Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive690

User:P.Ganakan

• P.Ganakan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.254.135.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

P.Ganakan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continually adding copyrighted material back in to the article at Kaniyar Panicker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Removals: [1] [2] [3]. There looks to be other issues with content the user is adding. I point this out because the copyright holder is not happy at all and sent in OTRS ticket 2011042710014166 requesting removal after seeing it appear on the page more than once. – Adrignola talk 15:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added the IP address 117.254.135.60 to the report. P.Ganakan's last edit today was at 14:45 UTC; at 13:26 and again from 15:30, the unregistered account started adding some of the same text that the registered account. He may not have realized he was logged out, but I've given notice that such actions are abuse of multiple accounts. —C.Fred (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• P.Ganakan blocked for 72 hours, copyright violations. After all the warnings, he added infringing text to Kaniyar Panicker again.[4] Hopefully the 72-hour block brings him to the table (well, his user talk page) to discuss the issue. If he goes back to the same practices again without discussion, I wouldn't hesitate to block him indefinitely. —C.Fred (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

  Somebody want to RD1 that diff? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

  I deleted the revision, hopefully I did it correctly (I haven't used revdel in months). -- Atama頭 18:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

  There are others still in the history. This was a multiple insert-revert cycle. I reverted the stuff twice, a bot did it once & then C.Fred stepped in. - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"This should be obvious to a semi-lobotomised chimpanzee"

Remind me again why we allow insults and badgering in AfDs? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Insults and badgering - are blockable, even in AFD discussions. User:TreasuryTag has made thirty eight comments to that Doctor who AFD and already has a Wiquete report about it, which appears to have resulted in no improvement of civility - I notified the user that one of his contributions has got a mention here. Off2riorob (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Say, just out of curiosity, is notification of a user being discussed here necessary when the username is not mentioned explicitly? Guoguo12--Talk--  13:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned his name so I notified him. Off2riorob (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

But what about before you mentioned his name? Guoguo12--Talk--  13:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It was clear for everyone about whom the initial complaint was concerned. He should have been notified. I agree that this is a civilty problem - AfD's can get heated enough without people acting like that.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Guoguo12--Talk--  13:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I should have notified him, and have apologized on his talk. Thanks, O2RR. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Replying to everyone in a debate is not necessarily "badgering". We generally disapprove of it in RFAs, but at AfD it can be the case that while only one person passing has a reasonable argument there are plenty of people with poor ones. And if anyone can find an AfD on a fictional subject which doesn't have at least a half-dozen terrible arguments to keep I'll be amazed. Nevertheless, TT went overboard here. I've left a note on his user talk. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Your friendly note does not appear to have addressed and warned the user about the civility issue raised here? Personally I am of the position that the time is almost upon us to ask the question of this user due to continued repeat patterns of incivility, disruptive ANI reports as mentioned recently and general rudeness, is the user under current levels of contributions a net positive to the project? Off2riorob (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I like my ANI discussions to be short and to the point. The point here is that an AfD is being disrupted by OTT comments from one user. My proposed solution was to ask him to drop it. If there is a wider problem with TT's conduct then so be it, but that should be addressed separately (in a new section, or at RFC/U or the like). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, it appears that subtle hints are not taken to heart here. I'm not sure what the huge deal about deleting one page is, but I consider it a possibility that the continued arguments to so many "keep" votes could persuade even more people to vote "keep" just out of spite. Perhaps my original suggestion should have been phrased a bit stronger. Agree with Chris that it's OTT. — Ched :  ?  13:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I thank Sarek for notifying me. My 'semi-lobotomised chimpanzee' comment explicitly did not refer to any Wikipedia editor. Taken out of context, I agree it looks incivil. But the second half of the sentence, "...let alone to anyone of your intelligence," shows that it was being used merely as a hypothetical comparison. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 13:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

As experienced contributors to the project we are requested to help other contributors to move in beneficial directions and as such not pointing out to you that multiple users are seeing repeat issues with your contributions would be a rejection of our responsibilities, as would your not accepting that there are issues with your contributions that are in need of correction. Hypothetical claims or not users have real time, not hypothetical issues with your current contribution patterns and you would do well to address rather than reject those good faith comments. As such - in lieu of an editing privilege restriction, keep your hypothetic lobotomized monkey comparisons to yourself in future. Off2riorob (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Given that you have a significant (and almost notable!) history of cropping up to object to things that I do, Off2, you'll excuse me for completely ignoring you and your hollow threats of blocking me. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 14:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(Undent) "This should be obvious to a semi-lobotomised chimpanzee let alone to anyone of your intelligence." This says to the other editor that, although he has higher intelligence than a lobotomized monkey, the other editor is for some other reason neglecting to behave better than a lobotomized monkey. As such, it is a serious insult.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Firstly, let me apologise for posting after having "officially" retired. I can assure you it will be the last. I filed the WQA mentioned above against TT after a series of personal insults and attacks levelled against me and others at this AFD. Read it if you like -- apparently nobody there cared about TT's egregious incivility, which he has continued after snubbing my attempt at resolution, and which is the subject of the present disciussion, and so I decided to calm down and take a break. TT actually had the gall to ask an admin to caution me because he said he felt upset by the message I left explaining the break, (I don't believe that, and certainly at least one other statement in that post is demonstrably untrue.) The admin concerned didn't oblige, I'm glad to day, but advised that I ought to "learn to be tolerant". Well, I decline to learn to tolerate insults, bullying, bad faith, provocation and dishonesty. Do what you like with this person, it won't bother me any more. There is something badly wrong with the Wikipedia culture. Goodbye. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

  Cheerio! ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 20:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, you really do get off on taunting people as they decide to bow out of confrontations with you don't you. And at an ANI concerning this behavior no less. Maybe you should refresh yourself withthis, especially subsections d of sections 1 and subsection a of section 2.Heiro 22:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Unrepentant gloating after driving off another editor with gratuitously insulting comments...stay classy. I share the sentiments expressed by SarekOfVulcan at the outset. Skomorokh 01:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• wow. Grave-dancing TT? I try to be gentle, make allowances for your childish remarks¹ due to your long tenure and contributions, diffuse a tense situation, and this is how you respond? Blocks are not supposed to be punitive, so it's fortunate for you that I didn't see this at the time it was posted. (else you would be sitting out for a week) Consider one more person pushed into the SoV camp, and yourself given a final warning. I'll elaborate on your talk page. — Ched :  ?  05:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

  ¹ The term "childish" being used here to clarify "the remark/contrib" rather than the editor.

Kids in kindergarten aren't permitted to abuse their classmates in this way; there's no reason whatever that adults who volunteer their valuable time here should have to tolerate such immature behavior in order to contribute. As Hyperdoctor put it on Ched's talk page, "I'm sorry to say that I don't care to learn to be tolerant of personal insults, personal attacks, false statements and bad faith." There's simply no reason he, or anyone else, should have to. Treasury Tag has made it clear (even here) that he sees nothing wrong with his behavior, and he thus has no motivation to change it. Someone needs to give him that motivation.  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well spoke. I believe this is normally a WQA issue, but the relevant discussion there has died. Guoguo12--Talk--  19:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted, however, that blocks cannot be used in a punitive manner (WP:CDB). Guoguo12--Talk--  20:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

So, what should happen if their incivility continues? Say, if an admin had to warn them for it yet again? Heiro 09:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, according to Wikipedia:CIV#Blocking for incivility, "Editors are generally not blocked for minor incivility. Civility is a goal rather than an objective standard. Wikipedia editors from around the world may have different cultural standards of civility, so a certain amount of tolerance is required. When incivility rises to the level of disruption, personal attacks, harassment or outing, blocks may be employed, as explained in those policies." So essentially we wouldn't be looking at a CIV-block. If I make personal attacks (which, by the way, I don't) then it would be a block as set out at WP:NPA, and so on. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 09:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

So by your reading of this, an editor may be as incivil as much and as many times as he feels like and need not fear a time out block to reconsider the detrimental effects of this behavior on the project at large? Is this correct?Heiro 09:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

My interpretation of all this is more or less irrelevant. The civility policy is there for you to read yourself; all I did was quote the passage which began, "Editors are generally not blocked for minor incivility." ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 09:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Luckily, we have WP:CCC and the fact that the civility policy uses the word generally, which means there are exceptions, which community consensus can employ. Silverseren^C 18:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of consensus, what is the consensus right now? It seems like discussions on this topic are split between AN/I, WQA, and TreasuryTag's user talk page. Also, TreasuryTag, I'd say your interpretation is relevant because it seems to be affecting your editing. Guoguo12--Talk--  19:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there particularly is a consensus/result is there? The several threads just kind of petered out... ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 19:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

At least three admins who were formerly ambivalent to TT's low-level hostility here have expressed their dissatisfaction with his apparent understanding that this absolves him from any wrongdoing here. The likely result is increased scrutiny on TT's future actions and blocks if he fails to get the point. Worth noting here that grave-dancing should that happen would very likely be met with immediate administrative response. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Expansion: Murder of Meredith Kercher

No admin action is needed or requested here. WP:ANI is not the place for resolving content disagreements. See WP:DR for how to do so.  Sandstein  21:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Wikid77 here (joined May 2006). Experienced admins are needed at "Murder of Meredith Kercher" (Amanda Knox case; appeals re-trial underway November-July 2011) for general oversight during expansion (starting next week) to expand details, while explaining convictions, and prepare for results of appeals trials, in a contentious editing environment where details have been suppressed for months. As you might know, WP founder Jimbo Wales (acting as an admin-editor) was asked on 21 March 2011, by an outside forum with a 270-signature petition (talk-archive: #Open letter), to help investigate expansion of details and WP:NPOV neutral balance of text formerly based upon "British tabloids" and similar incorrect sources. Upon preliminary investigation, he discovered some editors had been blocked by admins for minor disputes, and 1 admin resigned and the other has backed away. Jimbo has consented to help, having read 3 or 4 books about the case (talk-page: 26 April edit), and to make suggestions for NPOV balance and WP:Reliable sources. Meanwhile, external forums have challenged that Jimbo's influence will fail to expand the article to explain convictions or reasons driving the appeals (or other details), based on the notion that "Wikipedia's structure is incapable" of allowing, even him, to overcome the censorship of the article and allow details. I think all that is needed is some helpers. Currently, some 3 or 5 editors are still preventing expansion of the article (claiming WP:UNDUE details) to explain why the court(s) initially found 3 suspects guilty, and on what specific grounds the suspects filed appeals. There is a significant rejection of text based on WP:PRIMARY sources (2 trial summaries in Italian), even though most broad details have been mentioned in hundreds of news reports (2007-2011), as secondary sources supporting primary. However, much of the suppression of new text is based on claims of "needing to prove" that it is important (enough) to describe why the 3 suspects were judged guilty. Also, some editors are monthly taken to the WP:ANI noticeboard to seek indef topic bans against first-time editors of the article who become upset. Hence, this article needs experienced admins, who know the ropes of contentious battles, but would be willing to help Jimbo and others guide expansion of the article, perhaps starting 3 May 2011. If everyone takes turns, I think it can be done during May-June. If you wish to discuss privately, I can be emailed at Special:EmailUser/Wikid77 (all confidential; no slurs). The MoMK article has become one of the Top 1000 most-read articles of 2011, so results will be read by over 1 million readers. I have also notified WP:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, but they will likely be scared without support. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Advocating for convicted criminals, or anyone else for that matter, is not the purpose of wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Clarification: The readers want details about both viewpoints: why the 3 were judged guilty during their trials, and for the appeals trials, what specific issues were considered to overturn the convictions, reduce sentences, or increase sentences. All forms of details have been suppressed from the article. Please note that guilt or innocence cannot be determined by Wikipedia, and in this particular case, all 3 suspects frequented nearby city pubs, where any, or all, of the suspects could have made enemies who framed them for the crimes. The expansion of text is intended to accurately describe the court verdicts and grounds for appeals, not to advocate for guilt or innocence, nor to match fingerprints to someone else in a pub. -Wikid77 09:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC) From the above it is clear that more eyes, admin or no, will be needed on Wikid77's planned expansion. pablo 11:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Currently, some 3 or 5 editors are still preventing expansion of the article (claiming WP:UNDUE details) to explain why the court(s) initially found 3 suspects guilty, and on what specific grounds the suspects filed appeals. Yesterday, you argued for the inclusion of two suspect clauses dedicated to a certain drink whose name I have long since grown tired of mentioning, when it added nothing at all except insinuation regarding a subject named in the article (more information here and here). If this is the sort of worthwhile, much-needed, trivia-obsessed "expansion" to which you are referring, I'm afraid that I will indeed be resisting further such proposals. It's also nice and considerate of you to drag our names through the mud over at Jimbo Wales' talk and at WikiProject Crime in a thinly-veiled bid to drum up support for your cause, but neglect to breathe a word about this discussion at the topic talk. SuperMarioMan 11:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Wait a while, SuperMarioMan, I missed the connection between what I wrote, above, and the comment of "drag our names through the mud" but that comment sounds like tabloid sensationalism of text, which is what some readers of the article have feared. In fact, I did not think you were among the 3 or 5 editors resisting the expansion of text, because your involvment had seemed, to me, to be within the limits of neutral comments, but now I am thinking you have had more influence than I realized. Also, I am wondering if some editors adopt sensational news claims as, somehow, acceptable, with news reports saying phrases such as "drag names through the mud" so that is another reason to find objective sources which are more centered on actual details, as contained in the Italian primary court-trial summaries. I am not saying that tabloid sources are evil, but rather the readers want to know actual details of why the 3 suspects were judged guilty rather than sensational smears about them. -Wikid77 14:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC) That's all rather evasive, and it doesn't actually provide an answer to the numerous concerns raised regarding your proposed use of sources, does it? Subtle attacks on other users do nothing to alter the fact that both ErrantX and OhioStandard have left some eloquent criticisms at the talk page, which remain unanswered. SuperMarioMan 15:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC) I have never edited or been involved in this article or (as far as I know) been involved with any of the editors who regularly edit there. Having looked at the Talk page it's pretty clear that there is a group of editors who are using the article to advocate the innocence of those who were convicted, with quite a sprinkling of original research. The "expansion" referred to above needs to be kept under close scrutiny by admins. One thing in Wikid77's original post which is clearly correct is that in the next few months (appeal etc ) this article will be high profile and has the potential of seriously bringing Wikipedia into disrepute if it goes wrong. DeCausa (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC) ... in a contentious editing environment where details have been suppressed for months ... There is a significant rejection of text based on WP:PRIMARY sources (2 trial summaries in Italian) ... Perhaps refuting valid points made against blatant cherry-picking of text from WP:PRIMARY sources (as noted here and here) would be a more sensible course of action than bringing the whole topic to WP:ANI. Also, some editors are monthly taken to the WP:ANI noticeboard to seek indef topic bans against first-time editors of the article who become upset. Are you perhaps referring to CodyJoeBibby (talk · contribs) above? That user has been provided with more than enough warnings about his misconduct, only to fail to sort out their attitude, so the label "first-time editor" and any implication of innocence are strained and tenuous. Please note that guilt or innocence cannot be determined by Wikipedia ... The expansion of text is intended to accurately describe the court verdicts and grounds for appeals, not to advocate for guilt or innocence ... Really? I note that you have twice alluded to WP:NPOV in your opening statement. Unfortunately, I would have to argue that this comment on CodyJoeBibby's talk page leads me to doubt that your motives conform to the spirit of WP:NPOV. I'm not really impressed with the antagonistic, nationalist tone of this particular screed, which seems to demonstrate quite obvious anti-European and anti–British sentiment, nor with allegations that other users are "difficult people" and "haters". SuperMarioMan 12:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC) I've made some limited forays into discussions at that talk page and it is a nightmare, and to be blunt, the filer of this An/I section is one of a handful of editors that are at the core of the problem. What we have here are several experienced editors and a veritable slew of redlink-name WP:SPAs who are doing everything in their power to exonerate one of the convicts, Amanda Knox. This case is a cause célèbre in Knox's home state of Washington, the local Seattle media's (particularly seattlepi.com) near-obsession with the case is cited on the talk page almost daily. Detailed evidence "debunking", testimonies from external advocacy groups, e.g. "Friends of Amanda" all bloat the article in an attempt to prove one convict's innocence. I'm not sure of what dispute resolution has been tried in the past, but some mediation, RfC, or ArbCom will likely bee needed at some point to pry the POV warriors out of the article. Tarc (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC) While I have great respect for Tarc and Baseball Bugs, I would like to say that I disagree with their assessment of the situation. There is a group of constructive editors of varying views working in good faith towards improving the article, after a period in which there was extreme imbalance in the article. I think Tarc, in particular, is mistaken in his view that information from external advocacy groups and which tends to "debunk" should be excluded from the article - doing so is extremely anti-NPOV and leaves the reader completely uninformed about key aspects. There are reliable sources which cover these matters, we are not talking about original research here, but information that must be included in the article so that readers have a balanced understanding. NPOV does not mean that Wikipedia should take the side of those who think that Knox is innocent, nor does it mean that Wikipedia should take the side of those who think that Knox is guilty. Our duty is to report faithfully on the controversy and the unfolding events.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC) eer the sources involved are ultimately the italian legal system and a PR company. Which one were you suggesting qualifies as reliable?©Geni 14:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Can you be more specific? I'm afraid you are mistaken about the facts here. I'm unaware of anyone advocating that a "PR company" be used as a source. I think there is general agreement amongst good-faith participants in the discussion, of whom there are many with varying views, that the sources that should be used in the article should all comply with WP:RS. In particular, there is widespread agreement that books from reliable publishers, high quality magazines and newspapers, are the sources that should be used. I think, too, that there would be widespread agreement that use of documents directly from the Italian legal system can be valid, if used judiciously and without inappropriate synthesis, for some of the basic and undisputed factual matter. I'm sure you aren't suggesting that any information from reliable sources which may tend to undermine the readers belief that Amanda Knox is guilty should be excluded just because the family has hired a PR company. You aren't saying that, right? But if not, then please do be specific as to what you are claiming.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC) I think Tarc, in particular, is mistaken in his view that information from external advocacy groups and which tends to "debunk" should be excluded from the article - doing so is extremely anti-NPOV and leaves the reader completely uninformed about key aspects. There are quite a few forum and blog sites both in favour of and in opposition to the verdicts. Mr Wales, please forgive me if I have misread you, but are you suggesting that the article should start to include links to Injustice in Perugia, and other activist and advocate sites? This would seem to be a perilous road to go down if WP:NPOV is the ultimate goal. SuperMarioMan 14:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC) I didn't say that, and didn't mean that. I think that WP:RS is very important. Linking to blogs and personal sites can be valid in Wikipedia, as usual, in specific circumstances, and I think that normal policy should be followed as usual. I am not advocating anything unusual. What we have here is a group of POV pushing editors who think that any information about her potential innocence should be excluded, reliable sources be damned, and I think that's wrong. Wikipedia should not be used to "convict" this woman.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC) I don't think there should be any links to any advocacy site on the article, even in the EL section. I'd also really like to see them banned from being brought up on the talk page, to be honest. Frankly, I don't care about what's on any advocacy site. I want links to good, solid reliable sources. There are several books out (the ones Jimbo is referring to) that seem to be written by reputable journalists. If they happen to come out with a certain point of view, that's really irrelevant here. WP exists on the belief that a reputable author backed by a reputable publisher will fairly research, review and publish material. Honestly, I mostly agree with the books about the many aspects of this case. It was bungled pretty badly. End of story. The article needs to cover everything though, and I think there's an effort to make sure that Knox cannot look guilty in the article. There's also attempts to put way, way too much detail into the article - this is supposed to be a SUMMARY of what happened, not a blow-by-blow account! That's why we link to secondary sources that DO have the blow-by-blow! NPOV means we fairly tell the story based what the sources represent. If A was held to be true at point Z, then shown false at point Y, we need to say that, but do so fairly. Saying that A was false and never mentioning that it was, at one point, believed to be true is pushing a POV. Ravensfire (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Ravensfire nails it here. There is controversy and crticism; that should be noted without providing a soapbox for the advocacy sites (per due weight). --Errant (chat!) 15:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Notable advocacy sites and critics may be cited directly in the article with attribution. It depends on the circumstances. BelloWello (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC) So far they are all blogs and SPS, so, no, at the moment there are no advocacy sites worth citing. --Errant (chat!) 15:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC) I certainly agree that "information that must be included in the article so that readers have a balanced understanding", but more often than not extracts from sources (especially from WP:PRIMARY ones) are selectively cherry-picked to advance a specific POV, as is quite apparent here (edit made in the last 24 hours). Multiple concerns have been raised about Wikid77's proposed use of such text; it is disappointing to see that rather than refute those concerns, he has decided to bring it to ANI instead. SuperMarioMan 14:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC) I think the opposite is true. In the past, information has been systematically excluded from the article to make it appear that the conviction was uncontroversial.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC) I pretty much agree with Tarc's take on this. We definitely need more NPOV eyes on this mess to prevent WP:SPA editors with the assistance of a few well-meaning allies (sadly including our founder) from turning this into even more of an advocacy piece than it already is. The best way for folks to get a flavor of the madness that infects this area is to read the section on the talk page relating to my favorite breakfast drink. --John (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC) I will quickly clarify: in expanding text for NPOV balance by stating one murder/theft suspect's version of events (to offset the prosecution's version), one suspect had stated he entered at the invitation of the victim, who unlocked the cottage with a key from her handbag, then they entered at the kitchen, where he asked and got fruit juice from the frig, then he stated she went to her bedroom and noted significant money was missing from an open drawer (~rent money). Well, an uproar arose about mentioning "fruit juice" and the whole version of events was deleted twice, partly on demands to delete the 9-word phrase about the juice/refrigerator as intolerable, despite being mentioned in the trial-judge's summary of events as well as in other sources. Some people demanded a 3rd source was needed which ranked the "fruit juice" in importance. Major quarrel over a few words. -Wikid77 15:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC) I agree with Tarc and John that more Admin eyes on the article should help, but completely disagree with their characterization of the board and the article. We have a highly controversial case: the convicted people are controversial, the prosecutor is controversial, the forensic evidence is controversial, the media coverage is controversial and even the TV shows, books and documentaries about the case and Knox are controversial (all of this is well cited in reliable sources). In the past, users like Tarc have discarded any edit that did not toe the prosecution line as a fringe theory or a conspiracy theory, and these editors, with the help of enabling Admins, conducted massive sweeps of the article to ensure that people who wanted to teach the controversy were muffled. The article is in a far better state than it was just a few months ago, and the tone of the talk page is vastly improved as well. However, we can still do a better job of expanding the article to include coverage of the controversial aspects of this case in a concise and NPOV manner.LedRush (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC) However, there have also been readers who wanted the article to merely explain the 3 convictions, such as one reader who read a news report that 2 suspects were seen eating a pizza, days after the murder, and the police reportedly concluded then they were guilty. The article has previously not given "4 main reasons" why a suspect X was judged guilty, nor provided a few reasons why police determined which suspects to arrest. But, I agree other readers want major controversies to be noted. -Wikid77 15:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC) I guess that the entire situation could be stated in a more slanted and overblown way, but I'm not really sure how. More uninvolved editors are greatly needed on the talk page to help with this article. Since the petition from an pro-Knox advocacy site there have unquestionable been improvements in the article. There have also been more SPA's pushing a POV and a partially-hostile editor environment remains, but targetted against those that don't accept a pro-Knox edit. Kinda funny about that, when those editors where complaining about that happening to them, but have no issues being the source now. Ravensfire (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC) The realistic assessment of the situation sits somewhere between Jimbo and Tarc's viewpoints. There are problem editors on the page; partially from the perspective of POV pushing and partly from the perspective of a competence issue. This is to be expected, and nothing new for a contentious article. Wikid77 has been planning to "go to AN/I" (the purpose of which I never understood) for the last few days (and has informed certain editors as such on their talk pages sometime at the end of last week), he exhibits some misunderstanding of the WP process.. and I welcome any attempts to explain this to him. I am not sure exactly what he hopes to get from this; I, for example, joined the page a short while ago from an AN/I thread, and I fear that more editors like myself is not what he is looking for ;) Now, I got a bit pissed off with him yesterday because he tried to expand the text in Guede's section with material that was badly worded, not every neutral and included a lot of not-totally-relevany trivia. In the subsequent discussion I never really got the impression that he understood the concerns we expressed over the content - and instead I think he still views it as an attempt to suppress the content in general... During that discussion I (and others) successfully restored some of his proposals (with better wording), fixed a close paraphrase copyvio problem and fixed some weasel wording etc. It was very constructive and the text emerged with more detail and better phrasing than it had to start with. A few days later Wikid77 came back and, without responding to the outstanding issues,[disputed; see Talk:MoMK response] re-added a lot of similar text to the section. Text that suffered from the exact same un-addressed problems and restored all of the weasel wording and copyvio material we had spent a lot of time sorting out.[disputed; see Talk:MoMK response] This type of behaviour has happened before, and I expect it will happen again. Wikid77 has, in my opinion, demonstrated time and again that he simply does not read what people are writing[disputed; see Talk:MoMK response] (either on talk pages or in edit summaries) and jumps to conclusions that reflect the worst possible scenario (i.e. ABF). He has displayed problems with creating content of a high enough quality, and has not understood that this is the main basis for my resisting his additions. This AN/I pretty much sums up the situation, really, reflecting a misunderstanding of the system here. I do not have a solution to this problem. --Errant (chat!) 15:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Thank you, ErrantX, for revealing you would rather make unfounded insulting remarks against me, refuted by the evidence (see Talk:MoMK response), rather than focusing on improving the article. -Wikid77 16:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Ouch, please do not edit other peoples comments like that. Not polite. this is my reply to the comment you cite above, which you have not addressed (except to post a reply that was not related to any of the issues I brought up). You have also failed to address or properly discuss my objections to the use of Italian words (which you added back in) and problems with the tone of the language. And as yet you have not fully explained your reason for re-inserting the copyright violation paraphrase and non-neutral language that you saw being discussed and resolved in that section --Errant (chat!) 17:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Please explain this violation of WP:REDACT, ErrantX. BelloWello (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC) I expanded my comment. As should be clear from the diff you presented. Correct typo's and clarified some points. I wasn't aware of your reply FWIW because I was called away in the middle of editing and it looks like the software conflict merged your reply in :) --Errant (chat!) 15:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Accusations denigrating one's reading comprehension, that the same assumes bad faith, etc., how does this fall under WP:CIVIL again? BelloWello (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Do not confuse criticising/explaining a problem and civility. --Errant (chat!) 15:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Reasonable criticism of another editor's conduct is not a violation of civility. WP:Civil simply requires that problems should be pointed to politely, not in the form of name calling. If I responded to your message by calling your comment "moronic" (it wasn't), then that would be a violation. But the mere fact of criticism is not. Paul B (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC) I helped write Natalee Holloway and that was a wild ride with people accusing us of various things. But the opposition was never organized like it is here. Frankly, I would fully protect a representative version until the appeal's over and require consensus for changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Thing is... stuff is moving forward. Quite a few editors (myself included) have added improvements to the page that have bot come under any dispute. It is just that every now and again a not-brilliant-but-has-merit piece of content gets added, it gets reverted (n.b. not necessairily a move I agree with), there is some - slightly heated - discussion and then we usually end up with some workable improvements. With contentious BLP's this is a common work process *shrug* done it before, we'll do it again :) --Errant (chat!) 16:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Not one concern about that WP:PRIMARY text was addressed - it was simply re-inserted as if in the hope that no one would care or notice. Now, after its second removal, Wikid77 has opened another discussion here, which will certainly create much noise and confusion, thus escalating the tension, but will not help to advance matters at all. The whole affair smacks of disruption and tendentiousness - I'm also rather suspicious of the fact that, while Wikid chose to inform some users of his intentions at their talk pages, he made no comment on the article talk. In September 2010, Wikid came within an inch of an indefinite topic ban following the violation of an earlier, three-month restriction. Despite a promise then to reconsider his approach to editing, several months later his edits appear to have returned to their previous level of disruptiveness. I am also concerned about his continued attempts to have various policies and guidelines changed - this user talk page edit seems very dubious indeed with a mind to WP:GAME. SuperMarioMan 16:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)   – – SuperMarioMan, I hope I can clear the confusion, because I had notified those 2 users about a possible different ANI thread concerning them. Understand? ...those 2 editors would have been the subject of a separate ANI thread, not this thread. Same ANI, but different threads (not everything is a growing conspiracy to "drag names through the mud"). I did not realize that you had such repressed rage against me, because I have always believed your posts typically showed an even balance, even though many other editors have been annoyed by your comments. I am not sure why they see you as often "crossing the line" of acceptable behavior, but your severe reactions here have me concerned, now, about your attitudes toward other editors. Do you feel you hate Jimbo as well for wanting to expand the article? -Wikid77 17:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Splitting hairs. I take it from this latest round of attacks and innuendoes that you have nothing to offer in response to my or anyone else's concerns? I did not realize that you had such repressed rage against me ... but your severe reactions here have me concerned, now, about your attitudes toward other editors. Do you feel you hate Jimbo as well for wanting to expand the article? That's nice to hear - but wrong on all counts, I'm afraid. SuperMarioMan 18:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC) The following editors operate in a tag team or 'pack' to maintain control of the MoMK article, and need to be topic banned for a period of a month or so to allow NPOV editors to prevail. Tarc, (not active recently but part of the group), SuperMarioMan, TheMagnificentCleanKeeper, Hipocrite, Errant, John. I may have forgotten one or two but it's the same little core group time after time which blocks any change to the article. Ban them for a month, and see how it goes. I don't mind if I'm banned as well for the same period. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC) The accusations aren't helpful, for now, Cody. Let's see how this plays out, by the way, could you go to the talk page and provide a reliable source for the juice comments if one exists (a book works as well..), I can't seem to find one. BelloWello (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC) I'm currently on a voluntary timeout from editing the article or posting on the article's talk page due to an attempt by SuperMarioMan to get me banned from Wikipedia, so i can't post anything there. The information about the juice is from Rudy Guede's own words. It should be in the Micheli Report which is already cited in the MoMK article. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Here's a guilter site which cites it. http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C343/ CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Yes, but that's not a reliable source in terms of proving due weight, per say. Do you know of any other sources which include it? (Books, mainstream news reports, etc.?) BelloWello (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC) See what I mean? Which is why I would lock down this article. I'm too lazy to do it, but I'd vote to support any other admin that did. (p.s. I love that term, "guilter")--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC) By "lock down", do you mean restoring full protection to the article, or restricting the talk page, or something else altogether? SuperMarioMan 16:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC) I mean full protection with all the trimmings.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Well, I'd be in full agreement there. SuperMarioMan 16:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC) What's the big deal? It's a few words (Guede drank juice from the carton). There is no question the event happened and it's reliably sourced. What is the problem with including the words? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Like I said above, we need a reliable source to show due weight.. If you have one, I'm fairly sure it will go in. BelloWello (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC) And I'm fairly sure by now that any such source i did find would be deemed unacceptable by the people i am not allowed to mention. Thank you for trying. I appreciate it. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC) No, if there is a legitimate source, they cannot block it. Has the fact been reported in any news reports or in some book gathering dust somewhere? BelloWello (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Just the bare fact that Guede drank the juice or some kind of expert stating why drinking the juice was significant? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Yes, just provide a reliable source (CNN, NYT, a Seattle Newspaper, etc.) that mentions that he drank juice without asking or whatnot and it would become verifiable. BelloWello (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC) The problem, as I explained, is that it is trivial. So unless there is a decent reason for including it then it doesn't make a lot of sense to do so. --Errant (chat!) 16:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC) If a WP:RS includes it as background or information, etc., there is no reason for us not to include it as background information as well. BelloWello (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC) I have no issue with being told I am in a tag team but I take extreme offence to the suggestion I am pushing a POV (or, not a NPOV editor). That is extremely rich coming from Cody! Neutral approach is key to participation in this topic, and I have taken extreme care not to take an interest or a view on the case of any depth. --Errant (chat!) 16:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks for that, Bello. Unsurprisingly I've been given different criteria by the invested editors on the MoMK article. I'll try to find another source which mentions the incident. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC) The incident is also cited on InjusticeinPerugia http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry2-----a.html and Perugia Shock. Why is the Perugia Shock blog on the spam blacklist? Hwo do i find out who put it on the list? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Unfortunately, that is still not a reliable source for purposes of proving due weight. We need a source like CNN, MSNBC, Seattle Pi, NYT, LAT, etc. in order to include it. BelloWello (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC) I'm strongly considering full protection until the result of this proceeding is announced and five days afterwards. Thoughts? My action would of course be subject to AN/I review, but I think some way has to be found of bringing the parties to a modus vivendi.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC) You have no consensus for any such action. The article is still in a contentious and fluid state due to fast-moving events surrounding the case. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Back to Wikid77 and his past problem with the very same aricle. It might be worth noting that Wikid77 was blocked for sockpuppetry and shortly after[http://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive618#User:Wikid77_canvassing topic banned for 3 month for canvassing, all in relation to the Murder of Meredith Kercher subject. See also this related thread regarding an alleged violation of his topic ban http://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive638#Block_review:_User:Wikid77.2C_violation_of_topic_ban.TMCk (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Are you suggesting that Wikid is currently engaging in misconduct? Throwing around serious accusations like that is surely inadvisable. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Not worth responding to the usual false accusations.TMCk (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC) What was your reason for bringing up Wikid's previous issues? It seems to me you were trying to imply there was something wrong with his current behaviour. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Look at his block log and you'll see that an otherwise valuable editor's problems are only in connection with the Murder of Meredith Kercher subject.TMCk (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Fruit juice noted as affecting forensic evidence of case: I found another major reliable source which mentions the fruit juice, in article "Bloody Footprint May Belong..." by Ann Wise, ABC News, May 9, 2009, web: ABCNews-38, noting, in forensic testing, that "luminol reacts not only to blood" but also reacts with various "substances that contain iron, such as fruit juices, chlorophyll, or rust". That could be why the Italian summary of the 1st suspect's conviction noted that he stated getting "fruit juice" (from the frig) upon entering the cottage, in his alleged date with the victim, on the night of the murder. The primary source was extremely brief in summarizing the suspect's version of events, but went into pages of text about other witness viewpoints of his movements at parties or nightclubs on the days surrounding the murder. I see the fruit-juice issue as what the suspect claimed to be doing, upon entering at the kitchen, just before the victim noted significant money was missing from an open drawer (Italian: cassetto aperto) in her bedroom (according to suspect's version of events). Perhaps that will end the wild debate about "fruit juice" in this ANI thread and allow mention in the article. -Wikid77 17:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC) No-one disputes that he drank the freaking fruit juice. The dispute is about the relevance, and the fact that you keep spinning stories about it as if its some crucial plank of defence evidence. You need to show that a reliable source has brought the Great Fruit Juice Swig Incident up as relevant to the case, not that you have got it into your head that it somehow demonstrates something Deeply Significant that only you understand because of your unique insight into the social mores of Italian guests and forensic science. Paul B (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC) No, it really won't, as the fundamental problem with the article is the bloc-group of editors who wish to turn it into a "Why Knox is really innocent" advocacy project. In an response to Jimbo's addressing of me earlier, with all due respect, your intervention into this article (at the behest of a blog run by one of the SPAs) really reignited most of the current debates. An intervention by some of the very same local newspapers and blogs that have themselves been advocating for this person's innocence. A bad situation was made worse, and continues to worsen the more the Wikipedia is used as an extension of a convict's PR team. Tarc (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC) The opposite is true. There was a concerted effort by POV pushers to eliminate reliable sources calling into question the conviction, and since I intervened we now have a legitimate effort underway to carefully improve the article. I'm disappointed that you aren't supporting that process.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC) @jimbo: So who were those POV-pushers and where are the supporting links/diffs? Is that to much to ask for with all that "pro and anti guilt" nonsense you've joint from the beginning?TMCk (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Tarc, I'm really offended how you are blaming one side for all the problems. Were you around when a group or corrupt Admins blocked and banned anyone who tried to make the article LESS guilt oriented for months and months? How many editors did they ban in order to keep the article under their control? The result was a misleading article that completely failed the reader and did not even come close to a NPOV. It reflected very poorly on wikipedia. The article, in my opinion, has already improved a great deal since Jim Wales put an end to it. There is still a lot of changes needed in this article. Issymo (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Any real relevance to the fruit juice would be found in finding evidence consistent with the other breakins that Rudy Guede was involved in. In the law office that was broken into the bathroom was used and beverages were drunk. This is the same as in the cottage and evidence of a pattern of behavior of the burglar; a rock thrown through a window, bevergages drank and bathroom used. Sources may be able to be found for these similarites, however, even if the sources are found it will always be speculative because no DNA evidence was taken at the law office. Otherwise, are we making a section describing Rudy Guede's story? I'm not against including that detail of his story, but I also don't think it's all that important.Issymo (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC) I have hatted this mess of a thread. If an administrator believes that there is a real request for an admin action here, they are free to undo this.  Sandstein  21:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Banned user Iaaasi is sending e-mails

