Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

This is the eighth SPI done on him, the last not even a week ago,. Honestly it's starting to border on harassment at this point. Any time a new account or IP pops up that happens to edit the same article he does, the community screeches SOCKPUPPET! and reports him. HalfShadow 05:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but what can we do about it at AN/I?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Far too much attention is being paid to SD! Do I just not seem to have what it takes to be a sock puppet master?! On a serious note, yeah, it's getting silly. Sol (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Has he been notified? Basket of Puppies 05:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SD has been around for a year and a half, and Frederico1234 has been around for almost three years. One would think that if they were socks, that would have become evident before now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The focal point of user Juijitsu's complaint is the article Cave of the Ramban, and he seems to be involved in arguments with at least 3 different users there. It must be obscure, since "I" never heard of it, but as the editors in question show an interest in this region, it's more likely they would have heard of it. That observation doesn't prove anything either way. But the previous SPI's have all been either vindication for SD, or dismissal due to lack of evidence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can some admin please delete the outing that has taken place at the SPI? Jiujitsuguy is revealing my location, my ethnicity and nationality, its personal information and I don't want it revealed. He links to an old account (removed) that I in the name reveal both my ethnicity and nationality, its not a sock, Before I registered this account I had that account that I used a few times, keep in mind that I didn't know anything about Wikipedia rules at that time, then several months later when I wanted to edit Wikipedia again I just registered a new account, I didn't know that I should have used the old account, I didn't think about it at all, at many websites I just register a new account instead of trying to find out the password. I never pretended to be someone else or something like that with this account. I just abandoned the other one. The problem is that I was very inactive with that account and I didn't know any of Wikipedia rules, so at one point of time I did some inappropriate canvassing when I wanted to get attention to an article problem: [1] I'm not trying to hide it, I didn't know anything about the rules here and didn't realize that I did something wrong. The problem with that account is that both my ethnicity and nationality is revealed, and I don't want to be outed, I regret revealing that personal information, and I told shuki about it at my talkpage [2] I told him I did not want it revealed. Because of the personal information. Now he must have told Jiujitsuguy what account that was and Jiujitsuguy made a post about it at Shukis talkpage, so Jiujitsuguy must have seen the conversation between me and Shuki and asked for the previous account, but despite this he is revealing the account - revealing my ethnicity and nationality. I now ask you to please delete the comments at shukis talkpage and SPI so that the link to my previous account is removed and my personal information is not revealed, and the personal information connected to my old account, and my location and nationality is removed [3]And please tell shuki and Jiujitsuguy not to continue to out me. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, can you pass it to another admin (SD left a request at my talk). I won't do it because I have been told by User:SandyGeorgia here that our standards for outing are those of Wikipedia Review and that if your name is available by doing Internet research, then you're out of luck on outing. Since all of this is ... somwhat different from what I learned after becoming an admin, I will brush up on my knowledge of outing before acting in such a case again. --Wehwalt (talk) 11:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you admit in the post just above that you are the same account as (removed), then that would have to be revdelelted, according to your interpretation of "outing", SD. Do you want a revdelete of anything that would ever tie you to the account that you are mentioning as being you? You have confirmed that the accounts are both you yet again. You cannot "out" yourself, and I challenge any editor to show me how one can without giving out truly personal information that has not been subsequently deleted. Real name, address, serial number: that stuff. "Supreme Deliciousness" is most likely not your real name... Doc talk 11:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts? There is one account. I don't want that account shown to be me anywhere as it reveals my ethnicity and nationality.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"He links to an old account (removed) that I in the name reveal both my ethnicity and nationality..." It's not personal information that could actually harm you - stop it, please. You misunderstand what WP:OUTING is meant for, I'm afraid... Doc talk 11:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've revdel'd the SPI stuff, since Admins can still see it, it seemed safest to do that. SandyGeorgia is wrong, our policy says "Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." and says nothing about an exemption if it's available through an Internet search. Dougweller (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia might be wrong if she had said any of that and Wehwalt were representing my views correctly. Alas and alack, not the case. By the way, Wehwalt, if you tell stories about me again, would you mind letting me know? Is it All About Me All The Time with you? Must I follow all of your posts or rely on people to let me know when you're misrepresenting me? Please, lower the focus on me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just like you didn't notify me of this little turkey of a comment about me? However, I intended my subsequent comment there as an olive branch. Deal?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, since when do you need to be notified of a conversation you're participating in? You wouldn't be trying to make me chase my tail, would you? Olive branch for what? I've got no problem; you just stop poking me, stirring the pot, misrepresenting me, and being pointy, would be a better deal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endless rehashing of the past and grievances does no one any good. Let's agree about the future, which alone is capable of change.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, let's agree that you the next time you go to AN/I and make false claims about me behind my back, we will have a grievance, and YOU need to stop poking and "rehashing". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Come on guys; snipe at each other somewhere else. HalfShadow 04:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And SD, many people are known to be of a certain nationality, sex, or religious group without being considered to out themselves.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit off topic, but the problem is that WP:OUTING goes on to define what it means by "personal information" as follows: "Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not." I'm not sure that nationality or ethnicity fall into that definition. If I had the information on that list, I would be able to find where you live and work, steal your identity, or contact you without Wikipedia seeing it, leading to possible harm or harassment off-Wiki. Things like nationality and ethnicity (or sex) don't provide the person who knows that information any such power to harm or harass off-Wiki. I'm not saying I oppose the definition specifically in the case of SD, but just generally I think those types of information should not be considered WP:OUTING. Maybe we need something more like WP:VANISH, whereby editors would have the right to have information posted about them vanish as well. ← George ^talk 11:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo - but now you should revdel this whole thread, since "Jiujitsuguy is revealing my location, my ethnicity and nationality, its personal information and I don't want it revealed." "Location" has been taken care of... but "ethnicity" and "nationality", still for all to see, and within this thread. I'm also, shockingly, (removed). Actually, I'm really not. I'm Scotch/Javanese. I mean New Guinean/Luxembourgian. Eh - just revdel all this too, just to be "safe". But this is my real information: you gotta believe me! 555-1234: call me ;> Doc talk 12:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is concerned about outing, announcing it here is not the best approach. A better approach would be to contact a trusted admin via e-mail. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly referring to someone as a "transexual Filipino" or whatever could be harassment, especially if the editor referred to is clearly distressed or has asked the other user to stop. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I think that WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA already cover on-Wiki harassment of that nature. ← George ^talk 22:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that self-revealed ethnicity and nationality is covered by the outing policy, since this information is not in any way sufficient to determine identity and was in any case posted by the editor himself, but since SD objects to the name of his old account being referred to because it reveals this information, would an admin please change the name of the account to something neutral of SD's choice, so that this doesn't become an avoidance of scrutiny for the edits made by that account (such as the canvassing of multiple editors complaining that the "Golan" article had been taken over by Israelis)? We are all responsible for our edits, and there's no reason that SD shouldn't be held responsible for those edits simply because of this matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Arnold Reisman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Ellen Reisman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• BandGwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Fusion is the future (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The article Arnold Reisman, about a retired professor, was created by User:Ellen Reisman, and extensively expanded by User:Arnold Reisman using that account and a number of IP sockpuppets. (I believe that User Reisman confirmed his real-world identity as Arnold Reisman to OTRS, but I don't have a link for that.) After discussion on AN/I, both Reisman accounts were indef blocked for extensive self-promotion of Reisman's self-published books, which were spammed into numerous articles. Neither account has ever asked to be unblocked.

In June, an IP attempted to edit in a similar manner to User:Arnold Reisman, and was warned off, [4],[5] to be replaced by User:BandGwolf, who was also warned off. [6], [7],[8]

In September, User:Fusion is the future is created, and edits productively to jazz-related articles for almost two months, before starting to edit the Arnold Reisman article – which is totally unrealted to jazz – in a manner similar to the editing by Reisman. Once again, I warned the editor, resulting in extensive discussion in which Fusion adamantly denied being in any way connected to Reisman. [9] Fusion reaches out to admin User:Slim Virgin for assistance, [10], who examines the article and strips it, as a BLP, of all unsourced statements.

Since then, there have been numerous threads on the article's talk page and on the RSN board concerning the article. Fusion persists in attempting to add material to the article using primary sources, ignoring Slim Virgin's request for secondary sources to show the subject's notability. User:Fladrif has indicated that there are some secondary sources, reviews from reliable sources of the professor's self-published books, but Fusion has, as of yet, declined to integrate these into the article.

Uninvolved admin intervention is needed for these reasons:

• Given Fusion's attitude towards this article, his clear self-involvement in the subject, his personal reactions whenever anyone does not agree with what he wants to do, his setting up as first one editor (me) and then another (Slim Virgin) as the "bad guy" preventing him from doing what he wants to with the article, and given that the article's subject is totally disconnected from the subject area Fusion otherwise edits in (jazz), it is nearly impossible not to come to the conclusion that Fusion is in some way connected to Arnold Reisman, either as a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. Arnold Reisman (the editor) has never requested a lifting of the indef block, yet has persisted in attempting to shape the article about him through socks, and this is appears to be yet now another attempt, albeit a somewhat more Wiki-sophisticated one, to do so. An admin should decide whether the behavioral evidence is strong enough that Fusion should be indef blocked as a sock- or meatpuppet of Reisman.

• Regardless of whether Fusion is a sock- or meatpuppet or not, his behavior has become an egregious case of I didn't hear that and his framing of other editors as adversaries is uncivil, uncollegial and indicates a battleground mentality. An uninvolved admin should warn him not to continue editing in this manner.

