such multi-dimensioned articles would enhance Wikipedia's worth. Aren't remarks such as "Yogesh, you're starting to exhaust the community's patience here." and "your attitude has been very confrontational" themselves examples of attempts to browbeat. I have not brought this matter up, I have been "put on the docks", I am merely defending myself. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my name is Atama, which is Japanese for "head" (which is also written in Kanji in my signature). Just to clarify that. You've engaged in advocacy on this very noticeboard, as well as on the article. That is how you've fallen afoul of the rules regarding the use of Wikipedia as a soapbox. You're pursuing an anti-imperialist agenda, which you even acknowledge. You're free to believe what you want, people of every viewpoint are not only allowed to edit in Wikipedia, but the project needs a variety of viewpoints to be an inclusive source of information. But while we all have our biases, those points of view are not supposed to appear in our editing, we have a neutral point of view policy that is core to the project. We should be especially careful when editing biographies of people, living or dead (although I admit that biographies of living people have stricter standards). -- Atama頭 20:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

My class mate and friend works and lives in Tokyo. His children go to school there. His daughter and son once told me about hirakana, katakana and kanji (I hope my memory has not failed me). Thanks for the information about Atama. Wonder whether it has any relation to Sanskrit Atma, head and soul don't seem too far away.

A summary of NPOV is

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views must be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material.

I have a lot to learn and improve, no doubt, but please give me one instance where I have violated the above when editing the article.

Advocacy (as well as I can understand it) in simple words means to act and communicate on behalf of others or ideas, such as an advocate of free speech or prohibition or gun-control, or pro-life or the homeless or gays or white supremacists. Now cite one word of edit I have made related to Dickens' article which falls foul of above. I found a lot written about Dickens' and his white-supremacist views on the net, I checked his article, well some of this was there but was camouflaged to hide (well please don't raise the red flag, oh I should assume good faith,) scattered here and there, plus his in-famous remark "...exterminate the race (Indians), ... blot them off the face of the earth..."", was not there I put it there. Please check the article's history, there have been no edit wars. I wish you would tell me Yogesh xxxxx is what you wrote in the article but it should have rather been yyyy because of zzzzz reason, and that would make me a better editor, strengthening Wikipedia. If you check history, and see the talk page, I started with primary sources, an editor commented on it being inappropriate, he asked me to find wp:rs that called Dickens' racist, because I cannot write Dickens' was a white supremacist; this is what he wrote, that would be wp:or, so I found the sources, wrote is xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ok, on the discusson page, there were a few iterations, after he was satisfied he wrote to the effect, "oh it is fine", then it was added to the article. Just one example. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

My Japanese is admittedly rusty (I haven't studied it in nearly 15 years, holy cow I feel old now) but what you remember about the different writing systems is correct. :)

Here are my problems with your arguments which I believe amount to soapboxing. Admitting to having an agenda, while good in the sense that it is admirable to come clean with regards to your intent, is in opposition to the goals of Wikipedia. If your agenda is anything but the genuine desire to improve Wikipedia, and not merely push a message, then you shouldn't be editing here. Declaring that you'll only accept a "non-white non-Christian" source is in violation of WP:RS. Your claim to have never participating in an edit war is shown to be false due to a brief look at the history of Charles Dickens, where you are seen to have reverted the same information many times. This is all in an attempt to use Wikipedia to get out your message, which is the definition of soapboxing. -- Atama頭 22:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

1. I wonder why allegations are repeated, now hypothetically, I find it like somebody is telling me if you murder you will be hanged. My desire is to be a positive contributor to Wikipedia. I am starting to learn the ropes. My opinion is that editors with varying backgrounds would enhance Wikipedia's worth, and make it less biased in favour of any particular view point, the way it is now, as it itself acknowledges, please check Dickens' talk page for links. I have been misunderstood or I should have been less ambiguous. My give me one... , is a figure of speech. A hyperbole. It is meant to convey the meaning that, imo there would not be many Jews who find Fagin any thing but rabidly anti-semitic. Reg. edit war, have I made many reverts? Any reverts for that matter? Here is revision history of Charles Dickens article.[4] Is there even one instance of the three reverts ban being invoked? Or even a see-saw of edits. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue raised by Atama is that you need to understand that certain types of edits are simply unacceptable, regardless of what beliefs you hold. I'm not sure if you're looking for examples, but one would be the RS issue mentioned by Atama. Another would be this [5] edit and summary. As you've said, you're new to Wikipedia, so there is bound to be some learning curve. However, I think the community is concerned that you understand that you should not repeat certain behaviors (not talking about edit warring, or POV pushing, just the things I listed here). There also seems to be a wider concern that you're only here to push a POV, which as others have said, isn't in alignment with Wikipedia's goals. Best, -- Bfigura ^(talk) 20:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Diwali

1. The wp:rs issue referred by Atama was about a source used on the talk page and not in the article, please be patient and check the context before commenting.
2. The edit you have linked, what is bad? is the source bad? That would be the only complaint, as the content is not my imagination but from the quoted source. Please prove source is bad.
3. I hope to keep learning, even when I would need adult diapers. Not just Wikipedia but in life.
4. Wikipedia's goal is a representation of all views, see wp:npov, within the framework of it editing principles. It even acknowledges that English Wikipedia suffers from a Anglo-American systemic bias. My actions are intended and would serve to further Wikipedia's goals.
5. I will not repeat profanity, which is an unlikely lapse from my side, which I myself abhor. I was trying to communicate in a language which I (erroneously) assumed was merely informal and not dirty.
6. I have learnt that I have to be double careful with rules when it comes with the prejudices of a certain race group and their holy cows, or my action would be no balled. Other editors At least one other editor (though this one is a anon so I don't know what action can be taken) can get away with a comment like "They (Muslims) worship the mofo as some kind of god.[6]

Wish every one a Happy Deepawali and a prosperous new year! Will be back on Tuesday (IST) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Unthinking vandalism of cited material by User:Ckatz & User:Ruslik0

Aurora (astronomy). Ckatz & Ruslik are tag-team reverting my corrections to this article, which I've cited sources for. They clearly have no idea of the subject material, having never contributed creatively to the subject, but that doesn't stop them repeatedly reverting my corrections.

I've been trying to get this edit[7], which was pretty much off the top of my head plus a little research, to stick, on & off, since 27 August, 2009. On that day I was in the process of putting together some proper refs, but Ruslik undid me within 15 minutes of my correction. So I thought, what is the point?

I recently chucked a couple of naked sources

1. [8]
2. [9]

in the text (I wasn't going to waste formatting effort only to be unthinkingly reverted) the article was still reverted. I was not surprised, and was right not to waste effort.

Ruslik reverts:

• [10]
• [11]
• [12]
• [13]
• [14]

Ckatz reverts:

• [15]
• [16]

A sample of their edit summaries:

• restore more encyclopedic text
• I do not agree with removal of information
• It was reverted because the rewrite was not of the same quality as the previous version.
• Are you a physicist

They are clearly unthinking vandals.

Even when another user reverted back to my version[17], saying, "don't remove cited mateial", Ckatz came back with the ludicrous justification about quality.

This is a fending off exercise by these two users, who clearly have no desire to improve the article, and every desire to harass me.

They have partially succeeded in fending me off, because of them I have done no other research for this article, what would be the point?

Could these two users be topic banned from this article? Thanks. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Your false accusations of vandalism are disruptive. Ruslik_Zero 15:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not vandalism; it's an edit war. Simonm223 (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, looks like a content dispute to me. dispute resolution seems a more appropriate path than ANI to me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Have to disagree. The material I'm replacing is unreferenced, and clearly wrong. Referenced material is being removed with spurious justifications. Repeated removal of referenced material is vandalism in my book. The targeting by these two users of me is harassment as well, but the real concern is the inaccuracies of the article I'm ironing out. Topic ban for these two please. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The proper course would be to ask for assistance from the Physics or Astronomy workgroups--we have people here who can help resolve this and--quite possibly--write a better section than either of the two. DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd ask that anyone reviewing this first compare the versions in question, and note especially the latter paragraphs of Harry's version. From what I can tell, it does not appear to be encyclopedic text. As to his spurious accusation above, it would be of great benefit to first review Harry's contribution history, and his lengthy list of issues on this board and elsewhere. Really, that speaks more to this particular situation than anything else. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

{edit conflict} Good call DGG. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

DGG, kick this into the long grass? You see no need to examine the behaviour of Ckatz & Ruslik? HarryAlffa (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(outOfSequence)Ckatz deceit and mischaracterisation, "the latter paragraphs ... it does not appear to be encyclopedic". Even if you agreed with this assessment, it is in no way justification for the removal of cited material. Notice the sleight of hand in directing you to other concerns. He seems to be saying, "Me and Ruslik have had trouble with this guy, so that justifies us harassing him".

{moved comment to ANI within ANI below}

(edit conflict)You've been trying to edit war an underreferenced section into an article for two months, which is much harder to read than the existing version, you haven't gone to talk once, and you insist it's the other editors' problem?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarek, You refused my olive branch over your misunderstanding recently, now you turn up here with the perverse implication that I refused to discuss a point with others on Talk. This is a deliberate deceit. The proper procedure would be for Ruslik to start a thread on the talk before he reverted an article whose subject he knows little about. Neither he nor Ckatz made any such effort on Talk, in fact Ckatz almost universally refuses to contribute to the talk pages of any of the articles he involves himself with. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Deliberate deceit, huh? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes? There is no communication on the talk page by anyone on any of this. If you are only going by the history of the talk page (as your link suggests: 4 contribs since end of July) and not looking at the talk page itself then you have deceived yourself, and have thus carelessly passed that deceit onto this page. I'm a little pissed off at your accusation of edit war when Ckatz & Ruslik have been removing cited material - repeatedly. Particularly when you say I've been trying to edit war. Your prejudice and hostility are plain, you should recuse yourself. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

{moved whole load of comments to ANI within ANI below)

Back on topic

Ckatz & Ruslik have repeatedly, and tag-teamingly reverted cited material.

Topic ban for these two please. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Referenced? The only link (web link, not reference) that you managed to insert is this one, which, however, contains almost no useful information. So, your version is uncited and contains serious errors and omissions. You removed a lot of useful information about auroral emissions, and you are trying to use a confusing terminology, which you invented yourself. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes referenced, two separate links, as I explained above I was not going to waste formatting effort to have you revert anyway - which you did.

So lies you have told here

1. only one reference
2. "contains almost no useful information"
3. "removed a lot of useful information about auroral emissions"
4. I am guilty of neologism

1. There are two references [18], NASA[19]
2. "The flow of charged particles from the Sun, known as the solar wind, expands outwards to the surrounding space. Close to the Earth the solar wind interacts with the magnetosphere, feeding energy and particles there. Processes taking place in the magnetosphere lead to the acceleration and precipitation of electrons and protons in the upper atmosphere of the Earth, know as the ionosphere. When the charged particles enter the atmosphere, they excite the ambient atoms and molecules, which emit light when returning to the ground state, thus creating aurora (northern lights). In this course, we study the formation of aurora as an ionospheric process as well as from the viewpoint of solar wind-magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling."[20]
3. I corrected, not removed, info - as per the bold parts above.
4. I have invented no new terms of any sort

Now that we've established you will tell blatant lies about evident facts, we then examine your conclusions and, no surprise, your conclusions rely on the lies you have told about the facts. Then you throw in "contains serious errors and omissions" which is really just another lie. After that you have become quite hysterical.

You're trying your best to turn this into a "I said he said" thing about the content, but you have shown yourself to be a liar, and you and Ckatz have removed cited material in order to harass me. HarryAlffa (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I would draw the involved editors attention to the Bold-Revert-Discuss policy. 'Nuf said. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That might apply if it was a bold recasting of existing material, and not the correction it was. So I think it fails at that first hurdle. But I thank you for paying some attention here, and ask your indulgence in looking deeper at the false claims of Ruslik above. Ckatz & Ruslik have no record of creative interest in this article, and you can see above that Ckatz reckons past conflicts give them the right to harass - which is what this really is. HarryAlffa (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Repeated accusations of lying and false claims is a violation of WP:No personal attacks, and may get you blocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

... whereas actually lying and making false claims isn't. HarryAlffa (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment about the complaining editor

I can't really say much about the change proposed by HarryAlffa, but based on previous interactions and my overall impression of his contributions: I would revert any such relatively big edit by this editor on sight unless I could convince myself that it is factually correct or another, reasonable, editor convincingly supported the edit and would accept responsibility for it. This is the only editor so far that I would say something like this about.