Banned user Iaaasi is sending e-mails to myself and at least two other editors in attempt to get people to edit Wikipedia on his behalf. He says that if people don't file sock puppet reports and do his bidding in other ways, it means he is allowed to engage in sock puppetry. I have cut off his e-mail access but he already has the addresses of several users. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

People who receive emails from him are likely to visit his userpage, perhaps a notice there similar to our !vote AfD header warnings, advising people of the problem with accepting his instructions? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. {{ombox}} will do the job. How about "Banned user Iaaasi has been soliciting users by e-mail in an attempt to get people to edit on his behalf. Please do not act upon any instructions issued by this banned user." --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this was necessary. If indeed you feel that it is, mind proposing that this be turned into a general-purpose template for future use in this case? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure either but better to let the issue be known. Some of his emails have been pretty aggressive. If people think it is useful it could be made into a template. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Started on a kinda' weaksauce generalized version at User:Lifebaka/Sandbox/Banned user email alert. It's wanting for some things, so feel free to have at it and use it if/when it's ready. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought - perhaps it would be better to also ask them to report the contents of the email somewhere? This way if the user creates sockpuppets to evade his ban, we will be able to tell a lot more easily and revert/block appropriately. The Helpful One 01:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• I like Chris's thoughtful idea, above.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

He already has behaviours that will tip us off to any socking, and his favourite articles are heavily watched. I noted on his talk page that e-mails soliciting edits had been received; if an when an un-ban motion begins, I can report the contents if required. Merely the fact that he has been behaving this way will not look good if he attempts an un-ban. Lifebaka, your template draft is good. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

BRICS

An ongoing edit war regarding the flags on this article started several days ago:

BRICS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• 1

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

• 2

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

• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6

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

• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10

Fry1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 11
• 12
• 13

Curb Chain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 14

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

• 15

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

• 16
• 17
• 18
• 19
• 20
• 21
• 22Curb Chain (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This is definitely a lame war. This is a fight over little pictures of flags in the infobox? I would suggest a full protection until the nonsense is sorted out. Let folks argue it out on the talk page, but the recent history of that page is a mess. I'd do it myself but I've got too many pots on the stove as it is. Let folks argue it out on the talk page, but the recent history of that page is a mess. -- Atama頭 00:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Article full-protected 3 days. Personally, I am surprised this wasn't done earlier. –MuZemike 00:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/MuZemike -- article protection in a manner such as this assists the warriors in directing their energies towards more productive ways of sorting out the matter.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

A sockpuppet IP 88.108.224.95 is active again

This IP, which has been listed among the suspected sockpuppets of the indefinitely blocked user Marknutley/Tentontunic [5], is active again in the Communist terrorism article, and continues to edit in the same vein [6].--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Uploadvirus

I'm done with this, no admin action required. BelloWello (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Uploadvirus (talk · contribs) I would like to enter into the record on this page, for possible admin action, that this user has been engaging in a lot of violations of WP:CIVIL lately. After posting this rant about an administrator (which was removed), he came to my talk page accusing me of being a sock-puppet, saying in part, "NANOGRAM of credibility! And worse still ... you're not even a convincing puppet!!! WHOAAAA - you're a scary person!," which I find unacceptable. I can only assume that the claim of sock-puppetry is in reference to this report made by a SPA who hasn't returned after a 24 hour block. BelloWello (talk) 06:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC) And in response to BelloWello, I say I would not object to a short block, just to prove 2 points I've been TRYING to make - that Kwamikagami can get away with "edits of mass destruction" over a period of months or years with NO repercussions whatsoever - as evidenced by searching ANI archives - but let some of the aggrieved speak up out of frustration, and there's block threats and demands raining down on them like artillery in the Battle of Stalingrad! Also, that there is a cart and a horse, and that seems folks don't know which ones in front! Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Again, mor accusations, little good faith. BelloWello (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Once again, BelloWello ... an incident or two or three, and good faith is of course assumed. After many, many extremely problematic and damaging incidents, good faith becomes arguably much harder to assume. The record is absolutely clear - do a search of the ANI archives, and investigate a little bit. Then please feel free to respond directly to my statements. You have, as yet, to respond to my evidence that is in the record, all that is very clear in the archives, and on his talk page. And as an aside, why did you start in on me, of all people? Where's MY assumption of good faith? And your accusation that I am being unfair to this editor, then how do you explain that A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER of other folks AGREE with my EVIDENCE AND POINTS, just not with the way I blew up. Are THEY crazy too? Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Yes, of course, the accusation of my being a sock puppet full of sarcasm has everything to do with Kwami. I see a pattern of incivility, and it's not from Kwami. BelloWello (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC) I'm just going to let this go, although I don't appreciate having an editor of 15 months jump in with a sarcastic remark about socking because a SPA account chose to file a report. The purpose of any block, etc. is to prevent further outbursts, and he seems to to have cooled down significantly from when he started to personally attack me for my single comment on the previous thread. Once again, closing and hopefully this will be archived soon. BelloWello (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Wtshymanski failing to work collaboratively

Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an established and knowledgable editor whose valuable contributions are regrettably overshadowed by his inability to work consensually. There have been many discussions with and about him on his talk page and at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts but the behaviour continues; we are now at the point where admin involvement is needed.

Background information:

• User_talk:Wtshymanski
• Special:Contributions/Wtshymanski
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Wtshymanski_and_the_transistor_AfDs

The background information shows a pattern of removing articles by all means possible. I first initiated discussion on his talk page soon after I first encountered him: he mass-nominated many semiconductor articles for deletion; the proposals were resoundingly rejected, but despite this he went on to try removal by other means:

• AfD for BC548
• Following closure of AfD: pare article down, tag for notability concerns and suggest merge of much-reduced article: [7]

This behaviour, repeated often, led to:

• Me initiating discussion on their talk page
• Another editor initiating discussion on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts.

Both of those discussions (linked to in the Background information) give considerable detail of the editing patterns and the many attempts of editors to reach a consensual resolution. Wtshymanski acknowlendges that he cannot accept the consensus but rather than learn to live with it or move on, he continues to do all he can to delete content he finds inappropriate.

The pare-and-merge behaviour is particularly concerning, best illustrated by articles on batteries:

• Pare and tag merge proposal at N battery. Note that although the article was tagged for merge, no rationale was given on the talk page as required by Help:Merging
• Redirect without any discussion
• Reversion by me and discussion (part of same initiated discussion linked to above)
• Repeat of redirect
• Suggestion by me to propose merge correctly
• Reversion of redirect by another editor
• Edit warring by Wtshymanski to restore redirect
• Reversion by a third editor
• Tag for merge proposal and talk page discussion (also for two other batteries, plus C battery was tagged for merge and linked to the same discussion but not mentioned in the discussion).
• Responses to merge, exclusively in opposition
• Merge against consensus

This merge was reverted and discussed at WP:Wikiquette_alerts#Wtshymanski_and_the_transistor_AfDs. I hoped it could still be resolved, however more recently we have:

• Redirect of C battery with no consensus

Can an admin look into this all this? Thanks! RichardOSmith (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) One thing that leaps out at me when I review the user's contribution history is an extensive list of edits that remove content from articles, attempts to delete or merge articles, and other similar activity. What I do NOT see is work that adds material or otherwise clearly improves article content. Further, the actual article edits pare content back to the point where context is lost to someone who is not conversant with the terminology or jargon, all in the name of getting articles to conform to IEC "standards". I'm used to writing tersely for some audiences, but the history described calls me to remind the editor that there's a huge difference between a precis and an article, and Wikipedia's goal is to provide informative articles, not terminology-laden precis that refer the reader to manufacturers' specification sheets or the IEC (if the IEC can be found online for free...which I doubt, although I haven't gone looking for it). Just my 2p worth. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Not to get technical here, but this sort of problem is the exact reason that WP:RFCU exists: What we have is a user who is asking for an assessment of another user's behavior, which is EXACTLY what a Request for Comment is supposed to do. Generally, admins need to see evidence that the problem is a problem for more than just one person before issueing any sanctions; unilateral requests by User A to sanction User B, with no corroborating support, don't get anywhere. I would try RFCU and other aspects of WP:DR before coming straight to admins; at least it shows you have literally exhausted every avenue before requesting formal sanctions; and that makes sanctions a more reasonable conclusion. --Jayron32 20:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"evidence that the problem is a problem for more than just one person"

Did you read any of the linked pages? 8-(

WQA is a pointless exercise. RFCU is an excuse to attack the person posting there, not the person complained of. ANI, for all its faults, does sometimes do somethign useful. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for your comments, Jayron. For clarity: (a) See the Wikiquette link: bringing the subject here for Admin attention was discussed in advance because that forum seemed to have reached its limit; this is not a unilateral User A vs User B issue; (b) I made no request for sanctions - just for admin eyes on the issue. I have always hoped this could be resolved amicably and an admin's comment may well convey the wisdom and authority needed without the need for sanctions. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: "evidence that the problem is a problem for more than just one person", I have a big problem with Wtshymanski's behavior as well. Guy Macon (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm also concerned with his edits to Salsa (dance), where he merged the content of Lady Styling into the article. The editor didn't notice that Lady Styling was originally a promotional article whose only references were to the website of a professional dancer. These references were removed as spam leaving a completely unreferenced article, and no wonder: a quick Google search shows that the phrase "lady styling" has no specific connection to salsa dancing. The editor should have made sure before merging that the content had some basis in reality and wasn't the invention of a PR hack. It's obvious to me that he didn't do this; when challenged after the merge, he admitted that he didn't know much about salsa, then told the editor challenging the merge to "fix it" "if" there was a problem. (He also structured the merged content in a way that made it look like "lady dancing" was a specific type of salsa, like New York and Cuban.) It's not other editors' jobs to fix poorly thought out merges; editors should not merge articles until they have consensus and unless they know enough about the subject to avoid this kind of error. The editor should have PRODed or AFDed Lady Styling instead. --NellieBly (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The situation with Salsa (dance) is an interesting variation on Wtshymanski's pattern of behavior. Normally he concentrates his "delete by any means possible" behavior on engineering topics, an area he knows something about. Now he is branching out into other areas. I am guessing that this has something to do with the fact that he keeps a running count on his talk of how many articles he has tried to get rid of and how many attempts have succeeded. From what you write above, it appears that Lady Styling was a good candidate for a PROD, but has developed a bad habit of trying to get rid of articles in ways that avoid him having to seek consensus or collaboration. In essence, the part of Wikipedia that covers Salsa Dance was a victim of an isolated drive-by shooting, while the part of Wikipedia that covers Engineering is dealing with the same shooter acting as a sniper who targets multiple victims. If we solve one problem, we will solve the other problem as well. Guy Macon (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that W has been a continuing pain in the butt, at 2N7000 among other places. He's got a real negative attitude and behavior toward articles and editors that he disagrees with. Failure to work collaboratively is a good term for it. On the other hand, I'm not sure what can be done about it. It's probably not a blockable offense to be a jerk and hard to work with. An RFCU might be a chance to give him some community input, but it seems that he has had plenty of that, and just doesn't care what others think. Dicklyon (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. We aren't going to change him, and he is a net positive. The way we deal with disruption is a bit of a blunt instrument. We cannot make him play well with others, and his faults are less than his positives.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

How about a WP:PRESERVE parole. If he removes info (other than obvious vandalism, BLP/copyvios, etc) from an article he should transfer it to the talk page so other editors can decide what to do with it. Most of his editing that I've looked at is plain destructive, removing useful reference info indiscriminately. He's intelligent but seems to have an MPOV problem. It's possible that he's a net positive and that I just haven't looked closely enough to see that, but I think some changes are necessary. Note: I commented on some of the transistor afd's when they were going on. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 06:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Links to "plain destructive" actions?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I cannot speak for which edits IP found to be destructive (though he said "most"), but in the interest of keeping the discussion moving, the links I submitted in the report serve as good examples. Re. "net postitive": I made it clear in opening that Wtshymanski is an "established and knowledgable editor [who has made] valuable contributions" and I agree with that assertion. A lesser contributor would have been templated, reported at WP:AIV and, I would hope, blocked for a while so they got the message. I am not seeking a block here. However, I am seeking that some message be given - I strongly disagree that the reported behaviour is in any way tolerable by being "offset" by positive contributions and it's a dangerous signal to suggest that it is. As a first step, Wtshymanski could simply be asked to desist. If that proved ineffective then topic bans or other carefully targetted sanctions would be a possible (but regrettable) "non-blunt" option - but there's no need to consider that at this stage. RichardOSmith (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yet another one of these? I guess I'll add my two cents. My one run in with this editor was rather poor, to say the least.[8][9] This editor has an absolute blatant disregard for other human beings.[10][11] They routinely blank attempts at discussion, telling editors to go away, accusing them of harassment, threatening to block them, or just telling them to take it to the talk page instead actually ackowledging the discussion that involves them. At the very least, you get an uncivil, snobbish, stuck up, I-know-everything-and-your-clearly-an-ignoramous response. Since this editor routinely chooses to avoid such avenues of collaboration, perhaps they should be restricted to a 1RR? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read all the above. I object to the characterization of most of my edits as "destructive" and to the statement that I don't add content. In addition to vandalism reverts that seem to take up between 1/3 and 1/2 my edits, I routinely add references, add links, expand stubs, merge fragments, copyedit loose prose - and hopefully I fix more spelling errors than I introduce ( see any 500 edits in my contribution history, it's pretty uniformly present, I think). I prefer articles to be compact overviews of a subject and I find lists of part numbers to be quite inadequate (although very popular) substitutes for real encyclopedia articles. I can't control what other people think of me, I'm astonished that some editors act as if emotionally invested in fairly minute subjects. I don't believe I'm acting at all in contradiction with the stated goals of the project, namely, writing an encyclopedia. I don't threaten blocks, though I have pointed out that people can be blocked for such things as repeated vandalism - I never make threats I don't have the capacity and intent to carry out. Disagreeing with people on the Wikipedia gets a lot of negative attributes projected; seems to reveal more about the projectors than the projected. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Checking about the last 500 edits in article space, I see about 39% general copyediting, 15% reversion of spam and vandalism, 5% addition of links, 3% addition of references, 32% other edits (such as tagging for PROD or merge) and about 6% merging and redirecting. This covers article space edits from April 8 to April 25, and is based on looking at my edit summaries. This has been an unusual time because I've been following up the deadend pages category and I seem to be reverting less vandalism than at some other times. The "other edits" category may include such things as tagging, nominating for speedy or prod, afd nominations, and any edit I didn't summarize as mostly belonging to the other categories. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Counting edits seems to be the wrong way to determine whether his contributions are a net positive. His positive contributions (like most edits on Wikipedia) are incremental improvements. His negative contributions consist of nuking articles and annoying other editors. All it takes is for one contributing editor to throw up his hands and stop editing the engineering pages to erase all of Wtshymanski's positive contributions. Guy Macon (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggested Remedy

The situation we are facing with Wtshymanski is this:

(1) Generally valuable contributions, knowledgeable on engineering topics. Very good at vandalism removal. Does good research.

(2) Moderates his civility level so as to make it clear that he has a low regard for Wikipedia and its editors without blatantly violating policy.

(3) Refuses to seek consensus, strongly believes that in almost all cases he is right and others are wrong.

(4) Maintains an attitude about what should be removed from Wikipedia that is against consensus; hyperdeletionism.

In my opinion, the usual remedies such as topic bans or total bans are not appropriate responses to the above. Instead, I suggest a ban on activities that delete articles (Speedy, Prod, AfD, Merge) and a limit of two non-vandalism reverts per article per day to address edit warring. He should be free to suggest Speedy, Prod, AfD or Merge on article or user talk pages, but not to initiate those actions himself. In addition, he should be reminded to seek consensus. In my opinion, this narrow set of restrictions would address the destructive behavior while leaving him free to make constructive edits. Comments? Guy Macon (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Good summary. I don't want to divide opinion otherwise nothing will be done, but I don't see the point of a Speedy/Prod/AfD ban - those don't, of themselves, remove content; indeed, they draw in others so that any deletions or removal of content are considered first by the community. I would, in fact, encourage more use of these forums (at least, as an alternative to going ahead with an undiscussed mass removal of content) because of that. The prune/merge behaviour bothers me, but banning any merge actions will leave only the options of nomination for deletion and/or prune so I can't see that working. However, despite my having previously directed Wtshymanski to Help:Merging ([12]) he still has a habit of tagging articles he wants deleted without also tagging the proposed merge target or setting up a talk page discussion, and then just going ahead with a merge/redirect after only a few days, eg at Switched-mode power supply applications, Peg bar, Lady Styling. That's clearly wrong and he should be warned for it. Worse still is the kind of thing I originally cited where he does nominate properly, the proposal is rejected and he goes ahead anyway. What I would like to see is:

1. Admonishment for the behaviour I cited
2. Reminder of the proper merge proposal process
3. Reminder of the severity of edit warring. I rather like the earlier suggestion of 1RR (or rather, the promise of it if the edit warring doesn't stop).

On the other hand, I don't feel we should force a restriction on Wtshymanski's editing at this stage - rather, he should be made very aware there's a line and he's crossed it.

Unfortunately, despite the evidence presented, there has been no rush of admin condemnation so Wtshymanski is hardly likely to be feeling any reason to change. I believe that of the people who have commented here so far, only two are admins and their responses were "try another forum" and "we aren't going to change him, and he is a net positive". RichardOSmith (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I want to just add that while this person's edits might be a net positive, Wtshymanski's systematic discouragement of other editors, especially novice editors that Wikipedia needs more of, erases the value of his edits. In many cases, the edit is fine but the edit summary is snarky and rude, driving away yet another new contributor. There is something wrong with Wikipedia that this level of offensive behavior is tolerated on the grounds that he is an old boy who has been in the club a long time. It ought to be the case that a veteran editor is held to a higher standard rather than letting them habitually bite the newbies. Wtshymanski needs to be given a substantive motivation to change his demeanor, and if his behavior does not improve, then stronger remedies should be used. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

"And yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest."[13] -- Wtshymanski

Guy Macon (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

He seems to have added a lot of good content and contributed to the removal of a lot of bad content. I disagree with the characterization that if one editor quits because of his comments, then he is a net negative, we are not comparing equals. This is a highly active editor that has added a lot of useful content and improved a lot of content on this project. If his discouragement results in the loss of a semi-active editor who is attempting to edit areas where he doesn't have expertise, so be it. As an aside, he has also been the subject of unnecessarily harsh comments: [14]. BelloWello (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not just scaring off newbies that's a concern - there's also several more experienced editors wasting time clearing up the mess. But that is secondary to me - at the risk of labouring the point, the real travesty here is the total lack of of admin interest. It's one thing that there's an editor going round with total disregard for procedure and collective opinion (that's not of itself especially unusal); it's quite another that he's aparrently doing it with total impunity. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

And I don't believe it's about scaring off one editor. I suppose I'm guilty of that; anyone is. It's about biting dozens of newbies, year in and year out. Twenty? Thirty editors? More? An active Wikipedian can accomplish much in a few years. Wtshymanski was civil and mostly strictly business from 2004 to 2008. Somewhere around 2009, he started adding little personal attacks and AGF fouls in edit summaries and talk comments, at a rate of something like 4,000 edits a year for the last four years.

Realistically, it isn't asking much at all for Wtshymanski to keep posting the 95% of his contributions that are civil, and to censor the 5% of meanness, sarcasm, and non-AGF he adds at the end of his comments. I've done it too -- I know the temptation. But it's possible to do better. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not just about scaring off newbies, although I am sure that is happening. Andy Dingley is a veteran editor with many contributions, and he said "This is not the working atmosphere we're supposed to have to put up with. This editor's behaviour is intolerable." Guy Macon (talk) 08:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Persistent editing abuse by User:TrackConversion

TrackConversion has recently registered and proceeded to cause utter mayhem to articles and categories associated with railway gauges. He has made changes to hundreds of articles and renamed dozens of categories without consensus and despite numerous warnings. Whilst he has engaged in the ensuing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains, his approach has been aggressive and dogmatic - meanwhile he continues to make changes as if they have been agreed by the community, which clearly they have not. I have yet to see a more blatant disregard of Wiki consensus. I would ask that the following measures are considered:

• A temporary ban (at least 2-3 weeks) while the community catches up with the chaos created and debates the way ahead. His view is already clear from the aforementioned discussion.
• An investigation into sockpuppetry. For a newbie he is remarkably well versed in Wiki procedure and his username rather suggests he registered with one aim in mind - to change railway track articles and categories. May also be the same as a banned user on German Wikipedia. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

copied from user talk:Bermicourt

"Despite my initial comments at WT:TWP, TC was obviously not a newbie as he had knowledge of how to post links to interwiki articles. The comment about the edits to Template:Rail gauges led me to investigate editing history of that template. One doesn't have to go down too far to find TrackConnect (talk · contribs), who turns out to be a blocked confirmed sockpuppet of Schwyz (talk · contribs), and is suspected to be (and probably is) a sockpuppet of Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs), who is banned from editing Wikipedia per the decision of the Community at large. Reading the ban proposal discussion, I see many examples of the behaviour displayed there shown by TC."

Therefore I think it is probable that TC is another sock. As the sockmaster is banned, editors should be free to revert all edits without further discussion should this be proved. Mjroots (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Copied from user talk:Mjroots

de:Benutzer:Tobias Conradi was permanently banned for persistent trolling as well as vandalism. No recognisable intent to cooperate in working on an encyclopedia.

de:Benutzer:Tobias Conradi2 was banned for being the sockpuppet of a banned user.

de:Benutzer:Tobias Conradi4 was banned being a vandalising and trolling account.

de:Benutzer:Schwyz soft-redirects to the eponymous (and banned) en.wiki account.

Mjroots (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The TC username alone is enough to arouse suspicion (see his last several confirmed socks), and my dealings with another sock of his look similar to this, albeit in a different forum. His last confirmed sock was User:TopoChecker, for what it's worth. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tobias Conradi and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tobias Conradi Mjroots (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. This seems pretty clear from the behavioral evidence above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, FP. Now, where' my extra-large mop. There's a lot of mess to sort out. Mjroots (talk) 09:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

User(s) unclear on the concept

I don't want to be Bitey and am at work now so don't have the time to deal with this properly. Would another admin please take a look at these user/user talk pages and nicely instruct the editor on what not to do/post? See: User:Ramesh Heart, User talk:Ramesh Heart, and User talk:Favorite news channel. Thanks. Much appreciated. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Multiple accounts and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ramesh Hart. lifebaka++ 12:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah. didn't know about this. Spotted it through UAA filters and saw it as too complex to do in two minutes which was all I had. Thanks. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for admin closure

Not really an incident, but I haven't found a better place for this: There has been a discussion on Template talk:Drugbox#Drugbox/Chembox merger vs. two infoboxes about a possible merger of {{Drugbox}} into {{Chembox}}. This being a rather big step, we would prefer an admin closure; but there seem to be no uninvolved admins left at WP:PHARM and related projects. Help woud be appreciated. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

edit violating worldwide U.K. injunction?