• Finally, although the article Arnold Reisman has survived two AfDs [11],[12], the most recent one in May of this year, some determination should be made of whether it is sourced sufficiently as a BLP to be kept. If so, then it should probably be taken to AfD again, since, despite over two weeks having passed since Slim Virgin asked for secondary sources, it is still based almost entirely on primary sources, and does not appear as if it fulfills the notability requirements for subjects of this type. (I'd rather not take it to AfD until these other issues are decided.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All named parties have been notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the last of your comments on the subject, my thinking is that if the article were taken to AfD and deleted then it would make much of the rest of the concerns noted moot - especially if User:Fusion is the future confined themselves to editing jazz related articles. Again, if the AfD resulted in good secondary sources being located and added then the other concerns, if not moot, would be of considerably less import. What is your rationale for not moving to AfD, precisely? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess primarily that I'm involved, and that bringing it to AfD might be perceived as a tactic rather than a good faith nomination. I've no objection to filing there, if that's what folks thinks is the best thing to do. Aside from that, I had (and have) no particular objection to the existence of the article per se. This report was provoked by Fusion's most recent comment on the article talk page, which convinced me that we were on a merry-go-round that didn't show signs of stopping. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me, Arnold Reisman seems borderline notable at best. There are others in his field more notable than he who still do not have WP articles written about them. Even so, I think the solution must continue to be Whack-A-Mole, where each new meat- or sockpuppet is blocked. Binksternet (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No objection to an AfD, but to disallow primary sources in an article is inappropriate. If I'm understanding correctly then VS is wrong in preventing them if they are otherwise reliable. Hobit (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Primary sources are fine, Hobit, so long as the article is based on secondary sources. I don't know what to make of the Arnold Reisman situation. This is the version of the article Reisman himself seems to want, and has tried to insert using various accounts and IPs. Problem is that much of it is unsourced. He appears to be a former academic at the Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. What might make him more notable is a series of books he wrote on Turkey and the Holocaust, listed here on Amazon. But when you look at the publishers, you find they're all self-published. In addition, Reisman has written a blog post on how to use the Web, including Wikipedia, to self-promote books: "My premise is that the Web has made possible a direct relationship between a book’s author, its purchaser and or reader ... What is also significant to the author, is that it’s cost free ..." This was accompanied by someone spamming his book titles into a number of WP articles.

  So at this point it becomes difficult to know what to trust, and for that reason we've been asking Fusion to construct the article out of secondary sources. Fladrif found some book reviews and posted them on the talk page, but all we get from Fusion are long posts complaining about other editors. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Using a school's website as evidence that a talk was given at that school is perfectly reasonable. It's a perfectly valid reliable source unless you have evidence otherwise. I'd say it even counts (a very little bit) toward WP:N. No reliable source, primary or otherwise, should be kept out of the article if it improves the article. One can certainly argue if it does improve the article and one can very easily argue this belongs at AfD (heck, it's close enough I'll do it) but I don't think we should be keeping sources out because notability hasn't been established. Hobit (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet, before you make any further comment, I kindly suggest you read the discussions, all of them, from the scratch.

First here, than here. and than here.

Otherwise, you are hurting me with these words:

• "I think the solution must continue to be Whack-A-Mole, where each new meat- or sockpuppet is blocked."

This is to me, "Rush to judgment."

@Beyond My Ken, I am truly thankful to you, that you brought it up here, even though you still try to spread doubts about me, still, I am happy, so that uninvolved editors and Administrators alike can sort things out by going to the bottom of it.

As I said all along, my words are my honor and the basis for my credibility. I would also ask the respective admins to run an IP check on me. Thank you. _{Fusion Is the} Future 23:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You mean you wish me to give the tar baby a good poke? No, thank you. I ran into the Arnold Reisman article a while ago, months before you created your current user profile, and at the time I searched and searched to try and unearth some solid notability reference to help the article stand on its own. I failed, something I am not used to. I do not expect that Reisman has significant new material since this discussion makes no mention of any, so I do not wish to revisit the article's sourcing problems, and I especially do not wish to engage Reisman supporters in debate. I have written more than a hundred Wikipedia articles from scratch, and improved hundreds more by adding good cites, and I have never had the kind of trouble finding good sources as I had with Reisman. I made up my mind months ago that Reisman is borderline notable at best, and possibly a candidate for deletion. Binksternet (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's now nominated, for the third time. Uncle G (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The behavioural evidence, including amongst other things fairly clear evasion of a simple what's-your-source question, is quite compelling at this point. Uncle G (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Obscure answers are something of a speciality of this user; see Talk:Atilla Engin (not for the faint of heart). pablo 12:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hadn't read that. Ouch! There's more behavioural evidence there, including another diff that tallies with Arnold Reisman (talk · contribs) and adds another brick to the pile. The continued evasion below is fairly transparent, too. Uncle G (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps, although Arnold Reisman appears to be better acquainted with the English language. pablo 00:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet, I guess I was not clear enough. Okay. Please allow me to pass you a not-so-well-kept secret. The honorable and surely most defendable thing to do is to ask me directly, whether I am the above-mentioned subject or do I have any connections to him. Fair enough. Then, you get my answer. Either you assume good-faith and take my word for it, or, if you are not satisfied with my answer, you go ahead and file SPI on me. That's the right way to do it.

Otherwise, saying this will only damage the credibility of the one who says it:

• "I think the solution must continue to be Whack-A-Mole, where each new meat- or sockpuppet is blocked."

Again, please read this first, than this. and than this before you make any further comments. The answers are there, including about 15 secondary sources I found on the Internet, after a hard work, which all were rejected by Beyond My Ken. The reason of his rejection was, these references were about self-published books. When he said that, I stopped there, and never added any text nor references to support the subject's book claims. So simple as that.

And, saying "I made up my mind months ago that Reisman is borderline notable at best" is an opinionated statement.

Since I encountered this article I found many sources. Did you check them all?

You still have to assume good faith. It's about improving the articles. We can not be opinionated. Being impartial is a must. Don't you think so?

Yesterday is behind us. Today is a new day and you might be surprised when you check the sources I found. And here, the Board of Administrators, is the right place to examine these sources whether they can be used. Thanks. _{Fusion Is the} Future 12:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Uncle G

What "behavioural evidence?"

What are "amongst other things?"

And, "evation of" what? Please explain. Thank you. _{Fusion Is the} Future 12:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:"Evasion" - Uncle G is referring to this series of posts in which Slim Virgin asked you how you know certain personal facts about Arnold Reisman's character, and you avoided answering her question and instead issued her a "warning". The post that preceded her question was full of specific details about Reisman's life and character. What is your source for this information? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That post with details of Reisman's inner character and motivations appears enough to put this user up at SPI. If proved to be Reisman, the user will of course be indef blocked as a sockpuppet. Binksternet (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To all uninvolved Administrators and Editors

This is incredible that I'm being framed up here, being falsely and openly incriminated.

Now, please go and file an SPI on me now, as I suggested to the admins, two days ago. I mean now.