HarryAlffa has proved in the past that (1) he is not a team player, and (2) his claims of having expert knowledge that trumps the consensus of everybody else are out of proportion to the little sense and knowledge that he may possess. This user is here to improve the encyclopedia, but does not seem to be contributing to this goal by any objective measure.

Recent previous ANI threads involving this user:

• June [21], followed by [22]. Result: Hard to say what the result was, but certainly not what HarryAlffa expected. Discussion died after he was blocked for a week.
• August [23]. Result: Proposed community ban against HarryAlffa not appropriate at that time.
• August [24]. Result: HarryAlffa blocked for a week. Discussion died after uncontradicted proposal of an indef block.

This is probably once more not the right time to discuss a community ban, but if HarryAlffa doesn't learn a few inconvenient truths about himself this will have to happen sooner or later. (Links to problematic behaviour, and some pretty funny examples of it, can be found in the ANI archive links.) Hans Adler 13:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think what Hans is saying, "I don't like this guy and it is therefore alright by me if you harass him and remove cited material".

You can see his attempt to pick a fight with me here Artificial Intelligence User Accounts with this[25]. I instead used humour and whimsy to confuse him. This is another of his contributions designed to sow conflict. HarryAlffa (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I trust readers of this section follow at least one of the links before making up their minds. Yours would be a good start, as it does illustrate how you are putting your energy into eccentric distractions. Now if you had said that you "used humour and whimsy" from the start you might have convinced me it was just a misunderstanding and there is still hope to get you on board this project. Hans Adler 17:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Both of you are showing a great level of maturity at this moment.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hans, there was no misunderstanding in you trying to pick a fight. I used whimsy and humour to bamboozle you, I did not say my proposal was purely whimsical - whimsy and humour are not incompatible with a serious proposal, as everyone with a sense of these things was able to discern at the time. HarryAlffa (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Atlantic, thank you for your mature reflection. HarryAlffa (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI within ANI, User:Ckatz persistent reverts against concensus - FOA User:YellowMonkey

Ckatz has recently been unsupportedly dismissing the legitimate contributions of others as "vandalism" and "trolling". It may be that Ckatz would benefit from advice by more experienced editors/admins. --24.187.199.178 (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Your difference link includes the "trolling" comment but has nothing to indicate Ckatz referred to any edits as vandalism. Furthermore how is this remotely relevant to the discussion at hand? Simonm223 (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a link in the supplied diff that points to the vandalism comment, iirc.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The difference link pointed to another editor replying to a (supposed) vandalism comment but does not appear to include CKatz mentioning vandalism. I'll take another look in case I missed something. Simonm223 (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, difference link does not include CKatz using the word "vandalism" or any variant therein. Still don't know why this is relevant since the only person accusing anybody of vandalism right now is HarryAlffa. Simonm223 (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The link supplied goes to a talkpage. On that talkpage is a link to [26], which is what the anon is referring to. I reserve judgment on whether the term is accurate or not. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, a bit convoluted to post a diff link to a link to a comment but I can buy that. Notwithstanding the fact Ckatz has used the phrase "vandalism" questionably in the past what does this have to do with the current topic of discussion. My understanding was that HarryAlffa called edits vandalism, not Ckatz. Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP's comments have no bearing on this matter. He/she is unhappy at having tangential BLP text rejected from Chevrolet Tahoe, and has since been following all of my edits. (See Special:Contributions/24.187.199.178 and compare it to Special:Contributions/Ckatz.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for not doing things the best way; I'm new but learning much. An earlier editor's near-question seemed directed to me ("The IP"): "Your difference link includes the "trolling" comment but has nothing to indicate Ckatz referred to any edits as vandalism."[27]
It's just that I too have endured baseless accusation by Ckatz. Frankly, her actions seem quite different from what I'd expect from an admin.

Regarding the matter I mentioned earlier, four or five editors all moved to make Dog sex a disambiguation page. Ckatz repeatedly reverts while insisting that others discuss the matter (yet she herself refuses to do so until, like, yesterday). Of the seven links which follow, the last link shows that Ckatz calls the last attempt to disambiguate "harassment" and then she locks the article claiming "excessive vandalism" (of which there is literally no evidence).
[28][29][30][31][32][33][34].
It seems likely that Ckatz is an enthusiastic, but insufficiently judicious, editor/admin. --24.187.199.178 (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

AuthorityTam, I'd only ask that if you are going to claim I've made a "baseless accusation" against you, that you indicate where and when. I can't find any trace of a post from me on your talk page, nor from you to mine, and the only post you've made with "Ckatz" in the summary appears to be the one you just made here. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact, having reviewed your contributions, I'm finding it difficult to see any articles we've both edited. There are two or three that may overlap, but I didn't see any interaction between us there. Again, please provide details or retract the claim. Thanks in advance. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

{edit conflict}That's me, I used my neighbor's computer. I'll figure out how to create my own account tomorrow since I think I'm going to be around a while. I for one am not intimidated by Ckatz threats: [35]. --24.187.199.178 (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz is doing the same thing on the Medical Cannabis page, fyi. Just take a quick look at the history. 68.13.178.225 (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz seems to dismiss others' work too quickly. Another editor may have spent much time creating something useful for readers, yet Ckatz might spend maybe two or three minutes consideration before rejecting and reverting all the efforts of others. For example, Ckatz also had an indefensible position regarding "SG1". She seems to have spent, at most, four minutes evaluating the matter[36]; then FIRST she cleared the disambiguation page[37], and SECOND she removed Stargate SG1's link to the disambiguation page[38], then was on to revert an unrelated article all within five minutes! That's myopic, since a disambiguation page for SG1 is an obvious! So, another editor has to go to the trouble of properly creating what was apparently too-hastily deleted, and must do so with care lest Ckatz pretend that he commits "vandalism" or "harassment" or other imaginary crimes against her. No one will be surprised to learn that SG1 is again a disambiguation page[39], despite the hurry-up deleting/reverting campaign of Ckatz. With so many examples like that, a person would have good reason to believe that Ckatz is not a sufficiently conscientious editor/admin. --24.187.199.178 (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll get User:YellowMonkey to look at this. He's blocked someone in the past for a week for "persistent editing against consensus", I wonder if he'll be consistent with his friend as he was with that victim? HarryAlffa (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Four individual editors have made a disambig page for dog sex, Ckatz has reverted them all; User:Xezbeth, User:Peter Napkin Dance Party, User:Kevinmon, User:24.187.199.178
The first revert had no edit summary, then:

• "Discuss at Talk:Canine reproduction first"
• "Wait for discussio to occur"
• "rv. - no consensus for this change"
• "rv.; please note that the issue of converting this page from a redirect to a disambiguation page is still under discussion at Talk:Canine reproduction"
• "rv. harassment by IP 24.*"

Then comes page protection, "Protected Dog sex: Excessive vandalism: IP changing before discussion complete"

This is typical of Ckatz' position. What he's is saying is, "You need permission first before you do this". Totally anti-empathetic to Wikipedian ideals.

He is unsuited to adminship.

The talk page was moribund, but then he puts something there, and then reverts with edit summary, "please note that the issue of converting this page from a redirect to a disambiguation page is still under discussion at Talk:Canine reproduction"

He is unsuited to adminship.

Then comes the accusations of, "harassment by IP 24.*", not true.

He is unsuited to adminship.

Then he pretends there has been, "Excessive vandalism", to justify protection.

He is unsuited to adminship.

I think he can reasonably be described as deceitful - that is my experience with him, and is as I pointed out in the ANI which contains this one. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly "the IP" gets a bit hacked off at being falsely accused of vandalism, and leaves a message on Ckatz talk page[40], which he deletes with the edit summary, "rv. trolling". Then Ckatz leaves a message accusing the IP of harassment[41]

Please note that your continued efforts to harass someone you've had a disagreement with are unacceptable. It is one thing if you wish to mirror my contribution list and fix genuine errors that exist in the articles.. That course of action, while creepy, is not a concern. However, it is another matter entirely when you begin to interfere with legitimate actions. Please stop, before this requires further measures.

— Ckatz

From "the IP" reply he is a bit surprised at this further accusation. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Harry, you need to read carefully WP:AGF. You have violated this very important policy repeatedly on this page by assuming the basest of motivations of people. I'm surprised no one here has pointed it out to you. You need to focus on edits, not what you think are editors' motivations. Auntie E. 15:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think I've "assumed"? You need to read this whole ANI carefully for the evidence WP:AGF asks for. That very important policy is not for the protection of non-truth sayers and deceivers. May I respectfully suggest that your efforts would be better directed at Ckatz & Ruslik in modifying their behaviour. The project would much appreciate your efforts in that endeavour. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Harry, I'm not going to bother pointing out the flaws in your claims, as that has proved utterly fruitless in the past. I will say, however, that I'd appreciate it if you could at least make an effort to accurately represent events rather than just spinning them to suit your purposes. As well, you should really examine the IP 24's contribution history carefully before basing your case too heavily on that individual. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I want say that HA is especially good at one thing—spreading slur about others. The dab page in question was a clear violation of our WP:BLP policy. Ckatz made only one error—did not delete the history of the page. Ruslik_Zero 18:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

um, Dog sex is NOT a biography of a living person so WP:BLP does not really apply. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought I would chime in on this subject as I am the main force behind Dog sex. I won't claim that I know ckatz's mind, but she seems overly tied up with the status of Dog sex. Even after a discussion was posted, and no one commented in weeks, she still had a problem with it. Even when an editor (probably patrolling recent changes) reverted her revert because he (the editor probably patrolling recEnt changes) saw it for what it was--a user taking away information and replacing it by near-blanking the article. I'm not sure why she is so concerned with the status of Dog sex. but she seems almost too concerned, and not at all a disinterested editor. I can not speak to her editing history, but as far as Dog sex is concerned, it isn't the best. I can understand why she claims 24* is herassing her, but seriously, it looks like he has been making mostly-constructive edits. So what if he follows her around and edits the same articles as her? Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

BLP policy applies to any article that contains information about a living person. And calling somebody "dog sex" (this was written in the dab page) is an insult. I also strongly advise you not recreate the dab in the form it existed before I deleted its history. Ruslik_Zero 19:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Watch this editor user:Smartse

Smartse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), may some one watch over this editor, i am going away now. He is reverting articles without proving his claims. He reverted this article Tahir Abbas claiming that he could not verify the information. simple google searched produced the information needed. Again he has done it. thanks guys. Ecoman24 (talk page) 19:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If you aren't comfortable with an editor's actions, generally you would begin by speaking to him or her about it. This is step one of dispute resolution. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note MRG. I'd searched to try and find sources for the claims but couldn't find any I considered to be reliable. Ecoman has used Tahir Abbas's website as a source to state that he is a member of the Royal Society of Arts. I'm sure it is true but I can't find any third party sources saying it. I'd hardly say that this is worthy of an incident here.... Smartse (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know, we don't use "simple Google searches" to verify information in articles. We use proper references to do that. If you notice information that is challenged but unsourced, and you find reliable sources in a Google search, you should add those sources yourself to the article for verification. -- Atama頭 21:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think he meant "I searched on google and found websites with the information he wanted", not that he's using a google search page as a source. Ironholds (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I assumed that myself, which is why I suggested that instead of finding sources using Google and telling other editors that he did, he could just add those sources himself. -- Atama頭 16:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

further addition :* I am not sure this information he removed in the article List of largest UK law firms is spam.

• on the article Trafigura, he removed the information which could be verified with web achieve, stated in the link
• On the article Gang, he removed the information, claiming not appropriate, if facts are relevant they should be incorporated elsewhere. I wonder why he couldn't have put that information some where himself
• he proposed the article Weidemann Company saying the author seem to have {{COI}}.