I'm not sure if this edit to Ryan Giggs whichseepotentionally libellous but the main issue is that it is suggested that he obtained a super injunction from the courts prohibiting a story regarding cheating, weather or not it was him, this might seen a bit dodgy if the acussation is right (or not). I wouldn't normally bring this up but I noticed there was another revdel on the article which I guess was regarding the same issue. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That injunction is from the British court system, right? The British courts have no jurisdiction over the USA. If it's a wikipedia BLP violation, that's a different story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Might I suggest that this be taken to the BLP noticeboard? Gossip is unverifiable undue weight to trivialities, but a new form of injunction with unique legal features (if this is indeed the case) might be notable in and of itself, whether it's related to gossip or not --NellieBly (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not the ((alleged of course) superinjunction is notable, by definition we're not going to have any reliable sources to back it up right now. Wikipedia != Wikileaks, and you can be absolutely certain that if we attempt to circumvent such (alleged of course) superinjunctions by ourselves that we're opening ourselves up for legal problems, Bugs's blasé (of course) conclusion aside. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Let's pull the curtain back from what is happening here, and it happens in every recent case of this "superinjunction" being mentioned at Wikipedia:
  • The U.K. courts start using this form of "superinjunction" whereby the papers are not allowed to report any information regarding pending legal action against some individuals, even to the point of not being allowed to discuss the existance of the legal action.
  • People in the U.K. are pissed off that this represents an unreasonable infringement on civil liberties, vis-a-vis freedom of the press.
  • People start editing articles about these people, putting salacious, poorly referenced, and inappropriate material which, by Wikipedia's long-time standards of WP:BLP must be removed immediately.
  • When this clearly inappropriate material is removed, they use it as an opportunity to attack Wikipedia: "See, Wikipedia, you're just a pawn of the U.K. courts, and are violating your own standards!" or "Look, Wikipedia is so scared of the superinjunction, they are censoring themselves!"
• This is a baldfaced attempt to try to force tabloid journalism into Wikipedia articles by associating Wikipedia's vigilance against BLP-violations with the U.K.'s "superinjunction" thingy. It's happened by this exact method at least half a dozen times this week. We should just stop it. If the U.K. had never issued any superinjunctions, we would still kill these edits with fire. The News of the World (to take an example from the above link) isn't a reliable source, and even if by some outrageous stretch of the word "reliable" it could be considered so for whatever information it reports, that information itself is generally inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia articles, regardless of its truthfulness or verifiability. --Jayron32 18:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't think en.WP as an organization would have any legal worryings since the servers are based in the U.S.. But does this Super Injunction only silence the media, or is it extended to individuals as well? For instance, if someone in the U.K. w/inside info blogged or tweeted or added info to a WP article about it, if identified, would they face possible legal action from the U.K. authorities ? If not, then the injunction is irrelevant to building an encyclopedia, and we should focus on the info/sources/policies like we do for all articles. But, if yes, then a larger discussion should probably be had about what WP's ethical responsibilities are (if any) to protect its editors from legal consequences outside of the U.S.. Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 19:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia has any ethical responsibilities to protect its editors from themselves. If you post something that's illegal in your home country, and "The Man" finds out, then tough. It's your own fault and we can't be your babysitter. I agree with Jayron32 by the way, this is just another attempt to accuse Wikipedia of "SUPPRESSING THE TRUTH!" if people start to claim that Wikipedia is bowing to pressure from the UK's superinjunction. It should be treated as always; explain how it violates our policies, and if they keep crying, ignore them. -- Atama頭 19:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with above and Jayron as well. Just wanted to further the discussion toward what the concerns of the WP Community as a whole would be. The whole concept of this Super Injunction thing is actually kind of scary, and seems rather Orwellian. Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 19:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Any injunction issued by the Courts in the UK applies to all in the UK. Any UK-based editor knowing posting details of an injunction risks being held in Contempt of Court. Any non-UK based editor editing from the UK is in that same boat. That said, The Courts in the UK have no jurisdiction outside the UK, and the rest of the world is free to report such matters should they wish to do so. Mjroots (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That being the case, should there be some sort of notification at the top of the article alerting editors of the Super Injunction? Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 19:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It is unlikely that you would find a reliable source about any injunction. MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Super-injunctions are being regarded with alternate amounts of fear and loathing here in the UK. I'm not sure about the precise implications of a UK-based editor writing something into an article based on his or her knowledge or presumptions, but it does seem from what we know at least possible that they could end up facing harsh legal penalties for that here, including and up to prison and loss of property. The judges making these injunctions (the universal ones are now incidentally known in the press in the UK as "hyperinjunctions" as they are so swinging in scope) have been very clear that offenders brought before them will get short shrift. Wikipedia seems like a tempting place to get round them if you "know" or think you know "something". But of course in most cases few WP editors will "know" anything and anything they do "know" cannot by definition be sourced. I do wonder though if we shouldn't perhaps have some kind of tagged warning as this temptation could potentially end up causing some kind of serious harm to some hapless editor who is basically foolish. Note also that the article on the former BBC political editor Andrew Marr who has yesterday achieved fame by renouncing his own hyperinjunction is receiving injunction-related attention. Presumably BLP watch must specially be placed there and on similar future ones as these persons have by definition proved highly litigious. We have also had coverage in the UK from mainstream media organisations suggesting that these injunctions may well be used to take action against media organisations based, for example, in the US but in the UK courts - having gained a verdict in the UK, these could in turn be later used to extract property here or to apprehend persons named if they come to Europe on an EU arrest warrant. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see the catch. That would seem a flaw in the injunction itself. How can you prosecute someone if they can rightfully claim that they didn't know the injunction even existed? Maybe the solution really is to do nothing...Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 19:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Instead of "truth as a defense" I guess it would be instead "ignorance as a defense." Seems a bit backward, really. Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 20:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This probably belongs at the BLP noticeboard but see also at Mr Justice Eady (the slightly oddly named - in wikipedia land - David Eady) where someone has inserted the text... In April 2011, Eady faced press criticism following a case in which he granted a restraining order "contra mundum", effectively creating a worldwide and permanent ban on publication of details about a man's private life, which involved an actor who had allegedly paid a prostitute - the last part of that statement would definitely form a violation of the contramundum mega-injunction if stated in British media. One cannot even hint in print at the existence of the hyperinjunction here in the UK. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, that is wrong. I added the contra mundum part to David Eady, and it is sourced to the Daily Telegraph, a respectable UK newspaper.[15] UK Prime Minister David Cameron also said that he was "uneasy" about the contra mundum injunction.[16] Neither of these sources goes anywhere near naming the person involved.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What makes ANI the correct venue for such pointless wittering, exactly? We aren't going to block people for circumventing (alleged) superinjunctions. We may very well protect articles barraged with edits using nonexistent or unreliable sources, but that can be dealt with at RFPP as normal. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 20:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that in most cases, the event that started it wasn't particularly notable (footballer beds sex worker, sex worker talks to press), the going to court wasn't particularly notable, the only notable thing is the demented attempt by some UK judges (who have clearly been on the cooking sherry) to issue injunctions that they imagine might apply to the whole world. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as ANI is concerned, the only notable thing is TRUTH-warriors intent on defying that. And as no immediate administrative action is required in this case to prevent that here, we can hopefully close this off. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• This isn't new. Canada, for one, has sought a superinjunction as well from time to time. First point -- as with any injunction, one has to look at who it is directed at. Without more, it is quite likely that the injunction does not cover wp -- certainly, I don't see the evidence above. Second point -- jurisdiction is an issue. WP is governed by various US laws, but not AFAIK by UK law. WP guidelines could always choose of their own accord to follow UK law, but as a general matter they don't. Third point -- sometimes states say their laws apply outside their jurisdiction, but other states disagree ... but I don't think we have to sort that out here, as there has been no showing of applicability.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Joan Armatrading

Resolved

 – User blocked HalfShadow 18:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Could someone possibly have a look at this user and the repeated unexplained reversions to Joan Armatrading? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Only if you promise to notify users when threads are started about them ;) GiantSnowman 16:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The user's entire history appears to be to this article. Perhaps they think it's some sort of vandalism. I can't understand how, though; it took me seconds to verify this myself. HalfShadow 16:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree. And agree.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I certainly would agree. This time you seem to have done that job for me. Should I continue to reinstate or now leave it all to you? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, since he's reverting verifiable evidence (especially without a summary), that technically means he's vandalisng, so I'm not sure if 3RR would apply to us. HalfShadow 17:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have reverted the one removal of the text (@ 17:23) and warned the editor about 3RR as they have hit 3 reverts in less than 24 hours. (now passed 3RR @ 17:50) - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 18:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• User blocked 24 hours HalfShadow 18:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

RevDel requested at Tara Reid

An IP recently posted some fairly sophomoric vandalism to the article, targeting a private person by screen name. The person using the screen name is active on social networking sites, and seems to have posted a great deal of identifying information on various sites. The person appears fairly young, though probably not a minor. Given the complete lack of encyclopedic value, and the intent to embarass a private person, I believe the edit should be suppressed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

ZOTed. And left a blp warning on editor's talk-page. DMacks (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Anglo Pyramidologist at Objections to evolution

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

---

Anglo Pyramidologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is becoming a serious annoyance at several articles, but the biggest one lately is his editing at both Objections to evolution and Talk:Objections to evolution. I would put the diffs for the talk page, but there are so many, you would all get sore fingers from clicking on the links. His point, such as it is, is to claim that there's no observation of macroevolution. Several editors asked for reliable sources, and all we got back are a bunch of rhetoric and veiled personal attacks. You can read for yourself. Someone removed it to AP's page. In the meantime, despite no consensus on the talk page, he has made these three edits, all reverted: un, deux, trois. Both myself and User:Mann jess reverted calling it vandalism. Not knowing what MJ's reasoning, mine was that if someone spends tons of bandwidth making a nonsense point, gets no support or consensus, and still makes the edit, there is no good faith, and it's just simply vandalism. AP has been blocked 3 times. My position would be that a 4th is required. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Baseball Bugs, I'm notifying, right now.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You rang? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand his objection. He seems to be objecting because there is no reliable source given, which is a valid objection, aside from the fact that there appears to be a wholly reliable source. Seems like a WP:ACTIVIST editor... I may try to provide an additional source if I can find my copy of The Greatest Show on Earth... BelloWello (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not vandalism and should not be called thus. Vandalism is deliberate damage to Wikipedia. This is somebody who believes that they improve Wikipedia, even though they are in fact not: they are trying to resolve an editing dispute via edit-warring, which is just as bad as vandalism. (They are also mistaken. There are citations supporting the contested assertion in the subsequent sentences.) I would issue an edit-warring block, but Anglo Pyramidologist has not yet been warned about this, so I've done it now. Next stop WP:AN3 if the circus resumes.  Sandstein  20:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added an additional source to the article, hopefully that will shut him up about there not being a source. If it doesn't, I would support a block for disruptive editing. BelloWello (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Sandstein that it is not vandalism. However, and especially if he's been invited to discuss the changes and has not done so (civilly), his edits are within the definition of disruptive editing. Per the instructions for dealing with disruptive editors (WP:DDE), AN/I is the forum to bring the concerns to. —C.Fred (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought this was ANI? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sandstein is correct that it's not vandalism. It is, however, generally disruptive editing. There are persistent WP:IDHT and WP:POINT violations from this editor regarding evolution. It's abundantly clear that AP has a POV to push, against consensus, on these pages (e.g., [17][18][19]). I think some of the responses to AP actions have probably been over the top, but it's clear there's a general frustration with this editor's apparent obtuse persistence. I'd recommend Anglo Pyramidologist be placed under a topic ban on evolution topics, broadly construed, until it can be demonstrated that AP is willing to work within a consensus (Wikipedia and scientific) with which he does not personally agree. — Scientizzle 20:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I genuinely apologize for calling it vandalism (and I rarely apologize for anything, so take it as heartfelt). It just seems that an editor who goes overboard trying to make a point, doesn't, but still makes the edits is doing so intentionally. Oh well. I'll go with disruptive. Way too many rules, regulations and guidelines on Wikipedia. Seriously. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There are other ways of disrupting Wikipedia that are just as bad as vandalism. To BelloWello, I think this is an activist editor. I gave him his third block for personal attacks (he's deleted those messages from this talk page [20]) and while I was researching the matter I found that someone with a very similar POV and style has been banned from other forums already.   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on topics related to evolution, and any controversy surrounding it (including pages like YEC, which may not immediately seem to be under evolution), as proposed by Scientizzle. Also support a warning regarding disruptive editing. BelloWello (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for this seriously disruptive editor. Just for the record, here are links to his previous appearances before ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive685#Apparent personal attacks at British National Party talk page and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive686#User Anglo Pyramidologist. Favonian (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, per BelloWello. GiantSnowman 21:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No source that macro has ever been observed was provided. A user called 'Jess' then told me to discuss this problem on the talk page, i did twice, but all my posts were removed. The problem with the evolution articles is that they are biased and the evolutionist fundies will not let anyone near editing them despite the fact there is a lot of unsupported claims on the pages. Oddly another user took my claims serious and added a link that macro has been observed, yet i click on this link and it says the following: We would not expect to observe large changes directly. This was precisely my point. Large scale phenotypic change (macroevolution) cannot be observed - i even quoted Richard Dawkins, Stephen Gould and Jerry Coyne on this. All of them agree macroevolution is not observable. So we have the world's leading evolutioanry biologists etc admitting macro is not observable but the evolutionists who controll the evolution pages on wikipedia think it has. I can only presume the evolutionists on wikipedia are charlatans who don't know a thing about science. No evolutionary biologist in the real world (not even Richard Dawkins) admits large scale phenotypic macro evolution has been observed, the cyber-space evolutionists know better though? Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't see you right now, but I still trust that you exist... --Jayron32 21:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked Anglo for two weeks for this and some comments at his talk page. Despite three previous blocks for personal attacks, he hasn't stopped. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 22:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, and suggest a week or two's block for referring to other contributors as 'charlatans' (above). Frankly, I doubt that Anglo Pyramidologist has anything useful to contribute to Wikipedia, but I suppose we should at least give him/her a chence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per the concerns by Favonian and BelloWello. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, per BelloWello. This user isn't hearing anything that's being said, and his tactics for introducing his POV into the article are becoming increasingly hostile. With multiple formal and informal warnings on the issue, I don't see any other option than formal action. I would change my mind if Anglo demonstrated that he understood the issues being raised, and agreed to avoid disruptive editing in the future.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on his return from a two week block. --John (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment by a lowly twig on the evolutionary tree: The cited item in the article certainly appears to describe examples of speciation. Does that really contradict Dawkins, Gould, et al? Or is it a question of how "macroevolution" is defined? Also, I find the article title misleading. "Evolution", or "change over time", is easily observed at both micro and macro levels in other areas, notably in languages. "Biological evolution" is what the article could or should be titled. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Just as Evolution is not titled "Biological Evolution", I don't think it's necessary to retitle this article. With that said, I may have misunderstood your initial question. I believe AP's contention is "how macroevolution is defined", but that's not a question within biology or within the article. The source initially provided did list examples of observed speciation, which falls well within the realm of macroevolution as defined in biology. I don't understand how this relates to the AP issue, however... so perhaps I've misunderstood you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

AP's argument is that Dawkins, et al, say that macroevolution is not observable. The citation given in the article states that macroevolution has been observed. They can't both be right - unless they're using slightly different meanings of "macroevolution". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Do we actually have documentation of the Dawkins quote? BelloWello (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be interesting to see, if it exists. It sounds to me like AP is cherry-picking quotes from these guys in order to refute macroevolution. The fact that he claims they "admit" that macroevolution supposedly can't be observed is a pretty telling comment about AP's POV. Those guys are scientists. They don't "admit" something like that, they merely "observe" it. And as scientists, I'm sure they would be happy to revise their comments in light of new evidence. But it sounds to me like "original synthesis" on the part of the user in question. Also, the "brother" IP noted below has some fairly gross personal attacks in his talk page history, which tells you a lot more about AP's POV. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The claim that Dawkins "admits macroevolution is unobservable" is a dubious one, flatly contradicted by the fact that speciation is macroevolution as defined by biology, speciation has been observed, and Dawkins is a respected biologist who knows this. Until a ref can be furnished which shows that this is a position Dawkins actually holds, I think it's safe to say the sources are being misused. However, this seems like it really belongs on the article talk page, since short of an accusation that AP has willfully misused sources (which I'm not personally prepared to make), it doesn't appear to relate to his situation.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I hear that alot from creationists and last time i checked its a partially true statement to a degree However it is severely out of context of Dawkins orignal statement which is something along the line of Yes, Marco evolution is near impossible to viewed on the MArco level. This where the quote often chopped off for POV he continues his statement: For all but species who life spans are relatively short However do to cross generational studies of species, frozen samples, images, and the fossil record.. we have ample evidence that such marco evolution does occur. This was an interview with I wanna say the BBC relatively early in his polemical career. Mind you I am paraprasing from memory here and its been a while since I checked it out personally. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

If that's the essence of what he said, then it colors it quite differently, and compatibly with that source that lists observed macroevolution. The question then becomes, did the user know the context, or was he just parroting something from a creationist website? And maybe it doesn't really matter, as disruption is disruption. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, AP is blocked for 2-weeks. Wouldn't ya know it - his brother (User:86.10.119.131) has chosen to un-retire & is editing again. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

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

• Comment I just want to clarify some comments above regarding labeling edits as vandalism. If a user is editing disruptively, willfully ignoring established consensus, and intentionally adding content into an article to make a point when his proposal is meeting objections on the talk page, is it frowned upon to tag the edit as vandalism in an edit summary? In this case, I didn't issue him a warning for vandalism on his talk page, however I did mark it as vandalism in an edit summary with Twinkle (intending it to mean "unconstructive/disruptive" and "potentially bad faith"). In this case, I believe the sources used were being intentionally abused (i.e. using Dawkins to cite that Evolution was unobservable), which bridges the WP:VAND gap for me. Marking edits as vandalism is fairly rare for me, so I want to be clear such that, if this is indeed against common practice, I can adjust accordingly. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Not vandalism as such - The very first sentence of the Vandalism writeup implicitly defines vandalism as bad faith activities. The user AP may be misguided or wrongheaded, but it doesn't seem to be bad-faith editing. I think of vandalism as stupid stuff, like vulgarities or "Hi, Mom!" randomly inserted in an article; or wholesale or random chopping of stuff with no explanation. Anything beyond that has to be considered "normal" editing, even if it's contentious or disruptive editing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Reply - Yes, it is definitely frowned upon. Vandalism is a very specific situation in which an editor is deliberately attempt to damage an article. There are numerous examples of disruption that aren't vandalism, see WP:NOTVAND for examples. -- Atama頭 22:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment As I mentioned above, some of AP's behavior bridges the bad faith gap for me. Perhaps it's just my view of the situation. In any case, if there's agreement this doesn't warrant a tag via edit summary, then I'll adjust to stricter standards. Thanks for the replies.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
      • I think of "good faith" as "sincerity". Sincerity does not equate to being right, either factually or ethically. But it does equate to the user believing that he's right. Think of what vandalism is in real life (slashing tires or breaking windows or spray-painting vulgarities in public places) and that should be your guide. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
        • I would also consider it vandalism if someone was putting campaign signs that I didn't want in my yard. It might be done sincerely, but it is still vandalism to me... BelloWello (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
          • That's equivalent to the "Hi, Mom!" stuff. In any case, normal-looking edits are not vandalism within the realm of wikipedia. However, they can be contentious or disruptive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
          • This[21] is an example of vandalism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support While I support a topic ban because AP has acted abusively and edit-warred, this is just one of many topics where AP has run into similar problems. TFD (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban for activist SPA editor unwilling to work within our policies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Topic ban for activist SPA (calling opponents "Fundie evolutionists" kinda reveals a serious POV problem that the editor is obviously not willing to overcome). Heiro 23:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Of course macroevolution can't be "observed" in the sense of any one human being seeing it happen. It happens far too slowly to be observable during the relatively brief span of one human lifetime. This editor clearly knows that, which is why he's very very carefully focusing on this point, even though it has nothing to do with evidence for or against evolution. This is an editor who is deliberately disrupting the encyclopedia to promote his own point of view, with a full understanding of what he is doing. There comes a point where the line between 'deliberately disruptive editing' and 'vandalism' is so fine that there is little point in worrying about it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support We cant please every one, Articles must focus on mainstream views. Editors who engage in Personal attacks, edit warring (even if by the letter not violating 3RR) and the such to advance agendas clearly have no place edit in topic area. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support More or less identical behaviour to that which got a block last time in a different subject area. Worry is that s/he will simply move on elsewhere. Without a major behaviour change sooner or later this is going to end up as an indefinite block --Snowded ^TALK 01:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

just to point out, i think the ban of my brother is out of place, the user orangemarlin is swearing all over the place and he gets nothing, and no offence to some of u guys but my brother is a theology student who spends alot of time adding valuable info to wikipedia he is not a troll or a vandal he just sometimes get carried away in debate. now before u reply me back with abuse calling me a creationist crackpot, i am not a creationist i believe in evolution i just believe this situation has not been handled well and also to the user goodday please stop pasting around my IP address everywhere this is abuse and u have done it now over 20 times, its disturbing. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Not that old "it's not me, it's my brother" baloney, again. GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Vacation time for eggresous personal attack and vandalism! Rev Delete please? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have already contacted an admin here. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this edit summary qualifies as incivil as he called a fellow editor "immoral" and "mean." Regardless of the sock issue, I think its grounds for at least a temporary block. BelloWello (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think calling some one a [pervert is worse personally The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Calling someone "immoral" is close to being libelous, frankly. In any case, it's highly uncivil, and the editor needs to be put out to pasture for awhile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Calling someone "immoral" is nowhere near libelous, especially not in the United States court system. It's really more of an opinion, and the threshold there is just nonexistant. If you say "user X rapes puppies" then you're going from opinion into stating false facts, and that can be libelous, i.f.f. you can assert that it meets the standards set by the Supreme Court in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. in 1974. In short, stop tossing the word libelous around please. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

But he "quit" six days ago...[22] "Pasture" is good terminology, methinks... Doc talk 02:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

As well as troll... what I want to know is why the IP can't be blocked as a WP:DUCK??? BelloWello (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Now accusations of racism and admin bias, admittedly, I probably should not have posted what I did on his talk page, although his continued insistence that he'd quit while posting begged the question... Am I the only one tired of the incivility? BelloWello (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

IP is stable since February at least, I think hardblock to knock out account usage on it may be appropriate for 2-6 months until it hopefully drifts? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

the user gooday is [redacted] though. he keep stalking me and my brother, also he spread my ip address all over the place. im like half this guys age if less. [redacted]. i brought it up on his userpage look at his comments before he delete them. u guys are gonna keep an old [redacted] on wikipedia, but ban my brother? great admins u have here 86.10.119.131 (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Parts of this comment redacted. lifebaka++ 02:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You're not fooling anybody Anglo, we all know it's you. GoodDay (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Again almost exact repeat behaviour, loud quaking and its the same IP address as Anglo P (we know that from a previous admission). Time for an indef on both the IP and Anglo P --Snowded ^TALK 02:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think a hardblock should be employed to knock out account usage on the ip may be appropriate for 2-6 months until it hopefully drifts? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Alternately, we can take 'AP's brother' at his word, and block him for outing another contributor as 'a theology student' - personal information that could quite possibly lead to AP being identified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Duck or not, can someone block this guy for NPA now? Between here and talk:Evolution he's gone way over his,limit. Heiro 02:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Seems the most effective way to step disruption from a committed ideologue on this issue. -- ۩ Mask 06:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban User clearly can't be trusted to edit on this topic reasonably or responsibly. Swarm ^X 11:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

86.10.119.131

86.10.119.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Anglo Pyramidologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Per the discussion above, I don't think I'm out of place to ask that the IP be hard blocked for a minimum of however long Anglo Pyramidologist is blocked, if not longer as a duck sock. Or perhaps separately for violating WP:CIVIL as well as edit warring... Also, I ask that if Anglo comes off his block and the IP is active, the topic ban proposed above apply to the brother as well. BelloWello (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Strike: IP is blocked. BelloWello (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Screw a topic ban, support full site ban Has it been an entire week since the last Anglo P thread? Has anything changed? We have block evasion, POV pushing, personal attacks, and a history of blocks that indicates that the user is utterly unwilling to play by the rules or learn from his mistakes. Of course, barring a site ban, I'd support the topic ban, but something tells me we'll be back for the site ban soon enough. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Eh to early for that Sven The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Why? Sven Manguard Wha? 02:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Need to see bit more of that stuff full site bans are powerful tools that should be used sparely. Two account isnt terrible a simple hard block will do, The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
        • What about indef block? I think that's what Sven meant.. BelloWello (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

oh year gooday ur obsessed with my brother arent you? hes 90 miles away from me in a university in london. you have been proven time and time again wrong. what do i get banned for exactly? goodday is stalking me and my brother, and oranagemarlin swears all over the place and get no warning. this place is biased :(86.10.119.131 (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Kill with fire. If he returns rinse (can you rinse fire?) and repeat. HalfShadow 02:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Hmm. DUCK confirmed then. It would appear the "brother" was watching the events happening on this page when Anglo P was last here. I do remember something about swearing. However if the "brother" was retired, how ever would he know about that? Sven Manguard Wha? 02:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. I've stuck a matching two week block on the IP for the egregious attacks above and linked above, as well as the quacking. I RevDel'd the edit summary at HighKing's user talk page, and I've redacted some of 86's comments above. I encourage anyone else who mentioned the content to self-redact as well. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 02:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I wasn't wounded by Anglo's descriptions of me. PS: Ya peep in one woman's window & you're labeled for life. GoodDay (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Even his unblock request personally attacks GoodDay. (I am not an admin etc, but I thought I would point this out). Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Admin action on the topic ban

There are fourteen supports and no opposes in the thread above for a topic ban of Anglo Pyramidologist. Meanwhile Anglo P and his IP are both blocked, again, so there's really no big rush. Is it actionable yet? If not, we can continue the discussion below. I will also, for the sake of mentioning it, remind people that I suggested a full site ban for this user also be considered an option. That, however, does not have consensus at this time. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Point of clarification that it was supported by 14 editors along with the editor who suggested it, meaning there were 15 for the topic ban and none opposed. If an uninvolved admin thinks that's enough, then that would be great... I mean, I guess we can wait for a few days and see if there's any arguments against it. I would also support a full site block for both the IP and Anglo if that's in the cards as well... BelloWello (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we, in practice, indefinitely block IP addresses. At least not unless they are open proxies. The longest I've seen is six months. I would certainly support a long, but definite, block for the underlying IP as well. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Considering their behavior so far, especially just recently with the personal attacks and IP socking, on top of their editing practices, I would support it if officially proposed, but I doubt there would be enough community support to get it passed just yet. Although the next time they act up it might.Heiro 04:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

My position as an uninvolved admin is to leave this for the full 24 hours, to allow a full sleep-wake cycle for the editing community to comment. As the subject is blocked until the 10th of May, letting this lie will do no harm. Courcelles 04:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The position of the Wikipedia community prepositioned itself with your position before you positioned it for yourself. See Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Community_bans_and_restrictions. The bare minimum required time for any ban discussion is 24 hours. --Jayron32 05:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban also, but what kind of topic ban is it people are supporting exactly? Too many proposed bans have foundered at ANI because at the end it wasn't clear that everybody had been talking about the same kind or length of ban. Scientizzle's "I'd recommend Anglo Pyramidologist be placed under a topic ban on evolution topics, broadly construed, until it can be demonstrated that AP is willing to work within a consensus (Wikipedia and scientific) with which he does not personally agree" is good, but not exact (=legalistic) enough. How about:

"AP is placed under an indefinite topic ban on evolution topics, broadly construed. He can appeal the ban on ANI after the passage of one year from now. Should AP violate or attempt to wikilawyer the topic ban, he may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator for a period of up to one week. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged ..."

.. bla bla, using the standard arbcom block enforcement phrasing. (I think it may also be according to regulations that he can appeal the ban to arbcom at any time. Anybody know about that?) A year would give AP time to demonstrate that he can edit collegially on other subjects. Well, theoretically. What we want quite urgently to avoid, IMO, is wasting the time of useful editors in containing AP's so far eminently useless disruption. Bishonen | talk 00:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC).

Bish, I'd oppose that wording, only because I plan to block him indefinitely if he ever edits an evolution topic again. Or if he disrupts another article talk page, or continues to call other editors immoral liars, or any of the other crap he's been pulling. If I felt like arguing more than y'all have already argued, I'd say Sven has this right; I really don't understand why we're giving even one more chances to someone who we all know is going to end up site banned. But at the very least, let's not give him 5 more chances first. About 80% of the time, his approach here is fundamentally incompatible with creating a neutral encyclopedia. I don't think the other 20% of his edits are worth it. (And yes, he always has the right to appeal his ban to ArbCom) --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

As the first person to support (and thus start the vote on this), this is what I stated in my support: "Support topic ban on topics related to evolution, and any controversy surrounding it (including pages like YEC, which may not immediately seem to be under evolution), as proposed by Scientizzle. Also support a warning regarding disruptive editing." I would take this to mean:

• An indefinite ban from evolution related articles, broadly determined.
• A long term block if this is violated.
• A warning for civility, along with appropriate blocks for any violations.
• Would it be out of line to suggest a 3 and out with these short term blocks? Out meaning an indefinite block from the site?

That's my suggestion, I'll let Floquenbeam take care of it, and interpret it however he would like, in any case. BelloWello (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave the legalese to others, but Bish's offering is fine to me save Floquenbeam's excellent point about not allowing too many further chances. BelloWello is probably right that the topic ban should be evolution/creationism as well. Cheers, — Scientizzle 12:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Fine. I hereby solemnly support each and all ban proposals offered on this page. Count me in, no matter which one is chosen. Bishonen | talk 13:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC).