@SlimVirgin, as you failed to intervene as an admin, despite my outcry, you will live with this for the rest of your life, because you passivly contributed to this false incrimination. As an editor, you made one mistake after another. You did not/never seek consensus. You just did it, as you wanted. Thank you. _{Fusion Is the} Future 13:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mclaudt is requesting that his community ban be lifted. The reason he gives is, "Please unblock me. I have no time no intention for canvassing or train-wrecking Linux software discussions. I'm getting PhD in quantum chemistry and I want to be really useful for Wikipedia in that field. Also I'm happy to be an active Wikipedia donator because I sincerely support ideas that Wikipedia declares. Thanks." Is there support for lifting this ban? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not by me. The user's request does not address in any useful detail the many reasons given for his ban in the discussion that led up to it. It is therefore unconvincing.  Sandstein  22:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support- it's been nearly eight months and the user has promised to behave, and I for one don't require a lengthy essay by way of apology or shameless grovelling before supporting an unblock. If the editor resumes disruptive behaviour they can be reverted and blocked again very easily. Reyk _YO! 23:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• weak support I agree with Reyk (which may be a first?) It's been long enough, see how it goes. Hobit (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I feel I should point out that he also contacted me about it - which I find odd because I've got it written plain as day on my talk page that I lost the tools in July and will not have them back for the forseeable future. In any case, Neutral. I'm leery of the "I'm a *REFORMED* alcoholic" defense, and I'd like to see a bit more than vague speech. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 23:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's been long enough, but I don't see evidence of understanding why he was banned in the first place and what he will do to avoid those issues. I also woule like to see how he wishes to be "really useful": working on any drafts first, etc. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question- The guy was blocked/banned for off-site canvassing and has now said that he has no intention of canvassing again. Does this not demonstrate a knowledge of what he was blocked for? If not, what would you consider a satisfactory answer? And, if you were in his shoes, how would you explain how you'd avoid canvassing again that goes beyond saying "I won't do it anymore"? What other possible answer is there? Reyk _YO! 03:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Give him a standard offer and see if he agrees to the terms. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lifting ban, his sincere request is good enough for me. He may have a rocky past but it's on record now and I don't believe he's dangerous to the project. -- œ^™ 10:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral comment Reblocks, following a community unblock, are easy. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support I'd prefer to see a full year go by, but I don't feel strongly about it. If he can contribute within our rules, give him a chance. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support standard offer: Seems to have an understanding of what he was blocked for, and as long as he understands that this is a last chance, I think it's worth considering. Kansan (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to report harassment/stalking by User talk:MickMacNee, per his comments on my talk page. I'm not sure if he's stalking me or User:Mjroots, but in either case the stalking is unwarranted. I was blocked on 31 October 2010 for "baiting Mick" on his talk page while he was blocked (Actually, I was trying to make fun of an admin, and the whole thing backfired. I learned my lesson anyway.) Anyway, I should be able to make comments in passing about someone without having to fear that they will feel the need to comment on it. In the case with Mick, he is known for harassing other users, especially at AFDs, and has been the subject of many ANIs in the past for such harassment, and other related behavioral issues. I'd like an injunction against his posting on my talk page for any reason other than gving notices reguiered by WP such as for ANIs, and ask that he be restricted in his interctions with me on AFDs where I have posted first, allowing other users to respond to me. I'll agree to the same restrictions in return, if needed. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have modified the header of this section. Stalking is a real-world activity that involves physically following a person and threatening their well-being. You're not being stalked, and using that term to describe someone posting on your talk page when you've made reference to them is unacceptable. This is not a comment on the remainder of the report, but a correction in terminology that should routinely be enforced on this noticeboard; the term "wikistalking" was deliberately deprecated a considerable time ago because of this issue, and it is remarkably disappointing to see that regular posters on this board have forgotten it. Risker (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a limited definition, and one I don't accept. Whether you call it hounding or stalking, it amounts to the same thing. it's a form of bullying, whatever you chose to call it. - BilCat (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  BilCat, Risker is spot-on here. I've not read any further than this in this thread, but I, too, insist that you adopt more appropriate terminology. Robert Bardo is a stalker. Mick is a chronically disruptive editor who keeps skating by being indef'd. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 06:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, you're right, I was wrong. To be honest, I was so angry when I first came here that I forgot that "stalking" was deprecated - seriously. I still disagree with the reasoning, but you are correct that it is not considered a neutral term. My apologies for it's use, and for my "defense" of it. I'll do my best not to use it again. - BilCat (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. It is a poisonous term, and it is part of the whole toxic-wiki environment. Risker has advised that that a prohibition of its use should be enforced on this noticeboard, and I strongly support that. Users who use the term should get one warning, and then a block on any subsequent uses. Calling someone a stalker is little different than calling them a paedophile; they are both accusations of criminality and should be viewed in the same manner as leagal threats. And, no, this is not at all about neutrality. Jack Merridew 21:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Such an interaction ban would seem reasonable to me. You obviously both rub each other up the wrong way or whatever. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Nothing good will come from you posting on each others' talk pages. So I'd support an interaction ban. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• In agreement, an interaction ban would do nicely. GoodDay (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reserve the 'right' to comment wherever and whenever my name is being mentioned, whether that user feels they have the right not to 'fear' my input or not. If that location is on a talk page of a user who does not want me there, then I reserve the 'right' to expect that they cease bandying my name about in casually incivil conversation, safe in the knowledge that I cannot respond. That is pretty much the definition of baiting right there. Infact, while we're at it, I also reserve the right not to be called a mother fucker and a stalker in edit summaries, period, in all cases the former, and at least without evidence in the latter. This ANI complaint of 'stalking' is based on one post to one talk page, where my name was being mentioned. I was not aware of any ban of myself from that talk page, neither formal or through the expressed wishes of BilCat. Based on these facts, and the fact that this report makes various oblique references to my 'past behavior' in the best tradition of poisoning what he already knows is a very viperous well for me, I think it's pretty fucking clear who is baiting who here. Based on past experience of what he does and doesn't know about EQ, I will happilly accept the most formal and complete interaction ban with this user, who cannot it seems even file an ANI report header in a neutral, non-offensive manner, on the express proviso that I have done nothing wrong wrt the bare facts of this report, and also with the exception of his rather unusual 'me first' Afd suggestion, which can only be seen as an attempt to game me off of an ongoing notability content debate. I would note however that he is in no position to be offering to stay off my talk page save for notices etc as some sort of new bargaining chip at all, that was apparently what he had already agreed to do when he was unblocked for the aformentioned baiting of me the first time round. I had no knowledge of what was arranged in that appeal, and certainly no notifications of any related consequent obligations/restrictions on me, as I already explained here and here, and which has been clarified for him by the blocking admin here, so any and all suggestions from him that I have been baiting him, are quite false. MickMacNee (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think it should be clear that this interaction ban will be imposed on a "no liability" basis. It should also be clear that, as per usual, the interaction ban means neither party can "make reference to or comment on [the other party] anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly". --Mkativerata (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ban is two-ways. Also, he might've been calling you a Massey Ferguson. GoodDay (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From a user who uses profanity in regular converstaion on a regulkar basis, Mick's objection to being called an "m-f" is hilarious! He's called me worse names than 2 letters and a hyphen on several occasions. As to "stalking", that's why we;re here: to address unwanted attention and harassment. Note this is not the first time he has done this,, on my talk page or on others. He even interjects himself into converstations where I'm asking for advice out of frustration at dealing with him on another page - that also appears to be both harrasment and baiting, as he did at this admin's talk page today. This sort of behavior is normal for Mick, and no one else is permitted to do thses same things to him, even inadvertantly, as my block incident shows. If the community wishes to impose a direct and indirect ban on both of us, that's their choice. I won't be watchlisting his page (and I haven't been) to see that he keeps his part of the injuction, and I wouild ask he not be permitted to watchlist mine either. Let an impartial 3rd party do that if required. - BilCat (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massey Ferguson? That's daft. MMN meant mother-fucker. Jack Merridew 17:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reiterate, I will most definitley not be abiding by any restriction if it is enacted in such a way that gives this person's complaints here anything other than complete dismissal as totally and utterly unfounded. I will accept an interaction ban only because it benefits me and stops me from having to be subjected to his ongoing slurs and attacks, both direct and indirect, and nothing else. Anyone is free to go and look at the archive of his block appeals I provided above, it shows pretty clearly that nobody was convinced by his allegation that there is some sort of disparity between his treatment and mine wrt the block button. Infact, considering his baiting occured while I was in the middle of being community banned without the being allowed to defend yourself part, whereas he was just sitting out a week long block for a pretty egregious violation, which would have been quickly reduced to 24 hrs had he not shot himself in the foot with this exact sort of baseless allegation, I think he's got some brass balls even suggesting it. This guy thinks I have admin friends, that's how off base he is. I have had more than my fill of people dragnetting ANI for old Mick threads just like this and then claiming they are evidence I do this, that or the other at arbcom and such like. This stirring ANI is what is real misbehaviour, not placing perfectly relevant replies on an admin's talk page when this user is making requests that he pass messages to me because he says it 'appears' I've done this or that. I will also not accept any form of ban that restricts us commenting on the same content/process pages like Afd/articles, with the exception of direct conversation, this is certainly not what I understand as the standard 'interaction ban'. MickMacNee (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An interaction ban would not prohibit you from participating in the same discussions, such as AfDs, but it would prohibit you and BilCat from replying to each other's comments. Regarding "I will most definitley not be abiding by any restriction if it is enacted in such a way that gives this person's complaints here anything other than complete dismissal as totally and utterly unfounded.": the ban would not be enacted to give legitimacy to anything. It's no liability, for the purposes of preventing future problems without determining who may have been in the right or in the wrong in the past. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's as I thought, although it probably needs breaking down for him in clear terms that he can refer back to, his misconceptions over policy, let alone even his basic recollections in this issue here really are that bad from my perspective. As for liability, as long as the resolution says that in crystal clear terms, I am fine with that also. And noting that he was already banned from my talk page anyway, even though I didn't even know, would also not go amiss, to give context to the above allegations and diffs. MickMacNee (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There he goes again, misrepresenting the truth. I think it's quite clear to anyone else why I am so frustrated with Mick. He is a bully, and anytime anyone dares to stand up to him, this is what happens. As to admin friends, HJMitchell is the one who blocked me, and then disapperared promply for 20 hours *he said he had trouble logging in, while I had to endure a 20-hour block after I stated I would not comment on Mick's page again. Blocks are supposedly not punitive, but I haven't got those 20 hours back yet. HJM also unblocked Mick while discussions were underway about lifting Mick's indefinite block. (Stated for the record, as Mick brought it up this time.) I'm a good editor, and while I have a history that shows I have a short temper, I'm generally quick to admit I'm wrong. I know I haven't behaved perfectly in this matter, and have "shot myself inthe foot" on several occasion, however inadvertanly. But Mick's bullying tactics are right here on this page for all to see! This is how he treats everyone who dares to disagree with him. The recent AFD's that he and HJMitchel have prticipated in are compltes jokes. They file an AFD on almost evert aviation accidennet article that's created, and almost all of them are kept. Yet they keep doing it, they repeat the same NOTNEWS nonsense at every AFD they participate in, and nothing changes. Mick instists on cross-examining every comment that disagrees with him to the inth degre, but it's all the same thing! The really odd thing is that Mick almost never participates in the accident AFDs were it's qute ovbious that the subject is non-notable. I can't help but think they're pushing an agenda here. If they won most of the AFDs, it would be a different story, but that's not the case. I actually stopped participating in Aviation accident AFDs completely for several weeks, then stared back while Mick was indefinitely blocked. We've had little interatcion in AFDs until today, but his showing up uninvited on my talk page set me off. I admit I shouldn't let it bother me, but it does. I'm not the only person he bullies, but I am just dumb enough to think eventually it will all catch up with him. I repeat Mick's own profane own words verbatim to HJM, and HJM immediately wanrs me, but Mick hasn't been warned for the original statement yet! I know it;s easy to tell me to just grow up, tht WP is not for the faint-hearted, blah blah blah. But seriously, who else on WP hets to say point blank that WPCIVIL doesn't apply to him if the other person is making a dumb argument! (yes, I actually have the diff on that one, if someone really cares to see it.) He admits he doesn't feel bound by WPCIVIL, and yet he's still here, bullying anyone who disagrees with him. Sorry, but yes, I'm angry and frustrated, I admit that. How long will Mick's uncivil behavior on a daily basis be allowed to continue before someone says enough is enough? Help stop him, please. - BilCat (talk) 05:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's helpful for either party to continue to post here about each other. We've proposed a solution that both parties seem to agree to, that will have consensus support, and that will solve the problem going forward. No-one's going to get blocked here (I hope) so why bother? --Mkativerata (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have to realize this is the last time either of us will be allowed to say this here on WP, to tell our sides of the story. Give us a little space, please. No one's going to get killed, so why not let it go a bit longer? - BilCat (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, even though this is ANI, this is an encyclopaedia not a place to tell your side of the story. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But this is ANI - there's no where else to go, as we're both giving up the right to take it to any other venue on WP, as I understand the terms. ANd we both hope something else will be done intstead of this solution. - BilCat (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No probs, keep commenting on each other (or don't - your guy's choice) until the thread is closed. GoodDay (talk) 06:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, as long as it is made crystal clear, and I mean 100% indisputable, that nothing this guy has alleged in here has been proven to be true in any way, then I'm fine diddly-ine with that frankly. Not much of what he said in this latest paranoid-delusional half page rant is even remotely true tbh. I invite anyone to pick just one of the more basic facts in it, to see if it checks out, such as the allegation that me and my best buddy Mitchell are an aircrash Afd team, and hold exclusivity in nominating any and all such articles, even the ones I also supposedly never vote in?!?!?, or even that we are simply wiki-buddies generally, or even that he has unblocked me ever, rather than just restore my talk page access once that was removed as a result of this guy's activites on it. Then you will see if it's likely or not as to whether some of the stuff that would take a bit more time to verify that he alleges, might be remotely true or not. MickMacNee (talk) 06:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant (to me) as to why you're both locking horns. That you're both locking horns is releveant, though. You both should reach a gentlemens agreement - to avoid each other & not speak of each other. GoodDay (talk) 06:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, BilCat voluntarily agreed not to interact with MMN as a condition of his unblocking. AFAIK, he has stuck to that agreement. MMN may well have been unaware of this. It is disappointing that BilCat has felt it necessary to withdraw from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sun Way Flight 4412 due to MMN's continuance of his usual behaviour at AfDs. I would urge BilCat to reconsider his withdrawal from the AfD. He has as much right to participate as any other editor does. Mjroots (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the same veign as my reply to BilCat's accusations, anyone is free to go and look at that Afd, and see if Mjroot's vague insinuations here are remotely proveable (or in this case even appropriate for an admin on the ANI board) as a description of my actual contribution in that Afd. I've tried an Rfc against him to stop exactly this sort of behaviour, but it was a waste of time, and it's not hard to see where the supposedly wiki-inexperienced BilCat is learning his bad EQ habits from. I won't stoop to BilCat's level with regard to alleging who is friends with who around here, and who does what or how at Afd, but seriously, this complaint of his here was sparked by me 'butting in' to a 'conversation' between these two on his talk page about whether "Keep, just to annoy MMN" was a valid Afd vote or not? I mean seriosuly, wtf? Infact, I urge all admins to go look at that convo, you'd be hard pressed to pick out which of them was the admin, and which was the inexperienced editor. MickMacNee (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MJR. Note that I could not tell him the agreement to stay off of his talk page, and to try to avoid conflict elsewhere, as I could not post on his page. - BilCat (talk) 06:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will not accept these terms as stated by Mick. What I have said about Mick's actions and behavior are true, and I can show the diffs - but diffs have been shown countless times at ANIs just like this one. I'll file an RFC/U if that's what's needed to be fair to Mick concerning these "accusations", though it won't be today or tomorrow (Monday or Tuesday, NYC time), as I've never doen one before. I will agree to abide by the solution until the RFC/U is filed, and let the RFC decide on the issue from that point on, even if that is to not accept the RFC. - BilCat (talk) 06:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mick is welcome to file an RFC/U agaisnt me for my accusations if he would rather do that - it matters not to me along as both our behaviors would be reviewed. (I assmume that is how an RFC works, but some things about WP are still a mystery to me!) ARBCOM has recently declined to take up a case agaist Mick (or it's stillpending, so I think RFC/U is the next step here.) - BilCat (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would save you both alot of hassle, if yas would agree to remain on opposite sides of the Wiki-street. Pluss avoid commenting on each other. GoodDay (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn't help the other people he's intimidating on a daily basis, though I'm not here today because of them. I'm not the only one he treats this way, nor are Aviation accident AFDs his only venue f intimidation - the British/Irish dispute pages are familiar with him too. But he does deserve "his day in court", as he beleives (publically at least) that I'm makeing false accusations against him. - BilCat (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom declined to take up the case re MMN. Partly because it was bundled in with a request to deal with the unblocking of MMN against consensus by an admin, despite several editors urging Arbcom to take up the case as it was felt that a RFC would not lead to any change in behaviour. It seems that a RFC on MMN is going to have to be made, something which I am working on atm. Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do what ya'll think is best. GoodDay (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will accept the terms of the restrictions, unilaterally, until the RFC/U is filed agaist Mick, as long as I'm allowed to participate in it when it is filed, or to file it myself within a certain time frame, as stipulated here. (I know Mick has seen the RFC as a threat held over his head, adn I don't ant this to be open-ended on my part.) I'll make myself availble to MJR, private communications, to help in any way that I can, if that is acceptable to the admins here. And I will unilaterally cease my comments that I ahve been making here about Mick's behavior elsewhere. Will that be acceptable? - BilCat (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've no authority in this whole matter. How you, Mick & Mj proceed is entirely in your (your 3) hands. GoodDay (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more inclined to propose a ban that is indefinite, where the one and only exception is to make a single appeal every six months be it to the Community or ArbCom. If each is going to refuse to get along and put aside their differences, and each is also refusing to avoid one another altogether, then these sorts of solutions are the only things that preserve everyone else's sanity against this utter rubbish.