Comment.... This isn't about fighting smart. This is about helping him to understand. I find most of his deletion to be not well justified. He need to learn to use appropriate templates rather than listing an article for deletion cause of {{COI}}he could have added a conflict of interest templates. Instead of removing information he could not verify, he could have added an appropriate{{Unverifiable}} template. he need to access information well before deleting. I suggest that he calms down with the way he removes contents. He is a good editor though. He does some work well like he did to the article Carter-Ruck, and his talk page. I do hope that he will take these points into consideration. Thanks. Ecoman24 (talk page) 06:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HOUND springs to mind: "the disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason". As I'm being accused of something I'll defend myself, http://www.solicitors-online.com/ doesn't seem appropriate per WP:EL on List of largest UK law firms. I actually added the info to Trafigura and didn't remove it! Gang info was pretty crap e.g. "Are recruiting children at record rates" - the rest was already included elsewhere. Weidemann Company was created by User:WackerNeuson which seems to be a role account of Wacker Construction Equipment AG which lists Weidemann as a brand of that company. Can we stop random accusations and get on with improving wikipedia? Smartse (talk) 10:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

thank you User talk:Smartse for the responses. as i have already said, this was not about accusing you of doing wrong things. while RC patrol, i noticed the error pointed out above. I reverted it and corrected it, within few minutes, you were back and did the same. if you had done it the third time, it would have appeared to be edit warring which we are all trying to avoid. thanks. case closed with you now. Ecoman24 (talk page) 10:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't avoid it by escalating immediately to ANI. We avoid it by leaving the other contributor a note saying, "Hi. I noticed you were doing this, and I'm not entirely sure why. Can you explain?" A read through WP:DR might be helpful here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban

The would appear to be yet another inappropriate and disruptive ANI post by Ecoman24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I had thought Ecoman24 was under mentorship for this type of thing. Since that isn't working, I propose the following:

• That Ecoman24 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from posting to or commenting on the Administrators' noticeboard and the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for a period of three months.

Any comments? ➜Redvers^{talk  ❝It's bona to vada your dolly old eek❞} 10:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

anything wrong, point it out? Ecoman24 (talk page) 10:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Tell me what is wrong? Ecoman24 (talk page) 10:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(I have moved your comment; you placed it inside of Redvers' note.) The directions and or suggestions at the top of the page you did not follow: (1)You must notify any user that you discuss; (2) Before posting a grievance about a user here, it is advised that you discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. (3) This page is not part of our dispute resolution process for content issues." There was nothing in this situation that required administrative intervention, which suggests that you may not yet understand the purpose and function of this page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

fair rational, I left the msg here for some one to watch over the user to avoid edit warring. I appreciate your rationale which I have now taken into account in future comments on ANI. I withdrew all the further wrongs i pointed out in his edits. Thanks. Ecoman24 (talk page) 10:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't just about the above thread. It's about every thread you have contributed to. Your talk page is littered with people asking you to stop such posts; you have people commenting on your posts asking if you're trolling them; and each time you promise to change, promise to get better, promise to be mentored... and then post here on ANI again with something else inappropriate. You've been asked not to post here. You didn't listen. So now I'm asking the community to formally restrict your posting here. ➜Redvers^{talk  ❝It's bona to vada your dolly old eek❞} 10:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

And now, surreally, you've gone running to Ironholds and lied to them about the nature of the above proposal. I'm starting to agree with others who have accused you of trolling. ➜Redvers^{talk  ❝It's bona to vada your dolly old eek❞} 11:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm hesitant to be that punitive towards Ecoman. It is clear that they do not understand the purpose or process of ANI. Rather than prevent access, perhaps Ecoman would be more willing to voluntarily refrain from posting in ANI threads for a period of time.

I highly recommend that they may continue to watch and read, as they will learn how some portions of Wikipedia actually work - however, I urge them to realize that the type of interaction that takes place in here is not the commonplace pattern. Wikipedia is built on community, and ANI is where anti-community violations come. Combativeness is not the norm.

One needs to have a good grasp of Wikipedia as a whole before jumping into ANI (or even WQA for that matter) - it took me thousands of edits before I even dipped my foot in the ANI water.

My honest suggestion for Ecoman: go out and edit articles. Join a project. Understand Wikipedia. Read policy. Become a respected editor. Then come back, start monitoring ANI without comment - start to understand how policy comes into play, and learn the "investigative techniques" used.

If your goal is to eventually become an admin, you'll need at least 5,000 edits to even be considered, and you'll need to have made a positive name for yourself.

ANI is not for everyone's pleasure - it's supposed to be serious business. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• I just got the talkpage message he left me, and generally agree with Bwilkins. I say "generally" because I'm not convinced a strictly voluntary restriction will work. How about this; Ecoman is prohibited from posting on AN/I. I take it upon myself to act as a mentor to him, and as part of that if he runs into any disputes he runs them past me. If I feel that yes, it is a valid dispute, I give him the go-ahead to post it here. I see this as killing "two birds with one stone"; we prevent the posting of "inappropriate and disruptive ANI posts" without preventing the posting of any real problems, and also offer him an avenue in which to, as BWilkins suggests, go out and edit articles. Ironholds (talk) 12:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support I'm torn between out and out troll or well meaning but bumbling incompetent. Either way, his contributions here cause more problems than they solve, the edits listed above are non-problematic edits from an editor in more than good standing, he's been editing three years and never been blocked. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I think Ironholds would be a great mentor, Ecoman seems to be well-meaning but putting his foot in it every time and some guidance might help. And I agree with Bwilkins, I stayed away from ANI for years because I didn't feel confident my input would be useful. And I'm sure I was right to do so because I was so clueless for a while (I cringe at some of the ignorant arguments I made as a newbie). Not that I suggest that Ecoman is that bad, but I at least knew enough to stay away where I would do more harm than good. Heck, even now sometimes I worry that my comments at ANI aren't all that helpful. -- Atama頭 16:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment from Ecoman's Mentor Forgive me for not catching this myself, battling a bit of a cold and school work. I have advised him for now to stay away from ANI and focus on editing. If he still want's to help with dispute Resolution then he can try WP:WQA Where I frequent and could keep a better eye on him.-- |SKATER]] ^Speak. 16:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks user:Bwilkins,user:Ironholds and User:Skater. One thing i am not understanding with Redvers is his intention to stop me posting on the case i brought before you guys. If that makes him happy. It does not make excellent sense. user:Ironholds, I follow your advise, i will ask for your opinion in future. Thanks User:Skater. Ecoman24 (talk page) 17:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what we're getting at is that you've really had no reason to post on ANI in the first place, hell I even tend to avoid posting in this sea of drama (except the big stuff, If I recall last time I posted was the banning of dougstech). The post you made here shouldn't of occcured, you should have talked to the user directly and if that didn't work Wikiquette Alerts. ANI and AN are for administrative action.

As for your thread about the vandal, it's a common mistake to post those here, but they really belong at the Administrative Intervention Against Vandalism Board--SKATER ^Speak. 17:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support formalizing this ban + arrangement (between Ironholds and Ecoman24) for an indefinite duration - until further sanctions are no longer necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe Ironholds has ever officially volunteered to Mentor Ecoman, shouldn't we know before we try to formalize such an arangement?--SKATER ^Speak. 16:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)--SKATER ^Speak. 16:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Tohd8BohaithuGh1 rollback rights

Resolved

 – editor has retired, unless he comes back this is no longer an issue

--Crossmr (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone needs to check User:Tohd8BohaithuGh1 rollback rights. They been reverting allot of good faith edits. I found the following edits just today. [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] They even reverted my edit to vandalism and post a warning on my talk page. This tells me that they are ether not paying attention on what there doing or there reverting everyone's edits. After looking over all there contributions I've noticed an unfortunate pattern with there reverts that you might want to block them. They seem to be reverting ALL anonymous user contributions without actually looking at these contributions and deciding weather they are constructive or not. I also seen the user reverting edits back to the previous vandalism. When other users go to repair the article User:Tohd8BohaithuGh1 reverts it back to the vandalism.--Zink Dawg -- 01:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems more like a huggle issue than a rollback issue; but rollback should probably be revoked too. Huggle should definitely be restricted for this user though. Equazcion (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed rollback. This should not preclude any further actions, sanctions or warnings; I was merely taking the obvious action. This user does not understand what our definition of vandalism is. Tan | 39 01:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe huggle can be used even without rollback. You may want to revoke huggle too (protect User:Tohd8BohaithuGh1/huggle.css and edit the 'enabled' line). Equazcion (talk) 01:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

He still has rollback[61]. Basket of Puppies 01:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I found much more on the users contributions. It looks like this has been going on for around five months now. --Zink Dawg -- 01:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(Reply to Basket) Nope, refresh your page, maybe. Tan | 39 01:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hate to be a pain, but, rollback doesnt matter that much. All these reversions were made with huggle, which allows people to speed through reversions, with or without rollback. Huggle should be revoked. Equazcion (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You need rollback rights to use Huggle.--Zink Dawg -- 01:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right, my bad. Wasn't that way back when I used it. Sorry. Equazcion (talk) 01:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, huggle can't be used without rollback. This looks to me like a case of "getting to the vandalism first"—treating RCP as a race never helped wikipedia and it never helped you. Anyway, I agree with the rollback removal. This user is too hasty to check his reverts properly or he doesn't understand what vandalism is. In either case, he shouldn't be given access to the rollback tool until he has corrected himself. I'd suggest more careful recent changes patrolling for several weeks, and he can re-apply for rollback if he wants. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Very strange, the link still shows he is a Rollbacker. I even cleared the cash and did a shift-reload. I do trust you, tho, and I'll chalk this up to technical glitch on my side. Basket of Puppies 02:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

See, This page "18:24, October 15, 2009 Tanthalas39 (talk | contribs) changed rights for User:Tohd8BohaithuGh1 from Rollbackers to (none) ‎ (misuse of tool)"--Zink Dawg -- 02:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone should remove the rollback rights user box from his user page.--Zink Dawg -- 02:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I see it now. Thanks! Basket of Puppies 03:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought the name was familiar. You can see previous discussions about this user here:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive475#Tohd8BohaithuGh1.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_recent_edits
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive479#user:Tohd8BohaithuGh1_again this page seems to be perpetually stuck loading for me. He's had some interesting behaviour in the past which ended up leading to a block for his disruption. Apparently he didn't learn anything from then.--Crossmr (talk) 07:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  Not only that now that I re-read the previous issues in detail, his problem was new-page patrol. Trying to do it too fast and making bad edits. A year later he's still doing it. I'd recommend a block and don't forget his bot account too as its clear that even after a mentor and a year he doesn't want to take the care to edit properly.--Crossmr (talk) 07:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Not clear just what happened between Crossmr's post & a few hours ago, but this user has hung a "retired" notice on his Talk page, & apparently left Wikipedia. It appears any further action is moot at this point. -- llywrch (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sad face. :( As Tohd's adopter I think this is sad as he does do some good work, but he doesn't seem to learn despite warnings etc, and I haven't been as active to be able to tell him off. Sticky Parkin 23:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Which is unfortunate, but if Zink Dawg is correct and this has been going on for at least 5 months, how has no other new page or recent pages patroller noticed him doing this?--Crossmr (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A sort of ‘low level’ edit warring

This Talk:History_of_Falun_Gong#Page_move_history recently led me to believe that HappyInGeneral is engaged in a sort of ‘low level’ edit war in topics involving Falun Gong. I've had some run-ins with him, I admit, and so I only wish to bring this up here, not pursue any action against him at this time (Id est, I would like other, uninvolved editors to take a look and see if what is going on here is wrong). I believe that his behaviour is disruptive. Despite consensus to rename a page, he insists that consensus does not exist, he appears to be very hard of hearing. Falun Gong related articles are a mess, but I think that this user is trying to pointedly disrupt and oppose a consensus that could seriously improve this article. I am sure that this user, and the other editors at the article, all have strong opinions about what is going on, and I sincerely hope that this does not escalate the issue (I hope to resolve, not exacerbate, this dispute.). Irbisgreif (talk) 06:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• I would observe that the Falun Gong articles are subject to Arbcom probation, and that HappyInGeneral was a party to that Arbcom case. I have been in direct contact with him, and have been in more than occasional conflict with him for several weeks now. He exists in a very different paradigm to most people, and suggest that he be given a very stiff warning on his talk page. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, you are certainly most welcome to review my edits, and while you are on it, I would love to if you could provide me feedback on how to improve and be more helpful for this encyclopedia.