Request for action

A quick review of this user's talk page reveals that he has continued his incivility on his talk page while being blocked for incivility. Accusations of stalking, this place is run by immoral atheists/humanists, the whole gauntlet. I don't think I'm out of line in asking that he either be hard-blocked for the duration of his block, or possibly have his block extended? For the record, I ask this as a Christian, so any accusations of me as atheist are simply paranoia. BelloWello (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be useful also to see whether that 81 user (his "brother") vanishes for awhile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

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

IP editor reducing penis sizes in biographies of living persons

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

---

An IP editor, 2.225.22.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), appears to be exclusively editing penis sizes in BLP articles. In some cases they have changed the size, in others they have removed the information entirely. Since this information is generally unsourced, it puts one in a bit of a catch-22 since restoring the unsourced material would be violating WP:BURDEN. I have previously questioned why we have penis sizes in articles at all, but the discussion was predictably derailed because the word penis was involved. Does anyone care to revert the IP and take responsibility for the information? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, I haven't looked at articles or the users contribs, but why is penis size in even one of our articles? I can't imagine that Wikipedia should have multiple articles where penis size is something to be edit warred over. Is this something that even needs a debate? Even if it is reliably sourced (and I suppose, like any other factoid, it could be reliably sourced) why it is relevent to understanding the subject of ANY biographical article is beyond me. --Jayron32 20:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. I looked at the history now. Maybe this is one of those things like sports stars statistics? Like knowing Kevin Garnetts height or Adrian Peterson's 40-yard dash time? Still, even if I concede that it might be relevent in the particular articles in question, it should be scrupulously referenced to reliable sources, no? --Jayron32 20:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see much of a catch 22. If the size is not reliably sourced anyway, it would be appropriate to remove it altogether. If it is sourced, then the sourced size can be restored. Rlendog (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• From the couple I spot-checked, I saw either unsourced claims, which probably shouldn't be there or primary sources. I'm ok with using a primary source for something like the name of a spouse or how many kids someone has, but I can see being skeptical of a porn actor making claims about the size of his own penis. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I did wonder why we would need such information. Apparently, the BLPs involved are male porn stars. Thus there could be an argument that the information is relevant there. It most certainly would not be relevant on the vast majority of BLPs. Per Jayron, such info should be referenced to reliable sources. No reference = no entry. Mjroots (talk)

I reverted him, per BLP. Some of them have sources (e.g. Julian (pornographic actor))), if you want to remove all the unsourced go ahead. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 20:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

What part of WP:BLP do you believe justifies restoring unsourced material about the size of a living person's body parts? As I read it, our BLP policy would suggest that such information only be included if there was both a need for it and it was reliably sourced. The issue with this type of information is that the sources are generally not objective (i.e., they are promotional in nature). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Not really an administrative matter. Though I do question the relevance of body statistics in any biography. But matters relating to trivial parameters should be brought up at Template talk:Infobox adult biography instead of here. —Farix (t | c) 20:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have started such a discussion here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Comment: Note that contrary to the closing statement of the admin who closed this, the IP was mainly changing the sizes of penis measurements in BLP articles, not removing the sizes. Also, another editor has restored any that were removed, despite this being a clear violation of both WP:BLP and WP:BURDEN. Trust me on this one, if it involves gay porn BLPs, it will end up here eventually anyway... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, this is still straightforward enough to deal with elsewhere: warn for unsourced changes to a BLP and then raise at AIV if required. Meanwhile, remove unsourced content you find on BLPs as you please. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/Chris C. Spot-on.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ludvikus

There is a discussion on whether User:Ludvikus should have his indefinite block lifted so that he can be mentored. It has been suggested that those who watch ANI might like to review the conversation and comment. See User talk:Ludvikus#Mentorship -- PBS (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Oversight please

and a block? [36] [37]

And although it sucks, maybe semi-protect the talk page for a short time? This is beyond ridiculous. I will be furious if this turns out to be Hipocrite or anyone connected to him. I hope it's not, and don't think it's not, but there is an SPI request for this. Ravensfire (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sarek. BelloWello (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not Hipocrite - Alison ^❤ 23:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• The user is under a repeated attack (privacy violations). I have made a CheckUser request, and when asked if the process could be sped up, advised him to contact the Arbcom. (Is there something else to do?) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Guys, guys. Why are we posting and talking about oversight requests on a high-profile forum? Oversight requests should be sent by e-mail to oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org, and never posted on ANI- as the last thing a potential oversightable edit needs is attention. Posting here doesn't get things 'sighted any faster. Courcelles 22:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Per Courcelles. Even the instructions at the top of this page is clear. Do not post such diffs here where "gapers" are likely to look at it. –MuZemike 22:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Per all the above - please keep these off the drama-farm that is ANI and just send a message to oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org - Alison ^❤ 22:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

User Tom94022 editing against consensus and being disruptive

User:Tom94022 is editing against consensus on Hard disk drive. Five editors there over the last four days, supported by two other editors have collaboratively produced text on the Capacity section (perma-link). After a three-day absence off of Wikipedia, Tom94022 posted #A plea for sanity on the talk page, accused the rest of us as being thought police (∆ edit here) and did a wholesale revision of the consensus text (∆ 1). One of the editors who had been active in the four-day-long rewrite and who is adept at seeking compromise (User:Diego Moya) moved material from the body text to footnotes in an attempt to seek compromise. Unhappy with compromise, Tom94022 changed tactics and simply started to remove text—from the citations now—against consensus (∆ 2, ∆ 3, ∆ 4, ∆ 5).

Tom94022 has a long history of POV-pushing and the notion of “thought police” could not be further from the truth. A (lengthy) reading of the article’s talk page will reveal that Tom94022 and User:RaptorHunter have long used Wikipedia as a means of promoting a proposal (in clear violation of WP:SOAP and WP:WEIGHT) put forth from a standards body over 12 years ago for new ways to denote computers (“A 2 GiB DIMM card”). That proposal clearly didn’t catch on in the real world. The rest of us are trying to give an encyclopedic treatment to explain the simple reality of the current practice and how the different slightly definitions of terms like “GB” came to be. Tom94022’s arguments are tendentious, as one would expect they would be when an editor insists upon getting their way on something when the rest aren’t buying into the arguments. Greg L (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Just like it wasn't the last 10²⁴ times it was brought here, ANI is not the appropriate venue to seek sanctions related to the utterly tedious war over the use of SI units on that article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 20:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Chris, as I will explain below this doesn't have much to do with IEC Binary Prefixes but is all about explaining the current reporting of HDD capacity and Greg Ls disruptive behavior. Tom94022 (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

@Chris -- The complaint that is being brought here appears to be that Tom is engaging in tendentious editing against wp:consensus. That sort of complaint is relatively normal fare for this board, in my experience. While it is true that RFC/U could arguably be an alternative place to discuss the issue, I believe it is the better course for editors to not generally jump immediately to that forum, but rather seek first to address here if possible.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

ANI is the proper place to go when an editor is editing against consensus. The proper remedy (seeking sanctions) can’t be withheld merely because an editor is successful at being so tendentious that the reaction of uninvolved editors is that it is a “tedious war”. I can’t fathom the reasoning underlying such a reaction. Moreover, Wikipedia’s policies are perfectly clear. Failure to sanction in the face of tendentiousness would self-referentially result in even more of that sort of thing. No editor may edit against consensus and then resort to becoming extra tendentious as a tactic to be able to do so with impunity.

And laying low for the heat to blow over is also not a valid tactic—even though it is an often-succesfull one. Greg L (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Greg L talk is close to being now in violation of the 3RR:

• 1st revert: [38]
• 2nd revert: [39]
• 3rd revert: [40]

He seems to think that any editing that he does not like is editing against consensus. The particular two sentences I have attempted to correct came into existence recently and were not subject too much if any discussion. I have attempted to explain the several edits here and here but all Greg L does is state it is his opinion of what is consensus. Note that my edit to remove what several editors thought was unnecessary ("Greg L's text goes into a lot of unnecessary detail about 20th century history ..." and "I support this reduction") has reached a compromise where the unnecessary detail is now in a footnote. Greg L reverted without discussion. The remaining dispute is over which sentence is more encyclopedic.

Greg L's preferred sentence

The practice of using prefixes assigned to powers of 1000 within the hard drive industry (storage) dates back to the early days of computing with examples of magnetic-core memory of 10,000 memory locations.[20][21

As I have explained in several places this sentence is a non-sequitor, the practice of the hard drive industry has nothing to do with magnetic core memory practice nor do the footnotes relate to the HDD industry. Greg L does not discuss but repeatedly reverts. It actually is a corruption of an earlier construction where two sentences were merged into one, creating the non-sequitor. The continuously reverted proposed replacement which is almost verbatim the original sentence is

Proposed replacement

The practice of using prefixes assigned to powers of 1000 within the hard drive industry dates back to the early days of computing.

If you take the time to read thru the history you will find that Greg L is pedantic, uncivil and threatening and has been frequently chastised by other editors for such behavior, as for example:

• "WTF?!? Do you behave this way in real life, Tom? What did your mother do when you behaved like this?? ... Greg L (talk) 04:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Greg, continue like this and the only Nintendo time being taken away will be yours. —Ruud 05:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Greg, please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Tom is a valued editor here, and we welcome his input.--RaptorHunter (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• ...@Greg -- while I understand your upset, perhaps there is a gentler way with which to communicate with Tom, that might serve to "reach" him. Though I'm sure I don't know what it is.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

and

• Greg I advise you to remember WP:CIVIL. Threatening editors you disagree with is not acceptable.--RaptorHunter (talk) 00:53,

and

• Greg you don't WP:OWN, this article and your tone is bordering on incivility. The section had grown far too long and I agree with Tom that this subject can be far better covered by the binary prefix article. ... --Epeefleche (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

and

• Indeed. Tom94022’s logic is self-serving rhetoric that would vanish into thin air if he turned off the reality distortion field surrounding it. ... Greg L (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

and many threats like this

• If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia like this, you can count on being the subject of a well-deserved ANI in a kibisecond. Greg L (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

and too many claims of consensus where none really existed.

I would also note that there are a number of misleading statements in Greg L ANI request.

1. This has nothing to do with IEC Binary Prefixes, but is all about the conventional binary prefixes and the IEC decimal prefixes. Greg L's entire second paragraph is a smoke screen and should be ignored.
2. What Greg L states is "Unhappy with compromise, Tom94022 changed tactics and simply started to remove text—from the citations now—against consensus" is my trying to respond to his repeated reversions of the sentence described above by clarifying what I was changing and why. Rather than my edits being against consensus, he has not allowed any time for any other editor to comment on the proposed change. Again he seems to think that any change he doesn't like is a change against consensus without giving other editors time to respond.
3. A careful look at my original revision will show that rather than being a "wholesale revision" it was a carefully constructed change to a relatively few places, the most predominant being the removal "unnecessary detail" which then by consensus was ultimately removed to a footnote. A lot of it was cleaning up inconsistent terminology, by using powers of xxxx consistently in place of the several variants used. Again Greg L reverted without considering the merits or trying to improve the article.

Greg L is guilty of violating a number of Wikipedia policies, particularly disruptive editing as witnessed by his violation of the 3RR rule, his use of WP:JDLI and his shouting in the Hard disk drive article and associated talk page. A casual view of the changes to the article and its talk page will show his domination of both the recent edits and comments (I will shortly post some statistics). I request he be given a 7 day suspension so that we editors who are trying to produce a better article can do it. Tom94022 (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Three reverts is NOT a 3RR violation - yet. Please read where it says "more than three" at WP:3RR. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• No kidding. What sort of complaint was that? It amounts to a “Pay no attention to those five edits behind the curtain that I (Tom94022) made.” Greg L (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Greg L's history regarding this sort of war is years old. It's not going to get resolved at ANI. There is little point in pleading such a complicated case here. It's going to either need to go to a more formal venue. FWIW, there's literally no danger of anyone dragged to ANI by Greg L under the rationale of a dispute regarding SI digits being sanctioned, so I would simply ignore threats like that in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Methinks the man (Chris) doth protest too much about Greg L to deflect. What is at issue here is editing against consensus by Tom94022.

A simple reading of the Talk:Hard disk drive article, and the lengths to which User:Diego Moya went in a vain effort to placate Tom94022 over the consensus text reveals the full truth easily enough. Five editors with the full support of two other editors who weighed in on the talk page spent three or four days peaceably writing collaboratively to produce the current consensus text. Then Tom94022 tendentiously demanded that things all wrong (which happens all the time on that talk page) tendentiously edited against consensus (throughout today), and did so with absurd baiting about how the community responsible for the text there is the thought police. This is highly and purely disruptive. Tom94022 simply must respect the community consensus but currently has zero such respect; he continually denies a consensus even exists (underlying I suppose, the basis for the charge that the five editors responsible for the text are “thought police”).

In the mean time, Diego is working (again) and revising the text, although I think Tom94022 will be even more displeased with this latest effort. Greg L (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

@Chris -- I wonder if just possibly a focus on the complaint, rather than an ad hominem remark as to the complainant, might yield somewhat more light and less heat? Perhaps I am reading your posting incorrectly, and if so I apologize, but it appears to reflect a personal issue that you have, and contain predictions that are not quite on point with whether there has been editing here against wp:consensus. Where there is a violation of wp:consensus, as is charged here, it would seem to me that perhaps it would be best to look at the facts, rather than disparage the complainant and seek to dismiss the matter due to what you apprehend as its level of complexity. The prediction that you make that nobody -- which presumably includes people who violate wp:consensus -- leaves me confused. I would suggest that we all try to strip out any ad hominem personal comments, and focus on the matter at hand, to see if there is in fact a violation of wp:consensus, and tendentious editing. If there is, we should determine the way to correct that.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I was arguing with Tom on that article long before you arrived, Greg. My only concern is your repeated use of ANI to soapbox over your current pet MOS issue, which wastes my time and that of others over something which has screamed "content dispute" for years regardless of what angle its participants take in bringing it up here. Seek a more formal resolution. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It may be that a more formal resolution is called for, if this AN/I does not address the problem. IMHO we introduce more heat than light here when we toss around phrases such as "your current pet MOS issue". That suggests that the editor using the phrase is engaging in ad hominem baiting, rather than focusing on the issue at hand. I know that Chris is far better than that, so perhaps there is some personal animus clouding his responses, but that unfortunately erodes the point he seeks to make. All editors, but sysops especially per wp:admin, are best served by focusing on the content, and avoiding personal attacks that only confuse the issue.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's time for an administrator too look through Greg's comments and behavior for the last few days. He is becoming increasingly tendentious and uncivil. All of this drama is wasting everyone's time. A topic ban is in order.--RaptorHunter (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Like I wrote above, the talk page and the edit history of the article speaks for itself and presents the real truth of the matter. It is quite clear that Tom94022 has been flagrantly editing against a clear consensus. Moreover, the edit history of Binary prefix article (where both Tom94022 and RaptorHunter spend a great deal of time) plus their tag-teaming on the Hard disk drive article makes it exceedingly clear what RaptorHunter’s motives are here. That RaptorHunter recently suffered a 24-hour block for a 3RR violation after an ANI I brought against him for canvassing to subvert an RFC over this very same article makes it clear he now has an axe to grind and is not impartial here. Greg L (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Where is the correct forum to get help about an editor (Tom94022) who watches consensus-built editing over a five day period, and then blithely steps back in and undoes the work?  GFHandel.   23:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Your pejorative description of my editing adds nothing here. I too have a life and cannot always provide real time editing. If you look at my proposed edits I think you will find that most of what I proposed has been adopted regardless of the sturm and drang of Greg L. And for the most part, only Greg L has bothered to comment and then in a dismissive way with little or no discussion of the issues i raised. Tom94022 (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I offer the following analysis of the last 499 edits to the Hard disk drive article and its associated talk page

	Greg L	Tom94022
Number of edits to article	125 #1 of 134 editors	27 #5
Net characters added to article	-174	1874
Number of edits to talk page	280 #1 of 25 editors	30 #3
Net characters added to talk page	103,677 of 193,344	23,640

}

The statistics support my contention that Greg L is shouting down other editors and that the amount of my edits has been reasonable, certainly far less than Greg L's. Tom94022 (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• (*sigh*) More smoke & mirrors. First off, you and I have very different writing styles; I tend to make many multiple tweaks to my own posts so edit counts isn’t a valid measure of anything. Between you and RaptorHunter (who tag-team like two dogs on a porcupine on all-things IEC prefixes), you two have 89 posts on the talk page there to my 100, so your “shouting down”’ defense crumbles. Moreover, your posts have the luxury of being short ones that throw out non-factual assertions whereas my posts tend to be longer and logically laid out to dispute them. So it should come as no surprise to anyone that I am one of the seven members of the consensus group. But this difference in approach to discussing things on the talk page is one of the handicaps that patient editors labor under when dealing with tendentious editors such as yourself. So please desist with the “Greg L has smelly arm pits”-defense, Tom94022.

  Now, were you are were you not editing against consensus on the Hard disk drive article today? If not, then please enlighten us as to just how you arrive at the conclusion that you were editing along with with the community consensus.

  And please also, while you’re at it, enlighten us as to how your five edits today do not somehow constitute a 3RR violation and why you thought it wise to jump up and down shouting the Warner Brothers’-equivalent of “Shot him! SHOOT HIM!” while pointing to my three revertings as if those somehow exceeded 3RR?? Not only were you editing against consensus, you were edit warring in clear excess of what is allowed. My smelly armpits and all notwithstanding, you’re not supposed to do that. It’s quite interesting to watch you employ the ol’ “The best defense is an absurdly false offense” strategy. Greg L (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• The above analysis does not 'prove' anything. One naturally expects the 'leading contributor' in terms of edits of such a dynamic article be equally active on the talk page, or it might indicate a problem of editing by bulldozer. The figures are inconclusive, at best. I'm afraid the conclusion drawn from the "analysis" is thus utterly fallacious. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
• If we were to use data for all edits, it seems that Tom is the leading contributor by sheer number of edits over time, having twice as many edits as the next contributor; OTOH, his activity on the talk page is the exact reverse. Applying the same fallacious logic used in the analysis above, one might suggest that Tom has a "great affinity" with the article, and talks less than he is inclined to force his way. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Please note that my 257 edits to the article began on April 16, 2006 whereas GregL's 125 edits began on April 9, 2011. Also you did not report that the other editor on both pages is none other than GregL! I am first and he is second in article edits while he is first and I am second in discussion edits! It really is unfair to compare my work over five years to his work over 24 days. I suggest this further proves he is shouting down discussion because he just doesn't like it.

• Of course that's all smoke and mirrors. As an example of the disruptive editing going on, consensus was reached that the table in the article didn't need to show the IEC units, and then (unbelievably) Tom94022 created a section advocating a table with the IEC units—with the comment "I hope we could achieve consensus on this version of the table"! It staggers belief, but gives a wonderful insight into the world of anti-consensus and tenacious editing happening at the article. Tom94022's only other support now is RaptorHunter—who divides his time between chipping-in lame comments and vandalizing Jimbo Wales' home page. It's such a pity that hard-working, capable, and experience editors have to spend so much time dealing with this nonsense.  GFHandel.   02:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk about smoke and mirrors, its hard to see how posting a proposal on a discussion page when it was not clear that consensus had been reached. This ANI is about the reasonable changes I made to the Capacity section. It is such a pity that I, a hard-working, capable, and experience editor has to spend so much time dealing with this nonsense. Tom94022 (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If any administrator is going to consider this ANI, I would like to have the time to prepare an annotated diff of the change in question to demonstrate the absurdity of GregLs reversions. Unfortunately I am going to be off the net for perhaps two days so I ask that no decision be made until then. Also I note that GregL's meatpuppet Glider87 reverted my proposed change to the article without any discussion other than IJDLI. FWIW, and as GregL knows, when I use the term "IEC Binary Prefix Thought Police" or its contraction "thought police" I am referring to GregL, Fnag and Glider87, who collectively act as single subject matter meatpuppets to each other on the subject of IEC Binary Prefixes. Tom94022 (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Tom, it’s very simple and is so often the case with you, you’ve done your very best to cloud the issues with a litany of imagined grievances of the slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune. You and RaptorHunter have long tried to use Wikipedia in violation of WP:SOAP and WP:WEIGHT to promote a standard the computing world mostly ignores. That is ending and you best stop fighting it.

  When this whole issue was being settled on MOSNUM in March of 2008 and a widely advertised RfC was being conducted, there your dissenting voice was on Binary Archive #9, time after time at odds with the consensus view. You wanted Wikipedia to continue being the laughing stock of the planet with text such as The Dell Dimension 4550 came stock with 256 MiB of memory. The community did not see it that way. You and RaptorHunter have continued to use tendentious tag-teaming to intimidate the tar out of others who (*sigh*) and just go to less frustrating articles.

  You’ve been badgering everyone on Talk:Hard disk drive to get the IEC prefixes (Porky PIgs like “kibibibibytes that’s all folks”) in a table in that article. All sorts of arguments and misinformation have been raised by you two, which has been meticulously proven false.

  It’s simple: The consensus of the editing community is that if the IEC prefixes are discussed, it will be something along the lines of “Some standards organization proposed unique prefixes and symbols to uniquely denote powers of 1024 but the computing world has for the most part ignored them over the last 12 years.” That’s it. The community has no stomach for using them in a table in an “Oh… Didn’tcha know??”-fashion. It can not be helped that you don’t like that; chaos would reign supreme on Wikipedia if dissenting voices could perpetually wreak havoc. You have to give up on this.

  Now, it appears that admins were reluctant to step in and mete out a quick 24-hour block on you to put a stop to your editwarring against consensus. That you wisely stopped acting up there and threw up a bunch of smoke & mirrors here accomplished two things: A) allowed the planet to rotate until the sun rose in other lands and give others an opportunity to restore the article, and B) you seem to have avoided a block on your record. Please don’t perceive that outcome as fate smiling upon a slimy weaseling tactic where you can just come back four days from now and continue with your badgering at everyone over on that article about how Greg L sucks and is mean and very bad and people who agree with him MUST be meatpuppets and he writes looooong posts to disprove crap I allege and others have to agree with him (but really don’t) and the IEC prefixes rule and we should use them here on Wikipedia often and discuss them even more frequently, all the while extolling the IEC prefixes’ wholesome goodliness to our readers who shall spread across the land and walk into computer stores using such language and they will write letters to computer manufacturers demanding they use these units of measure too! We don’t agree, WP:SOAP and WP:WEIGHT are perfectly clear on this, WP:MOSNUM provides sensible and unambiguous guidance on how to deal with this issue, we’re are sick of it, and find your continuing persistence to be tendentious and disruptive.

  The reality and facts of the matter are clear, the RSs are highly consistent, and Wikipedia’s policies are even clearer. If you keep on editing against consensus, only bad ‘cess will come of it. Greg L (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Tom is required to abide by wp:consensus. After reading through all the above, it's a pretty simple issue. Tom is not abiding by wp:consensus. It would appear from even Tom's most recent post above that he either: a) fails to understand the guideline, or b) more likely, willingly flouts it. His reasoning is the last refuge of all who dislike the consensus at any matter on wp -- an assertion that the consensus view is a cabal. This is open-and-shut. Tom has to abide by wp:consensus, even when he dislikes the result, just as the rest of us do. His continued flouting of the guideline, which appears to have been continuing for some time now, is not an acceptable approach.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Nor is the steamrollering representing the opposite viewpoint. This is simply not ANI material, no matter how well-rehearsed the arguments on one side are. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well… do tell: what is the proper venue when when an editor violates 3RR and editwars against consensus? I thought ANI is the place. Given your first post here, Chris (20:02, 27 April 2011) you don’t feel ANI the place if it’s an issue you find to be “utterly tedious”. Please explain what guideline or policy on Wikipedia effectively states “if the issue has been persistent and exceedingly tedious, then do nothing and it somehow gets *better*.” That’s fallacious logic and if Wikipedia operated with that sort of attitude, the whole place would descend into chaos. Now I’m curious: please advise to the significance of the pirate hat on your user page. Greg L (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

For the last few days Greg has been inserting massive amounts of text that do nothing more than replicate information already present on the binary prefix article. When Tom tried to prune some of that back, Greg reverted claiming a lack of "consensus". [41] This is nothing more than 1 editor drowning out more reasonable voices by putting in hundreds of kilobytes worth of text on the talk page and massively editing the hard drive article with information that simply doesn't belong there. There is no consensus here. In fact the only consensus generated on the talk pages was a long RFC [42] which showed a strong majority saying that table explaining the difference between binary and SI prefixes was acceptable under WP:MOSNUM. Unfortunately, most editors don't have the time or the energy that Greg has, so the table was replaced. Now after several days of editing by Greg, the Hard drive article has turned grown massively. When Tom attempted to fix it, he was brought up on WP:ANI. The only solution to these constant incident reports is to topic ban all of the die hard editors from the hard drive article and let cooler heads prevail.--RaptorHunter (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• RaptorHunter’s allegations are simply untrue. His personalizing (“Greg L” did such ‘n’ such) ignores the truth. Five editors worked on that section: Greg L, Woodstone, Diego Moya, A.di M., and SWTPC6800, who spent much-valued time researching the facts and providing background on the talk page and provided citations. That group of five also enjoyed the support of two more editors who made their opinions known (including my “meatpuppet”, Fnagaton). As such, it was the product of a collaboration.

  As for “massive amounts of text”, that too is false and he knows it. That section grew from 367 words in the body text, chart, and captions, to 521 today—hardly “massive”.

  As for RaptorHunter’s When Tom tried to prune some of that back… and Now after several days of editing by Greg, the Hard drive article has turned grown massively. When Tom attempted to fix it,… Really? Tom tried to fix “massiveness”? His version had 668 words in the body text and chart. That was a growth of 2 words from the 666 the article was at after User:A.di M. had finished with it. So Tom94022’s effort at fixing “massiveness” came up far short of this objective that RaptorHunter says he supposedly had. These are the *inconvenient* truths.

  “Massive” obviously was not the problem there; the problem is that what the community added is not pleasing to RaptorHunter nor to Tom94022 and they wanted what pleased them to be there notwithstanding that seven other editors wanted. Pure and simple.

  A thoroughly unbiased editor, User:Diego Moya has been editing the text trying to seek compromise between the consensus parties and Tom94022. It appears even he became quite frustrated when Tom94022 started being insistent on getting his way and revoked a compromise solution he had been working on in preference for something more akin to the consensus text.

  RaptorHunter: You should have known better than come in here and post that whopper when you were either entirely ignorant of the true facts or were desirous to overlook the facts and misrepresent the truth. Wikipedia works by consensus; you and Tom94022 need to get that figure out or you are bound for endless frustration with what seems like a world that conspires against you. Greg L (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yep, simply untrue, but it is amazing how RaptorHunter can appear to be rational—when the mood takes.  GFHandel.   20:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Attacking other editors here will get you nowhere GFHandel. You already tried dragging me to ANI three times and nothing happened. This isn't helping your case. It's just wasting everyone's time.--RaptorHunter (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't three times by the way, and this page is about dealing with behavioural issues—which is an area in which you demonstrate a wide variety of actions (see above links). "Nothing happened"—really? You stopped vandalizing Jimbo Wales' home page—something for which we are all grateful. As you are aware, many other editors have also taken the time to help you by posting on your talk page: and I thank them for making the effort to help you act more constructively in a collaborative environment such as is required on WP.  GFHandel.   21:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

[43] - You didn't like how i ordered my talk page posts.