Let's make no mistake; Bilcat's original comment, and Mjroots continuation of it, and MickMacNee's response to it...all of it is trolling. None of this reflects well on any of the three of you, and if you aren't willing to accept such a binding restriction voluntarily, then perhaps an involuntary restriction is all that is left. The apparent compulsive need to continue to inflame this dispute as much as possible to try to eliminate content opponents is utterly unhealthy. Am I the only one who is getting sick of it? At the end of the day, the trolling needs to stop...and you should voluntarily drop the sticks and move on to better things and ways of approaching certain situations. If you aren't going to do that but are trying to make assurances which mean diddly squat in the long run, then you're going to force the Community's hand on each of you through a series of sanctions and it won't be pretty. I seriously hope that it doesn't come to that and that the polite requests will get through to each one of you...well-before the new year arrives. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no. You cannot brush under the carpet serious allegations like stalking, harassment, bullying and intimidation made at ANI, without a shred of evidence, with a simple wave of the magic 'you're all as bad as each other wand', or by turning the issue into something else, such as the (unsubstantiated) allegation that I am trying to 'eliminate a content opponent'. Infact, filing frivelous 'mud sticks' ANI reports is a pretty good example of what someone who was actually trying to eliminate a content opponent, would try to do. You can actually see in his original report the suggestion that I be barred from any Afd he gets to first, right? I have done nothing at these Afds except give cogent, policy backed arguments, and request that others have the common courtesy to do the same, as per the instructions. If you are really interested in sanctioning people who have made personal comment after personal comment, assumption of bad faith after assumption of bad faith, and repeated, serious, attempts to poison the well in this dispute, just like this ANI complaint, then seriously, you need look no further than BilCat and Mjroots. BilCat's vote in that latest Afd was this gem of a PERTHEM/ABF combo. I take great offence to you even suggesting that I am in any way similar to him in either Afd standards of ettiquette, general behaviour, or motive, overt or otherwise. If your broad brush summary was remotely the case by the way, why is nobody here in the least bit disturbed by the fact that one of this trio is an admin? You or the community can propose whatever sanctions it like's on me, and if the evidence doesn't support it, well, let's just say I am getting used to having to use arbitrators as my first, last, and only court of session, on this site. There is a reason why they threw out the claim that ANI is evidence of proper dispute resolution, and certain posts in this thread are a pretty good example why. I've given the conditions under which I will accept an interaction ban, BilCat is the one with the issue with it, even though he is apparently in fear of me, yet here we are, still waiting for him to substantiate this report, and with him still trying to figure out a way that he can both have me eliminated from Afd and his talk page, while still having the right to generally talk shit about me. MickMacNee (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, after all this text, I have not seen an actual explanation of why you made that snarky post in the first place. Ncmvocalist is right; from what I have seen you're all as bad as each other - almost in rotation. If no one can impress on all of you how annoying this little three-way spat is then it is not going to end well. The community seems to be roundly saying the same thing; quit slinging punches at each other, edit collegially - and if you cannot do that, stay the hell away from each other before the community just gets shot of you. Resist the temptation to rise to each other, go write something. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it might have had something to do with the fact that when I raised an Rfc/U about that admin's predeliction for making incivil comments and insinuations about me all over the pedia, in little talk page convos like that, and worse, even after his own multiple frivelous ANI reports against me had all ended in no action, because I had frankly done fuck all wrong, as many people of 'the community' he supposedly is here to serve, told him at the time, it was unsurprisingly turned around on me by editors just like BilCat, coming to the rescue of their good mate, and their shared outlook on content of course had nothing to do with that, oh no. As usual, you have to go all the way up to arbcom before you start seeing actual common sense interpretations of such obvious gamery like that. This is an admin who, having been appointed over a year ago, up to this month still didn't even know basic Afd procedural things like the fact you cannot just simply speedy withdraw a 5 day old Afd with tons of delete votes on it, just because the nominator changes their mind. I have frankly lost count of how many times he has been told that his ideas about what is and is not allowed wrt threaded discussion in afd's, and yet he was still acting only last month in the farce that was my attempted banning by Sandstein as if his views were still remotely supported or within policy, to the point where he even had the brass neck to propose them as unblock conditions! Frankly, out of the three of us, I am the one with the bigger right to feel absolutely fucked off at the utterly biased and underhanded campaign I am being subjected to, with an extremely questionable admin at the heart of it, for doing nothing more outrageous than not agreeing with them as to what is and is not 'clearly notable'. MickMacNee (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been clear. My question was why you thought that a snarky reply was a reasonable response; you must have known what would happen. "I'm the victim, so a little snark is allowed" doesn't strike me as a particularly persuasive argument. I've no investment in this dispute; but from the outside it looks more than a little silly. Leave each other alone. period. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being assused of stalking, harassment, bullying and intimidation at ANI seems "silly" to you? I'm glad you have such a positive and breezy outlook on life. I on the other hand know from bitter experience what happens when people lazily summarise ANI reports as 'well, they are both as bad as each other', even when that summary is accurate, which it isn't here. It will go into the file to be pulled out at a later date by Mjroots as evidence of "my behaviour", and surprise surprise, when the shit hits the fan and these two come for me again, suddenly people will completely forget that anybody had a bad word to say about BilCat or the admin Mjroots in this thread. I hope you stick around to see it, and I hope you remember exactly what you said here, as you watch the ignorant pile on as it gathers to a frenetic pace. MickMacNee (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, if the community decided to sanction all 3 of you or anything else, there's really nothing you 3 can do about it. Editing on Wikipedia is a privillage, not a right. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I honesntly don't know if this is permitted here or should be handled elsewhere, but I must state it: I do not beleive that HJ Mitchell is neutral in respect to Mick, and would like to ask that he recuse himself from all admin actions regarding Mick, mjroots, or me, in perpetuity, for any and all issues. If he is unwilling to do that, I am willing to file an approriate appel agaisnt him seeking such restrictions. I have reason to believe that his actions have not been that of a neutral admin, but I realize now tht in previously stating that opinion, I may be handling that the wrong way by bringing it up here in my previous comments. I'm totally willing to stop that from this point on, provided I am given guidance on how to officially present my concerns to the community, and have them considered. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification: I will stop bring up HJM's conduct in any posts, except that in pursuing restrictions against his interacting as an admin with me or Mick. - BilCat (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC) - in the proper venue, betiond this question itself. - BilCat (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Back to the matter at hand, is there a consensus to impose an interaction ban on BilCat and MickMacNee? I would propose something along the lines of:

BilCat (talk · contribs) and MickMacNee (talk · contribs) are prohibited from interacting with or commenting on one another at any venue on Wikipedia and from editing each other's user talk pages for an indefinite period of time.

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, this is indeed agreeable & beneifical to the 2 editors-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, not that there are not issues; interaction bans do not work. I'm more interested in the RfC/U I saw referred to above. Jack Merridew 16:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Given that Arbcom were split on whether they should review Mick's behaviour and the removal of the block its a much bigger issue than an interaction ban. I understand an RfC is being raised per the Armcom discussion, so its best to move things there when its set up. The responses and the language above are indicative of a much wider issue. --Snowded ^TALK 16:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, keep them apart if they are unable to resist their attraction, interaction bans do seem to work. The RFC is a rumor and even if created will only address the issues with one side of the dispute, this is a good start. Off2riorob (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There has already been a RFC which raised issues with MickMacNee's editing - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mjroots. I can confirm that a RFC about MickMacNee is not rumour, it will happen soon; although I'd rather be spending my time editing articles on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support non-rumour ;) free tickets. Jack Merridew 19:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support If another RFC is to be pursued, pursue it by all means. But this is a sensible solution to stop obvious problems between two editors. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm already under a restricition to not post on Mick's talk page (ANI notices excepted), and to limit direct interaction elsewhere. I've already agreed to not engage in indirect interaction until an RFC/U is filed and processed. What happens after that depends on the result of the RFC/U or similar community or ARBCOM action. I can't see limiting such appeals to once every six months, especially if an appeal is denied with comments that it be restructured and re-submitted. Further, what is the course of appeal if one of us violates these restrictions, sicn those would not be an RFC/U issue, as I understand it? These arer serious questions. - BilCat (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then you need to understand what several users are telling you: this is not good enough and we don't find this assurance credible after seeing what has happened here.
    • The limitation on appeals is to ensure this supervision isn't moving from one venue to the appeals venues; it's to prevent any of you making excuses to interact with one another. We don't want to have to keep supervising the three of you. Should it come to the point that an appeal needs to be restructured and re-submitted as a matter of priority, the Community will amend the restriction so that you may make an extra appeal, as a one-off, to satisfy this requirement (but frankly, it is unlikely to be an issue). This is an interim measure and if either you, Mjroots or MickMacNee are unable to comply with the restriction, you would be blocked. An administrator could have blocked all of you based on the above incident; instead, we're trying this measure as a last resort before those more serious remedies. This will enable the constructive contributions from the three of you - that is, the contributions where you are not directly or indirectly interacting with MickMacNee, and the contributions where MickMacNee is not directly or indirectly interacting with you. The Community or ArbCom will amend the restriction as necessary (be it temporarily or as a long term measure) based on where the matter is at. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support interaction ban as it deals with the issue at hand without prejudice to possibly examining or RFCing other issues--Cailil ^talk 22:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support sounds like a good idea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not likely to work and is more likely going to lead to frustrations wish could be taken out on other editors. Best to wait for the RfC. Bjmullan (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The aggressive nature of the interaction is the issue and asking all parties to simply ignore each other's actions even if they are egregious is bound to be unproductive. The ongoing tendentious editing of one editor should trigger an immediate RFC and the community's resolve to follow through on positive measures to end that type of behaviour. FWiW, I realize my comments will now create a chain of voluminous debate/denial/effrontery, so be it... Bzuk (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

  'So be it'? The only tendentious behaviour here is the fact that you have for months been making poisonous commentary just like this all over the place about how it's 'high time' an Rfc was filed on me, instead of filing the Rfc yourself, or even bothering to back up your continuous accusations with a single diff, inlcuding at high visibility places like ANI, where people are not supposed to be able to get away with this shit. Why neutral admins tolerate this on this board and in those other places, considering it is definitly considered incivil behaviour if not worse (considering this thread is inronically supposed to be about harassment), is beyond me. But yet again, we come back to the point that one of the actors in this trio is an admin. Yet again, here we have an editor who seems to take his lessons on EQ from that admin, and yet there has still been zero comment in this thread in that regard. MickMacNee (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pretty much sums it up in that last statement, there appears to be little more to say... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    • And the same to you. Answering a poisonous and tendentious comment with another poisonous and tendentious comment. Well done. MickMacNee (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support These editors are both productive but they dont exactly bring out the best in each other. An interaction ban is likely to defuse all issues. -- ۩ Mask 13:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Skitole7 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• Banyamubeta (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• BMB LU (AfD discussion)

User:Skitole7 has seen fit to create BMB LU, an article which is going to be speedied (and may be a recreation of deleted BMB Lee, and seems to think this is Uncyclopedia, given the tone of the article written, the wholly fake sources, and the user's flippant attitude towards proper editing protocol. The user is clearly not interested in improving WP, so I ask that the account be CU'ed for socks and indef blocked. MSJapan (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I should also have added that BMB LU, BMB Lee, and Banya Mu Beta should be salted. MSJapan (talk) 07:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes students writing silly articles about themselves can be turned around into productive editors. All deleted contributions precede the AFD discussion. Maybe the person now understands from experience that we don't want such silliness here. Any action taken here should really be predicated upon further silliness, I think. Uncle G (talk) 10:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • They can, but I have a difficult time believing that when: a) the SPA activity on this topic goes back to July (as evidenced by User:Banyamubeta above, whom I did not even know about - good catch), b) the user refuses to act maturely or communicate properly regarding the matter, c) when the article is created three times in six months (and twice in two days), despite being deleted all three times with clear rationale, d) when said article is nonsense and has false sources, and e) when the author removes the AfD templates from the articles. I would say that instance 2 was "further silliness", instance 3 was "still further silliness", the wholly fake article is indicative of intent to insert garbage, and the exchanges on AfD and his Talk page (his response to my statement to read policies first was "But President Obama approves!") are further evidence of a lack of wanting to be a productive editor. He had that chance back in July when he created the article (the first time it was deleted). He had another chance to do so when it was deleted a second time, and yet another chance by responding appropriately to the information he was given regarding what is appropriate for WP. I think that by not doing something about this now, we are tacitly allowing a problem to occur in the future when we have been clearly forewarned on two occasions (as I'm going to let the July one go in this instance) that it will happen again. MSJapan (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please block this account. Repeated vandalism at Glasvegas‎. Bjmullan (talk) 10:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now blocked by User:Gwen Gale. Thanks. Bjmullan (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been issued a short block for vandalism, 3RR violation, and posting its non-notable self-portrait in the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Bjmullan (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block evaded with ease. EL EM EH OH, that was LAME, Bugs. ترجمة عربية (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) BLOCKED with ease. See'ya~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocke evader blocked with ease. It only took 2 minutes. - BilCat (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone cares, his fake user ID apparently means "Translate Arabic". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what the Arabic is for, "He gawn, bye-bye." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The transliteration of something close to that in everyday spoken Arabic would be kalas!. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. So if Harry Kalas were to have adopted Hawk Harrelson's strikeouts catchphrase, he could have simply invoked his own last name!