Now regarding this nomination, let me add a bit of context, which is outside my edit history, but still perhaps helpful to evaluate it:

• Regarding the 2007 Arbcom dispute, back then I was a junior editor, and the reverts, [62] I made where characterized, to quote one of the administrators, "Edits show restoration of well sourced image. Fred Bauder 11:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)". Also the user who did the repeated removal was banned. Now the image is gone from the Persecution of Falun Gong page, most likely due to activities like where PRC apologists make sure to sanitize all the pages for anything that would document the persecution of Falun Gong. One such example of relation is here, but I agree that this might not be the most significant sample.
• About my nomination here, Irbisgreif was previously involved in such attempts [63], like renaming the article to something other then persecution, like "Policies of the People's Republic of China concerning Falun Gong.", Then when Ohconfucius renamed the article, for which there was no consensus, only an outnumbered vote of the clan, Irbisgreif moved and requested a page protection move, to make sure that the name stays. See here: [64], [65]
• About the consensus and the moving of the page. Consider that this new attempt to dilute the persecution page, this time started with saying that the persecution page is a subset of the history page. It is a subset and this fact alone is not disputed, however based on WP:N the persecution deserves it's own page. So nobody had anything against creating a history page, but the rename was just not justified, and this was pointed out first here. When I saw what is happening, I went to SilkTork's talk page, who did some WP:FA work on a related page, and tried to seek advice on how to proceed. After explaining the facts, and after he took some time to do his own research, he concluded thta the persecution page needs to be created again as a separate page. For now this is a rough copy/paste which will need to be worked up to be as encyclopedic as possible.

• So far what I presented is only a tiny bit of context, and I'm sure if I where to do a bit of data mining, tons of things would surface. Still based on this little context, you might be able to see why "very stiff warning on his talk page.", to quote Ohconfucius, would be useful for some editors. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not dispute the previous rename attempts (Policies, &c.) and subsequent discussions. I do dispute that I moved the page to “History of Falun Gong”, as I did not. Also, I requested move-protection because there were several moves in quick succession (I still watch these pages.), and I wanted to head off a move-based edit war. Finally, I feel that calling people “PRC” apologists is a personal attack; I know that I'm insulted, at least. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no intention to personally insult anybody, so I stroke that out. Have a great day! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that civility. I may be a communist, and I may disagree with you, but it's not out of a love of the PRC. Irbisgreif (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this is also related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persecution of Falun Gong. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Guitarherochristopher

Hello. Anybody remember the discussion about Guitarherochristopher (talk · contribs) a few weeks ago? O, I would love to rake around in the archives looking for the discussion, but I don't have time right now. Maybe later. Well, Roux (talk · contribs) made a Wiki for him, and we thought he was gone. But he's back. He recieved a few warnings and even had his userpage locked. He responded to this by archiving it all, and making User talk:Guitarherochristopher/Revamp and User:Guitarherochristopher/Revamp. And his editing hasn't improved at all, just some a LOT of userspace edits and a little chatting to his wikibuddies. Although he has made about 5 article edits to Coldplay-related subjects. He doesn't seem to be here to do anything except violate WP:MYSPACE. And, judging by his archives, I think he's refusing to go back to his own wiki beacuse Roux wouldn't give him a cookie. I hate to do this, but I really think a block is in order, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 09:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I"ve left him a strong warning, but if I had my admin bit I'd delete all of his subpages alongside that warning. Also, this thread belongs on ANI to where I've moved it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, I noticed that, sorry, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 09:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

For anybody unfamiliar, here are the other cases against the user,

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive562#Guitarherochristopher
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive565#Guitarherochristopher, again
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive567#User:Guitarherochristopher
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive567#Block_needed:_compromised.2Fshared_account
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive569#User talk:Guitarherochristopher

,Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 09:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

He has over a 100 article space edits so I don't know why don't just ignore it unless it is affecting other users. And he is using his user space for article stuff. I don't know why this user is any different to all the other users which do it.--Otterathome (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right. When he started out he had almost 100% article contribs (all about Coldplay stuff, but that isn't that bad). But recently he started making random unconstructive edits, and even more recently, he started focusing almost solely on his userspace and talking. If you look through his archives, you can see all his subpages that were deleted because of being games, on some he even ignored the warnings and recreated them. You can read all about it in the above links I provided. Just look at is recent 50 edits. About 0 of them are to articles, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 11:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

From what I remember GHC has a disability of some kind (autism?). As long as he's not causing damage to the project itself it's probably best to leave him along in his user space. Mjroots (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Are we here working on an encyclopedia or are we here to provide a happy corner for special ed needs? Jesus, WP:NOTMYSPACE is policy, and WP:UP#NOT is a widely-accepted guideline. Why are we practicing selective enforcement? Tarc (talk) 12:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the /revamp page as an obvious violation of WP:NOTMYSPACE. Totally agree with Tarc; Wikipedia is not therapy. Saying he's "not hurting anyone" is completely invalid; no one who creates myspace-type subpages is ever really harming anyone. Yet we have a policy against it. This is not what users donate money for, it's not what our technology and resources are for, and there are a thousand other hosting sites where people can do this to their heart's content. Not here. Tan | 39 13:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What Tan said. Further this user has a habit of posting non free images on various bits of user space so we're not even in a "does no harm" debate I'm afraid to say. [66] [67] [68]. Pedro :  Chat  14:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Guitarherochristopher has had his own Wiki made for him by Roux. He can do what he likes over there, just not here. But he seems to be refusing to go back unless Roux gives him a cookie. See here (scroll down on that same page to see an example of GHC's blogging). Given that Roux is retired, I think that may be a tad difficult, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 14:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It's clear GHC needs a friend, and WP is really only for making enemies. And an encyclopedia! I agree with Tan and Chat. Bandwidth is a precious commodity. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I see all these good arguments.Very good. But does anybody have any suggestions on what to do about him!?! Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 15:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Final warning given [69]. I think it covers the points above? I think a blocknow is unfair (although maybe not unwaranted) without a final cluebat. Pedro :  Chat  15:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment:We only have the word of someone posing as his father, that he's autistic. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Uh... I accidentally made an unwelcome discovery. Since this ANI report was created, GHC hasn't made any edits to Wikipedia. He's been at the wiki Roux created, working on this. I don't know if it matters in this discussion, just thought I'd throw it out there. A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 16:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with a block but only if his random editing continues. As ALI said, he hasnt done anything since this was made...--Coldplay Expert 16:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. He's been at his wiki, making fun of User:Roux. At least I think he's making fun... I've never heard Roux described as "Queerer than a three-dollar bill." A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 16:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

and since when does Roux like me? He Hates me!!! Im getting confused by reading it...--Coldplay Expert 17:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Given that it is claimed that GHC has Autism, it may benifit us all to read the article. Mjroots (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? Tan | 39 17:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice proof that no good deed goes unpunished! –xeno^talk 18:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

He may be autistic but remember Competency is required.--Coldplay Expert 18:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, does no harm doesn't mean "does good". If the statement about autism were not waved, would we say this was OK? Nope. Warning, warning, block. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Tan and WLU. WP is not therapy, and if GHC cannot be productive, he should be shown the door. GlassCobra 22:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

He obviously doesn't get the point everyone has been trying to get him to understand. I myself have attempted to use a software/friend tone with him in hopes of him realizing his errors. I agree that no exception should be made for him, but we should be tolerant in that as he has contributed in the past. Let's hope he resumes to contributing in a positive manner. And if would helplp if he removed the siren/strobe light from his user page... Netalarmtalk 06:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe you're mis-using the term software, as it is a noun, not an adjective.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ooops, meant "softer". This is what happens when the keys are all so close and when I stay up too late. xP Netalarmtalk 20:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

SPA socking

Resolved

 – taken to SPI

Requesting a checkuser and block of 92.124.117.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for disruptive sock-puppetry at Template:HTTP. Suspected socks include Админ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and AgmuHucTpaTop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 12:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

May I respectfully suggest you try submitting a request at WP:RCU? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

After further reading I believe it's obvious that these are all the same person, and thus no CU is needed. Also, I think an entire SPI is a little excessive for this blatant single purpose account creation and vandalism. Should not the IP just be blocked and prevented from creating accounts? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 16:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You still should take it to WP:RCU. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Админ. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 18:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrigibly disruptive editor

Skipsievert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an incorrigibly disruptive editor who has systematically undermined the best efforts of a team of editors on the Sustainability (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article for nearly a year now. During this period there has been a collaborative effort by a team of editors to bring the article to GA or FA status. Membership of the team is open to any editor who agrees with its goals and process. All the regular editors of the page have signed up to this team, with the exception of Skipsievert, who does not subscribe to its goals and process. Throughout this period, Skipsievert has mocked the collaboration, systematically confronting each editor in turn, tirelessly grandstanding back and forth with unfounded attacks and wikilawyer flourishes.

Skipsievert is always right, always. Anyone else's view is POV, while his view is always neutral. When the collaborative team disagree with Skipsievert, that is proof to Skipsievert that the team collude against him, and that their position is therefore invalid. He repeatedly states that even if there were 100 members on the team disagreeing with him, then it still wouldn't count, because Wikipedia is not a democracy and his view is the neutral one. He retains in his memory every disagreement he has had with the team, and endlessly recycles the same worn out issues, never letting anything go, determined that he is going to flog each of his dead horses back to life.

Most days, he tediously adds back into the article, one or more of the positions the collaborative team has rejected. He has been restricted to one revert per day, although recently he has not been adhering to this.[70][71] He also has a suspected sock/meatpuppet called AdenR, who usually edits in tandem with Skipsievert. AdenR occasionally adopts a rather strange and stilted style. Then he reverts to his more usual style, which is an uncanny mirror of Skipsievert's, echoing his opinions and language, including his idiosyncratic grammar. AdenR has never been known to disagree with Skipsievert.

The upshot is that work on the sustainability article has largely ground to a halt. The talk page has become little more than a vehicle for Skipsievert's grandstanding. The unpleasant and non-collegial atmosphere generated by him has driven off new editors — prompting Skipsievert to make more attacks on the remaining editors, claiming they are the ones driving the new editors away.

It would be easy, but not really helpful, to give long strings of diffs. What is happening here cannot be reduced to this or that incident. It is a pattern of behaviour that tenaciously games the system. He has mastered wikilaw. The flavour of it can be appreciated only by scanning the actual talk page material. I would suggest scanning the last archive followed by the current talk page. Then a cursory examination of the edit history to the article page, where Skipsievert's pattern of tendentious edit warring is on display. --Geronimo20 (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that previous disputes involving this editor have been reported here and here. Skipsievert's disruptive behavior is also currently being discussed at Wikproject Economics, on this thread on the wikiproject talk page. Skipsievert has been warned several times about uncivil behavior, for example, here, here and here. On the Austrian School article he has continuously reverted User:Cretog8 and myself when we removed edits made by the socks of a banned editor User:Karmaisking, and then accused us of wrong doing. He refused to withdraw the accusations even after being confronted with conclusive evidence that the socks were of the banned editor. LK (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not a regular editor of the sustainability article, and so only know as much about this issue as I've seen from Skipsievert discussing the conflict at other talk pages. However, I did want to say that Geronimo20's description of Skipsievert's behavior is mostly consistent with what I have seen in economics articles. (I would disagree that Skipsievert has mastered wikilaw, since he often seems to misunderstand policy, but he is very free with arguments from his understandings of policy.) CRETOG8(t/c) 14:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Tsk, I forgot it's not a good idea to make ironical remarks when commenting. I merely meant that he extensively quotes wikilaw, as though his take is definitive.--Geronimo20 (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This smells a bit like a content dispute, but I should also note that I am one of the project econ editors who has run into skip and basically been driven off articles in frustration due to his editing. His pattern of behavior fits the profile for civil POV pushing almost precisely. I don't actually know that AN/I is the right venue (and there is an ongoing attempt at mediation), but most of the comments made above are accurate. Protonk (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, your input into this thread looks like it could do more harm than good. Best to think twice before commenting here.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Protonk (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope that the Mediation mention by Protonk would not be hindered by whatever action might be taken with respect to other complaints. (I have observed only a limited share of skipsievert's edits, and am not well-positioned to comment on his general editing behavior.) —SlamDiego_←T 16:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that this does seem like a content dispute, it actually is a repeated string of violations of behavioral policies]. IMO, the current mediation is an entirely separate matter. Sunray (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This revolves around a content dispute on the Sustainability article regarding a word definition (sustainability) to a political pov, which is not an actual definition of the word in question but to another word (Sustainable growth or development), and the use of uncivil interaction by user Geronimo who has misrepresented the situation. Also some people coming here to comment have made some disturbing personal attack commentary recently like Cretog's way over the top attack.