[44] - then you tried to make an ANI for me having too many ANIs. Greg and GFHandel are using WP:ANI to attack editors that disagree with them on the hard drive article. These ANI incidents never go anywhere. This disruptive behavior needs to stop.--RaptorHunter (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"then you tried to make an ANI for me having too many ANIs"—what? At least we agree that it wasn't three times. And once again, I'm pleased that your behavior has improved. Thank you.  GFHandel.   22:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Your condescending, holier-than-thou tone is fooling no one. You and Greg have each filed 2 ANI here (3 against me) and nothing has come of it. You are disrupting WP:ANI to prosecute your edit war.--RaptorHunter (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, in my naivety I assumed that when you responded to my post you were saying that I had posted three ANI notices (which I hadn't). Here is where we must part company because Greg L is a free agent and I have no control over what he posts. If you could be a little more precise (and fair) in how you overload the semantics of the word "you", misunderstandings like this could be avoided. Cheers.  GFHandel.   22:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• What is with this weapons-grade inability of yours, RaptorHunter to remember or tell the truth?? Quoting you: You and Greg have each filed 2 ANI here (3 against me) and nothing has come of it. WTF? It hasn’t been that long (17 days) that you were blocked for 24 hours for deleting my posts on that talk page. Was that some other RaptorHunter? Please try to conduct your arguments in an honorable fashion here. If you keep fabricating things (because 17 days isn’t sufficiently long ago that it is plausible you forgot), I’ll reserve the right to point out the truth. Frankly, it seems exceedingly plausible that your block still has you smarting over it and my 21-minute-long block that was settled as being an honest mistake isn’t good enough. This isn’t the place to exact revenge and you should probably have just stayed away from an ANI over Tom94022’s conduct. Instead, your remedy: come here to an ANI of all places to continue with what you’ve repeatedly done elsewhere on article talk pages, where you 1) incessantly conjure up total falsehoods and 2) insert foot into mouth; is a curious tactic. Please explain this strategy. But failing a convincing demonstration for why your method is cool-beans at an ANI, I am disinclined to follow your example. Greg L (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Now who's misrepresenting the facts. My block had nothing to do with the ANI. I was blocked for reverting your premature and out of process attempt to shut down the RFC. It was you, Greg who got blocked as a result of my ANI for editing other users posts without their permission.--RaptorHunter (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

False. Again. Like I wrote above, my block was for 21 minutes and an admin declared it to be an honest mistake (I see no reason at all to think it was anything other than a good faith mistake.) You were blocked in an entirely separate matter because of this ANI I raised over canvassing and then—in the middle of all that—you started deleting my posts. I complained about that too at the ANI (That is vandalism. You’ve done this three times. You are deleting signed posts that I made.) For that, you were blocked. Your attitude of it was out of process and your conclusion that you are therefore entitled to delete another’s posts is what did you in. It’s there in black and white: I have blocked RaptorHunter for a 3RR vio on Talk:Hard disk drive -- I take no position on whether he's correct in his interpretation of the canvassing guidelines. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC) The block stuck for the full 24 hours because of the flagrant foul. That pretty much qualifies as “something came of it.” I wish I understood you. You should not have misrepresented the facts or I wouldn’t have challenged you on it. I suggest you find some other game to play here than “Let’s see who leaves the bathroom smellier after going ‘number two’ ” because it’s not a winning strategy here for you. The issue here is about Tom94022 and you seem to be saying odd things tonight. Changing the subject: Do you and Tom94022 know each other outside of Wikipedia? Greg L (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk about changing the subject. Now you've gone from attacking my worth as an editor to accusing my of sockpuppetry (or is that meat-puppetry?) Anyway, as I have told you many times in the past that just because I disagree with you does not make me a sock puppet. The complaint on Gwen's talkpage went unheeded for this reason. Despite all of this, I fully expect you to accuse me of sockpuppetry in every debate we have. I have come to expect this behavior from you Greg. You will do anything to disparage anyone who disagrees with you so you can look better on ANI. It doesn't work so stop it.--RaptorHunter (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Also if we want to talk about who has a longer block log, then I offer yours. [45] It makes for very interesting reading. For example: Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) blocked Greg L (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours ‎ (long pattern of incivility)

I am not accusing you of anything. It was a simple question: Do you and Tom94022 know each other outside of Wikipedia? Greg L (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't play coy with me Greg. You've already threatened me with checkuser once in clear violation of policy. [46]--RaptorHunter (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I’m not threatening you with a CU now. It’s a simple question, yet you seem reluctant to address the question with a simple “yes” or “no.” Would you prefer I stop asking whether you and Tom94022 know each other outside of Wikipedia? Greg L (talk) 05:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

And, since Tom94022 ducked responding to my question, I will repeat it here: Were you, Tom94022, not editing against consensus on the Hard disk drive article yesterday? If not, then please enlighten us as to just how you arrive at the conclusion that you were editing along with with the community consensus. Greg L (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Request to close: I am quite done here. I suggest that if RaptorHunter and Tom94022 can refrain from further postings of outlandish misrepresentations of the truth here, I’m willing to let give this one a rest since it’s obvious that Tom94022’s wise decision to lay for a couple of days renders moot the point of coming here to get him to stop disrupting the project by his editwarring against consensus. It’s been over 26 hours and no block seems to be forthcoming, nor does one seen necessary so long as Tom94022 takes the proper clue from any of this. Greg L (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Vitalsines

Vitalsines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (alsl editing as 85.211.117.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) is disruptively reveting my edits across several articles against consensus, complete with personal attacks. O Fenian (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely - sanctioned logged at WP:RfAR/The Troubles/Log.etc. Any reason why this was not reported to AE? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

AE is sometimes a bit slow moving (and sometimes people will not enforce the 1RR sanction there anyway since it is a community imposed restriction not a committee imposed one), and this seemed a bit more urgent. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't block on 1RR; I saw that the account was disruptive and likely intentionally so. Indef is a bit harsh for edit warring (at least in the first few instances) as far as I am concerned... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

General disruption is even less likely to get dealt with at AE, unless there are active applicable remedies nothing would tend to get done. O Fenian (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Hipocrite

Lots of heat, very little light. The Audit Subcommittee is available to hear any concerns about the validity of oversighting these edits. Other than that, discussing in detail and at length the suitability or contents of oversighted edits defeats the benefits of the suppression. Time for us all to move on, and I think we all realise- including Hipocrite- that the posts that are now suppressed were not the best of ideas. Courcelles 03:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User Hipocrite[47] has persistently engaged in aggressive behavior, personal attacks, disruptive editing and general incivility, some of which can be seen at the second of two WQAs he filed against me (neither of which gained any support for his position, and the latter which boomeranged against him). [48] Most recently, he posted information on the Murder of Meredith Kercher page questioning a position I stated by posting information he believed to involve my real life identity. The edit has been suppressed. I don't believe that his apology for him giving this information which could Out me was sincere, and his explanations don't seem credible to me. I have never indicated on WP what my real life ID is, nor do I believe that it is usual to seek to learn someone's real life ID and then attempt to use that information for a discussion about edits to an article.LedRush (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I googled your username. The first hit was (but is no longer) your real name. I tried not to reveal this publicly, and gave you at hint on how to fix it on my talk page after you were terribly offended that I asked you about a paper you published. Your assumption that I spent more than three minutes looking for your ID is false. Further, the edit you state "outed" you did no such thing - it included zero personally identifying details about you, unless the fact that you were involved with a paper that was about rural development is personally identifying. Hipocrite (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Seriously LedRush. If you're concerned about any wiki connection to your real life name you really shouldn't connect your screen name to it. I made a similar mistake long time ago and corrected it when I realized that people could track me down which would've big consequences for me. I didn't follow or looked into the whole story (and might not do so) so I don't know and comment on John's judgment in this case. Maybe you should consider a wiki user name change if you feel uncomfortable to be "tracked down" that easy.TMCk (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Per the outing policy, she doesn't have to confirm or deny whether it was successful or not. We do not have confirmation that the outing incident was successful, simply that it was attempted, which generally results in a block. BelloWello (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC) At no point did I post any information about LedRush remotely covered by the outing policy. Hipocrite (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I agree that editor Hipocrite has been engaging in rather belligerent behavior on the article referred to. Badgering editors about everything attempting to keep things out of the article even when they are reliably sourced. BelloWello (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Outing is very serious, but unfortunately if the material was suppressed, I can't tell if there really was an attempt at outing or not. Do you know who suppressed it? The only people who can completely suppress such information are also people who can enforce our harassment policy, so I'm surprised that no action was taken if this really was a case of outing. Where was this attempt made? I also agree with TMCk, WP:OUTING doesn't apply to information you volunteer. If you choose a username that can be easily traced back to a real life identity, you're not making much of an effort to protect your own privacy. That doesn't totally excuse someone revealing your identity, but you should take a little responsibility for that yourself if it's that great of a concern. -- Atama頭 00:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Ditto to your last sentence Atama, although I too don't have the actual information since it was deleted from wiki. Guess only admins with access to it can really make a judgment call on thisTMCk (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I don't see anything volunteered about real life identity, do you? Also, there are a lot of people with that username online with contradictory names. Obviously, one would have to do a lot of work to figure out which one is which. BelloWello (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I think you'll find that there are many "LedRush's" out there as I am often unable to obtain this username or variants of it. I am not confirming Hipocrite's assumption of my real life ID, either. However, it does seem like a dramatic breach of WP policy to search out someone's real ID and then use the information you find in a discussion on a talkpage and provide other people with the ability to obtain the same information. The issue shouldn't be how easy Hipocrite thinks he can find the information, but why he's looking for it, why he's using what he found as fuel for his arguments against me.LedRush (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC) The information I posted did not include any personal information about LedRush at all, except for the fact that he was a co-author of a paper about Rural Development. I did not post his name, anything that could be tracked back to his name (like the name of the paper), his address, employer, or whatever. The information I posted is far less revealing about his identity (infact, it's totally non-relevatory) compared to his username. Hipocrite (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Regarding who suppressed the edit, Alison (talk · contribs) has confirmed an oversight on Hipocrite's talk page. That is all that I know of the matter. SuperMarioMan 00:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC) There is also the incidentally related fact that this user has been taking disagreements to a whole new level at the murder article, now taking it so as to look up personal information about a collaborator. Something needs to be done about the InWP:CIVIL behavior taking place. BelloWello (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC) You're not staying on topic. Any specific reason for this from the past as you're a brand new account?TMCk (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC) It has already been confirmed on my talk page that I have had no prior interaction with Hipocrite or the article in question. This is all what I've noticed since returning. BelloWello (talk) 00:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks, you've answered part two of my question but you left out part one.TMCk (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC) (ec)While the article dispute seems to be well beyond the scope of this discussion, I did have a quick look. Just glancing at the last section of that article's talk page (Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher#60% of American Students say that Knox Case Would Have Some Impact on Choice to Study in Italy, it does appear that both LedRush and particularly BelloWello are being needlessly strident in their attempt to include a dubious interpretation of a low-quality study in what is apparently a contentious article. While BelloWello is right that it may be worthwhile to examine their edits, I suspect that the issue would be better handled in a content venue like WP:RSN. In examining the purported 'outing', it does seem that there is no disagreement that Hipocrite's comment(s) referred to LedRush's identity only indirectly. Hipocrite linked LedRush's account to his real name using information that is/was trivially discoverable through a straightforward search on Google; and it seems that the information was available on pages/profiles/comments published/posted by LedRush himself. Absent a clear conflict of interest or other serious editing issue, we obviously should respect LedRush's request to avoid reference to his off-Wikipedia identity in the future, and the offending edit(s) have been oversighted. Nevertheless, LedRush must acknowledge some responsibility for his own carelessness in maintaining (or failing to maintain) separation between his online identities. He should also realize that he does himself no favors by drawing attention to himself and his identity on a high-traffic noticeboard after the issue has been satisfactorily resolved. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC) " and it seems that the information was available on pages/profiles/comments published/posted by LedRush himself." I don't remember doing this. Could you elaborate?LedRush (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Do you want me to have a discussion on a public noticeboard where I speculate about how I might go about finding out your identity? My understanding is that Hipocrite offered you implicit suggestions about how you could go about unlinking your online identities; I presumed that that meant that the web pages in question were under your control. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC) So postings in the real world made by someone using the name "LedRush" (there are many) means that you can post all of their info here on Wikipedia? I guess I'm not seeing your point.LedRush (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I'll sometimes look up information about a person, using only information they volunteer, at WP:COIN. That's explicitly allowed per WP:OUTING, "However, once individuals have identified themselves, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest in appropriate forums." Other than that, it's best not to go off-wiki to look up a person, and you certainly don't post any info on Wikipedia. Hipocrite insists that he didn't, LedRush claims otherwise, and Alison is probably the only person who knows what really happened. By the way, if something was removed via oversight, admins can't see it if the oversighter chooses that option. The revision in question is totally greyed out to me, so apparently she did take that option. -- Atama頭 00:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Hipocrite admitted he went offsite to seach info about me. His summary of what info he chose to post is fairly accurate, but I believe it could be used to get to the same real life ID which Hipocrite says I am.LedRush (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I googled your username. You are actually accusing me of outing you for googling your username? Hipocrite (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC) You went off site, tried to find info about me, and then tried to use that info about me in a discussion on the talk page which could lead others to the same info that you searched.LedRush (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC) The information I posted could in no way lead anyone to any info about you. Your username on the other hand, needs fixing. Hipocrite (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Actually, yes it could. The username is used by multiple people online, and NO it does not immediately lead to their real life identity, as the information you posted attempted to do. BelloWello (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I saw it, it was serious, as are most outing situations. Apparently, Allison agrees since she hid it further. BelloWello (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC) This is a lie. Hipocrite (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Actually, no, it isn't. You gave out information that (if true) could have resulted in identifying her. This is Allison's summary after redacting it. BelloWello (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Is my summary of the information above - "the fact that he was a co-author of a paper about Rural Development," an accurate description of the "outing" that I did? Yes or no will work. Hipocrite (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC) If that was it, and it was redacted, why in hells name would you be posting it again, twice? BelloWello (talk) 00:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC) yes or no will do. Hipocrite (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Again, if that was it, and oversight thought it responsible to redact it, why in hells name would you be reposting it? BelloWello (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I didn't know (as Atama just said) that edits can be totally blanked out even for admins so I guess Alison should shed some light on what appears to be opinions that differ on what exactly happened.TMCk (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC) If there is anything left that needs to be addressed at this noticeboard – and not just pointless bickering – it would be helpful to have input from editors who both saw the comments and who aren't actively involved in a content dispute with the parties. Further comments from LedRush, Hipocrite, and BelloWello are unlikely to be helpful at this juncture. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC) The evidence that existed is no longer visible, so I would repeat TMCk's call for Alison, if at all possible, to give an account of what happened, if necessary. SuperMarioMan 01:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Content was suppressed by both Alison and me. Neither instance was an overt identification of User:LedRus. However, the nature of the information led to personal information. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC) (ec) I concur. I saw it. It was not serious as Bello puts forth (not doing anything helpful here). Hipocrite is accurate....and yes, sometimes with reference to COI's or Socks, we look things up off wiki. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC) As I've been asked to comment here, I can state that the diff suppressed contained a very clear link to the RL identity of LedRush (talk · contribs). It did not contain an RL name, but it was unequivocal in its linking to this person's RL identity. I certainly stand over its suppression, indeed Hipocrite suggested it be requested (also now suppressed by Fred Bauder) - Alison ❤ 01:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Uh-oh. What Alison reports is troublesome. That's classic outing -- unequivocal linking to a person's RL identity is outing.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Users should also review Allison's further statement at [49]. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC) A Small Break for Focus Most of the conversation above is about whether Hipocrite's post was technically an Outing or not. That was not the only focus of my initial report above, which referenced a slew of issues with Hipocrite. I suggest that someone review the link [50]to the WQA he filed against me for a list of some recent attacks and harassment. Additionally, I find that his deliberately searching the internet to find out who I was (regardless of how "easy" he thinks it was) and then using that information in an argument against me is beyond uncivil and warrants Admin action. That the info could be used to Out me, and was perhaps intended to, is just one of a set of much larger issues, in my opinion.LedRush (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC) You, yesterday, complimented me, saying that my proposed edit was "Awesome." I thought we were getting along so swimmingly, before you, for some reason, decided that you were going to play "run to admins." I wish you'd just stop and discuss the article on the article talk page without trying to get people who disagree with you blocked or banned. Hipocrite (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC) The very fact that an editor was taking a topic editor seriously enough to research a fellow editor's identity online is highly disturbing, and needs to be curved by whatever means necessary, in my opinion. BelloWello (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Let's be very clear - I googled his name when he came in out of the blue to a controversial article with very strong opinions to determine if he was a sock of someone, and then to determine if he had a COI - and we all know exactly who I thought that was. When I found he had a real online presence, and that he had no professional connection to the article I stopped, but I didn't forget the trivial to determine name. When he said he was a co-author of a paper, I googlescholared him. That's the extent of my "research." I'm done responding here. I'm willing to forgive and forget this misguided attempt to get people who make it hard for you to slant articles banned. I hope you are willing to do the same. Let's drop it. Hipocrite (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I'd agree. I did not see the original comment at the talk page, and therefore cannot evaluate how injudicious it was. However, to be fair to Hipocrite, he did make a recommendation for oversight, as Alison points out. All pertinent talk page and user talk page edits have been expunged. In the absence of visible evidence, I don't know what the continuation of this argument will achieve, since there is nothing to look at. Making reference to already-concluded WP:WQA discussions rather changes the focus here, and I am not certain that such a focus is really within the scope of this WP:ANI discussion. Nevertheless, Hipocrite, in light of this incident, will you pledge to exercise greater caution from now on? SuperMarioMan 01:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I will make every attempt to forget who LedRush and Bellowello are, and will certainly never knowingly comment on their identity or anything about them. Hipocrite (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Excuse me, but does that mean you've identified me as well? You are obviously taking this topic area wayyyy too seriously. BelloWello (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Your old username was disclosed to me via email through no research done by me at all. I believe someone you (or an admin you are friendly with) were in conflict with did that research and noticed my question on your talk page. It is also a reasonably trivial endeavor. Sorry. Hipocrite (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Frankly, that makes me highly uncomfortable as the whole purpose of creating a new account was to AVOID such ID. This is ridiculous, so you've gone around figuring out who TWO SEPARATE editors who disagreed with you were in real life? Frankly, this is quite disturbing and I am quite uncomfortable with it. Nothing you can say at this point will change that. BelloWello (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC) It is a way to find out more about editors (and only what they release willingly online) like if they might be sock or meat puppets or if there is a potential COI issue involved. Standard practice not only here on wiki and if you disclose your real name by e-mail than it is your own fault. It wasn't disclosed on wiki, wasn't it? So nothing to complain from your side.TMCk (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC) What am I supposed to do, not read my email? I didn't do any figuring out about you. Hipocrite (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I did 'not provide him with anything identifiable. As you can see from a google search, there is nothing to identify me online based on username. I don't think I'm out of line to ask for an email explaining exactly what you know, who told you, and how you found out. BelloWello (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I know your old username - nothing more. I was emailed directly from a throw-away account. Hipocrite (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC) May I ask that the email is forwarded to bluerox22193 [at] gmail.com? I would like to review it. That email is used exclusively for wikipedia. BelloWello (talk) 02:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I'll do so momentarily. The email consists of "BelloWello was previously known as X" where X is probably your old username. It was sent from an anonomizing proxy. Hipocrite (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC) The issue here, in my opinion, is that an editor is taking a content dispute so seriously, that they went on the internet to find information about a fellow editor, therefore, contravening WP:OUTING. I think that all but cries out for admin action of some sort. Whether that's an interaction ban for a while, topic ban, etc. I don't know. I just think something needs to be done. Note that I am not advocating for an indefinite block of any sort. BelloWello (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Commenting in regards of the very first post in this new section to get some clarification. So your concern that made you start that thread was outing by John Hipocite was nothing more than a "make believe" to get the attention for a much wider issue? Don't you think you could and should have started the whole thing with the big picture you had in mind from the beginning (like you just confessed)? So we waste a lot of time while you had something else in mind? Is that correct? Just trying to get it right.TMCk (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC) The outing seems to be the cherry on top of a very concerning situation. BelloWello (talk) 02:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC) PS - I'm not John. Hipocrite (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Topic ban? On what grounds? With respect, BelloWello, with snappish comments such as this one, I'd argue that Hipocrite is far from the only one taking things seriously. SuperMarioMan 02:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC) @BelloWello: You still didn't answered part of my question further above so I won't respond to in my opinion unhelpful comments of yours.TMCk (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I would recommend that this whole discussion is closed before it is permitted to turn into a swamp of accusations and counter-accusations. Oversighting has remedied the immediate cause for concern which prompted this discussion. Hipocrite has promised to keep his edits in check. The WP:WQA discussions mentioned have long since been resolved and archived - as far as I can tell, the one that LedRush has posted above ended on an amicable note. SuperMarioMan 02:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I would disagree. The user has outed an editor, admitted to looking up information on another editor. That is clear evidence of someone that is taking things way too seriously. BelloWello (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I second SuperMarioMan's recommendation that the thread be closed. I agree with his statements and per my own earlier in a related thread on this board that we try to seek a peace through disengaging. I'm starting to think that the MoMK be full protected for a month just so all the bickering may cease. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the support, Berean Hunter. Your mediation skills shine once more. SuperMarioMan 02:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Rmarsden

Content dispute that needs to be settled elsewhere —DoRD (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Rmarsden have made edits[51] to NBN Co Limited containing BLP and NPOV issues. I reverted the edit and contacted the user[52] about my concerns, but the user restored the edit without addressing my concerns. The user have since broken the WP:3RR. Before I start a edit warring, I would like a second opinion on the issue. Thanks. — [d'oh] 02:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Edit: The user also has[53] replaced sourced information with a statement not backed up by the sources in the article. — [d'oh] 03:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I added factual and sourced information to the article. User D'oh! reverted with rationale that The Australian (one of Australia's largest and most respected daily papers) is not a good source. I have added additional references and adjusted wording to avoid potential misunderstanding. User D'oh! continued to revert my edits without addressing my replies adequately --Rmarsden (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I had a look at the offending edits. I don't see what this is doing here at ANI. There's edit warring here for sure--but while both are at 4RR, so to speak, one could easily argue that D'oh's Rs are nothing but the removal of sourced information (i.e., page blanking, or vandalism). I don't see what's wrong with Rmarsden's language anyway--it's hardly POV, and the claim made by D'oh on Rmarsden's talk page, that these are POV edits that link two characters to some ongoing case, is simply bogus--as far as I can tell anyway. Let me put it to you two in plain English: stop edit warring. I will reinforce this with a note on y'all's talk pages. D'oh, you have no case, and any continued removal of verified information based on bogus POV claims may lead to a warning or a block. If you have beef, take it up on the talk page or another noticeboard--for BLP violations, for RS, for POV, or any one that tickles your fancy (you're aiming at all of them, I think). You may NOT use ANI to settle content disputes. Rmarsden (but you're relatively new here, which is exculpatory), you crossed the line also: read WP:3R for your mandatory homework. Next time, do NOT be reverting, but notify someone--a friendly admin (or an editor who can be easily bribed--I accept PayPal), the 3R noticeboard, whatever--instead of making yourself liable to such charges. Carry on. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC) User:D'oh! User D'oh! continues to revert my (constructive, I think) edits of http://www.qudswiki.org/?query=National_Broadband_Network without proper rationale. Most of my edits are aimed at removing perceived bias and making sure article matches references provided. --Rmarsden (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC) You're both clearly edit warring on the article, I'd suggest both of you stop reverting each other immediately. Dayewalker (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Rmarsden, leave it be. There is a thread already on this very case, right above this one (but you knew that already). Listen to Dayewalker, and read the template I just placed on your talk page. To any passing admin, please close this. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Hold on--you two are fighting on TWO articles--I thought just one. Well, leave it be just the same. Edit warring is edit warring. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Simbagraphix refusing to discuss

Simbagraphix (talk · contribs) refuses to discuss his edits to Southern Adventist University. I was wondering if someone could coax him into discussing. See the threads I posted on talk page [54] and [55]. I also asked him for comment on his talk page. There are now four threads on the talk page requesting justification for his edits. I'm at a loss for a path forward to collaborate with this editor who absolutely refuses to do anything but make edits (many of them lacking summaries). BelloWello (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I got your messages and have gotten into the discussion page on the college Southern Adventist University, and await your comment.Simbagraphix (talk) 04:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment (I think the close was premature.) Recently there was been a rash of edit warring at SAU. The page was recently put under full protection for edit warring, and as soon as it was unprotected the war resumed. Currently, there is a 3RR report by Bello of another user, User:Fountainviewkid, for edit warring at SAU. Does the community need to take a closer look at this situation? Lionel (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment The alternative account BelloWello, created 10 days ago, is making a large number of reports at noticeboards. Mathsci (talk) 05:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Three I believe on the edit warring board (one block, one protection (boomerang) and a pending one), and then this one. Did I miss any? BelloWello (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • There this one [56] about Simbagraphix, and this one [57] also about FVK. Dayewalker (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    • The first one is the same as this one. I moved it here on second though, as two revisions later, you can see. You are right, I forgot about the request for comment on user names. So five. I wasn't aware that I wasn't supposed to use these, however. BelloWello (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
      • There was the long subthread above about Hipocrite; and this posting on WP:RSN two days ago. Mathsci (talk) 05:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Are you saying I was incorrect in challenging the use of a self-published book as a source to call a highly respected scholar "progressive?" You are aware that I was the one who later found a reliable source for the same claim? And, I didn't start the thread about Hipocrite. BelloWello (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The number and frequency of these reports might put undue pressure on other editors of Southern Adventist University. [58] Discussions about the article are best kept to the article talk page, instead of comments on user talk pages. Mathsci (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Are you saying that a small notification letting them know I asked a question on the article talk page is inappropriate? I thought the editor hadn't seen the message! Point taken, otherwise. I will try to use the noticeboards as more of a last resort. BelloWello (talk) 05:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Also, since we've been mentioning noticeboards, I would estimate I've reported 8 or so editors to the WP:ANV, all IPs making random trash. BelloWello (talk) 05:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Discussions about the article should be kept on its talk page, so that other potential editors are aware of your concerns. There is no WP:deadline on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 05:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

User Tom94022 editing against consensus and being disruptive

User:Tom94022 is editing against consensus on Hard disk drive. Five editors there over the last four days, supported by two other editors have collaboratively produced text on the Capacity section (perma-link). After a three-day absence off of Wikipedia, Tom94022 posted #A plea for sanity on the talk page, accused the rest of us as being thought police (∆ edit here) and did a wholesale revision of the consensus text (∆ 1). One of the editors who had been active in the four-day-long rewrite and who is adept at seeking compromise (User:Diego Moya) moved material from the body text to footnotes in an attempt to seek compromise. Unhappy with compromise, Tom94022 changed tactics and simply started to remove text—from the citations now—against consensus (∆ 2, ∆ 3, ∆ 4, ∆ 5).

Tom94022 has a long history of POV-pushing and the notion of “thought police” could not be further from the truth. A (lengthy) reading of the article’s talk page will reveal that Tom94022 and User:RaptorHunter have long used Wikipedia as a means of promoting a proposal (in clear violation of WP:SOAP and WP:WEIGHT) put forth from a standards body over 12 years ago for new ways to denote computers (“A 2 GiB DIMM card”). That proposal clearly didn’t catch on in the real world. The rest of us are trying to give an encyclopedic treatment to explain the simple reality of the current practice and how the different slightly definitions of terms like “GB” came to be. Tom94022’s arguments are tendentious, as one would expect they would be when an editor insists upon getting their way on something when the rest aren’t buying into the arguments. Greg L (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Just like it wasn't the last 10²⁴ times it was brought here, ANI is not the appropriate venue to seek sanctions related to the utterly tedious war over the use of SI units on that article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 20:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Chris, as I will explain below this doesn't have much to do with IEC Binary Prefixes but is all about explaining the current reporting of HDD capacity and Greg Ls disruptive behavior. Tom94022 (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

@Chris -- The complaint that is being brought here appears to be that Tom is engaging in tendentious editing against wp:consensus. That sort of complaint is relatively normal fare for this board, in my experience. While it is true that RFC/U could arguably be an alternative place to discuss the issue, I believe it is the better course for editors to not generally jump immediately to that forum, but rather seek first to address here if possible.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

ANI is the proper place to go when an editor is editing against consensus. The proper remedy (seeking sanctions) can’t be withheld merely because an editor is successful at being so tendentious that the reaction of uninvolved editors is that it is a “tedious war”. I can’t fathom the reasoning underlying such a reaction. Moreover, Wikipedia’s policies are perfectly clear. Failure to sanction in the face of tendentiousness would self-referentially result in even more of that sort of thing. No editor may edit against consensus and then resort to becoming extra tendentious as a tactic to be able to do so with impunity.

And laying low for the heat to blow over is also not a valid tactic—even though it is an often-succesfull one. Greg L (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Greg L talk is close to being now in violation of the 3RR:

• 1st revert: [59]
• 2nd revert: [60]
• 3rd revert: [61]

He seems to think that any editing that he does not like is editing against consensus. The particular two sentences I have attempted to correct came into existence recently and were not subject too much if any discussion. I have attempted to explain the several edits here and here but all Greg L does is state it is his opinion of what is consensus. Note that my edit to remove what several editors thought was unnecessary ("Greg L's text goes into a lot of unnecessary detail about 20th century history ..." and "I support this reduction") has reached a compromise where the unnecessary detail is now in a footnote. Greg L reverted without discussion. The remaining dispute is over which sentence is more encyclopedic.

Greg L's preferred sentence

The practice of using prefixes assigned to powers of 1000 within the hard drive industry (storage) dates back to the early days of computing with examples of magnetic-core memory of 10,000 memory locations.[20][21

As I have explained in several places this sentence is a non-sequitor, the practice of the hard drive industry has nothing to do with magnetic core memory practice nor do the footnotes relate to the HDD industry. Greg L does not discuss but repeatedly reverts. It actually is a corruption of an earlier construction where two sentences were merged into one, creating the non-sequitor. The continuously reverted proposed replacement which is almost verbatim the original sentence is

Proposed replacement

The practice of using prefixes assigned to powers of 1000 within the hard drive industry dates back to the early days of computing.

If you take the time to read thru the history you will find that Greg L is pedantic, uncivil and threatening and has been frequently chastised by other editors for such behavior, as for example:

• "WTF?!? Do you behave this way in real life, Tom? What did your mother do when you behaved like this?? ... Greg L (talk) 04:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Greg, continue like this and the only Nintendo time being taken away will be yours. —Ruud 05:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Greg, please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Tom is a valued editor here, and we welcome his input.--RaptorHunter (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• ...@Greg -- while I understand your upset, perhaps there is a gentler way with which to communicate with Tom, that might serve to "reach" him. Though I'm sure I don't know what it is.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

and

• Greg I advise you to remember WP:CIVIL. Threatening editors you disagree with is not acceptable.--RaptorHunter (talk) 00:53,

and

• Greg you don't WP:OWN, this article and your tone is bordering on incivility. The section had grown far too long and I agree with Tom that this subject can be far better covered by the binary prefix article. ... --Epeefleche (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

and

• Indeed. Tom94022’s logic is self-serving rhetoric that would vanish into thin air if he turned off the reality distortion field surrounding it. ... Greg L (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

and many threats like this

• If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia like this, you can count on being the subject of a well-deserved ANI in a kibisecond. Greg L (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

and too many claims of consensus where none really existed.

I would also note that there are a number of misleading statements in Greg L ANI request.

1. This has nothing to do with IEC Binary Prefixes, but is all about the conventional binary prefixes and the IEC decimal prefixes. Greg L's entire second paragraph is a smoke screen and should be ignored.
2. What Greg L states is "Unhappy with compromise, Tom94022 changed tactics and simply started to remove text—from the citations now—against consensus" is my trying to respond to his repeated reversions of the sentence described above by clarifying what I was changing and why. Rather than my edits being against consensus, he has not allowed any time for any other editor to comment on the proposed change. Again he seems to think that any change he doesn't like is a change against consensus without giving other editors time to respond.
3. A careful look at my original revision will show that rather than being a "wholesale revision" it was a carefully constructed change to a relatively few places, the most predominant being the removal "unnecessary detail" which then by consensus was ultimately removed to a footnote. A lot of it was cleaning up inconsistent terminology, by using powers of xxxx consistently in place of the several variants used. Again Greg L reverted without considering the merits or trying to improve the article.