Speaking of names, I'm thinking to change my own signature to البيسبول البق, which according to Google translate is my ID in Arabic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted three articles to AfD the other day. They are

• List of American politicians convicted of crimes
• Political scandals of the United States
• List of political sex scandals in the United States

At the AfDs, Leeroy10 (talk · contribs), an account created on the 28th, immediately voted keep on all three. Leeroy10 is a blatant sockpuppet. As all three of the AfDs have now been corrupted by a sock, I suspect other active socks may have added keep votes, or the sockmaster has also voted keep. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect Leeroy10 may be a sock of Richrakh (talk · contribs). They both top posted at all three AfDs [13], and [14]... [15], and [16]... and finally [17], and [18] - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leeroy10 is someone's sock. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bring in the checkusers, and maybe start a SPI? Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, a number of regular eds have also posted keep. I think the nominator may be either unaware of BLP policy with respect to public figures, or trying to change it. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to change a thing and I know the BLP policy. Editors can vote keep all they like, it's the sockpuppets/sockmasters I'm concerned with, poisoning the discussion and attempting to stack the vote. This thread is about socking and behavior, not whether we think the AfD is merited... Some regular editors have also voted to delete, which seems to indicate I'm not alone in my concerns. Behavioral evidence seems to point at one of the people who has worked extensively on all three of these articles, per my post supplied above. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the outcome of the AfDs, Burpelson, you came here to bring up worries about a sock and it's a sock. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gwen. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leeroy10 and Richrakh are  Unlikely to be related at the moment. The only similarity besides MO are locations, but it's a very busy metropolitan area, so even that doesn't say much. –MuZemike 18:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into that. Mind, I didn't say it was Richrakh's sock. I haven't blocked because neither the AfDs nor the project are hanging over the edge on this and I'm waiting to see what happens next. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Oops, I just finished filing the SPI... if it's not needed feel free to close it. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware though, Leeroy10 is somebody's sock. Only saying. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the SPI will be able to discover the sockmaster if it's not Richrakh. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time may tell. Let me know if you see any other accounts which are straightforwardly socky. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. In the meantime, I note that Richrakh has also openly canvassed for support in the AfDs here [19]. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To "stop you"? How wonderful thrilling, how encyclopedic. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me of this Burplenson ;) (I was the one Richrakh asked for input). Yes, he perhaps should not have messaged me for support; I will explain to him why this is considered inappropriate and that should probably be enough. Given I am the only one he has asked for help I think AGF means it is a legit request for help and there was no obvious attempt to canvas - hopefully a talk page reply from me will end that as a matter --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I didn't think I needed to notify you of this discussion since I wasn't explicitly discussing you or making any accusations against you, only noting that Richrakh had attempted to canvass on someone's talk page. A note from you on his talk page telling him not to do this would be nice (although he's been here since 2007 so he should know about it by now). And why should I assume good faith of him when he's openly assumed bad faith of me, not only by canvassing for support but by accusing me of having some kind of puerile vendetta? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I was just being grumpy, apologies. I left him a reply on my talk page, hopefully that will serve as explanation :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand. The conflict is not about the content, it is about her not reading it to start with. Where should I go when the administrator responsible for the article will not inform herself about the article. Several other persons in the conversation are familiar with the content, shouldn't the administrator know the subject she is administering? Have you read the discussion, and realize how the subject is being manipulated to reflect only Gwen Gale's postition?Wm5200 (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Gale does not appear to be using admin powers to maintain that position, thus it is not a question of Gwen's admin capability and doesn't belong here. As noted, if it is a question of source reliability, that should be taken to the Reliable Sources noticeboard, if it is a question about Gwen's discussion/participation (as a regular editor) behavior, that should go to Wikiquette alerts. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking time. However, I doubt that you could familiarize yourself with the subject in only four minutes. I am trying to be polite. Joach and Kershaw (along with several other noted authors referenced in discussion) cast doubt on the "Russian Autopsy" in general and Lev Bezymenski's book in specific, yet Gwen Gale will not entertain such a thought, on 11 November she still is using an almost universally discredited "Russian Autopsy" as fact. I do not see how she is qualified to administer the discussion. Anyone who will read Kershaw's two footnotes will see the problems with her position. We are not disputing Kershaw, she won't even read him!Wm5200 (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are confused about how Wikipedia works, Wm5200. There is no "administrator responsible for the article". Agreement regarding content disputes is reached by consensus on the talk page of the article. The role of administrators is to enforce Wikipedia's agreed policies. David Biddulph (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David is correct, Wm5200, but he understates your apparent misunderstanding. Not only is there no "administrator responsible for the article", you have not had an administrator "assigned to you" and no such assignments exist. Furthermore, no editor can demand that another editor carry out a reading assignment before editing or engaging in discussion, thus your view on what "should be required reading" is of no particular consequence. Right now you are engaged in a content dispute and a dispute over the reliability of a source, which is not what this noticeboard is for. In addition to the other avenues of dispute resolution, one of the two of you may wish to seek assistance at WP:FTN. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin’s volunteer for article? Does this mean that she is not assigned me, also? An admin is responsible for policy only? She appears to be controling not only policy but content as well. The apparent problem is that she is not as informed as others in the discussion. Possible solution other admin’s to look in on article? The article is not terribly attractive, there are editors, not effective admin. I am also part of problem, need way out. Thank you.Wm5200 (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely right; that's what Steven just told you; an admin is not "assigned" to an individual editor. You say "I am also part of problem, need way out"; your way out is to accept the consensus reached by other editors, or otherwise to follow the processes defined in WP:DR. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a time lag between Steven and I. I do not dispute the consensus between the editors. I have the utmost respect for Kierzek and Farawayman. Their two days work was masterful, and greatly improved the article. I dispute Gwen Gale as an admin using her power to influence the editing, which is beyond her base of knowledge. She is beyond policy, and into content.

This is a good exit, though. I have stated my concerns, you will do with them as you wish. This is the fairest venue I’m going to find inside Wiki.Wm5200 (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read that talk page and it seems to me that excellent and detailed work was done by the editors in analysing what the sources actually say. The page was entirely civil and hard working until the entry of Gwen Gale when she and the other editors seemed to rub each other up the wrong way somehow. But Wm5200 - as has been said above, you have misunderstood how wiki works in this regard. Gwen was not there as an admin - just an editor, giving her view on the talkpage as she is entitled to do as much as any other editor. Admins have no superior position or powers when it comes to writing articles. Their job as admins is to try and keep wiki clean, as it were, for content editors to create the encyclopaedia. Beyond that they are editors like everyone else. I note that all of your edits have been to the talkpage. I applaud the process of trying to work out the best summary of the many sources in a controversial area on the talkpage, but you are as entitled as anyone else is to actually edit the articles. There are no ranks here.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't seem to be able to find the talk:death of hitler discussion prior to 20 September. Have I misplaced the archives? Thank you.Wm5200 (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the "Talk: Death of Adolf Hitler" posts between 8 August and 20 September?Wm5200 (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An IP made a vandalism edit that had the effect of hiding those comments. I've reverted and it seems fine now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does that seem suspicious to anyone else? That discussion directly relating to this thread was vandalized? Or do you think I am being paranoid? Thank you Ken.Wm5200 (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You people are lamer than the League of Nations. You all know what is going on, but none have the guts to oppose her. Not one of your own friends. Better block me instead. Wm5200 (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "her"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you mean Gwen Gale is the IP who made that edit? No freakin' way. I may have disagreed with Gwen Gale on some things in the past, but there's no way that I can see her doing something like that. Your paranoia (and lack of Wiki-sense) is showing. Come back when you have a clue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Wiki-sense"? Are you jolking? Still, I suppose it's more fun to live in your delusional world than my sometimes paranoid one. Who told you about clues, you certainly don't recognize them when you see them. "Not one of your own friends. Better block me instead."Wm5200 (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you can sell me on that “vandalism” being random? Are you telling me that you think that a discussion pertaining to, and not reflecting well on, Gwen Gale should suddenly disappear at the very time this thread is dealing with just that info is mere coincidence? Do I accuse Gwen Gale of specifically pressing “return”? No, I doubt that she did. But I do believe that someone did, thinking it was in her best interest. I do wonder why these numbers keep showing up around her. I do believe that she has an alliance. Perhaps George Smiley, or Intrepid, can come out of retirement. "Not one of your own friends. Better block me instead." Wm5200 (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BLOCK. If you want to stop editing, do so. We don't block on request. Also, please read WP:CABAL. This is not a conspiracy against you, and Gwen Gale is a long-standing member of Wikipedia with an excellent track record. Accusing her of this is rather silly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? User:Beeblebrox, and probably others, do block on request. Providing it's a good-faith request. Please ignore me if I've taken this out of context, I noticed the edit summary in passing but haven't had chance to read the thread. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. Admins can do so if they wish. But it's their baby if the person changes their mind, which gets ugly sometimes. Generally, admins won't do it because either A) the user winds up coming back, often demanding their block log be cleared; or B) the user was just baiting, so they can claim how poorly treated they were. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ever since I replaced <references /> with {{Reflist}} on Feynman point back in January [20] (which BTW led to this discussion), User:CBM is tracking my edits, and reverts all in which I replace <references /> with {{Reflist}}, or {{Reflist}} with {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} (Recent examples: [21], [22], [23], [24] led to [25], [26], [27], [28], and there are literally thousands of other articles). I know there is no Wiki guideline on whether {{Reflist}} is recommended or not, and I know WP:WIKIHOUNDING is not a rule violation per se, but this is getting ridiculous. Could someone please tell him to stop that? —bender235 (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CBM has been notified. Favonian (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bender235 is aware that our guiding principle is to not change the established style of an article, but he continues to change reference styles at his own whim. His changes are not limited to articles he is actively editing. Instead, he seems to go through random lists of articles he has never edited before, changing styles as he goes.