Also, User:Lawrencekhoo has interacted on several articles very much not according to policy and guideline editing in my opinion, along with making extensive use of personal remarks in a very negative way and that person (L.K.) believes that sources should be weighted toward a mainstream view and has asked me to not be a participant on the Wiki project economics page more or less or suggesting I should not edit there here, thus a larger issue of that editor and policy guideline issues.

N.p.o.v. is my comment as to my editing style, and also verifiable as contrasted with truth giving, whether mainstream or heterodox. Neither in or of themselves have weight. I may drop out of the Mediation described Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines, now concerning the Econ project page, because of the resulting bad faith explanation of L.K concerning my editing activity. Coming to this page by L.K. and using it as an attacking vehicle while this other mediation is happening, seems like a very very bad idea.

I am a good faith editor on Wikipedia. I doubt whether there is any evidence to show otherwise. I edit a lot and on a wide variety of articles. Real issues of non neutral pov to a political pov on the Sustainability article exist in my opinion. The sign up editing team there have used consensus more as a weapon than a positive editing process. Removing a tag calling for more scrutiny done by Geronimo and citing consensus or edit warring as he has done is not good. All around making false charges of calling another editor an Incorrigibly disruptive editor in the heading here is that persons opinion, but does not reflect my trying to make the Sustainability article into a better article by trying to maintain policy and guidelines as to neutral pov on that article. skip sievert (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Geronimo20 has provided an excellent summary of the situation, IMO. As a member of the editing team that has been trying, for the past year, to raise the quality of the Sustainability article to FA status, I can attest to the fact that there have been almost continual disruptions by Skipsievert. Five of us agreed to work on this in November, 2008. We have continually invited other editors to join. However, likely due to the disruptions, until recently no one else has signed up. Two things have changed within the past month: 1) The disruptions have become more pronounced with tandem reverts and continual violations of WP:POINT by Skip and AdenR, and 2) other editors have now joined in the discussion (User:Geronimo20 and Lawrencekhoo).

The article has had two peer reviews this year. In the second peer review Ruhrfisch advised that the article should be submitted for good article nomination prior to FA assessment. There is a consensus between all of the regular editors except Skipsievert/AdenR that the basic content should remain stable, subject only to format improvements, copyediting and reducing the size of some sections using summary style. The content of the article has been worked out over a long process of collaboration between Granitethighs, Travelplanner, Nick carson and me, who, collectively, have considerable expertise in the subject matter. We have been aided in this by the editing and administrative skills of several other editors, including OhanaUnited, Geronimo and Lawrencekhoo.

Going back to the beginning of October, the current pattern of disruption is evident when one considers this edit [72], which is a major change to the consensus version of the article. It was reverted with the message to discuss the changes on the talk page [73]. Despite lengthy discussion on the talk page from September 23 to October 13,, Skipsievert and AdenR failed to get a consensus that the changes had merit. Despite repeated requests to not make changes unless agreed to by consensus, the pattern of edit warring by Skipsievert and AdenR has continued: [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], and so on and on, my fingers are getting blistered, but there are probably at least 10 more examples up to the present date.

It is important to note that, although the current situation is more blatant than before, the pattern has been consistent throughout the past year—over a half dozen issues that stem from a particular POV that is being propounded over and over by Skipsievert. He has singlehandedly brought any productive collaborative editing to a standstill. If the article is to have any chance for improvement, we need assistance. I conclude from the abundant evidence that a topic ban for Skipsievert/AdenR is warranted. Sunray (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've encountered Skipsievert on a number of pages. I broadly agree with the comments above. Skip supports a fringe POV and pushes very hard to get that POV given more attention and credibility than is consistent with WP:WEIGHT. That includes a good deal of unproductive wikilawyering and straight-out disruption.JQ (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute. Despite working for nearly a year on the article, Sustainability (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) still has some not inconsequential NPOV and source issues. I do not know what condition the article was in a year ago but it appears that these problems have been caused as much by the group of editors trying to get the article up to FA standards as by Skipsievert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his "disruptive" editing. While it is a problem that Skipsievert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems unable or unwilling to work with other editors toward building consensus on the article, I think he is not the only editor on the page causing a problem. There is plenty of blame to go around. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Voiceofreason01: Would you be able to support your contentions above about the "group of editors" with some examples? I think that the regular page editors have been open and responsive to all outside parties, including other editors, various notice boards, and two peer reviews. With respect, given the evidence presented above, it seems to me to be a superficial view to refer to this as a "content dispute." Sunray (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Voiceofreason01: I have worked on the article now for about 2 years. I have found that the team of editors has worked extremely well (and efficiently) together except for the relentless and debilitating criticisms of Skipsievert that have protracted the development of the article by about a year. It is an unfortunate fact that over time the kind of disruptive editing exhibited by Skipsievert builds in resistance. When compromise only ever proceeds in one direction then the relationship eventually must deteriorate. Skip does not compromise - ever - and this does not endear people to his case(s). Perhaps a new but more "collegiate" editor expressing views in a less uncompromising manner would be a help in improving the article. Would you act as an advocate for those "not inconsequential NPOV and source issues" which you believe the article contains? In the meantime it is my candid opinion that Skipsievert has, since first working on the article, proved a relentless and indefatigable negative influence. Granitethighs 22:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I meant no offense to the regular editors of the Sustainability article, User Skipsievert's behavior seems to have been, in the balance, detrimental to the improvement of the article. In retrospect my comments, and the converns about the article that promted them, are probably not relevent to this discussion and I apologize. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 05:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Skipsievert, on numerous occasions, made me pull my hair out. Whenever he loses an argument, he will employ the "I didn't hear that" strategy. By citing comments against his view as incivil and personal attack, he will removed comments on talk page even when the comment itself is neutral-worded to try redirect the attention. This is a clear violation of talk-page guidelines. In addition, he violated yet another 1RR just a week ago.[85][86] Skipsievert should have received a few more blocks due to his multiple 1RR violations, as shown by my evidence and from others. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, Skipsievert has also been banned for disruptive behavior from various Technocracy groups and internet forums. As seen here: [87] [88] and //technocracynet.eu/backup/old_net/20_4_07/index.php?option=com_mamboboard&Itemid=103&func=view&id=3818&catid=44 (which is currently on a spam filter list) LK (talk) 06:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The above ^ is a personal attack Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor. I suggest it be removed. This is the reasoning

linking to outside information for use in attacking another Those are internet blogs that L.K. is using. This is turning into a witch hunt now above.

L.K. has canvased other users blatantly to come here in a very very negative way here. Linking a blog forum attack in this section points out something about what is going on here. Also the way this whole thing was presented Incorrigibly disruptive editor was not neutral or accurate for a content dispute. skip sievert (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I viewed it as a neutral message. Both you and LK have interactions on that page, so what makes his message viewed as "canvass" while you removed the post and claimed yourself to be neutral? Just today, you are getting close to violating 3RR at WikiProject Economics, which you tried to prevent people from coming to here and comment on the issue.[89][90] Others are warning you that you're edging towards 3RR violationg.[91] OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Skipsievert's activities obviously extend far beyond only the Sustainability article. Perhaps, in addition to the topic ban there should be a shorter term block to restore order and give him a chance to cool off. But please, let's address this question of the topic ban in any case. Sunray (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

October 17, 2009

Just to underscore the seriousness of this problem, here are today's edits to the article:

• Skipsievert reverts once again with major changes to the article lead [92]
• I revert, pointing out that there is no consensus for these changes [93]
• AdenR reverts with the statement "Your POV is in conflict Sunray/GT/TP/Nickcarson/Geronimo. You edit in tandem." [94]
• Lawrencekhoo reverts, once again pointing out that the edits by Skipsievert/AdenR are against consensus. [95]

Meanwhile the tendentious posts and violations of behavioral policies and guidelines continue on the talk page:

• Endless rehashing of the same point [96], [97]
• Personalized comments at the expense of content [98], [99]

I believe that this tandem-editing duo is making a mockery of Wikipedia's fundamental goals and most important policies; there is a need to take action now. Sunray (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban for Skipsievert and AdenR

Given the evidence presented above with respect to continual reverts and insertions of major changes to article text against consensus, disruptive and tendentious commentary on the talk page and violations of WP:POINT, the following action is proposed:

Skipsievert and AdenR are topic banned from the sustainability article and associated talk page for a period of one year.

• Support. This combo has obstructed collaborative editing and violated Wikipedia behavioral policies. A topic ban is the minimum step needed for a constructive editing environment to be restored. Sunray (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• No This isn't the right venue, we haven't explored or exhausted DR and there is an ongoing mediation with skip as a party. Protonk (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The mediation is unrelated to the Sustainability article. This is not mediatable, IMO (and I am a mediator). Sunray (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• If this in not the right venue, then let us move it to the right venue. The ongoing mediation has no direct connection with this case. You were referred above to 300K of talk page text attempting to resolve the dispute. And there is probably one or several megabytes of earlier attempts. You would not take this position if you had already experienced some extended process with Skipsievert. Skipsievert is interesting in grandstanding, not in resolving disputes. I think a lot of good editors will just give up at this stage if this matter cannot be settled. --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• A few responses. First, I feel he has disrupted articles well outside the sustainability sphere, so a narrow topic ban may only actually resolve things for that one editor. Second, An/I is generally not a fair venue for those facing topic bans nor it is a good venue from which to seek a permanent solution (unless there is overwhelming support). Third, I noted above that I have been and am now involved in some version of the DR process w/ Skip, so you can't assume ignorance of the subject on my part. Lastly, the right venue is a user conduct RfC. Protonk (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, good points. From what you say, this process may have to be expanded. However, we are currently prevented from constructive editing of the sustainability article and we need an immediate resolution there. Someone may wish to initiate a broader RfC relating to his activities elsewhere. Given that, how would you vote for this specific proposal? Sunray (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. As a wholly uninvolved outside party, I agree that - from the description above - this appears to be a clear-cut case of persistent civil POV-pushing which is having a deleterious effect on the project. Editors who do not participate in good faith should not be allowed to disrupt those who do. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Skipsievert always stoutly maintains his behaviour is impeccable, and everyone else is out of step. If they are not topic banned, the behaviour will continue and the article might as well be abandoned by constructive editors as a lost cause. It is not right that so much time and energy from so many constructive editors should be shredded in this way. The collective effort lost, trying to contain and work around the Skipsievert/AdenR barrages, would have resulted in several FA articles elsewhere in Wikipedia. --Geronimo20 (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Agree with Geronimo: Skipsievert believes he is always right, and everyone else is wrong, so no collaborative editing is possible, and much time is wasted. Johnfos (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support Skipsievert, to my mind, is a paradigm of what is meant by "tendentious editing". Granitethighs 03:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• User Johnphos has previously followed me with negative commentary whenever the opportunity has arisen like here. I do not believe I am always right and I am a collaborative editor.

• To Geronimo... I have never said that my behavior is impeccable as you quote me above. I am human. I am a neutral pov editor that has had concerns about the Sustainability article directed in a non neutral political pov.

• To Sunray and Geronimo suggesting a topic ban? What is the point? No one is, or has, stopped anyone from editing the article. The same core of people have been editing this article for a very long time as this shows I only have tried to copy edit it for neutrality, and take out glaring non neutral aspects. Concerns about the article are different than being a disruptive editor. Also to propose a topic ban on a newbie editor... AdenR?? The sign up team previously tried to say that he was a sock puppet because he agreed on some editing points that others have also agreed with in opposition to Sunray and a couple of other editors. It is noted that the pov toward political in the article is so overwhelming as to be beyond question such as the over-sourcing of a political pov. which is still a dominating issue and has been the source of driving off multiple editors that disagreed with that over-sourcing for a long time, so this a consistent pattern.