Greg L is guilty of violating a number of Wikipedia policies, particularly disruptive editing as witnessed by his violation of the 3RR rule, his use of WP:JDLI and his shouting in the Hard disk drive article and associated talk page. A casual view of the changes to the article and its talk page will show his domination of both the recent edits and comments (I will shortly post some statistics). I request he be given a 7 day suspension so that we editors who are trying to produce a better article can do it. Tom94022 (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Three reverts is NOT a 3RR violation - yet. Please read where it says "more than three" at WP:3RR. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• No kidding. What sort of complaint was that? It amounts to a “Pay no attention to those five edits behind the curtain that I (Tom94022) made.” Greg L (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Greg L's history regarding this sort of war is years old. It's not going to get resolved at ANI. There is little point in pleading such a complicated case here. It's going to either need to go to a more formal venue. FWIW, there's literally no danger of anyone dragged to ANI by Greg L under the rationale of a dispute regarding SI digits being sanctioned, so I would simply ignore threats like that in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Methinks the man (Chris) doth protest too much about Greg L to deflect. What is at issue here is editing against consensus by Tom94022.

A simple reading of the Talk:Hard disk drive article, and the lengths to which User:Diego Moya went in a vain effort to placate Tom94022 over the consensus text reveals the full truth easily enough. Five editors with the full support of two other editors who weighed in on the talk page spent three or four days peaceably writing collaboratively to produce the current consensus text. Then Tom94022 tendentiously demanded that things all wrong (which happens all the time on that talk page) tendentiously edited against consensus (throughout today), and did so with absurd baiting about how the community responsible for the text there is the thought police. This is highly and purely disruptive. Tom94022 simply must respect the community consensus but currently has zero such respect; he continually denies a consensus even exists (underlying I suppose, the basis for the charge that the five editors responsible for the text are “thought police”).

In the mean time, Diego is working (again) and revising the text, although I think Tom94022 will be even more displeased with this latest effort. Greg L (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

@Chris -- I wonder if just possibly a focus on the complaint, rather than an ad hominem remark as to the complainant, might yield somewhat more light and less heat? Perhaps I am reading your posting incorrectly, and if so I apologize, but it appears to reflect a personal issue that you have, and contain predictions that are not quite on point with whether there has been editing here against wp:consensus. Where there is a violation of wp:consensus, as is charged here, it would seem to me that perhaps it would be best to look at the facts, rather than disparage the complainant and seek to dismiss the matter due to what you apprehend as its level of complexity. The prediction that you make that nobody -- which presumably includes people who violate wp:consensus -- leaves me confused. I would suggest that we all try to strip out any ad hominem personal comments, and focus on the matter at hand, to see if there is in fact a violation of wp:consensus, and tendentious editing. If there is, we should determine the way to correct that.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I was arguing with Tom on that article long before you arrived, Greg. My only concern is your repeated use of ANI to soapbox over your current pet MOS issue, which wastes my time and that of others over something which has screamed "content dispute" for years regardless of what angle its participants take in bringing it up here. Seek a more formal resolution. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It may be that a more formal resolution is called for, if this AN/I does not address the problem. IMHO we introduce more heat than light here when we toss around phrases such as "your current pet MOS issue". That suggests that the editor using the phrase is engaging in ad hominem baiting, rather than focusing on the issue at hand. I know that Chris is far better than that, so perhaps there is some personal animus clouding his responses, but that unfortunately erodes the point he seeks to make. All editors, but sysops especially per wp:admin, are best served by focusing on the content, and avoiding personal attacks that only confuse the issue.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's time for an administrator too look through Greg's comments and behavior for the last few days. He is becoming increasingly tendentious and uncivil. All of this drama is wasting everyone's time. A topic ban is in order.--RaptorHunter (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Like I wrote above, the talk page and the edit history of the article speaks for itself and presents the real truth of the matter. It is quite clear that Tom94022 has been flagrantly editing against a clear consensus. Moreover, the edit history of Binary prefix article (where both Tom94022 and RaptorHunter spend a great deal of time) plus their tag-teaming on the Hard disk drive article makes it exceedingly clear what RaptorHunter’s motives are here. That RaptorHunter recently suffered a 24-hour block for a 3RR violation after an ANI I brought against him for canvassing to subvert an RFC over this very same article makes it clear he now has an axe to grind and is not impartial here. Greg L (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Where is the correct forum to get help about an editor (Tom94022) who watches consensus-built editing over a five day period, and then blithely steps back in and undoes the work?  GFHandel.   23:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Your pejorative description of my editing adds nothing here. I too have a life and cannot always provide real time editing. If you look at my proposed edits I think you will find that most of what I proposed has been adopted regardless of the sturm and drang of Greg L. And for the most part, only Greg L has bothered to comment and then in a dismissive way with little or no discussion of the issues i raised. Tom94022 (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I offer the following analysis of the last 499 edits to the Hard disk drive article and its associated talk page

	Greg L	Tom94022
Number of edits to article	125 #1 of 134 editors	27 #5
Net characters added to article	-174	1874
Number of edits to talk page	280 #1 of 25 editors	30 #3
Net characters added to talk page	103,677 of 193,344	23,640

}

The statistics support my contention that Greg L is shouting down other editors and that the amount of my edits has been reasonable, certainly far less than Greg L's. Tom94022 (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• (*sigh*) More smoke & mirrors. First off, you and I have very different writing styles; I tend to make many multiple tweaks to my own posts so edit counts isn’t a valid measure of anything. Between you and RaptorHunter (who tag-team like two dogs on a porcupine on all-things IEC prefixes), you two have 89 posts on the talk page there to my 100, so your “shouting down”’ defense crumbles. Moreover, your posts have the luxury of being short ones that throw out non-factual assertions whereas my posts tend to be longer and logically laid out to dispute them. So it should come as no surprise to anyone that I am one of the seven members of the consensus group. But this difference in approach to discussing things on the talk page is one of the handicaps that patient editors labor under when dealing with tendentious editors such as yourself. So please desist with the “Greg L has smelly arm pits”-defense, Tom94022.

  Now, were you are were you not editing against consensus on the Hard disk drive article today? If not, then please enlighten us as to just how you arrive at the conclusion that you were editing along with with the community consensus.

  And please also, while you’re at it, enlighten us as to how your five edits today do not somehow constitute a 3RR violation and why you thought it wise to jump up and down shouting the Warner Brothers’-equivalent of “Shot him! SHOOT HIM!” while pointing to my three revertings as if those somehow exceeded 3RR?? Not only were you editing against consensus, you were edit warring in clear excess of what is allowed. My smelly armpits and all notwithstanding, you’re not supposed to do that. It’s quite interesting to watch you employ the ol’ “The best defense is an absurdly false offense” strategy. Greg L (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• The above analysis does not 'prove' anything. One naturally expects the 'leading contributor' in terms of edits of such a dynamic article be equally active on the talk page, or it might indicate a problem of editing by bulldozer. The figures are inconclusive, at best. I'm afraid the conclusion drawn from the "analysis" is thus utterly fallacious. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
• If we were to use data for all edits, it seems that Tom is the leading contributor by sheer number of edits over time, having twice as many edits as the next contributor; OTOH, his activity on the talk page is the exact reverse. Applying the same fallacious logic used in the analysis above, one might suggest that Tom has a "great affinity" with the article, and talks less than he is inclined to force his way. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Please note that my 257 edits to the article began on April 16, 2006 whereas GregL's 125 edits began on April 9, 2011. Also you did not report that the other editor on both pages is none other than GregL! I am first and he is second in article edits while he is first and I am second in discussion edits! It really is unfair to compare my work over five years to his work over 24 days. I suggest this further proves he is shouting down discussion because he just doesn't like it.

• Of course that's all smoke and mirrors. As an example of the disruptive editing going on, consensus was reached that the table in the article didn't need to show the IEC units, and then (unbelievably) Tom94022 created a section advocating a table with the IEC units—with the comment "I hope we could achieve consensus on this version of the table"! It staggers belief, but gives a wonderful insight into the world of anti-consensus and tenacious editing happening at the article. Tom94022's only other support now is RaptorHunter—who divides his time between chipping-in lame comments and vandalizing Jimbo Wales' home page. It's such a pity that hard-working, capable, and experience editors have to spend so much time dealing with this nonsense.  GFHandel.   02:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk about smoke and mirrors, its hard to see how posting a proposal on a discussion page when it was not clear that consensus had been reached. This ANI is about the reasonable changes I made to the Capacity section. It is such a pity that I, a hard-working, capable, and experience editor has to spend so much time dealing with this nonsense. Tom94022 (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If any administrator is going to consider this ANI, I would like to have the time to prepare an annotated diff of the change in question to demonstrate the absurdity of GregLs reversions. Unfortunately I am going to be off the net for perhaps two days so I ask that no decision be made until then. Also I note that GregL's meatpuppet Glider87 reverted my proposed change to the article without any discussion other than IJDLI. FWIW, and as GregL knows, when I use the term "IEC Binary Prefix Thought Police" or its contraction "thought police" I am referring to GregL, Fnag and Glider87, who collectively act as single subject matter meatpuppets to each other on the subject of IEC Binary Prefixes. Tom94022 (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Tom, it’s very simple and is so often the case with you, you’ve done your very best to cloud the issues with a litany of imagined grievances of the slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune. You and RaptorHunter have long tried to use Wikipedia in violation of WP:SOAP and WP:WEIGHT to promote a standard the computing world mostly ignores. That is ending and you best stop fighting it.

  When this whole issue was being settled on MOSNUM in March of 2008 and a widely advertised RfC was being conducted, there your dissenting voice was on Binary Archive #9, time after time at odds with the consensus view. You wanted Wikipedia to continue being the laughing stock of the planet with text such as The Dell Dimension 4550 came stock with 256 MiB of memory. The community did not see it that way. You and RaptorHunter have continued to use tendentious tag-teaming to intimidate the tar out of others who (*sigh*) and just go to less frustrating articles.

  You’ve been badgering everyone on Talk:Hard disk drive to get the IEC prefixes (Porky PIgs like “kibibibibytes that’s all folks”) in a table in that article. All sorts of arguments and misinformation have been raised by you two, which has been meticulously proven false.

  It’s simple: The consensus of the editing community is that if the IEC prefixes are discussed, it will be something along the lines of “Some standards organization proposed unique prefixes and symbols to uniquely denote powers of 1024 but the computing world has for the most part ignored them over the last 12 years.” That’s it. The community has no stomach for using them in a table in an “Oh… Didn’tcha know??”-fashion. It can not be helped that you don’t like that; chaos would reign supreme on Wikipedia if dissenting voices could perpetually wreak havoc. You have to give up on this.

  Now, it appears that admins were reluctant to step in and mete out a quick 24-hour block on you to put a stop to your editwarring against consensus. That you wisely stopped acting up there and threw up a bunch of smoke & mirrors here accomplished two things: A) allowed the planet to rotate until the sun rose in other lands and give others an opportunity to restore the article, and B) you seem to have avoided a block on your record. Please don’t perceive that outcome as fate smiling upon a slimy weaseling tactic where you can just come back four days from now and continue with your badgering at everyone over on that article about how Greg L sucks and is mean and very bad and people who agree with him MUST be meatpuppets and he writes looooong posts to disprove crap I allege and others have to agree with him (but really don’t) and the IEC prefixes rule and we should use them here on Wikipedia often and discuss them even more frequently, all the while extolling the IEC prefixes’ wholesome goodliness to our readers who shall spread across the land and walk into computer stores using such language and they will write letters to computer manufacturers demanding they use these units of measure too! We don’t agree, WP:SOAP and WP:WEIGHT are perfectly clear on this, WP:MOSNUM provides sensible and unambiguous guidance on how to deal with this issue, we’re are sick of it, and find your continuing persistence to be tendentious and disruptive.

  The reality and facts of the matter are clear, the RSs are highly consistent, and Wikipedia’s policies are even clearer. If you keep on editing against consensus, only bad ‘cess will come of it. Greg L (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Tom is required to abide by wp:consensus. After reading through all the above, it's a pretty simple issue. Tom is not abiding by wp:consensus. It would appear from even Tom's most recent post above that he either: a) fails to understand the guideline, or b) more likely, willingly flouts it. His reasoning is the last refuge of all who dislike the consensus at any matter on wp -- an assertion that the consensus view is a cabal. This is open-and-shut. Tom has to abide by wp:consensus, even when he dislikes the result, just as the rest of us do. His continued flouting of the guideline, which appears to have been continuing for some time now, is not an acceptable approach.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Nor is the steamrollering representing the opposite viewpoint. This is simply not ANI material, no matter how well-rehearsed the arguments on one side are. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well… do tell: what is the proper venue when when an editor violates 3RR and editwars against consensus? I thought ANI is the place. Given your first post here, Chris (20:02, 27 April 2011) you don’t feel ANI the place if it’s an issue you find to be “utterly tedious”. Please explain what guideline or policy on Wikipedia effectively states “if the issue has been persistent and exceedingly tedious, then do nothing and it somehow gets *better*.” That’s fallacious logic and if Wikipedia operated with that sort of attitude, the whole place would descend into chaos. Now I’m curious: please advise to the significance of the pirate hat on your user page. Greg L (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

For the last few days Greg has been inserting massive amounts of text that do nothing more than replicate information already present on the binary prefix article. When Tom tried to prune some of that back, Greg reverted claiming a lack of "consensus". [62] This is nothing more than 1 editor drowning out more reasonable voices by putting in hundreds of kilobytes worth of text on the talk page and massively editing the hard drive article with information that simply doesn't belong there. There is no consensus here. In fact the only consensus generated on the talk pages was a long RFC [63] which showed a strong majority saying that table explaining the difference between binary and SI prefixes was acceptable under WP:MOSNUM. Unfortunately, most editors don't have the time or the energy that Greg has, so the table was replaced. Now after several days of editing by Greg, the Hard drive article has turned grown massively. When Tom attempted to fix it, he was brought up on WP:ANI. The only solution to these constant incident reports is to topic ban all of the die hard editors from the hard drive article and let cooler heads prevail.--RaptorHunter (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• RaptorHunter’s allegations are simply untrue. His personalizing (“Greg L” did such ‘n’ such) ignores the truth. Five editors worked on that section: Greg L, Woodstone, Diego Moya, A.di M., and SWTPC6800, who spent much-valued time researching the facts and providing background on the talk page and provided citations. That group of five also enjoyed the support of two more editors who made their opinions known (including my “meatpuppet”, Fnagaton). As such, it was the product of a collaboration.

  As for “massive amounts of text”, that too is false and he knows it. That section grew from 367 words in the body text, chart, and captions, to 521 today—hardly “massive”.

  As for RaptorHunter’s When Tom tried to prune some of that back… and Now after several days of editing by Greg, the Hard drive article has turned grown massively. When Tom attempted to fix it,… Really? Tom tried to fix “massiveness”? His version had 668 words in the body text and chart. That was a growth of 2 words from the 666 the article was at after User:A.di M. had finished with it. So Tom94022’s effort at fixing “massiveness” came up far short of this objective that RaptorHunter says he supposedly had. These are the *inconvenient* truths.

  “Massive” obviously was not the problem there; the problem is that what the community added is not pleasing to RaptorHunter nor to Tom94022 and they wanted what pleased them to be there notwithstanding that seven other editors wanted. Pure and simple.

  A thoroughly unbiased editor, User:Diego Moya has been editing the text trying to seek compromise between the consensus parties and Tom94022. It appears even he became quite frustrated when Tom94022 started being insistent on getting his way and revoked a compromise solution he had been working on in preference for something more akin to the consensus text.

  RaptorHunter: You should have known better than come in here and post that whopper when you were either entirely ignorant of the true facts or were desirous to overlook the facts and misrepresent the truth. Wikipedia works by consensus; you and Tom94022 need to get that figure out or you are bound for endless frustration with what seems like a world that conspires against you. Greg L (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yep, simply untrue, but it is amazing how RaptorHunter can appear to be rational—when the mood takes.  GFHandel.   20:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Attacking other editors here will get you nowhere GFHandel. You already tried dragging me to ANI three times and nothing happened. This isn't helping your case. It's just wasting everyone's time.--RaptorHunter (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't three times by the way, and this page is about dealing with behavioural issues—which is an area in which you demonstrate a wide variety of actions (see above links). "Nothing happened"—really? You stopped vandalizing Jimbo Wales' home page—something for which we are all grateful. As you are aware, many other editors have also taken the time to help you by posting on your talk page: and I thank them for making the effort to help you act more constructively in a collaborative environment such as is required on WP.  GFHandel.   21:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

[64] - You didn't like how i ordered my talk page posts.

[65] - then you tried to make an ANI for me having too many ANIs. Greg and GFHandel are using WP:ANI to attack editors that disagree with them on the hard drive article. These ANI incidents never go anywhere. This disruptive behavior needs to stop.--RaptorHunter (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"then you tried to make an ANI for me having too many ANIs"—what? At least we agree that it wasn't three times. And once again, I'm pleased that your behavior has improved. Thank you.  GFHandel.   22:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Your condescending, holier-than-thou tone is fooling no one. You and Greg have each filed 2 ANI here (3 against me) and nothing has come of it. You are disrupting WP:ANI to prosecute your edit war.--RaptorHunter (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, in my naivety I assumed that when you responded to my post you were saying that I had posted three ANI notices (which I hadn't). Here is where we must part company because Greg L is a free agent and I have no control over what he posts. If you could be a little more precise (and fair) in how you overload the semantics of the word "you", misunderstandings like this could be avoided. Cheers.  GFHandel.   22:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• What is with this weapons-grade inability of yours, RaptorHunter to remember or tell the truth?? Quoting you: You and Greg have each filed 2 ANI here (3 against me) and nothing has come of it. WTF? It hasn’t been that long (17 days) that you were blocked for 24 hours for deleting my posts on that talk page. Was that some other RaptorHunter? Please try to conduct your arguments in an honorable fashion here. If you keep fabricating things (because 17 days isn’t sufficiently long ago that it is plausible you forgot), I’ll reserve the right to point out the truth. Frankly, it seems exceedingly plausible that your block still has you smarting over it and my 21-minute-long block that was settled as being an honest mistake isn’t good enough. This isn’t the place to exact revenge and you should probably have just stayed away from an ANI over Tom94022’s conduct. Instead, your remedy: come here to an ANI of all places to continue with what you’ve repeatedly done elsewhere on article talk pages, where you 1) incessantly conjure up total falsehoods and 2) insert foot into mouth; is a curious tactic. Please explain this strategy. But failing a convincing demonstration for why your method is cool-beans at an ANI, I am disinclined to follow your example. Greg L (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Now who's misrepresenting the facts. My block had nothing to do with the ANI. I was blocked for reverting your premature and out of process attempt to shut down the RFC. It was you, Greg who got blocked as a result of my ANI for editing other users posts without their permission.--RaptorHunter (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

False. Again. Like I wrote above, my block was for 21 minutes and an admin declared it to be an honest mistake (I see no reason at all to think it was anything other than a good faith mistake.) You were blocked in an entirely separate matter because of this ANI I raised over canvassing and then—in the middle of all that—you started deleting my posts. I complained about that too at the ANI (That is vandalism. You’ve done this three times. You are deleting signed posts that I made.) For that, you were blocked. Your attitude of it was out of process and your conclusion that you are therefore entitled to delete another’s posts is what did you in. It’s there in black and white: I have blocked RaptorHunter for a 3RR vio on Talk:Hard disk drive -- I take no position on whether he's correct in his interpretation of the canvassing guidelines. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC) The block stuck for the full 24 hours because of the flagrant foul. That pretty much qualifies as “something came of it.” I wish I understood you. You should not have misrepresented the facts or I wouldn’t have challenged you on it. I suggest you find some other game to play here than “Let’s see who leaves the bathroom smellier after going ‘number two’ ” because it’s not a winning strategy here for you. The issue here is about Tom94022 and you seem to be saying odd things tonight. Changing the subject: Do you and Tom94022 know each other outside of Wikipedia? Greg L (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk about changing the subject. Now you've gone from attacking my worth as an editor to accusing my of sockpuppetry (or is that meat-puppetry?) Anyway, as I have told you many times in the past that just because I disagree with you does not make me a sock puppet. The complaint on Gwen's talkpage went unheeded for this reason. Despite all of this, I fully expect you to accuse me of sockpuppetry in every debate we have. I have come to expect this behavior from you Greg. You will do anything to disparage anyone who disagrees with you so you can look better on ANI. It doesn't work so stop it.--RaptorHunter (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Also if we want to talk about who has a longer block log, then I offer yours. [66] It makes for very interesting reading. For example: Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) blocked Greg L (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours ‎ (long pattern of incivility)

I am not accusing you of anything. It was a simple question: Do you and Tom94022 know each other outside of Wikipedia? Greg L (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't play coy with me Greg. You've already threatened me with checkuser once in clear violation of policy. [67]--RaptorHunter (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I’m not threatening you with a CU now. It’s a simple question, yet you seem reluctant to address the question with a simple “yes” or “no.” Would you prefer I stop asking whether you and Tom94022 know each other outside of Wikipedia? Greg L (talk) 05:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

And, since Tom94022 ducked responding to my question, I will repeat it here: Were you, Tom94022, not editing against consensus on the Hard disk drive article yesterday? If not, then please enlighten us as to just how you arrive at the conclusion that you were editing along with with the community consensus. Greg L (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Request to close: I am quite done here. I suggest that if RaptorHunter and Tom94022 can refrain from further postings of outlandish misrepresentations of the truth here, I’m willing to let give this one a rest since it’s obvious that Tom94022’s wise decision to lay for a couple of days renders moot the point of coming here to get him to stop disrupting the project by his editwarring against consensus. It’s been over 26 hours and no block seems to be forthcoming, nor does one seen necessary so long as Tom94022 takes the proper clue from any of this. Greg L (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Vitalsines

Vitalsines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (alsl editing as 85.211.117.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) is disruptively reveting my edits across several articles against consensus, complete with personal attacks. O Fenian (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely - sanctioned logged at WP:RfAR/The Troubles/Log.etc. Any reason why this was not reported to AE? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

AE is sometimes a bit slow moving (and sometimes people will not enforce the 1RR sanction there anyway since it is a community imposed restriction not a committee imposed one), and this seemed a bit more urgent. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't block on 1RR; I saw that the account was disruptive and likely intentionally so. Indef is a bit harsh for edit warring (at least in the first few instances) as far as I am concerned... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

General disruption is even less likely to get dealt with at AE, unless there are active applicable remedies nothing would tend to get done. O Fenian (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Hipocrite