The most succinct response I ever received from Bender235 about this was, "That is a dumb rule I deliberately chose to ignore." [29] I am not the only person who has pointed out to Bender235 that this type of edit is inappropriate; see [30] and [31].

In any case, the underlying point here is that as long as he's permitted to make such "bold" edits, others have to be free to undo them – that's the reason that BRD works at all. The changes are not supported by any guideline; they actually go against WP:CITE's recommendation to preserve the established style. Moreover, common sense says that if there was actually consensus that <references/> should be replaced by {{reflist}} everywhere, a bot would already have done it.

I have been contributing recently at Template talk:Reflist to establish a general consensus about the right template usage, which I hope will establish more clearly whether there is a need to change the template invocations. It would be reasonable for Bender235 to stop making these changes until that discussion is settled, but he hasn't done so. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Implementing {{Reflist}} or adding that "colwidth" parameter is not "changing the established style". It is an improvement of the existing article, adding a feature that did not exist when the article was created (i.e., when its "style was established"). So by doing what I did in all those articles was following Wikipedia's one basic rule, that says "If you see something that can be improved, improve it!". In my opinion, and seemingly everyone's opinion except for CBM's, {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} is an improvement compared to {{Reflist}} (and <references />, for that matter).

By the way, I've been roaming Wikipedia for almost 6 years, fixing minor errors on thousands of articles I had "never edited before". I didn't know I needed CBM's permission to do that. —bender235 (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point of WP:CITE is that you should not make stylistic changes simply because you feel they are an improvement. People have discussed these templates before, and the reason that {{reflist}} is not mandatory is that there was not agreement that it should be; the same is true for the particular parameters to the template. If the change was clearly an improvement, there would be consensus for it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)This is reasonable. However, I would suggest that tracking and reverting edits like that is definitely a big no-no. The point of the policy you cite is to avoid pointless style disputes. If you are following Bender235 to articles purely to revert to a style (which you openly preferred) that's not really helping the matter. If he is widely making this change then address it with him (which I see has been done) then bring it to a wider forum for review. If the community says no, I imageing (AGF) that Bender235 will stop. On the issue of that policy; I've always considered the spirit of the policy to be about avoiding dispute amongst the articles contributors. Where such a change is uncontested (and so long as it is not part of a wide scale attempt to change massive numbers of articles) it should simply be taken as acceptable. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the cited example where Bender235 doesn't actually add {{reflist}} but instead modifies the column width and then you turn to <references /> is an example why tracking edits like this w/o community input doesn't work. Because you accidentally violated the policy you're citing --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So are we ever allowed to change the reference style? Does the person who adds the reference section first get to dictate how they are presented for all eternity? AniMate 19:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The principle at WP:CITE is that editors should respect the established style. Now if there was a change in the middle of a lot of editing, for example to make the article a GA, I wouldn't complain. But Bender235 is simply going randomly from one article to another changing the reference style. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the only objections to his changing of the reference styles are from people who don't think reference styles should ever be changed? From what I can see, there don't seem to be many (any?) objections from people who regularly edit the articles in question, but rather the objections come from self-appointed citation police. Apparently the objections are based on principle rather than any actual objections to the change of style, and in the absence of any objections beyond rules-lawyering, this is dumb and I'd ignore it too. AniMate 20:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a large number of people have come to Template talk:reflist to complain about changes to the way that columns are displayed. One of the common changes that Bender235 makes is to change from a fixed column count to a flexible one. It seems, based on the discussion on the template talk page, that a consensus is forming against that change. So this is not just a matter of principle, although the principle alone is already enough to make the edits inappropriate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AniMate, you're right. CBM is the only one objecting the move from <references /> with {{Reflist}}. On most articles I fixed, other people actually reverted CBM's revert (e.g., [32]). Like I said, this is getting ridiculous. I have idea why CBM is acting like this. —bender235 (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Errant: I have taken it up with Bender235, as have others; see the diffs I provided. He simply ignores it when people point out his edits are inappropriate. So I have instead been discussing things at Template talk:reflist to try to find out what the actual consensus on the matter is. But in the meantime as long as Bender235 is making "bold" edits, anyone is free to undo them. I will check the diffs more carefully in the future to avoid the mistake you pointed out. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong opinion but, Carl, this one is for me obvious that reflist is much better. They are 12 references there. I am not sure if there is any policy on the number of references the page much have to use reflist but I usually use when they are many. As I wrote before, I don't have strong opinion on the subject I just made a comment of this certain edit. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy about it; if there was, a bot would probably have already made the change, and AWB would also make the change as part of general fixes. The reason that these things are not done already is that, in the past at least, there was never consensus for the change. After this thread was opened, though, I started a thread at WP:VPR about whether to go through and change the remaining <reflerences/> invocations. Maybe that will lead to a new consensus that will let AWB handle it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CBM; I appreciate that you have tried to address this (I did mention that in my first post). But I think the point is that the next avenue is to bring it here and get community input on whether Bender235 can continue to make these edits (as a separate issue from whether it is a good idea or not) - if the community says no then it becomes appropriate to take the action you did. Basically what I am saying is that finding these edits to revert presents a number of problems - one example being highlighted. In addition it is somewhat against the spirit and word of the policy which indicates that citation format should be kept to avoid changing article level convention and cause unnecessary dispute. The insinuation being; it is a policy that regular page editors can cite if Bender235 comes in and makes these changes. I'm waffling, but you get my point. Perhaps some form of proposal here on AN/I now about stopping these actions in the short term and see how much support that gets? --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to propose that Bender235 and I both stop until a clear consensus is established. That seems like a good-faith resolution. If there is indeed a consensus for changing all instances of <references/> to {{reflist}}, it should become apparent pretty soon on the thread I started on WP:VPR, and I'll be happy to abide by it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who determines whether there is consensus to use {{Reflist}} instead of <references />? And hasn't this consensus de facto been established already, since {{Reflist}} is implemented in almost 1.7 million articles? —bender235 (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend you participate in the village pump thread. So far, the trend seems to be that people support changing the CSS for <references/> instead of replacing <references> with {{reflist}}. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: AWB doesn't change references to reflist. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware. I take that as strong evidence that there was not consensus to make the change globally, since AWB devs are usually on top of these things. However, if the style issue is resolved (by making <references/> have the same style as {{reflist}}) then the change could be added to AWB, like a template replacement, if people wanted to. That's all I was saying. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I routinely replace <references /> with {{Reflist}} whenever I am editing the article for some other reason. Does this mean I should not? Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not IMO. I do the same and consider it appropriate. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if CBM finally recognizes the consensus here. —bender235 (talk) 02:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't have been changing the font size without consensus, especially on large numbers of articles. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Bender: you see what I mean? In any case, I will watch the VPR discussion very closely, since I think it will help clarify the issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It won't clarify anything, because you made it a discussion about whether the font size of <references /> should be changed. But the original question was whether a Wikipedia user is allowed to replace <references /> with {{Reflist}} (or vice versa), or whether instead the "establised style" is presented for all eternity? —bender235 (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The effect of that replacement is to change the font size of the references. Your claim is that there is agreement that the small font size is appropriate in general. If that's true, we can just change it wiki-wide and be done with it. Clearly not everyone agrees - see Gimemetoo's comment. If the consensus is that the font size is a matter of article-by-article style, then of course everyone should leave it alone. We'll see how the VPR thread turns out. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the docs for template:reflist say, "Note that there is no consensus that a small font size should always be used for references; ". I think that is an accurate statement of the consensus a couple years ago, but it is not as clear now whether that's the consenus viewpoint. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of that comment on {{Reflist}}. The question is: does "no consensus to always use it" mean "don't implemented it anywhere w/out prior discussion", like you're suggesting. I don't think so. —bender235 (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←) See e.g. Wikipedia:MOS#Stability_of_articles. It's a basic principle here that when more than one style is acceptable, editors shouldn't go around changing from one to another based on personal preference. That principle is why your widespread edits to change reference styles, in the absence of a clear consensus for the style you change to, are simply inappropriate. However I'm willing to see if there actually is a consensus for the style you are changing to, and I'll heed any such consensus when it develops. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in your opinion on: if someone thinks that <references/> is better, do they need to ask first before converting from {{reflist}} to <references/>? If there is not a consensus in favor of {{reflist}}, would changing to <referenecs/> be inappropriate in any way? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion everyone should be allowed to convert from {{reflist}} to <references/> and vice versa. It depends on what fits the particular article (few, long notes vs. many, short refs). But I strictly condemn the idea of an "established style", because there is no such thing on Wikipedia. —bender235 (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS has said for a very long time, "Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." WP:CITEHOW says, "You should follow the style already established in an article if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected." I must be seeing ghosts. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Bender, Let me say also, that you should not be replacing <references /> with {{Reflist}} willy-nilly. Several editors have said so here. Bender's replies here seem to me to amount to just asserting that "Reflist is better". It has been explained here why you should not go around making this change. CBM is being entirely reasonable and polite. Bender, you should please participate in central discussion about whether such a change should be made wikipedia-wide, but just stop it now! --doncram (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Heitor C. Jorge likes to misconstrue other people's edits as "vandalism":

[34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]

etc.