• Suggestion to ChrisO. Manipulating sentiment by giving a one sided or incomplete view is not so hard if people are determined to do that. You might go to the talk page of the Sustainability article, and see my behavior instead of being convinced here by a negative attack. If there is a Rfc,... I believe it should directed at the article editing direction itself with a question of is it being neutrally edited? This is or was a content dispute. Now it seems a variety of disgruntled users that do not seem to like me for what ever reason, have appeared here through canvassing also Lawrence khwoo calling others to come here - Sourcing an entire lead to a political point of view is not a good idea. That is the only ref/citation in the lead. I tried to source the word to a dictionary meaning instead. That would have no baggage. Instead the editing team prefers the definition of sustainability to the U.N., but there is a problem there. That is not a definition of sustainability, it is a definition to sustainable development or sustainable growth, and it is dated. My wish is that other editors actually go to the article and get involved to improve it.

• Can people in the sign up team come here sign up team, and suddenly propose a topic ban because they do not like their edits being questioned as to n.p.o.v.?? Then pile in their friends for extra support? This is not good. skip sievert (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Support topic ban and add in a few more blocks per 1RR violations. He still leads people going in circles even in here. Had I been a neutral admin, I would have issued the blocks right away because clearly Skipsievert did not learn his lessons after his previous block, which the admin blocked him indef for "Created blog to attack users, has an obvious axe to grind, nonstop tendentious editing and edit-warring, POV-pushing and general unproductiveness" before shortening the block to 1 week per ANI. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There were no 1RR violations or undoing reverts in the time frame. I may have edited other parts of the article but that is not undoing an edit. Sunray under a 1RR did violate that though, at least once. I did not. I am not leading people in circles. Previous block... several years ago. No... I grind the ax of neutral pov. and that should not be a problem. How is it that you are dredging negative stuff from several years ago above? Not good. And why are people from the sign up team showing up here to now make negative attacks?? Previously I tried to resolve some issues through informal mediation and Ohana also showed up to castigate and make demeaning commentary and dredge edits from years ago and now he repeats the same kind of behavior. It is noted that he has not participated except negatively on the discussion page in question. Ohana is also a member of the editing team on the article Sign up team. Also it is noted that Ohana came to a sock puppet investigation by the team, which was proven to be not true, with the same kind of negative polemic here - skip sievert (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Support. The above comments, the evidence against the two user accounts and the continued disruption of collaborative, unbiased editing on WP in the affected articles, speak for themselves. I am disappointed it has come to this, but all other avenues, short of a face-to-face chat, have indeed been exhausted. I see 6 in support, 2 calling for the process to be expanded. Nick carson (talk) 05:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Support. as an uninvolved party - one individual (and has a sock-check be done) cannot hold up progress. After reading the talkpage and the archive, I'm happy the other editors are acting with the best intentions of the project. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Support' as uninvolved. It's obvious from the comments above that SS uses false accusations of NPA which is a violation of policy. The issues with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT et al. show a tendentious editor who refuses to accept consensus. We need editors from all points of view editing here, but they must follow the rules and accept consensus. Auntie E. 15:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Support as uninvolved. It is clear that progress on this article is being impeded. --Iacchus —Preceding undated comment added 20:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC).

Misuse of talk page

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

• Riverpa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (assumed to be male, not actually sure)

Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy is the site of a long-simmering, sometimes boiling edit war that's brushing the WP:3RR line but hasn't yet crossed over. It's currently and primarily a dispute between myself and one other editor. The issues are being gradually resolved and I'm not bringing them up here. What I am irked about is the misuse of the article talk page. I left a note on Riverpa's talk page, followed by another note and 3rr warning (we're both on our 3rd, next edit should go to WP:3RRN). Riverpa then noted on talk:Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy his issues with my recent edits but also pasted a copy of my 3RR warning with a statement that I not address him on his talk page. I posted a comment on his talk page my reasons for my edits, the notes on his talk page and how the use of article talk pages was inappropriate. Riverpa then deleted my comments from his talk page (which is his right) but subsequently posted the deleted comments on talk:BHRT. On talk:BHRT I replied to the "don't use my talk page" comment, hid the initial posting and my reply, and deleted the reposting of my message on his talk page as tangential to the page. I then informed Riverpa that removing my comments essentially means he has read them and should act accordingly. That's (as far as I can tell and barring any errors) the guts of it. I am not seeking input on any content issues, all I want is a comment on the use of article talk pages - they shouldn't be used to propagate a personal dispute and no editor can demand to only be addressed on article talk pages (for one thing it's inappropriate when the issue is editorial behaviour, for another thing it hijacks the page away from its initial purpose). I think my actions were correct and as a new editor Riverpa doesn't appreciate the different purposes and practices for the different types of pages. Mostly I don't want my postings on his talk page being reposted on an article talk page unnecessarily. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I would beg to differ that the problems are being gradually resolved. WLU has persisted in this long-simmering dispute with a series of editors previous to me, who have basically given up in the face of his tenditious editing. He has escalated his pettifoggery against me as I attempt to bring some semblance of NPOV to the article, and I prefer that his WP:wikilawyering be visible to everyone who has to deal with him. He makes accusations without concrete citations. The issue is content, WLU's ownership of the article, and his repeated contention that he is more experienced in WP, and therefore knows best. Riverpa (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to know an amazing amount about wikipedia for not even being here a month. So what do you know about this "series of editors previous"? Auntie E. 17:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

There were a variety of more involved editors previously:

• QuizzicalBee (talk · contribs)
• Nraden (talk · contribs)
• Hillinpa (talk · contribs); I could change the timing and name but the editing problems between Riverpa and Hillinpa would essentially be the same
• SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) was here for a while but declined to become involved in the recent conflicts (but when she did comment, her comments were in line with my own)

I don't know if there's socking and I have urged Riverpa repeatedly to review talk page history (because the same ground is being re-run repeatedly) so I read that comment as innocuous and reasonable. There's lots of sources, they're reasonably convergent, but it's the interpreting that's mucking up the actual editing.

But I see this as tangential - mostly I don't want user talk page posts moved back to article talk pages, and I don't want to get into a friggin' edit war over something so stupid. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

There were also a couple of very minor edits by Ndaren (talk · contribs), notable for similarity in name to an editor with a conflict of interest, for focusing on BHRT, and for making corrections to talk page comments by Hillinpa (talk · contribs) [100][101][102]. Debv (talk) 06:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Auntie E - I will repeat my entire comment that appears on WLU's Talk page, as I replied to him previously when he implied that I was a sock puppet and made much the same comments: ""We" includes the other 3 or more editors who weighed in previously on the discussion (which you referred me to who share much the same opinion as my own (SandyGeorgia, Hillenpa, and QuizzicalBee, as well as unsigned IP). I don't believe that any of us are espousing any particular POV (...well maybe not all...), but all of us seem to think that there are two valid definitions of the term BHRT, one of which you believe in wholeheartedly, the other which the rest of us seem to believe is older, and less inflammatory, and should be a significant part of this article, while you wish to ignore it.

I have never had a Wikipedia account before. I just know how to read instructions and distill information: a good quality in an editor, yes?

I have read most of the preceding discussion in Talk. Yes, this has been discussed before, and the consensus view seems to be more in line with my view, which is why I am mystified as to why you cannot see that this is not an attempt to slant the POV, we are trying to disambiguate the marketing scheme definition and the pharmaceutical definition of this term.

I would appreciate it if you would refrain from the personal comments and accusations. You have so far accused me of touting WP:the truth, of violating copyright, of WP:original research, and violating WP:reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riverpa (talk • contribs) 17:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)". -end quote-

WLU has repeatedly (3 or 4 times now) removed text that I have added to the Talk page that indicates that I consider this conflict to be related to content. I was under the impression that editors should not remove content from Talk pages, ever, unless it was clear vandalism or libel.

Sorry to be so able to read for content and utilize that content: I can see that WLU comes to radically different conclusions than I do when reviewing the same sources.Riverpa (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

So just to be 100% clear, Hillinpa is not a former account of yours? Because there are 4 reasons to suspect that they are:

1. Similarity of name.
2. Similarity of edits; Hillinpa almost exclusively edited Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy, which you've also edited.
3. Hillinpa's last edit was on September 18, your earliest was September 28, which looks like a switch from one account to another.
4. You show a lot of knowledge for someone who has only been around a month, as was said before, but if you were Hillinpa previously then you would have over 6 months experience.

I only ask this for your benefit so that nobody can later say "Aha, gotcha!" if a Checkuser confirms it or someone else does somehow. Hillinpa seems to have a clean history so if you are the same person, I don't see why you'd hide the fact. If you are the same person you haven't broken any rules to my knowledge, but it would be better to acknowledge it. Anyway, not meaning to badger you or doubt your word, if you say you're a different person then it must just be an odd coincidence. -- Atama頭 22:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an odd coincidence only. I repeat (though I should not have to), this is the first time I have been on WP, first account, if I wanted to create a sock puppet name I certainly would not have created one with any similarity to a previous one. Riverpa (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you'd be surprised - we have some tremendously brilliant socks (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Great! So I am either a brilliant sock puppet or I'm being maligned by the accusations. I cannot prove a negative. Please, do whatever investigations that you do, and you will find out whatever - but it will not indicate that I am a sock puppet. I simply look at the situation as indicating that there is one POV dominating this topic, and it will not budge, even resorting to unfounded accusations in order to keep other POV's away. Riverpa (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User: PassionoftheDamon

User PassionoftheDamon is making very disruptive blanket edits that have the effect of deleting a lot of well sourced materials without any discussion on the talk page of the articles. He rarely uses edit summaries, and is displaying WP:OWNership issues. When I leave comments on his talk page, he deletes them without responding, and he rarely responds to comments or questions posed on the article talk pages.

Miami Hurricanes

• [103] removing discussion of graduation rates, gender equality and sports team costs
• [104] - again
• [105]. ("rmv nonsense")- again

Miami Hurricanes football

• [106] ("rv") - deleted 30 years worth of history section

University of Miami

• [107] - deleting the Forbes Magazine ranking without explanation
• [108] - again
• [109] - again

Previously, as noted in an October 13 ANI he has been removing {{copyvio}} and {{POV}} tags unilaterally while disputes are pending. in this June 2 2009 ANI he had the same problem with User:Patrick Whelan MD. There have been complaints noted about his non-communicative editing style on the article talk pages. Please help. Racepacket (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I've notified PassionoftheDamon of this thread. EyeSerene^talk 17:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The user has also removed sourced information with the claim that it is unsourced, which I find unacceptable.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• There are many more examples, because he kept going from there: [110], and even today where he deleted sourced material that had not been discussed on the talk page with an edit summary that read, "stop trying to force edits that were rejected over and over on talk." Racepacket (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Both parties (Racepacket and PassionoftheDamon) are not right in this situation. I've requested a RFC on Racepacket, but he has yet to respond to it (he knows it exists because he posted one of his usual lengthy comments on its talk page). I've confronted PassionoftheDamon for some of his edits (the Forbes mention on the main University of Miami article), and merely because content is sourced does not mean that it needs to be covered on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I got a bit caught up in this for personal reasons, and edit warred. I shall now distance myself from this article, and not touch that button again. However, I expect the baseless sockpuppet accusations to be retracted in light of WP:NPA, in that, the accusations have no supporting evidence.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User:70.249.216.19

I have reasion that User:70.249.216.19 is a sock puppet. He recalently gave me a false warning. I beleve he is a sock because he only has two contributions, giving me a warning, and talking to NoR, who I made a comment to (which I did not mean to offend anybody by it) I have two suspects of who the "puppet master" could be, but I don't want to make any false acutations. I thought I should bring this to the attition of the Sock puppet invistigation page. regards--Orangesodakid 17:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I can see the similarity between this user and NoR. In fact NoR congradulated the IP after the edit.--Coldplay Expert 17:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Alternate, Occam's Razor explanation: an IP editor on a dynamic IP saw you being a bit of a jerk on NoR's page, commented to that effect on NoR's page, and then over-reacted and warned you too strongly about it. If this is the case, what you do about it is: Nothing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting, Floq. Either way, as you mentioned, Orange, the proper venue is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• thank you for telling me Drmies. regards--Orangesodakid 18:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This whole thing is too trivial to justify either ANI or SPI. Wait for something more important to happen, please. Looie496 (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

OK I filled Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nemesis of Reason.--Orangesodakid 18:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Requesting block of User:Chandler Bonor

Resolved

 – Blocked for 2 weeks.