Lots of heat, very little light. The Audit Subcommittee is available to hear any concerns about the validity of oversighting these edits. Other than that, discussing in detail and at length the suitability or contents of oversighted edits defeats the benefits of the suppression. Time for us all to move on, and I think we all realise- including Hipocrite- that the posts that are now suppressed were not the best of ideas. Courcelles 03:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User Hipocrite[68] has persistently engaged in aggressive behavior, personal attacks, disruptive editing and general incivility, some of which can be seen at the second of two WQAs he filed against me (neither of which gained any support for his position, and the latter which boomeranged against him). [69] Most recently, he posted information on the Murder of Meredith Kercher page questioning a position I stated by posting information he believed to involve my real life identity. The edit has been suppressed. I don't believe that his apology for him giving this information which could Out me was sincere, and his explanations don't seem credible to me. I have never indicated on WP what my real life ID is, nor do I believe that it is usual to seek to learn someone's real life ID and then attempt to use that information for a discussion about edits to an article.LedRush (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I googled your username. The first hit was (but is no longer) your real name. I tried not to reveal this publicly, and gave you at hint on how to fix it on my talk page after you were terribly offended that I asked you about a paper you published. Your assumption that I spent more than three minutes looking for your ID is false. Further, the edit you state "outed" you did no such thing - it included zero personally identifying details about you, unless the fact that you were involved with a paper that was about rural development is personally identifying. Hipocrite (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Seriously LedRush. If you're concerned about any wiki connection to your real life name you really shouldn't connect your screen name to it. I made a similar mistake long time ago and corrected it when I realized that people could track me down which would've big consequences for me. I didn't follow or looked into the whole story (and might not do so) so I don't know and comment on John's judgment in this case. Maybe you should consider a wiki user name change if you feel uncomfortable to be "tracked down" that easy.TMCk (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Per the outing policy, she doesn't have to confirm or deny whether it was successful or not. We do not have confirmation that the outing incident was successful, simply that it was attempted, which generally results in a block. BelloWello (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC) At no point did I post any information about LedRush remotely covered by the outing policy. Hipocrite (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I agree that editor Hipocrite has been engaging in rather belligerent behavior on the article referred to. Badgering editors about everything attempting to keep things out of the article even when they are reliably sourced. BelloWello (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Outing is very serious, but unfortunately if the material was suppressed, I can't tell if there really was an attempt at outing or not. Do you know who suppressed it? The only people who can completely suppress such information are also people who can enforce our harassment policy, so I'm surprised that no action was taken if this really was a case of outing. Where was this attempt made? I also agree with TMCk, WP:OUTING doesn't apply to information you volunteer. If you choose a username that can be easily traced back to a real life identity, you're not making much of an effort to protect your own privacy. That doesn't totally excuse someone revealing your identity, but you should take a little responsibility for that yourself if it's that great of a concern. -- Atama頭 00:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Ditto to your last sentence Atama, although I too don't have the actual information since it was deleted from wiki. Guess only admins with access to it can really make a judgment call on thisTMCk (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I don't see anything volunteered about real life identity, do you? Also, there are a lot of people with that username online with contradictory names. Obviously, one would have to do a lot of work to figure out which one is which. BelloWello (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I think you'll find that there are many "LedRush's" out there as I am often unable to obtain this username or variants of it. I am not confirming Hipocrite's assumption of my real life ID, either. However, it does seem like a dramatic breach of WP policy to search out someone's real ID and then use the information you find in a discussion on a talkpage and provide other people with the ability to obtain the same information. The issue shouldn't be how easy Hipocrite thinks he can find the information, but why he's looking for it, why he's using what he found as fuel for his arguments against me.LedRush (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC) The information I posted did not include any personal information about LedRush at all, except for the fact that he was a co-author of a paper about Rural Development. I did not post his name, anything that could be tracked back to his name (like the name of the paper), his address, employer, or whatever. The information I posted is far less revealing about his identity (infact, it's totally non-relevatory) compared to his username. Hipocrite (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Regarding who suppressed the edit, Alison (talk · contribs) has confirmed an oversight on Hipocrite's talk page. That is all that I know of the matter. SuperMarioMan 00:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC) There is also the incidentally related fact that this user has been taking disagreements to a whole new level at the murder article, now taking it so as to look up personal information about a collaborator. Something needs to be done about the InWP:CIVIL behavior taking place. BelloWello (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC) You're not staying on topic. Any specific reason for this from the past as you're a brand new account?TMCk (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC) It has already been confirmed on my talk page that I have had no prior interaction with Hipocrite or the article in question. This is all what I've noticed since returning. BelloWello (talk) 00:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks, you've answered part two of my question but you left out part one.TMCk (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC) (ec)While the article dispute seems to be well beyond the scope of this discussion, I did have a quick look. Just glancing at the last section of that article's talk page (Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher#60% of American Students say that Knox Case Would Have Some Impact on Choice to Study in Italy, it does appear that both LedRush and particularly BelloWello are being needlessly strident in their attempt to include a dubious interpretation of a low-quality study in what is apparently a contentious article. While BelloWello is right that it may be worthwhile to examine their edits, I suspect that the issue would be better handled in a content venue like WP:RSN. In examining the purported 'outing', it does seem that there is no disagreement that Hipocrite's comment(s) referred to LedRush's identity only indirectly. Hipocrite linked LedRush's account to his real name using information that is/was trivially discoverable through a straightforward search on Google; and it seems that the information was available on pages/profiles/comments published/posted by LedRush himself. Absent a clear conflict of interest or other serious editing issue, we obviously should respect LedRush's request to avoid reference to his off-Wikipedia identity in the future, and the offending edit(s) have been oversighted. Nevertheless, LedRush must acknowledge some responsibility for his own carelessness in maintaining (or failing to maintain) separation between his online identities. He should also realize that he does himself no favors by drawing attention to himself and his identity on a high-traffic noticeboard after the issue has been satisfactorily resolved. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC) " and it seems that the information was available on pages/profiles/comments published/posted by LedRush himself." I don't remember doing this. Could you elaborate?LedRush (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Do you want me to have a discussion on a public noticeboard where I speculate about how I might go about finding out your identity? My understanding is that Hipocrite offered you implicit suggestions about how you could go about unlinking your online identities; I presumed that that meant that the web pages in question were under your control. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC) So postings in the real world made by someone using the name "LedRush" (there are many) means that you can post all of their info here on Wikipedia? I guess I'm not seeing your point.LedRush (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I'll sometimes look up information about a person, using only information they volunteer, at WP:COIN. That's explicitly allowed per WP:OUTING, "However, once individuals have identified themselves, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest in appropriate forums." Other than that, it's best not to go off-wiki to look up a person, and you certainly don't post any info on Wikipedia. Hipocrite insists that he didn't, LedRush claims otherwise, and Alison is probably the only person who knows what really happened. By the way, if something was removed via oversight, admins can't see it if the oversighter chooses that option. The revision in question is totally greyed out to me, so apparently she did take that option. -- Atama頭 00:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Hipocrite admitted he went offsite to seach info about me. His summary of what info he chose to post is fairly accurate, but I believe it could be used to get to the same real life ID which Hipocrite says I am.LedRush (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I googled your username. You are actually accusing me of outing you for googling your username? Hipocrite (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC) You went off site, tried to find info about me, and then tried to use that info about me in a discussion on the talk page which could lead others to the same info that you searched.LedRush (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC) The information I posted could in no way lead anyone to any info about you. Your username on the other hand, needs fixing. Hipocrite (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Actually, yes it could. The username is used by multiple people online, and NO it does not immediately lead to their real life identity, as the information you posted attempted to do. BelloWello (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I saw it, it was serious, as are most outing situations. Apparently, Allison agrees since she hid it further. BelloWello (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC) This is a lie. Hipocrite (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Actually, no, it isn't. You gave out information that (if true) could have resulted in identifying her. This is Allison's summary after redacting it. BelloWello (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Is my summary of the information above - "the fact that he was a co-author of a paper about Rural Development," an accurate description of the "outing" that I did? Yes or no will work. Hipocrite (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC) If that was it, and it was redacted, why in hells name would you be posting it again, twice? BelloWello (talk) 00:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC) yes or no will do. Hipocrite (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Again, if that was it, and oversight thought it responsible to redact it, why in hells name would you be reposting it? BelloWello (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I didn't know (as Atama just said) that edits can be totally blanked out even for admins so I guess Alison should shed some light on what appears to be opinions that differ on what exactly happened.TMCk (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC) If there is anything left that needs to be addressed at this noticeboard – and not just pointless bickering – it would be helpful to have input from editors who both saw the comments and who aren't actively involved in a content dispute with the parties. Further comments from LedRush, Hipocrite, and BelloWello are unlikely to be helpful at this juncture. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC) The evidence that existed is no longer visible, so I would repeat TMCk's call for Alison, if at all possible, to give an account of what happened, if necessary. SuperMarioMan 01:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Content was suppressed by both Alison and me. Neither instance was an overt identification of User:LedRus. However, the nature of the information led to personal information. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC) (ec) I concur. I saw it. It was not serious as Bello puts forth (not doing anything helpful here). Hipocrite is accurate....and yes, sometimes with reference to COI's or Socks, we look things up off wiki. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC) As I've been asked to comment here, I can state that the diff suppressed contained a very clear link to the RL identity of LedRush (talk · contribs). It did not contain an RL name, but it was unequivocal in its linking to this person's RL identity. I certainly stand over its suppression, indeed Hipocrite suggested it be requested (also now suppressed by Fred Bauder) - Alison ❤ 01:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Uh-oh. What Alison reports is troublesome. That's classic outing -- unequivocal linking to a person's RL identity is outing.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Users should also review Allison's further statement at [70]. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC) A Small Break for Focus Most of the conversation above is about whether Hipocrite's post was technically an Outing or not. That was not the only focus of my initial report above, which referenced a slew of issues with Hipocrite. I suggest that someone review the link [71]to the WQA he filed against me for a list of some recent attacks and harassment. Additionally, I find that his deliberately searching the internet to find out who I was (regardless of how "easy" he thinks it was) and then using that information in an argument against me is beyond uncivil and warrants Admin action. That the info could be used to Out me, and was perhaps intended to, is just one of a set of much larger issues, in my opinion.LedRush (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC) You, yesterday, complimented me, saying that my proposed edit was "Awesome." I thought we were getting along so swimmingly, before you, for some reason, decided that you were going to play "run to admins." I wish you'd just stop and discuss the article on the article talk page without trying to get people who disagree with you blocked or banned. Hipocrite (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC) The very fact that an editor was taking a topic editor seriously enough to research a fellow editor's identity online is highly disturbing, and needs to be curved by whatever means necessary, in my opinion. BelloWello (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Let's be very clear - I googled his name when he came in out of the blue to a controversial article with very strong opinions to determine if he was a sock of someone, and then to determine if he had a COI - and we all know exactly who I thought that was. When I found he had a real online presence, and that he had no professional connection to the article I stopped, but I didn't forget the trivial to determine name. When he said he was a co-author of a paper, I googlescholared him. That's the extent of my "research." I'm done responding here. I'm willing to forgive and forget this misguided attempt to get people who make it hard for you to slant articles banned. I hope you are willing to do the same. Let's drop it. Hipocrite (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I'd agree. I did not see the original comment at the talk page, and therefore cannot evaluate how injudicious it was. However, to be fair to Hipocrite, he did make a recommendation for oversight, as Alison points out. All pertinent talk page and user talk page edits have been expunged. In the absence of visible evidence, I don't know what the continuation of this argument will achieve, since there is nothing to look at. Making reference to already-concluded WP:WQA discussions rather changes the focus here, and I am not certain that such a focus is really within the scope of this WP:ANI discussion. Nevertheless, Hipocrite, in light of this incident, will you pledge to exercise greater caution from now on? SuperMarioMan 01:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I will make every attempt to forget who LedRush and Bellowello are, and will certainly never knowingly comment on their identity or anything about them. Hipocrite (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Excuse me, but does that mean you've identified me as well? You are obviously taking this topic area wayyyy too seriously. BelloWello (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Your old username was disclosed to me via email through no research done by me at all. I believe someone you (or an admin you are friendly with) were in conflict with did that research and noticed my question on your talk page. It is also a reasonably trivial endeavor. Sorry. Hipocrite (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Frankly, that makes me highly uncomfortable as the whole purpose of creating a new account was to AVOID such ID. This is ridiculous, so you've gone around figuring out who TWO SEPARATE editors who disagreed with you were in real life? Frankly, this is quite disturbing and I am quite uncomfortable with it. Nothing you can say at this point will change that. BelloWello (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC) It is a way to find out more about editors (and only what they release willingly online) like if they might be sock or meat puppets or if there is a potential COI issue involved. Standard practice not only here on wiki and if you disclose your real name by e-mail than it is your own fault. It wasn't disclosed on wiki, wasn't it? So nothing to complain from your side.TMCk (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC) What am I supposed to do, not read my email? I didn't do any figuring out about you. Hipocrite (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I did 'not provide him with anything identifiable. As you can see from a google search, there is nothing to identify me online based on username. I don't think I'm out of line to ask for an email explaining exactly what you know, who told you, and how you found out. BelloWello (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I know your old username - nothing more. I was emailed directly from a throw-away account. Hipocrite (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC) May I ask that the email is forwarded to bluerox22193 [at] gmail.com? I would like to review it. That email is used exclusively for wikipedia. BelloWello (talk) 02:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I'll do so momentarily. The email consists of "BelloWello was previously known as X" where X is probably your old username. It was sent from an anonomizing proxy. Hipocrite (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC) The issue here, in my opinion, is that an editor is taking a content dispute so seriously, that they went on the internet to find information about a fellow editor, therefore, contravening WP:OUTING. I think that all but cries out for admin action of some sort. Whether that's an interaction ban for a while, topic ban, etc. I don't know. I just think something needs to be done. Note that I am not advocating for an indefinite block of any sort. BelloWello (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Commenting in regards of the very first post in this new section to get some clarification. So your concern that made you start that thread was outing by John Hipocite was nothing more than a "make believe" to get the attention for a much wider issue? Don't you think you could and should have started the whole thing with the big picture you had in mind from the beginning (like you just confessed)? So we waste a lot of time while you had something else in mind? Is that correct? Just trying to get it right.TMCk (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC) The outing seems to be the cherry on top of a very concerning situation. BelloWello (talk) 02:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC) PS - I'm not John. Hipocrite (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Topic ban? On what grounds? With respect, BelloWello, with snappish comments such as this one, I'd argue that Hipocrite is far from the only one taking things seriously. SuperMarioMan 02:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC) @BelloWello: You still didn't answered part of my question further above so I won't respond to in my opinion unhelpful comments of yours.TMCk (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I would recommend that this whole discussion is closed before it is permitted to turn into a swamp of accusations and counter-accusations. Oversighting has remedied the immediate cause for concern which prompted this discussion. Hipocrite has promised to keep his edits in check. The WP:WQA discussions mentioned have long since been resolved and archived - as far as I can tell, the one that LedRush has posted above ended on an amicable note. SuperMarioMan 02:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I would disagree. The user has outed an editor, admitted to looking up information on another editor. That is clear evidence of someone that is taking things way too seriously. BelloWello (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I second SuperMarioMan's recommendation that the thread be closed. I agree with his statements and per my own earlier in a related thread on this board that we try to seek a peace through disengaging. I'm starting to think that the MoMK be full protected for a month just so all the bickering may cease. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the support, Berean Hunter. Your mediation skills shine once more. SuperMarioMan 02:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Rmarsden

Content dispute that needs to be settled elsewhere —DoRD (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Rmarsden have made edits[72] to NBN Co Limited containing BLP and NPOV issues. I reverted the edit and contacted the user[73] about my concerns, but the user restored the edit without addressing my concerns. The user have since broken the WP:3RR. Before I start a edit warring, I would like a second opinion on the issue. Thanks. — [d'oh] 02:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Edit: The user also has[74] replaced sourced information with a statement not backed up by the sources in the article. — [d'oh] 03:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I added factual and sourced information to the article. User D'oh! reverted with rationale that The Australian (one of Australia's largest and most respected daily papers) is not a good source. I have added additional references and adjusted wording to avoid potential misunderstanding. User D'oh! continued to revert my edits without addressing my replies adequately --Rmarsden (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I had a look at the offending edits. I don't see what this is doing here at ANI. There's edit warring here for sure--but while both are at 4RR, so to speak, one could easily argue that D'oh's Rs are nothing but the removal of sourced information (i.e., page blanking, or vandalism). I don't see what's wrong with Rmarsden's language anyway--it's hardly POV, and the claim made by D'oh on Rmarsden's talk page, that these are POV edits that link two characters to some ongoing case, is simply bogus--as far as I can tell anyway. Let me put it to you two in plain English: stop edit warring. I will reinforce this with a note on y'all's talk pages. D'oh, you have no case, and any continued removal of verified information based on bogus POV claims may lead to a warning or a block. If you have beef, take it up on the talk page or another noticeboard--for BLP violations, for RS, for POV, or any one that tickles your fancy (you're aiming at all of them, I think). You may NOT use ANI to settle content disputes. Rmarsden (but you're relatively new here, which is exculpatory), you crossed the line also: read WP:3R for your mandatory homework. Next time, do NOT be reverting, but notify someone--a friendly admin (or an editor who can be easily bribed--I accept PayPal), the 3R noticeboard, whatever--instead of making yourself liable to such charges. Carry on. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC) User:D'oh! User D'oh! continues to revert my (constructive, I think) edits of http://www.qudswiki.org/?query=National_Broadband_Network without proper rationale. Most of my edits are aimed at removing perceived bias and making sure article matches references provided. --Rmarsden (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC) You're both clearly edit warring on the article, I'd suggest both of you stop reverting each other immediately. Dayewalker (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Rmarsden, leave it be. There is a thread already on this very case, right above this one (but you knew that already). Listen to Dayewalker, and read the template I just placed on your talk page. To any passing admin, please close this. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Hold on--you two are fighting on TWO articles--I thought just one. Well, leave it be just the same. Edit warring is edit warring. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Simbagraphix refusing to discuss

Simbagraphix (talk · contribs) refuses to discuss his edits to Southern Adventist University. I was wondering if someone could coax him into discussing. See the threads I posted on talk page [75] and [76]. I also asked him for comment on his talk page. There are now four threads on the talk page requesting justification for his edits. I'm at a loss for a path forward to collaborate with this editor who absolutely refuses to do anything but make edits (many of them lacking summaries). BelloWello (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I got your messages and have gotten into the discussion page on the college Southern Adventist University, and await your comment.Simbagraphix (talk) 04:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment (I think the close was premature.) Recently there was been a rash of edit warring at SAU. The page was recently put under full protection for edit warring, and as soon as it was unprotected the war resumed. Currently, there is a 3RR report by Bello of another user, User:Fountainviewkid, for edit warring at SAU. Does the community need to take a closer look at this situation? Lionel (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment The alternative account BelloWello, created 10 days ago, is making a large number of reports at noticeboards. Mathsci (talk) 05:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Three I believe on the edit warring board (one block, one protection (boomerang) and a pending one), and then this one. Did I miss any? BelloWello (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • There this one [77] about Simbagraphix, and this one [78] also about FVK. Dayewalker (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    • The first one is the same as this one. I moved it here on second though, as two revisions later, you can see. You are right, I forgot about the request for comment on user names. So five. I wasn't aware that I wasn't supposed to use these, however. BelloWello (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
      • There was the long subthread above about Hipocrite; and this posting on WP:RSN two days ago. Mathsci (talk) 05:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Are you saying I was incorrect in challenging the use of a self-published book as a source to call a highly respected scholar "progressive?" You are aware that I was the one who later found a reliable source for the same claim? And, I didn't start the thread about Hipocrite. BelloWello (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The number and frequency of these reports might put undue pressure on other editors of Southern Adventist University. [79] Discussions about the article are best kept to the article talk page, instead of comments on user talk pages. Mathsci (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Are you saying that a small notification letting them know I asked a question on the article talk page is inappropriate? I thought the editor hadn't seen the message! Point taken, otherwise. I will try to use the noticeboards as more of a last resort. BelloWello (talk) 05:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Also, since we've been mentioning noticeboards, I would estimate I've reported 8 or so editors to the WP:ANV, all IPs making random trash. BelloWello (talk) 05:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Discussions about the article should be kept on its talk page, so that other potential editors are aware of your concerns. There is no WP:deadline on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 05:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

178.164.140.10

Special:Contributions/178.164.140.10 needs shutting down. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It's an IP making inflammatory, forum-ish statements on talk pages. Revert and ignore, unless it starts to actually get disruptive. I don't see what admins in particular need to do here. lifebaka++ 12:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Kudos to Sean for bringing the issue up. I'll post the appropriate warning(s), so that a continuation can be addressed by admins.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me, but this is beyond inflammatory and forum-ish. He's calling for the death of Jews. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. I amend my above view, to match that of Sean and of Steven. That calls for direct action by a sysop. And can someone please make his inflammatory postings un-readable (I forget the lingo for that). Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm skeptical about the necessity of RevDel for any of the comments. As long as they've been removed from the current version of the talk page, I doubt anyone is going to go back and pull them out of the history. If any other admins want to RevDel it, that'd be their prerogative. As for the IP itself, there's no point doing anything to it. The edit linked by Steven above is the last edit it's made. Since it's been a solid day since, whoever was behind it has probably moved on and a block would just cause unnecessary collateral damage. lifebaka++ 13:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

User:HXL49

Recently an editor HXL49 has been threating to take me to ANI so I decided to approach the discussion on ANI myself. The confrontation started when I requested him to be civil to other editors here as he asking other editors to completely ignore one specific editor here. Since then he has filled my talk page with ambiguous threats as well as threats to take me to ANI. My talk page history shows he has made 6 threating edits on 2 sections of my talk page.

He justifies his move to ask editors to ignore an editor by [here this] edit in which a new IP has flouted civility in January when the IP might have not known wikipedia rules. He claims the IP was of editor User talk:Reference Desker and so the editors must ignore him even 3 months after the incident. He also threatened Reference Desker for taking another editor User talk:Benlisquare to WP:WQA here even though administrators there agreed that it was a WP:WQA incident stating him to stop whining here.

Though I would not accuse him of bias he only seems to warn editors that do not share his POV. Here he warned only User:Thisthat2011(which was correct to some extent) even though other editors were also using the page as WP:FORUM and were not warned.

I did not wanted to enter in confrontation and my intentions were only to maintain civility to encourage editors on wikipedia and not discourage them off, but it seems HXL49 wants to threaten or discourage certain editors from wikipedia. It now seems trying to find errors in my editing style or point of view to get me banned.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

HXL49 is not an administrator. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

UplinkAsh it is high time you stop with your contortions, distortions, and the like. Firstly, Thisthat2011 is a new user, and I expect experienced users (certainly not you) to know better than to do WP:FORUM. Only when I am sufficiently annoyed do I warn experienced users like Benli or EraserHead.

I have already explained the IP incident and will post a comment on that shortly. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 12:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The forum-like use is perhaps (as per my knowledge, which could be incorrect) because there is not a lot of clarity in that matter in absence of lot of media acknowledgments, that ethnic Tibetans are absent in the whole discourse (in different 3/4/5 pillar organizations such as legislature/executive/judiciary/military, coupled with silence of U.N.), and then apparent fragmented/multiple views from different sources - as per my understanding (I don't want to use this like forum but I see it happening again and again like now in Sri Lanka too). As mentioned, somewhat similar behavior was also apparent from others users is what I mentioned in the discussion as well. From my side I can say that I have not taken the threats too personally and also pointed out that others indulging in the same behavior.असक्ताह सततम्, कार्यम् कर्म समाच्रर | असक्तॊ ही अचरण कर्म 12:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)

Thisthat2011 that was understood, but the same principle should have been applied to EraserHead.

Yet another personal attack on my talk page as well as here by HXL49. HXL49 be civil enough not to use statements like "experienced users (certainly not you)", "your eyesight happens to be poor" "flouting standards for intelligence" here or "In this case, you, with your rambling tone, would fall short." here to Thisthat2011.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

And so on. You can continue to list attacks/criticisms by me and fail to advance your argument and convince any reviewing users (admin or no).

so the "rambling tone" is clear that the major area where I do not respect Thisthat for is precisely his rambling tone; I found Thisthat's comments to be too long and often confusing at Talk:Tibet. Whether someone is to be taken seriously and political views are usually separate, unless one is pushing a POV. And I have demonstrated to you that I did not fully RV your edits at the Tibet page. I had only RV-ed that which you carelessly RV-ed (hatnote, "Manchu Qing"). –HXL's Roundtable and Record 13:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Not directly related to the dispute abpove, but HXL49 has also shown intentional incivility at RfD - [80], [81], [82] ("It seems my outright nastiness has achieved its only purpose of deterring users who won't admit outright that they are unknowledgeable from commenting further.") are examples. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Any non-administrative action taken will have to consider the pace and distribution of my contributions. In other words, the most likely non-administrative resolution (as I see it) would be to persuade me to avoid involved discussion now; my work on the township business is committed, high-paced, and highly involved. Any reviewing editor will have to look beyond the simple characterisations (while effective propaganda at first glance) given by UplinkAsh. Already I have toned it down at Talk:Tibet. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 15:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think HXL49 has been rather uncivil here, and that isn't a good thing by any means. However I also think that UplinkAnsh (talk · contribs) has been particularly difficult to work with and has found it really rather difficult to compromise with other editors and to understand the reasons behind our arguments which oppose his point of view. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Edits made and reverted discussed here here

Hi, please let know of criteria of PVO after going through the discussion. Talk:Christianity_in_India#Vandalism_in_edits_.5B.7C_here.5D_by_Gaitherbill_and_user_SpacemanSpiff_.5B.7C_here.5D I would like to welcome decision after through discussion on the topic where everyone ignores sourced content as right wing POV. This behavior may be (may be not) similar to Talk:Christianity_in_India/Archive_1#Why_is_a_reference_to_the_Goa_Inquisition_being_deleted or Talk:Christianity_in_India/Archive_1#An_edit_war_by_compulsive_reverts._Is_this_article_neutral.3F. The sources I mentioned are as follows:

1. http://voi.org/books/hhce/Ch21.htm

2. http://apostlethomasindia.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/the_myth_of_saint_thomas_and_the_mylapor.pdf

3. http://voi.org/books/ca/index.htm

4. http://sathyasaibaba.wordpress.com/2008/08/10/christian-missionaries-take-aim-at-india-deceptive-bible-other-questionable-tactics

5. http://www.bharatvani.org/books/hhce/

6. http://www.bedegriffiths.com/shantivanam/images-of-shantivanam/

7. http://www.upanishad.org/en/summary.htm

8. http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/vedic_experience/VEIndex.html

9. http://www.bedegriffiths.com/sangha/sangha_2009_spring.pdf

10. http://www.bharatvani.org/books/hhce/Ch19.htm

11. http://www.upanishad.org/en/chidananda.htm

12. http://www.upanishad.org/vandana/vandana_mataji.htm

13. http://www.upanishad.org/ishpriya/biography.htm Thanks..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 09:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)

Are you serious? I opened the first link and read the first paragraph: "The history of Christianity, crowded as it is with crimes of the most horrendous kind, provides a running commentary on the Christian doctrine. And the biggest share in Christian crimes down the centuries can safely be alloted to the Roman Catholic Church, its head, its hierarchy, its theologians, its religious orders, and its missionaries." Whilst I'm no supporter of Christianity (or any other religion) that doesn't look terribly neutral or reliable!! If all your "sources" are like that you are wasting everyone's time. Anyway, I think you've got the wrong noticeboard: try Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard DeCausa (talk) 09:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You are assuming here that all sources are like this, without inspecting all the sources, including the ones where Christians are maintaining sites and Ashrams just like Hindus and include the name of Hindu Gods and religious scriptures in the literature(for examples the sources mentioned here 6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 i.e. 8 different sources)...असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 10:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sure there is opposition among some Hindu organisations to the extension of Christianity, and the existence of ashram-like churches is an interesting fact which is worth reporting. But I agree with DeCausa above that (a) the sources presented are not appropriate, but are rather primary sources whose use constitutes original research and (b) that this is not the right place for this discussion. Please continue on the article talk page or at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard as suggested.

Thisthat2011, while I accept you don't like your material being reverted, the reversions were not vandalism. Removing poorly worded or sourced material is a constructive activity. If you disagree with it, the right action is to discuss it calmly and reach a compromise, not to label it as vandalism. By the way, could you remember to sign your talk page contributions with ~~~~, which will identify them? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

My understanding was that what was mentioned there was true and I wanted to put it in as less number of words and as many sources as possible. I have changed my signature thanks. I was incorrectly testing it on my own page where link is not shown (perhaps to own page) and therefore was not getting messed up..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 12:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible threat from vandalism-only account

Resolved

Gammanongurly is a vandalism-only account and needs an indef. This edit predicts an act of violence and I am emailing emergencywikimedia.org now. Rivertorch (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. Since you've emailed WMF, nothing else to do here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

WMF received the notification yesterday, by the way, and took appropriate action. Feel free to archive/hat this.  :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Block request made at User talk:N5iln#Please permanenetly ban this address from editing

I'm not exactly sure why, but a request to block a specific IP was placed on my User Talk page. The request came from an IP address which has been warned repeatedly regarding vandalism. Since I'm not an admin, I'll ask someone who is to look things over and take whatever action is necessary. I did check the WHOIS and GeoIP info, and it came back to what appears to be an Australian ISP, so I can't confirm the claim that it's a school. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

requesting revdel

Hi,

This revision[83] to M48 Mauser should probably be deleted since a high school student lists his full name and school. GabrielF (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Violation of editing restriction

According to the editing restriction accepted by User:LoveMonkey himself, "LoveMonkey will not make edits or talk page comments regarding Roman Catholic teaching or practice". These edits seem to be a clear violation of this restriction. Before his edits were, for other reasons, reverted by another editor, I suggested to LoveMonkey that he make them conform to the editing restrictions, which permit him to "add information about Eastern Orthodox commentary (positive or negative) on Roman Catholic teaching/practice. However, any such commentary must be clearly attributed, in the body of the article, to the specific individual or document making it. Moreover, any such commentary must be clearly identified as opinion, rather than as factual information about the nature of RC teaching/practice or its compatibility/incompatibility with EO teaching/practice." My warning was intended to enable him to avoid sanctions for his violation of the restrictions. Instead of doing as I requested, he deleted my request, calling it harassment. May I ask that LoveMonkey be at least warned to observe the editing restrictions. Esoglou (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The edits to Filioque are indeed unacceptable, not just because they breach the restriction, but also because they are quite overtly POV advocacy. After such a long history of conflict, one would expect an editor should know better than this. Unless there are good objections from uninvolved editors, I would be willing to enact a block here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The edits aren't in the article anymore, they've been removed and I have not restored them. Also why is Ed Johnson saying that I have not breached the restrictions [84]. He clearly states that I have made the edits according to the restrictions. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and also suggest removing the exceptions from the community topic ban regarding "Roman Catholic teaching or practice". The content added by LoveMonkey does not only sound like advocacy, it is also very poor encyclopedic writing: it's nearly unintelligible to me as a layperson.  Sandstein  10:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

OK I can accept criticism. Also could you address some of Esoglou's conduct while we're here [85] as Esoglou has yet to have any administrators address his behavior. I won't edit directly to the article anymore, then. I can make suggestions on the article talkpage and ask other editors to make the additions to the article, directly. If they say no then it doesn't end up in the article. I'm again willing to work with administration to work this out. However with the tone set here by administrators looking to again block longtime contributing editors from the project I can't say your comments here leave me hopeful. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

LM's writing does leave much to be desired at times, and I have commented to him more than once on style and sourcing issues. However, I don't see this particular incident as especially drastic. He has agreed that the edit needs work, and has entered into dialogue about it. I have asked Richard what's necessary to clean it up from his point of view, and he has been very helpful in making his concerns clear. I am currently working on the re-edit. Esoglou, you should know by now that it is not a good idea for either of you to chase each other on edits; you have been told before to take the issue to a third party instead of picking fights on talk pages. It doesn't do your cause any good when you don't follow due process yourself.--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan boi has edited here since LoveMonkey posted here a link to the RfC on me that Taiwan boi prepared but did not publish (and which shows that Taiwan boi is not exactly a neutral observer), and thus seems to have accepted LoveMonkey's action. I think it right to give a link to my response.

Taiwan boi's recent intervention on my talk page also shows his attitude towards me, as did his interventions in formulating the text of the editing restriction.

I accepted that text in the hope that it would result in LoveMonkey ceasing to insert in Wikipedia his POV criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church. These continued. I protested, but did not imitate his actions. At one stage I indicated that, if he continued his attacks and was allowed to, it would be logical for me to be allowed to make similar edits of an opposing kind. This I do not want to do, and have not done. Whether because of this observation of mine or not, LoveMonkey then ceased his attacks. Now he has begun again. I tried first to get him to rewrite his attack on the Roman Catholic Church in a way that Taiwan boi's "help" in editing the restriction allows him to do. Only when that failed, did I raise the question here, which I take to be the correct place to raise the question of violation of the editing restriction.

Did LoveMonkey's edits violate the editing restriction, or did he not? That is the question here. This, I take it, is not the place for an RfC on me. Esoglou (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the issues with the sorely deficient writing, LM's edits exhibited a polemical, POV tone that was totally unacceptable. The problem, as I indicated on the article Talk Page, is not about putting the POV in the article. It is a notable POV. The problem is the failure to attribute the POV to a reliable source in such a way that it is clear to the reader that the POV is that of the source and not by Wikipedia.

However, blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. There are other editors involved in fixing the problem. Thus, I would advocate a stern warning to LM to avoid such repeating such POV edits. I would also ask that the warning include a reminder that WP:3RR does not give editors the right to 3 reverts without a block. LM's responses to EdJohston on Ed's Talk Page suggest this sort of brinksmanship mentality. LM should be reminded that blocks can be imposed for edit warring even if WP:3RR is not technically violated. Any repeat occurrence of POV editing or "stop 1 revert short of violating 3RR" edit-warring should result in a block. I hope LM will get the message and act more collegially rather than confrontationally. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the reminder should also communicate the need to assume good faith. Just because an editor doesn't like one of LM's edits, that doesn't mean the editor is trying to "censor" LM's POV. An editor's revert might be a comment about the quality of the writing or the failure to maintain NPOV. NPOV doesn't just mean presenting all POVs. It means that we describe the POV rather than adopting a tone of advocacy in favor of it. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

In his comment above, LoveMonkey has agreed to take a break from editing the Filioque article. "I won't edit directly to the article anymore, then. I can make suggestions on the article talkpage and ask other editors to make the additions to the article, directly." He should still be able to take part in discussion of his proposed change at Talk:Filioque, since he is free to discuss Eastern Orthodox material on article talk pages. Given this concession by LoveMonkey, I don't see any need for sanctions. If he is not editing the article at all, it takes away the prior concerns about edit warring and the POV tone of material. It also ensures he won't violate the editing restriction, so long as he limits himself in his talk comments to EO history and to the opinions expressed by EO theologians. EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm new to this issue and to these editors, and only got involved with Filioque while watching Recent changes. My brief experience with LM was somewhat irritating, as the article history shows, but other editors have jumped in. I didn't know about LM's editing restrictions, and I'm surprised that they made them in the first place; saying, as they did above, that those edits are no longer in the article doesn't really make it better. However, I won't press the issue; if they leave the matter alone, and if they are somewhat formally and unequivocally reminded on their own talk page, I am satisfied. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It must not be forgotten that LoveMonkey is restricted from making "comments regarding Roman Catholic teaching or practice" even on the talk page, unless of course he is taking advantage of the clause that allows him to post "commentary (that) must be clearly identified as opinion, rather than as factual information". Perhaps this edit on the article's talk page is in conformity, perhaps it is not. Esoglou (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The editing restriction was imposed to stop unnecessary fights. But we need to have some tolerance on talk pages, or negotiation will be impossible. I see that LoveMonkey drops in a verbatim quote from the Orthodox Church's website, which is OK for discussion, but I hope he is aware that higher quality material is needed for the article. If Orthodox theologians criticize Charlemagne, give us their sourced opinions. Editors who are not under LM's restriction could be looking around to see if historians agree with the OCA's view of Charlemagne's actions. This would help to ensure neutrality for whatever statement about Charlemagne is made in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Block review

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

---

I blocked Avanu (talk · contribs) yesterday for 24 hours for removing a Rescue tag 4 times from Silence (Doctor Who), claiming it was in violation of "WP:GAME, WP:CONS, WP:CANVAS, WP:PS, and possibly more". (I reverted a 5th removal by TreasuryTag which fell between Avanu's first and second removals.) His unblock requests were both denied, by Kuru and Sandstein. After Sandstein's decline, he removed both declines and posted a new appeal. After that was declined by Syrthiss, Sandstein restored his decline, which Avanu promptly hatted. I unhatted it and restored Kuru's decline, but Avanu hatted them both again. At that point, I removed his ability to edit the talk page for the remainder of the block.