On multiple occasions, this user has uploaded fair use images and used them for depiction purposes on BLP articles in violation of our WP:NFCC policy and Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. I warned him about this multiple times in late September (User_talk:Chandler_Bonor#Fair_use_images_of_living_people). On 6 October 2009, he was blocked for creating copyright violations (see his block log). On 9 October 2009 after finding more violations of his post my final warnings, I placed a great big whopping stop sign on his talk page (User_talk:Chandler_Bonor#Fair_use_images_of_living_people_.2A_2). After that, he decided to delve into personal attacks [111], for which I warned him.

Today, I find he uploaded File:BillyUnger.jpg, which is a blatant theft from this blog. He didn't put a source or license tag on it, and he placed it on Billy Unger.

I've tried and tried to get our policies on copyrighted images through to this person, and he's just not getting it. Please, somebody block him. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks, since the previous 55-hour block didn't get the point across. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Page Redirected and Cannot be Undone

The page Pirate Radio (US) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pirate_Radio_%28US%29&redirect=no was redirected to The Boat That Rocked, the reason cited for the move was "more proper dab, considering movie is about uk." While it is true that the subject matter of the film is about the UK, the (US) in the title was in reference to the US release of the film. The Boat That Rocked was a previous release of the film, from which it was substantially changed and entirely re-branded in order to be released in the US. The Pirate Radio (US) page had different information including a different poster, synopsis, release date, links to trailers, etc. The redirect is very confusing to the US audience who know the film as Pirate Radio and are looking to Wikipedia to gain information about this film. While The Boat That Rocked was released first, it is in fact a different film than Pirate Radio which is why there were two Wikipedia pages created.

When attempting to undo the move, the message received was "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text." We would greatly appreciate your help in reverting back to the original Pirate Radio (US) page and your assistance in regaining the entire article about the film. SOM123Wiki (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, please make this request at Wikipedia:Requested moves, as suggested to you by the system message. GlassCobra 21:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't bother. The material in question was at Pirate Radio (flim) which is now deleted as a possible copyright violation. The flim page was created 8 October but the copy and pasted material had been around for at least a week prior. Having looked at the material there was nothing there that couldn't have been merged with The Boat That Rocked and there was absolutely no indication that "The Boat That Rocked" was "substantially changed and entirely re-branded" or that "it is in fact a different film than Pirate Radio". Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 07:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User:WolfJack45

WolfJack45 (talk · contribs) was blocked for edit warring at Chinatown and making legal threats, claiming his edits were copyrighted and nobody could edit them (at least, that's what it seems to mean). He was unblocked on the grounds that he would retract his legal threat. Does this screed continue the legal threats? He also is apparently claiming that his brother works for Wikipedia. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. Definitely smacks of legal threat. Though I suspect it's some kid screwing around, perhaps someone should contact the Foundation to determine if the most recent statement has any basis in fact? GlassCobra 20:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

User:MuZemike has re-blocked him. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indefinitely blocked again. He was warned by myself (full disclosure: I unblocked him for retracting his previous legal threat) upon threat of another block not to do it. If any admin wants to take a second look at it, go ahead, but I think this is pretty clear. MuZemike 21:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Good block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

We could use a checkuser here, as I strongly suspect socking as well as sleepers (that is, if WolfJack got through). After looking at the histories of Talk:Chinatown, Manhattan and Talk:Chinatown, San Francisco, the following accounts are pretty much guaranteed to be sock puppets of each other:

• WolfJack45 (talk · contribs)
• Conpac4 (talk · contribs) (the "brother" I think WolfJack was talking about)
• DreamShips221 (talk · contribs)
• DennisChow (talk · contribs)
• SlopChop (talk · contribs)
• Weslo2 (talk · contribs)
• BobFromPhilly (talk · contribs)
• HobLub (talk · contribs)
• InspectorDetector (talk · contribs)
• VirtDave (talk · contribs)
• CrimsonChina (talk · contribs)
• JohnnyLovesJazz (talk · contribs)
• BlassMass (talk · contribs)
• RandolphMulligan (talk · contribs)

(Note that I have just also blocked DennisChow and SlopChop as obvious socks and for good measure, even though they're both stale for CU purposes, anyways.) Well, so much for assuming good faith. MuZemike 01:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: all accounts blocked. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User:666isactuallyaholynumber

This user posted queries on my talk page and that of another editor asking how to become an admin. The user then answered an unblock request from User:Satan2012forever as though he/she were an admin, purportedly granting the unblock request. It's very likely that one is a sockpuppet for the other. Alan (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Both have been blocked, but not by me.  GARDEN  22:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

List of one-time characters in Johnny Test

Resolved

 – Page deleted, Guest9999 (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if someone with the appropriate user rights could check to see how similar this is to the version deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters in Johnny Test. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Essentially identical, and deleted. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response/action. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

links are not in English (may be vandalism)

Resolved

 – nothing here requiring administrative attention

Can someone check this out? [112] I have no idea what the link is about. Leaky Caldron 23:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki links, looks like. Protonk (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It's thai. Totally kosher. If you want you can ask the editor to say "interwiki" in the edit summary, that always helps me figure that out at a glance. Protonk (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Could be Thai. The Hunters in the Snow is returning a HTTP 404. Leaky Caldron

That's because the link is from The Hunters in the Snow. Protonk (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks Leaky Caldron 23:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(The above was my mistake with the wikilink. I did dif. The Hunters in the Snow from my watchlist not Hunters in the snow but at the time the Thai article did not exist, resulting in the HTTP 404 error.) Leaky Caldron

Is there a "stuff in foreign language, please can someone translate so I know if anything needs to be done or not" noticeboard? It'd be handy for a bunch of stuff. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The format of the links should make it clear that they're interwiki links, [[xx:foreignname]] where xx is a wiki code (usually a language code). kmccoy (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A single look at a diff should have been enough to tell most people that [113].--Crossmr (talk) 01:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well no need to jump down his throat. :) He's probably just never seen interwiki links and didn't know what they were. Protonk (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit: 99% of interwiki link additions that I see do not have any edit summary whatsoever - it's one of the most annoying things, like, ever. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

[citation needed]. Most of the interwiki links I see on the articles I watch are always bot done and contain descriptive summaries.--Crossmr (talk) 09:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

We run in different article circles, although I have seen a handful of properly-summaried interwiki links, as I said, the majority that I have run into have not. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Pavel Lukashin

Resolved

 – Page deleted –Katerenka (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right place but can someone put this page for speedy deletion because it is a spam. thx Marty Rockatansky (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic_Ashdod talking uncivil

After some edits between us, I asked to return to civilism, and got back from Sceptic_Ashdod: "Isn't it time you make an application to the Human Rights Council" etc to me here. This is directive (again), and thus not civil. Is there a list on this associated with this editor? Is it a regular transgressor? Are there more abused editors? -DePiep (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of civility, says an editor that puts this in his profile page: "This user has the impression and the rational experience that on Wikipedia Israel-related articles are not well-balanced, because of organised, agendised Hasbara", and than asks me not to talk "paternalistic". Whoever is going to review this, I don't think you'll find other 'violations' by me. I also think that such statements as above are exact opposite of the good faith approach. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 04:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Does not look like uncivility to me, but I do wonder if someone who apparently holds the view that "criticism of Israel is antisemitism" is able to maintain sufficient neutrality in his/hers edits. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read what ANI (this page) is for, it is not for this type of issue. Post at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts if you think an editor is being uncivil. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

a) Although you did contact the editor first to discuss your issues as is required, you didn't like his answer b) WQA should have been the correct forum for civility issues, however c) What he said was clearly not incivility d) As noted, your own civility/non-NPOV is clearly stated on your userpage. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Dewar210

Resolved

 – No admin action needed. Tim Song (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

My HG screen is indicating that this editor is blocked. How are they able to edit this, this, this, etc. Is HG giving me unreliable info? Thanks Tiderolls 03:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Those edits seem to have been made prior to the block. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Julian. Tiderolls 03:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) However, Dewar210 was not blocked until 3:45 UTC according to the block log, but Tide rolls' report was made at 3:42 UTC. Interesting... Tim Song (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

My HG indicated they were blocked on their first edit. Weird. Tiderolls 03:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you saw the "reported" icon and not the "blocked" icon (see here – no. 22 and 23). I think this may have been the case, since he was reported to AIV at 03:32. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 04:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That's possible, Chamal. The disruption has ceased which was my main concern. That and not getting in a 3RR situation. I'm gonna stop beating the dead horse and move along. Thanks to all that responded. Tiderolls 04:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Alleged "admin misconduct" at Mark Levin

An editor complained at my talk page of the conduct of admin User: Gamaliel at Talk:Mark Levin. I scanned the talk page and the contributions of Gamaliel but saw no problem. However to prevent any allegations of "admin collusion" I am posting this here for uninvolved review. Manning (talk) 04:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing anything flatly objectionable, but again I dunno what to look for and a quick look seems to tell me this is part of a topic I do not touch. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 06:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a garden-variety content dispute. Dispute resolution is that way. Rd232 ^talk 17:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

"The left thy"

Resolved

User blocked. Mjroots (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

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

This editor repeatedly created the page The left thy (or The Left Thy) which I believe is silly vandalism (WP:CSD#G3). Before the most recent recreation, the editor was warned with {{uw-create3}} and I'm a little confused about how to proceed. I asked the editor to not create the article again. Should I have left a final warning? Would you folks block for this? Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 05:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've left the editor a final stern warning; a final warning from you would've been fine as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If he/she/it continues after final warning, report user to WP:AIV, and request the page be salted... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) New editors who just treat WP as a webhost or don't understand standards for inclusion ought not to be blocked unless they repeatedly ignore clear warnings or attempts at communication. This editor is making vanilla WP:NFT violations; I don't see any indication of malice or serious disruption. If the automated warnings aren't working out, try leaving a very clear personal message. If they persist after that, then there may be no other option than a short block.  Skomorokh, barbarian  05:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I hesitated to call this a vandalism-only account because of the previous edits. If not for those, this would not have been an issue. Thanks for the advice. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 05:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've salted both titles. Mjroots (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The page was recreated yet again, despite multiple warnings and lots of good advice. I've blocked indef, with a note as to how to appeal if necessary. I don't think this person is here to improve the encyclopedia. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Hammersoft

I am requesting the intervention of an administrator with regards to the behavior of User:Hammersoft. Lately his actions have been quite insulting, dismissive, and belligerent. I admire his passion for his point of view and respect it, however, it has become quite difficult to have a reasonable discussion with him with edits like these: [114][115][116][117] and has attempted to sanitize such antagonization [118]. He is also demanding that people do things that are not Wikipedia policy, such as mandating a written release of a copyright that does not exist and mandating that we contact every entity with an uncopyrightable logo to get a legal assessment of its copyright status (also on the UCLA logo too). While these are certainly possible ideas on how we could run Wikipedia, they are not policy and he has no reason to demand such actions. Furthermore, he pejoratively accuses me of wikilawyering when I answer his questions with regard to policy/guidelines: [119][120][121]

He is antagonizing other editors through sarcasm [122] (I can provide LOTS of other examples) and taunting them [123] (again, more examples upon request)

He also seems to pride himself on pissing off other users and then publicly displaying their reactions on his user page: User:Hammersoft.

I request a block of this user for prolonged incivility. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me also be clear that I have a disagreement with him, but the only problem I request remediation for is this one. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Without getting into the rightness or wrongness of Hammersoft's arguments, the tone that he has used and removing other people's comments from the VP certainly seems to be extremely problematic. He's also made some odd comments about other matters too, which are probably not actionable on their own, but I think point to a pattern in the editing behaviour of this particular user. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC).

Lankiveil, my point exactly. I am not saying his basic points are right or wrong, but the tone is the problem. I would also like to point out/defend Hammersoft in that I do not believe he has deleted any comments on WP:VPP; IMHO he improperly moved them, but I have since corrected that. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur with that assessment.--Crossmr (talk) 09:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You want him to be blocked because he disagrees with you? And is usually right? Ooooo-kay.... 86.20.191.239 (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I stated the opposite. Whether he is right or wrong is irrelevant. This IP's behavior is consistent with User:TomPhan's sockpuppetry behavior. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I am deeply involved in the disputes between BQZip01 and Hammersoft, and in terms of those disputes (non-free image policy and the like) would be taking the same side as Hammersoft.

That said, Hammersoft has done some actions that aren't appropriate such as removing his own comments from the middle of a discussion, leaving a discussion thread that is very difficult to follow, and certainly attitude is not positive in these edits. But I've seen a lot worse before any admin action for incivility is taken. It needs to be understood that Hammersoft is a long-time committed upholder of WP's non-free content policy and is aggressive about making sure that it is kept (the reason BQZip became involved was Hammersoft removing what he felt was excessive non-free logo use on college sports pages that BQZip was involved with, and has been at least a 6-month discussion/debate between them. I can tell you that its obvious Hammersoft is getting frustrated by the perceived lack of respect that the non-free content policy gets and how those that attempt to uphold it are often treated poorly by editors that are affected by those actions; this exacerbation of one's good-faith intentions is likely the cause for Hammersoft's sarcasm and negative behavior in the above report.

No admin action is necessary, I believe, those a word of caution and possibly a temporary Wikibreak to calm tempers is certain within line. --MASEM (t) 12:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly Hammersoft refuses to understand BQZip01's point. I am not sure where it started, but at VP(P) for example BQ explained his point ~35 times to him. This includes [124], [125] ,[126],[127], [128] these edits just to get everyone to agree on his format preference for the discussion. There is no reason for Hammersoft to be so stubborn, and if he is not going to submit to BQ's view, he should either keep quiet or at least not respond back in the way he does. BQZip01 clearly knows what he is doing and it is a shame that he is forced to bring these issues here. Hammersoft should be blocked, topic banned and be forced to avoid any articles or discussions that BQ is steering. Erector Euphonious (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

One thing has been acted on: the account calling itself "Erector Euphonious" is a sock, and has been indef'd and deleted. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 15:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Anybody who can come up with this sort of nonsense needs to step back and regain their perspective. Its proper time that he be called to some sort of account for his demeaning and non-constructive approach. Wiggy! (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see the issue with what appears to be a comment on what actually happens on Wikipedia. Care to explain? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, if anything, that section of his userpage would seem to be against the use of personal attacks. That's nonsense? kmccoy (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Read the thing. Its full of logical fallacies and is little more than excuse to avoid trying to remain part of a rational debate by conducting oneself in a civil and non-provocative manner. Picking a fight and then pointing back at your own little custom written "law" is hardly a sign of a well-intentioned editor acting in good faith. Being provoked to anger doesn't automatically negate any earlier valid points one might make. You can be right, angry and uncivil all at once. Its a state of being sort of thing (not necessarily a good one I'll grant you). That section of the user page is superficially against personal attacks and is just self-serving. Wiggy! (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, we must have different versions of English and/or logic instruction. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently so. But let's work an example. If I was a flatearther and despite your cogent arguments about the earth's true spherical character, badgered you to the point of your cursing me out, your incivility wouldn't suddenly flatten out the planet, which is what the first corollary of Hammersoft's Law would have. You're just dismissed because you've been driven to the breaking point. What kind of approach is that? This is guy just sitting around sharpening sticks to poke in your eye.

By the way, this discussion is moot in any case. Your suggestion that my grasp of English and logic is lacking is uncivil. I invoke the Law and thereby win this argument. Anything you've said to this point is meaningless. Enjoy your day.

Get it now? Wiggy! (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't find anything to act on here. While Hammersoft isn't always the most civil editor (which makes having your own law about personal attacks ironic, at worst), I agree with Masem above. Tan | 39 15:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That is the point.That is why we have that policy right?--Crossmr (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• BQZip has taken it upon himself to be the final arbiter of all decisions fair use. Whenever people disagree with him he is quite willing to edit war to have his way. He refuses to acknowledge that we must confirm the copyright free nature of things or else consider them to be non-free. Even now, he continues to edit war at File:UCLA Bruins Logo.png to mark it as free [129] when he knows damn well that the discussion on this issue at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:UCLA_Bruins_Logo.png concluded with no consensus that it was free. He also feels it entirely inappropriate for us to contact copyright holders to verify that a particular work is free of copyright. I fail to understand why he is incapable of doing so. On multiple occasions I have provided him contact information to do so, and he routinely refuse to do this work. Over and over and over again his arguments in support of marking just about everything he wants as free have been refuted. Yet over and over and over again on new similar situations, he keeps dragging the same arguments up and insisting that if we don't refute him, our opposition is without basis. To say that he is Wikipedia:Wikilawyering is a gross understatement. I'm picking at the tip of the iceberg here. BQZ's behaviors have been absolutely against the spirit of the Wikipedia, full of edit warring, and more. I am far from being the only one who is fed up with his behavior. I give him kudos for one thing; he has done a lot of work to find free versions of school sports logos, indisputably free versions. But when there is a dispute that something is free, he is absolutely tenacious and refuses to acknowledge anything but his own answer as having any merit. A good piece of advice in this situation would be for me to ignore him and move away from things he edits. The problem is I'd have to give up on NFCC issues to move away from his edits, and I have evidence he is routinely following my edits so separation is impossible unless I just give up NFCC patrolling. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

  I'm going to HS's comments once and only once.

  1. I am not the final arbiter of anything.
  2. I agree that we must confirm that something is non-free, but I disagree with Hammersoft's beliefs as to what is required for confirmation. I've never said it was inappropriate to contact copyright holders. I've stated that it is inappropriate to demand that users contact trademark holders to determine whether an image is free of copyright. Most, if not all, of the people you'd contact are not lawyers and would have no idea about copyright law. It would also be a significant burden to contact the owner of every such image (currently 3,300+ images if an owner could even be found.
  3. The UCLA logo discussion was indeed inconclusive, however, a user pointed out that the institution in question considers it "script" and that seems pretty conclusive to me. Accordingly, I changed the status.
  4. Insinuating that I'm WP:WIKIHOUNDing you is absurd. Any time I've posted somewhere where you are, especially recently, it's because I posted there before or you diverted the discussion there.
  5. The last point to make is about wikilawyering, a pejorative and derisive term. It is the kind of behavior I am most concerned about. I've pointed out things in policy, guidelines, law, legal verdicts, etc. His sole response is, "that's wikilawyering" or "you're wrong" with no rationale. This kind of interaction isn't a discussion, but simply one side putting out reasoned comments and another offering nothing in return but contradiction and name-calling followed by a refusal to discuss.

  I've said it before and I'll say it again, this is not about our disagreement, but HS's behavior. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• After analyzing this case, my conclusion is there is no need to take any admin action against Hammersoft. I basically agree with what Masem pointed out above; like Tan, I can't find anything to act on here. AdjustShift (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

  So swearing, belittling those with whom you disagree, continuous sarcasm, insults, etc. are all acceptable behavior? — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

  Dear BQZip01, I basically agree with what Masem pointed out above; you have a right to disagree with me. I'm erasing "resolved" tag. Two admin, Tan and I, agree with Masem; other admins can analyze this case, and let's see what they will say. AdjustShift (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Civility issues are taken care of at WP:WQA - but you brought it here instead. Long-term pattern issues are dealt with via an WP:RFC/U. Nothing that Hammersoft has done is directly actionable, but warnings were likely required. As he has been advised of, and has commented in this thread, he is aware of the feelings of the community/administrators in this case, and will adjust accordingly. Again, nothing he has said is blockable by any stretch of the imagination. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• "...a word of caution and possibly a temporary Wikibreak to calm tempers is certain within line." is what Masem suggested and I see no reason that shouldn't be implemented. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A Wikibreak is self-implemented; Masem - from what I can see - was not suggesting a block. Your calling for Hammersoft's head is getting tiresome here. If you have a civility issue you want to discuss in depth, take it to WP:WQA. There is nothing that can be done from an admin incident standpoint. Tan | 39 17:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a block. I'm not "calling for Hammersoft's head here". A simple warning from an admin with respect to this discussion is fine. If you feel it is appropriate, I would be happy to take this to WP:WQA and repeat it, but I think that is an unnecessary duplication in this case.

To quote "I request a block of this user for prolonged incivility". Looks to me you were asking for a block. Garion96 (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and you're right, in retrospect, WP:WQA probably would have been more appropriate in this case. I had some doubts that it would have been the correct forum and just defaulted to here instead. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I apologize then; I misunderstood your intentions above. Tan | 39 18:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Hammersoft could certainly stand to be a bit more polite, but as noted, he happens to be correct, and has been engaged in a debate with BQZ for some time now. BQZ's interpretation of policy is incorrect, and essentially relies on being lazy and hoping the world doesn't take notice. We have some pretty annoying policies around here, BQZ, but that doesn't mean we can just ignore them, or ignore someone who is rightly trying to enforce those policies. I think most of us wish we could do things your way, but the reasons for which we can't are sound and must be respected. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

  "Hammersoft could certainly stand to be a bit more polite..." is all I heard from this and is the only thing I'm trying to address. I'll be happy to discuss the other issues you brought up elsewhere. My talk page is open. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You would do well to hear more of it. Your misinterpreations are at the root of Hammersoft's frustration, not the other way around. More to the point, none of the difs you cite really make me flinch when read in context. He could be nicer, but I see no reason why he has to be nicer given your persistence in being wrong. Either follow the policies, or take an active role in exploring whether you can reform those policies you find tedious, but don't waste everyone's time raising calling the Wikiquette Police if someone starts to lose their composure with your behavior. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

CONTENT REMOVED by — BQZip01 — ^talk (taunting of an indef blocked sockpuppeteer)

Ouch, DRIVEBY, that sounds like a threat of some sort. With 3 whole contributions, shall we do an WP:SPI?? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Already blocked. Nothing to see here... Wknight94 ^talk 19:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Anne Fairbairn

 Done

Someone (not me) has requested that some edits be deleted (not oversighted), see WP:BLP/N#Anne Fairbairn. Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take I've taken care of it.--Slp1 (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

AFD closure

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene Khumbanyiwa has been relisted three times and has a consensus to delete. Joe Chill (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Closed (and deleted). FWIW, I gauged the consensus with a fresh eye, despite Joe Chill's attempt to interpret it here. Tan | 39 15:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete? Really? Usually I align with you so well on these things. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

"Is notable in (foreign country)" is not based on en.wiki policy. I felt the delete arguments had a stronger basis in policy. If you disagree enough, take it to WP:DRV, I suppose... Tan | 39 15:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm off to take a closer look at Nǃxau ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Persistent posting of copyrighted lyrics to Tera hone laga hoon

Resolved

This article about a Bollywood song got posted last week. I'm not Bollywood expert so I don't know whether this song is sufficiently notable to warrant its own article. What is definitely not allowed, however, it posted the (presumably) copyrighted lyrics to a song without any explanation as to why this is permissible. The original poster ignored my talk page message and removed the copyvio tag without comment, and now a new user (very strong suspect sockpuppet) has done the same. How do we deal with people persistently removing copyvio tags? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If it happens again, take it to WP:RFPP. Tan | 39 15:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Since it fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS anyway, I've redirected it to the film. Black Kite 19:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Three Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Urgent call for applications

The process to appoint the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee is underway. If you are suitably qualified, please see the election pages for the job specification and application arrangements. Applications close 22 October 2009.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Dingdong12

Dingdong12 (talk · contribs) seems to be a sock; brand new user whose first edit was to AFD Railfan in a most pointy fashion: "Pointless article which I imagine is read by no-one and is a waste of Wikipedia server space." Another user has suspected that this is a sock of someone; to quote, "New users don't just find AFD." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Verbal_(person) in translation

Verbal_(person) is a new article that is being translated from the Japanese Wikipedia, created by User_talk:Sabeerkibria. Since the article is in Japanese, wouldn't it be more reasonable for the article to be written in the user's namespace and then moved to the main namespace? The majority of the article is still in Japanese. Thanks. Netalarmtalk 20:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)