A couple of editors feel that I acted improperly by blocking for the 4th revert in the first place when I had restored the tag earlier, so I'm bringing this here for further review. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, you know I have the utmost respect for you but I have to agree that your act in blocking Avanu was inappropriate. I wouldn't call it an abuse of power but someone else should have done it since you were one of the people involved with the reverts. The block itself was certainly warranted, which I think is borne out by the fact that both unblock requests were denied. Avanu has been excessively combative and this was bound to happen anyway, I'm sure. It just shouldn't have been you who did it. Also, I'm a stickler about the warning before the block with 3RR. My reasoning is that the block is meant to stop the edit war, and if a warning stops it, then it is just as effective as a block. If it doesn't, and the person reverts again, then you can block. That's just how I deal with them. -- Atama頭 15:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand why you felt the need to block when you did, particularly the time sensitive nature of the tag in light of the AfD discussion, but having been one of the editors who had restored the tag (albeit several hours earlier and after removal by a different editor) it would have been better to post to the edit warring noticeboard or requested assistance from another admin. That said, I can't say the block itself was inappropriate. I came across the issue about an hour after Avanu's last revert. I came to Avanu's talk page with the intention of issuing a warning, but he had already been blocked. That said, there is a good chance I would have blocked myself once I saw the 2 3rr warnings that Avanu had already been given over the past month. Of course, by then the edit war may have gone another 4 or 5 rounds had there not been admin intervention in the interim. I would be willing to unblock and reblock as someone suggested on one of the talk pages if that settle the controversy. But I doubt it would, since no one seems to think the block itself was unwarranted, only that Sarek shouldn't have been the blocker, and action at this point would not change the fact that Sarek was the initial blocker or that the block itself was warranted. Rlendog (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(@ Atama, in case of ec) I have to disagree with the last part of this - I assume that I am editing the encyclopedia with rational editors who can make their own choices in life. If the editor had not been warned and blocked before, then yes I will certainly warn them not only when they are approaching 3RR but at 3RR if possible. If they have been warned and / or blocked before, I assume that they are not merely forgetful that 3RR exists but that it is a conscious decision. In this particular case, Avanu seems to not understand the distinction between vandalism and good faith edits and indicated that he felt he was exempt in his edit summary when he called them vandalism. It also seems that he was making progress in understanding that it wasn't vandalism after my decline, in discussion with me and another editor...so there may not be any further bright-line breaches. It is certainly nice that you would go the extra step, but an adult shouldn't need me advising him to be careful of crossing the street after being previously hit by a car for the same thing. Syrthiss (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a personal preference, it's not something I expect other people to do. I was just pointing out what I personally would have done, since Sarek was asking for a review of his actions. I'm aware that 3RR is a bright line offense (and nobody is even "entitled" to 3 reverts) so a block at that point is definitely not out of order. -- Atama頭 17:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

User:SarekOfVulcan and WP:INVOLVED

NOTE: I am moving this here because I had not seen Sarek's post when I made this one below.Griswaldo (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I really didn't want to take this here because I'm not a fan of the drama fests that can result from WP:ADMINABUSE claims but now I feel like User:SarekOfVulcan is purposefully thumbing his nose at other editors to prove some strange point about what he can get away with. Here's a rundown of the situation:

• User:Avanu was edit warring at Silence (Doctor Who), by removing a rescue tag 4 times within 24 hours.
• User:SarekOfVulcan was involved in the same editing dispute, seen here reverting to the version of the page with the rescue tag.
• Sarek's general involvement with the entry has been in opposition to Avanu's, and can further be seen through is contributions to the entry talk page, his deprodding of the entry, and his participation in the AfD.
• When Avanu made his 4th revert in the edit war that Sarek had been party to, Sarek immediately blocked Avanu for edit warring.
• Several editors, including Avanu pointed out that despite the fact that Avanu deserves a block for edit warring, Sarek appears to have been involved and that he should not have taken administrative action against Avanu - Flinders Petrie, Griswaldo and Treasury Tag.
• I personally tried to raise the issue with Sarek on his own talk page, per the guidance at WP:ADMINABUSE, but to no avail.
• Despite the complaints about his involved status Sarek reverts two edits of Avanu's at User talk:Avanu.
• When I saw this I begged him to at the very least stay clear of further involvement with Avanu, since there are many people monitoring the situation.
• Sarek did not respond to my plea, instead he took further administrative action against Avanu because Avanu reverted him at User talk:Avanu.

I do not understand how an admin can so openly flaunt WP:INVOLVED. Am I missing something here? If I'm not will another admin please warn him against using his tools in these situations? I want to be clear that I think Avanu should have been blocked, and should also have been reverted on his talk page, but not by Sarek. Also, as a matter of context, I came to Avanu's talk page because I'm in a dispute with Avanu myself, so please do not chalk this up to someone trying to protect a friend. That's not the case at all. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This is far from the first time that Sarek has gone against UNINVOLVED. I don't know what the solution is, but it's completely unacceptable. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 15:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The block was indesputably valid because the blockee was over the 3RR. However, if admins want to get into content disputes, we do so as regular editors and we can't suddenly turn around and play the admin card when somebody goes over the 3RR. Sarek, you can involve yourself at the article in an administrative capacity or an editorial one, but not both. This would have been better if it had been handled by another admin. Also, revoking talk page access for collapsing (as opposed to blanking) unblock declines seems extreme even for an uninvolved admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see that one. Pure and simple: Do not use your tools to give yourself an advantage against another editor. Bright line rule in my view. Sarek, I'd be grateful if you would enlighten us on your train of thought here, and also why you revoked talk page access.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I would question that I was directly WP:INVOLVED in this case. All I did was restore the {{Rescue}} tag, which is fairly time-critical, as its intention is to improve articles under deletion before the end of the discussion. At that point, Avanu had only removed it once, and I wasn't directly reverting him, so I wasn't concerned about baiting him into a violation. He had been warned about the 3RR twice this month, so I didn't see there was a need to slap another template on his page. The last three reverts were within 36 minutes of each other, and after the 4th revert, he stated that he would continue to remove it as "vandalism".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Respecting why I revoked talk page access, it was because he had first removed and then repeatedly tried to hide the unblock templates that very clearly said "Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked." It seems to me to be extreme wikilawyering to claim that removing them from visibility is acceptable in this case -- there's a reason they're supposed to stay visible. He left comments within Syrthiss' decline reason section of the unblock request, which struck me as further disruption of the appeal process.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

However, since there seems to be consensus that this was particularly problematic, I have renabled Avanu's talk page access. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the salient paragraph of WP:UNINVOLVED—In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen to have, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. No part of that seems to make any exception for the circumstances you describe. Furthermore, nothing you have said explains why you couldn't ask one of Wikipedia's hundreds of other administrators to step in. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 16:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, you might well have acted as any other reasonable admin would, but the appearance of impropriety alone means you should not be acting as an admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment that Sarek does great work, but also agree that in an instance such as this one it is better form to avoid flouting wp:involved, and to get another sysop involved.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, IMO you were involved in the edit war, but also lets not forget a more general level of involvement at the entry, not to mention your response to Avanu when he accused you of removing comments at the Afd. If you maintain not being involved I have to wonder if there is a competence issue here when it comes to understanding the relevant policy.Griswaldo (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

There's involved, then there's WP:INVOLVED. The second bar is significantly higher, and that's the one I don't think I crossed. I didn't use tools to win a content dispute, I used them in a bright-line situation where Avanu had edit warred and declared an intention to continue. And if you think my response to Avanu was problematic, then what comment of his did I remove?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think your response was problematic, I think his accusation and your response indicate a less than congenial atmosphere between the two of you days prior to your blocking him. More reason not to use your tools.Griswaldo (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The relevant sentence from the policy: "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the disput." In other words, there's involved, then there's the much easier to violate, WP:INVOLVED. BelloWello (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Now, if I were to block Villwock (talk · contribs) for edit warring at Eau Claire Masonic Temple, that would be an WP:INVOLVED violation. *reminds self not to be stupid* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If the blocking of Avenu was so blindling obviously the right thing to do, why not ask onf the hundreds of other active admins to do it? --Jayron32 16:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Because I was on the spot and I didn't see the need to make anyone else review the diffs when it was that clear a case.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:UNINVOLVED was the need to make someone else review the diffs. I just don't see how you can't understand this. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 17:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

And I don't see how you can't understand that this isn't WP:CIVIL. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The only positive thing I can say about the above comment is that at least Sarek isn't trying to hide how inadequate and desperate a response they've made. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 17:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a casual observance, to me it looks like Sarek witnessed a genuine violation of 3RR. The rule does stand... He probably believed the warring would continue if he wasn't blocked.... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it really that hard to file a WP:ANEW report like everyone else has to do if you're involved? BelloWello (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:IAR. It was a brightline case. The need was immediate. The offender said he would continue. I see no issue here other than to make pointless drama. Move along. -DJSasso (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I wish Sarek would reconsider. I do not consider this rocket science. No one one is going to take away the tools over this, but reputation's taking a hit. I regret this. All I personally want to see is some sort of understanding that this was badly handled and a commitment not to do it again.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That's what I was hoping Sarek would do before I was forced to post here due to his refusal to even engage me in that particular conversation and that's what I'm still hopeful he will do.Griswaldo (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The need was not so immediate that a deeply involved admin had to be the one wielding the block. The last few times I've seen editors who are of a more deletionist bent using their tools in otherwise perfectly sensible ways on article they've been involved in they've been whipped off to ANI in two shakes of a lamb's tail. The aim here is to prevent SoV's actions here from causing unnecessary drama. I cannot see why that is a bad idea. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely reject the "deeply" in the above statement. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd concur, deeply is too strong. In this particular case, its not like there was some huge section of text being reverted...or that Sarek was at 2 or 3RR himself. That being said, would you agree to Wehwalt's statement immediately above thumperwards objectionable statement and try to make a commitment to not act in cases where your involvement might be questioned? Syrthiss (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with much of what Chris C says above, I agree w/the above. Using the phrase "deeply" actually suggests such a level of hyperbole that it is eroding the point that some of us who share some of his views are seeking to make. I would suggest that it might be helpful if he were to perhaps consider striking it out, in recognition of that. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I can make the commitment in good faith -- "might be questioned" pretty much lets me out of everything on my watchlist, so I'd be restricted to only noticeboard reports involving editors I'd never heard of before.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sticking to areas that you have not been involved in seems appropriate for sys ops tools. If that means you can't use sys op tools on articles on your watch list, so be it! BelloWello (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, WP:INVOLVED is a section of the policy that defines the rules that a Wikipedia sysop is compelled to follow - WP:ADMIN. I find it hard to understand how, as an admin, you cannot "in good faith" pledge to uphold one of those rules. Can you explain that please.Griswaldo (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:ADMIN and WP:IAR are both Wikipedia policies, but IAR is one of the five pillars that WP is built on. I can't pledge to follow ADMIN to the letter if it interferes with actually maintaining Wikipedia. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Sarek. You do a fantastic job here, so pls just take this as helpful advice for you to perhaps consider for the future. I think that on this point, that of simply bringing problematic editing to another sysop's attention where some might view you as involved (and I agree -- the suggestion that you were deeply involved does appear to be a bit of a stretch), for the future it might be best to do that. I'm not sure there is a conflict in that case -- another sysop can react quickly. I otherwise think this string can be closed. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Even if the community thinks your wrong? IAR is not a magic trump card that can be used every time someone violates policy. WP:UNINVOLVED is, as far as I can tell, something the community expects from all of its admins - consensus here, for instance, reflects that fact, not to mention the policy referenced above, WP:ADMIN. I'm personally uncomfortable with anyone having admin privileges who is unable to meet even the most fundamental expectations of someone with those privileges. Please reconsider your stance on this.Griswaldo (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, that's where the line is finally drawn -- community consensus. When I IARed to RevDel a problematic edit summary, a community discussion determined I had misused IAR in that case, so I reverted. Looking at this, there's a clear consensus that my action was correct, but that someone else should have taken it. That makes it much harder for me to say that in all cases, I wouldn't take similar actions. I can certainly try not to wind up in a similar situation, but I can't promise not to. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the action you took should have been taken, albeit by someone else, does not exonerate you from having taken an action in an area you were involved. Use the noticeboards like everyone else has to, it's not that hard. BelloWello (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sarek consensus is not that "[your] action was correct", consensus is that the action of blocking Avanu for 3RR was correct, but that your action of blocking Avanu is a problem. If I were to hijack an admin account, and block someone for 3RR you surely would not argue that my hijacking the account was justified because the editor clearly violated 3RR. You're either failing to understand the difference or wikilawyering. I'm not sure which it is, but both remain troubling to me because the end result is, again that you are unwilling to abide by the community's expectations of an admin.Griswaldo (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Tempest in a teapot. I quote from the policy page: "In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved that they pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards." Unless SoV has a history of being a rabid inclusionist (which I'm fairly sure he doesn't), I think replacing a commonly used ARS tag that is being unjustifiably removed by one editor isn't so much involvement in the issue, as trying to stop disruption. It seems clear to me that policy was not broken (really straightforward 3RR case), but maybe a "best practice" may have been. The thread seems a little long for a run of the mill "best practice" problem; I wonder if it has anything to do with its inclusionist/deletionist aspect?

  Sarek, unless you enjoy these interminable threads, I suggest erring on the side of caution in the future, not because you're violating policy, but because you're likely to end up at ANI threads. Plus, occasionally using RFPP, ANEW, or AIV might keep us more connected to the hoi polloi. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Except you're downplaying his involvement with the entry and specifically his clearly being in dispute with Avanu over the future of the entry which is amply documented above, and goes well beyond the edit you mention.Griswaldo (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Well said by Flo. I suggest the closing of this thread. All that could be said has been said, already, and keeping it open would only lead to redundant postings. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
• Thread is generating more heat then light. SoV wasnt too far from sane on this, but there does need to be a community discussion about the Rescue tags, the appearance of canvassing with them has strengthened over time. -- ۩ Mask 21:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
• I note that this is not the first time SarekofVulcan's admin actions and/or responses are causing this type of concern. An admin should make attempts to deescalate when a concern is raised about their involvement; it is unhelpful to unnecessarily escalate further (and that too, through what seems to amount to wikilawyering). Where an admin cannot deescalate, or where the admin is following a poor example to begin with, it becomes a bigger problem. There are a lot of problems with Wikipedia which need addressing (including by AC), and it would be helpful to the project if those could be addressed - without needing to set aside extra time to babysit a small handful of admins. That is, it would be a great shame if we needed yet another ArbCom case for instructing/restricting an admin from doing something which they should be avoiding when asked to. I think we all hope the drama free route is taken, but the decision falls on the admin at the centre of each concern to decide which route is going to be necessary in the future, and merely closing a noticeboard thread will not accomplish that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• For the record - As I showed in my diffs above I tried very hard to get this settled outside of AN/I and Sarek simply ignored me. He then proceeded to say "F*** Y**" in so many words to those who were concerned about his involvement by escalating escalate his own admin actions against Avanu when they were most certainly not needed. At AN/I he's been wikilawyering despite a clear consensus that his use of tools on Avanu was a dumb idea. I really don't appreciate suggestions that those who are concerned with this behavior are the ones causing drama here. Ncmvocalist's comment seems pretty on the money if you ask me. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Gris. I understand your viewpoint. I agree that consensus is what should guide us here. Views have been expressed, and now we are just all repeating ourselves, and I don't see any need or consensus support for continuing the thread at this point. There is no consensus for taking any action, and your point has been made.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Epee, it's not just my point, and there have been several commentators here, admins among them, who have asked Sarek to say the he wont do something like this again. I'm not sure how the matter is resolved when he refuses to do so. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, no I most certainly did not say "fuck you" in so many words: I would appreciate it if you would rephrase that personal attack. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies. That's how it felt but I certainly did not mean to put words in your mouth, which I guess is how it could be construed.Griswaldo (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for striking that. If I try to put words to my lack of response there, it would come out something like "I think I'm right, you think you're right, and I don't believe I have any arguments that will change your mind."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment from Avanu - Now that I can speak for myself again, I would point out first that Sarek and I are on essentially the same side in the AfD discussion. We both favor keeping the content. I am comfortable with merge or keep, with a slight preference for merge because a number of editors do not believe that sufficient notability has been established.

In light of the edits in this AfD that led Sarek to block me, I can't see an emergency existing that justified his personal and immediate action. The extent of my reverts involved 1 tag. I agree that honestly, there is no practical difference between him doing it and another admin, but as many people have said, the policy is clear on this. If I were to claim a similar standard for my own actions, I could easily say, "I *had* to revert this, because no one else was going to as quickly as me." But most admins would say that is not in line with WP:BRD and wouldn't buy it. We *have* to work as a community, and I am a big believer in that, rather than doing things our way because they are 'easier'. I gave my reasons for why I felt this wasn't 3RR and I lost that argument -- so be it, sometimes you lose ... sometimes you win. I do want to say that I appreciate other editors coming to the defense of doing what was right in this situation, even while I was unable to speak on the matter. It is a credit to our community to have these kinds of checks and balances on one another.

The rescue tag was initially placed in the article by an editor who did not follow the guidelines at WP:RESCUE. This is clear if you review the WP:RESCUE page guidelines and review the edit history. I was initially surprised when I saw the wording of the rescue tag (it struck me as biasing the debate). My understanding is that we also have a policy on Wikipedia known as Bold, Revert, Discuss. After the tag was added, and I removed it, other editors (members of ARS), simply re-added it without taking it to the Talk page. I *did* go to talk with an explanation of my concerns and why it didn't need to be added. If WP:BRD were followed initially (and if I myself hadn't adopted this brief crusade), we wouldn't have ended up edit warring on the addition of this tag.

Sarek did not attempt to discuss this either, and participated in one of the reverts that brought the rescue tag back. Now, we're all human (except those who are Vulcans :) ), and so I understand that we all got a little bit into this and hopefully this situation will remind each of us what we should have been doing.

On other matters, I will be working to ensure that this tag's biased language is replaced by a more neutral wording. I don't mind a call to action, in order to improve the article, in fact I welcome it for any article. My issue was never the idea of improving the article, but the idea that someone is able to wave a flag that gives people the idea "we're fixing this, don't mind that AfD".

Again, a thank you to all of you for taking a moment to keep us on the right track here, and for my part in this, I will try and gain consensus for this modification of the rescue tag and its guidelines. -- Avanu (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't be messing with article deletion/rescue tags and you shouldn't be edit-warring and wiki-lawyering to justify your concept of policy and guidelines. You had an issue with this as an IP editor on the Geraldine Doyle article before, remember?[86][87][88][89] And you're quite right you shouldn't be telling other editors "do shut the fuck up" when you chime in with your wisdom on an issue you know next to nothing about. Welcome to "life under the microscope"... Doc talk 01:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

We all learn over time and learn from mistakes as well as successes. I think we all agree that I shouldn't be edit warring, nor should anyone else, I wasn't arguing that we should be, so I'm puzzled by your comment. I'm not sure what Wiki-lawyering is, but if I'm expected to hold to a standard, then I would expect the same of others, its only fair, right? As far as your bringing up the expletive, you should know better than to take things out of context. That was stated in a thread about how it is wrong to be uncivil and namecall other editors, and the strong language was there *explicitly* to demonstrate how people are made to feel in those situations. Many of my fellow editors were making up justifications for why its OK to be uncivil and I felt a strongly worded response (and simultaneous apology) was worth it, in order to show how wrong it is. -- Avanu (talk) 03:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment late in the game My apologies for coming late to this discussion. My comment is thus: ArbCom has already ruled about avoiding even the appearance of impropriety with the statement of

  All editors, and especially administrators, should avoid engaging in conduct that creates a reasonable appearance that significant site policies are being violated. This includes, for example, an administrator's repeatedly taking administrator actions that can reasonably be perceived as being taken to further the administrator's position in a content dispute, even if the administrator actually has no such intention;

  I believe this is clear and unambiguous- administrators need to never use their tools when there is even a minor thought they are WP:INVOLVED. In this case SarekOfVulcan was in clear violation of both the policy and the ArbCom ruling. I am unsure if this is his first such violation or if this is a pattern. In either event, SoV must be cautioned against ever taking similar action again. If he can promise that and apologize for this situation then I think we can archive this thread. Basket of Puppies 02:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't see this as a furthering the admins position in a content dispute - it seems like a simple case of a bright-line 3RR violation that was unrelated to content, against an editor who was well aware of 3RR. It is easy for these things to escalate as people start overstating both the degree of involvement and the nature of the dispute - it is better if these remain grounded. - Bilby (talk) 03:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• What an immense waste of time. Sarek was not involved in a content dispute. He found some noob who was removing a rescue template from an article over and over again. This is not a content dispute. They weren't reverting each other over POV concerns, original research, unverified statements, the wording of a sentence, or anything even remotely related to the content of an article. If everyone agrees that the block was warranted, then why obsess over the fact that Sarek participated once in reverting an edit which could easily be construed as unambiguous vandalism (i.e. removing the rescue tag before the end of the AFD). If a SPA came along and added "hahahahahaha ur gay!" to an article, and Sarek reverted it, and the SPA reverted 4 times in a row over the course of 5 minutes, would anyone blink an eye if Sarek then blocked him? Doubt it. There is very little difference with this situation. I think it's about time for everyone to tone down the dramah. —SW— ^confess 04:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Snottywong, a waste of time. This thread should be closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• I kind of find Snotty's attitude a bit snotty. I might be relatively new (in absolute time editing, but my account was created in 2006, just dormant for a long time), but I do try and learn and grow to work with the Wiki culture better. Snotty's cavalier attitude makes it sound like we should do whatever we feel like doing if it seems right to us. As I argued above, that sort of reasoning wouldn't win me any points, and most admins wouldn't permit it. Just because the rescue tag requests that it be left in until the end of the AfD does not mean it is POLICY to leave the tag there. I could add anything as a tag and have "don't remove me until Jimbo is elected president" but it won't mean a thing. I kind of don't feel like rehashing the entire thread for Snotty's benefit, but suffice to say, I had my reasons and Sarek had his, various editors had issues with things, and we've all said our peace. Snotty come lately is waving a dismissive hand at it all and being a tad impolite. Policy is clear and it applies to me just as strongly as anyone else. The problem isn't whether I can be checked if I make a mistake, but whether an admin can. Call it 'dramah' if you like, but it is an important concern for those here who don't have magic admin tools. -- Avanu (talk) 07:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Whether or not policies can be stitched together to justify the action, I'm concerned by the effect on non-admins, many of whom are already suspicious of those with the tools. If for no other reason than that, Sarek should have at least tried to bring in another admin. However, I suspect all we can do right now is chalk this one up to experience.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody please close this thread before I (for one) start really digging into this "new" editor's history? I am reminded of more than one indefinitely blocked user I've dealt with in the past that are very similar to "Avanu", and I don't buy for a second that this is a relatively new user that simply took a break. The disruptive behavior and wiki-lawyering "knowledge" of the rules here is a dead giveaway. I know, AGF and all that. But my Spidey-sense is tingling, and it's usually not too far off in left field. End this, please. Thanks :> Doc talk 08:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the real issue should be the impact on wikipedia itself. If someone continues to remove an appropriate tag, they should be stopped. If the admin thinks he might be "involved", he should bring it to others' attention. But first he should put a stop to the other users' behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If people want this thread closed then so be it, but lets clarify a couple of misconceptions. First of all, Avanu didn't raise this issue here, I did, and Doc your spidey senses run afoul of AGF. Additionally, you are all downplaying Sarek's involvement with Avanu and with the overarching dispute at the entry. Snotty makes it sound like Sarek showed up to revert one piece of vandalism and then later blocked the vandal. That could not be further from reality. When Silence (Doctor Who) was prodded, Sarek deprodded the entry, indicating that he felt it was notable and keep worthy. When the entry was then immediately AfDed, Avanu tried redirecting it to List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens#The Silence indicating that he didn't feel the entry was a notable on its own. AfD comments confirm these two positions - Avanu and SarekOfVulcan. During the AfD Sarek, as a strong keep voter and as a member of the Article Rescue Squadron, commendably edited the entry to improve it - [90], [91], [92]. Meanwhile Avanu also edited the entry, in a manner more typical of someone who thinks it is problematic, by deleting "completely fabricated conclusions". Then came the edit war in question, in which Sarek contributed one revert to the opposite version of the one that Avanu was reverting to. The claim is made above that this wasn't a content dispute, but perhaps it was much more significant than a normal content dispute. Sarek is a member of the Article Rescue Squandron and was quite clearly trying to rescue the entry, while Avanu was quite clearly trying to have it redirected elsewhere, something Sarek warned Avanu not to do during the AfD. I understand that most people might not have dug this deeply into the page histories, but do you now see how the above characterizations downplay Sarek's involvement? I agree that this isn't a clear cut case of gaining advantage through blocking, but it is not out of the question that this was done for such reasons. Sarek was clearly monitoring the reverts, since he literally blocked Avanu immediately following revert #4. Yet he did not bother to warn him during any of Avanu's prior reverts. This indicates, though does not prove, that Sarek was waiting for that revert in order to block. Proving any ill intent, is of course, not possible, but that's why abiding by rules is something we do regardless of our intentions. Abiding by rules so as not to get into murky waters like these is something we especially expect of an admin. It's right there in WP:ADMIN which is a policy. Some people will say I'm beating a dead horse, but clearly others fail to understand the extent of this situation and require a refresher, so I don't feel bad about repeating myself here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

There's certainly something odd going on with that Avanu account. It was created 5 years ago, made a few entries to get auto-confirmed, and then disappeared until this past winter, when it was temporarily sent to the phantom zone as being an obvious "sleeper" account. However, it was then unblocked. The account may be legitimate, but it perhaps needs closer examination. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"Well what did you expect in an opera? A happy ending?" ;> Doc talk 11:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If you start singing "Kill the Wabbit", I may be compelled to request the services of my lawyer, the Hon. Charles H. Hungadunga. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Nowth winds bwow! Souf winds bwow! Doc talk 11:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"Sarek was clearly monitoring the reverts, since he literally blocked Avanu immediately following revert #4" -- actually, no, that was where I signed back on to WP after a break, and it was at the top of my watchlist.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sarek and I haven't always seen eye to eye but I have to admit. Not to discredit Griswaldo or Avanu for being angry with Sarek, but what exactly is the point of this report? Its just an utter waste of time. Sarek is neither going to be blocked or stripped of his admin tools. Like many admins on here he only makes blocking decisions based what he/she believes to be solid rules, at times perhaps too closely. Are there alternatives to blocking, well yes, one could warn or discuss issues on a talk page first, but at times it may be justified if it seems the individual won't cease with his behaviour or disruptive edits. If you really want to bring Sarek down, then this is certainly neither the place or time to do so. Most admins violate some sort of policy, hatever it is, and however trivial, on a daily basis and nobody blinks an eye... I could moan all day long about admins on here but where exactly does that get us and the encyclopedia? Nowhere. Now somebody please close this report and get on with some work!.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, if you simply apologize for violating WP:INVOLVED and the ArbCom rulings, promise not to even give the hint of violating INVOLVED again and avoid future issues then I am certain we can collapse this thread and move on. Ok? Basket of Puppies 13:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Please to be hatting this thread. —SW— ^communicate 13:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I do wish that some of these editors would try to be less emotional about this. Griswaldo's comments and Basket of Puppies' comments both seem to say the same thing, and it is the *sole* reason for this thread. The rules on 'uninvolved' are clear. Bright line, if you like. I'm actually getting tired of how several people in this thread are trying to do everything *but* acknowledge that is the only thing here that we're talking about. I'm not mad at Sarek (yes, I didn't like being blocked, but who does). I don't think anyone should hang Sarek or anything. Its a really simple expectation, and hopefully since ArbCom and the rules align, its not something you guys should have an argument with. YES, I was in the wrong. YES, in a pragmatic sense, Sarek was right. But justifcation of actions by claiming an exemption is why I was blocked. I can't believe how so many of you can't see the simple parallel here.

As for these accusations made by Doc, and possibly Bugs, I feel like I now need my long form birth certificate. Suspicious much? I can easily prove who I am and that I didn't edit Wikipedia in the intervening time. You ever hear of someone trying something because they hear the hype and the moving on? Believe it or not, I do have other things in my life than just Wikipedia. If you have some method that can convince you, I could try and accomodate that, but I have a feeling you're just being jerks really. -- Avanu (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Resist the temptation to edit war in the future, and you'll be much better off. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Good advice, but not the point, Bugs. -- Avanu (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If you violate the 3-revert rule, then who blocks you is not really relevant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Untrue. See WP:UNINVOLVED not to mention the many comments from admins and other users above. There are legitimate reasons for reverting more than 3 times in 24 hours -- 3RR is in truth not actually the "bright line" that people claim it is. A blocking admin always has to discern that the warring editor isn't reverting vandalism first. Someone who is involved in a dispute with another editor should not be making those types of determinations about their edits. I sense several comments here being directed towards Avanu, and some kind of dislike for him, as opposed to the actual issue at hand, which is WP:UNINVOLVED. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless a user is reverting vandalism or the edits of a banned user, 3RR is not only a bright-line, but it's not even necessary to breach it, if it's obvious edit-warring is going on. If an involved admin made the block, it could be discussed. But that does not let the edit-warrior off the hook. If someone is edit-warring, they are subject to being blocked to put a stop to the edit-warring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• I suggest the closing of this thread. All that could be said has been said, already, and keeping it open would only lead to redundant postings. IMHO. Apologies for not having said this sooner. As to Gris's comment on this -- there doesn't seem to be a consensus here for more than everyone saying their piece. Which has now happened. There is no consensus for action being taken against Sarek, and any effort to continue to say the same things at him as is happening now is just cluttering up this board, methinks. Good points have been made, all around. Time to close, and free people up for other pursuits. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• Seem like an extreme and repeated violation of WP:INVOLVED. Temporary suspension of admin tools appears warranted. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • If the admin were not involved, would the block have been warranted? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

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