Can an admin please explain him what is and what is not vandalism, why the above reversions haven't to do with vandalism, and please make him stop this kind of behaviour? Thanks in advance. Ninguém (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of discussion notified: [44] Ninguém (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• After looking at half a dozen of the diffs, I'm inclined to agree with Ninguem. Good faith is to be assumed, and the changes reverted by Heitor appear to be good-faith efforts to improve the articles. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have written a little note on their talk page. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 06:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user, User talk:80.189.151.45, only vandalized twice (editing tests) and then was reverted and warned a couple more times for good-faith edits by ClueBot NG and another editor. He was then blocked. I am requesting that he be unblocked because he did not vandalize enough to warrent a block. (Obviously, the blocking admin saw four warnings before User:PamD removed the inappropriate templates. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support unblock Looks like the bot mucked up. It does happen. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking admin has been notified of discussion. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - PamD struck the templates and explained why they were mistaken. Unfortunately, CluBot does not have the ability to see this, so issued escalating warnings and then made a report to AIV. I have raised this problem with the ClueBot operators, and I blanked the incorrect templates, as advised by the bot operators. I did also comment on the IP talk page that I felt the block was wrong, but it is not clear if the blocking admin has the talk page on his watchlist. I'll drop him a line to tell him about this thread (if he's not been told already). DuncanHill (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked and explanation/apology left. I assume Edgar won't mind my doing so without his OK; if I'm wrong, then I'll apologize for that too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, AIV admins should note they shouldn't automatically assume that Cluebot reversions are of vandalism, I've noticed a few false positives recently. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. DuncanHill (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This two editors have engaged in a growing joint attack on the character and integrity of an article's subject Francis Martin O'Donnell and this editor Max Kaertner. The latest in this was an expletive (some fucking lunatic) used to describe me, after his threats to alert a commission or association about the family of Francis Martin O'Donnell: [45]. Please see also [46], and the recent traffic they have generated after a highly offensive remark by an unidentified user: 113.190.132.229, at 06.45 on 26 November 2010. This has all the hallmarks of a vicious witch-hunt. My efforts to provide verifiable sources and disprove their prejudicial statements have been ignored. Max Kaertner (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having just seen something very alarming, true or not I will not be contacting any commissions or nobiliary associations. All of this I am completely letting go. Hopefully Max/Seneschally is a good person who just doesn't have the best command of his sources yet, and this is all a misunderstanding. Also I don't think he should be banned for having two accounts and just needs to pick one. As far as Francis Martin O'Donnell, I gave him the benefit of the doubt once and am happy to again. Whatever problems there may be he seems to have done some fine work and deserves credit for this. DinDraithou (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Max, Please accept my apologies if I have been threatening and incivil, and let me know where I acted in such a way. Reading your post here, I understand you feel hurt - again, please rest assured that was not my intention. Yet, I would have appreciated if you had alerted me to this issue on my talk page, citing what you think I did wrong, and give me a chance to resolve this before you post to the admin noticeboard. ReidarM (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This complaint can now be shelved, and both editors DinDraithou and ReidarM encouraged to continue their normally excellent work. Their assiduity is appreciated, but a lesson learnt for all is that objective thoroughness and civility will gain more for us as a community. in this regard, I owe them both a small apology for not being hitherto better-informed myself. I had given a reference on the AFD page to a book by J. Anthony Gaughan on Thomas O'Donnell, MP, which I remember made a reference to the Tyrconnell origins (as a tradition) of the Castlegregory O'Donnells. I just googled up "Thomas O'Donnell, MP"+"J.Anthony Gaughan" and got this: [47], a page of a review of that book by Sean O Luing in 1983, where he refers to the Tyrconnell origins of these O'Donnells. Had I known this before it might have simplified our exchange. We live and learn. My apologies to Francis Martin O'Donnell for any awkwardness all this may have caused. Max Kaertner (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate an admin's opinion on an edit war going on at Classical liberalism. Last night I noticed Learn From It (talk · contribs) making a change to the article. I looked, and it seems that the editor is an SPA, and has been adding material to the page for some time without discussion that other editors have removed [48] [49] [50] [51] completely. I reverted the newest addition, which was also reverted twice before, and asked the editor to please begin a discussion on the talk page [52] [53]. He reverted twice more [54] [55] and told me to [56] "discuss or butt out."

The new addition was reverted this morning by another editor, which was then reverted by Bullet Dropper (talk · contribs) [57]. After looking at his contributions (and block log [58]), Bullet Dropper certainly appears to be a similar SPA, and has been blocked for edit warring on the same article for inserting the same material before. BD was dormant for six weeks until LFI reached the 3RR limit on the article.

I have no stake in the article at all, but it certainly seems like two SPA accounts reaching the same place at the same time are working together to keep from edit warring. If an admin would give this one a quick glance, it would be greatly appreciated. Dayewalker (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well isn't that interesting. What an amazing coincidence! LOL. Bullet Dropper (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That attitude will get you nowhere very quickly...I suggest taking a different tone, and would do so soon if I were you. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 02:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It's just ridiculous. Bullet Dropper (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BulletDropper used a confirmed sock, User:Rapidosity[59] It seems likely that this new account is another sock. TFD (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rapidosity is my old account. Bullet Dropper (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rapidosity is a confirmed sock, as well, see it's block log. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...it seems that connection was already made in the diff above...=P It's just been one of those days. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the history of Learn From It (talk · contribs) and Bullet Dropper (talk · contribs), they look like socks to me. A move to sock puppet investigation is probably appropriate here. LK (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been through this farce before. It was claimed I was some other user(s) and order to try to keep me from making an edit, then it was found out it was different people. And I never even received an apology for the block. I suggest this time the checking up be done BEFORE blocking me. What this looks like to me is some people who are friends alerting each other to come in to prevent changes from being made to the article by any means possible. Probably some kind of alliance. Why else are people coming in that never edit that article mysteriously appear to delete an edit without giving any reason the deletion other than that someone else didn't want it there? I want to see substantial reasons why they don't want the information there. Another user put a sourced item in there, and the other was just the extension of a quote. Bullet Dropper (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now filed a report at SPI.[60] I suggest that this discussion thread be closed and any further comments be posted there. TFD (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

looking for some help with an editor i am working with on an article who has a habit of automatically assuming bad faith and making unfounded accusations; all contributing to a somewhat hostile editing enviroment. for instance, in this edit i am accused of "ineptly" writing the lede of the article. i didn't write the lede, i reverted it to the version that existed prior to me even editing the article. and again, in this edit, the editor removes a wikilink added by another user here and instructs me to "stop this silly linking" in the summary. i've been on the article's talk page trying to engage the user about the article, especially after they requested i do so in an edit summary, but the user didn't reply to any of my comments there. then in this edit, i attempted to show a little good faith towards the user after i had tried to fix up some of their additions by fixing refs, adding wikilinks, etc. to which the user reciprocated by removing most of the wikilinks (in other edits as well) and stating "... whilst I normally do Assume Good Faith it does rather depend on the pattern of editing by the editor concerned."[62] i'm not looking to have Hauskalainen removed from the article or anything, just trying to get them to edit cooperatively instead of adversarially as has been the case thus far. they seem to believe disagreeing about a topic is grounds to assume bad faith with other editors and treat them with hostility. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a warning on their talk page. However I will be watching both of you closely. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 05:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*shaking in his boots* :P thanks WookieInHeat (talk) 05:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the User:Binesi has been baiting and insulting me, refusing to have a constructive dialogue over disputed content.

he goaded and provoked me, saying to the effect (he didn't say these himself, but his words conveyed the meaning) of- "I don't want to edit war with you but you are an obnoxious dick" "i don't want to be enemies, Дунгане but you are totally wrong and should shut up" "I'm sorry that you see it this way but your view sucks"

His messages to me may seem concilliatory and neutral, but are extremely sarcastic in nature, claiming that he is "sorry" that we are arguing and have different views, but using insulting terms to describe me and my edits. take a look at his edits here, in which he makes thinly veiled insults veiled and disguised as friendly overtures and compliments

Binesi admits to being 208.64.63.176-Binesi admitted to being 208.64.63.176- "As you saw fit to abuse the administrative process to claim my edits where "vandalism" I have registered an account and made myself fully accountable."

208.64.63.176 was given the highest level severe warning by an admin for deliberately misrepresenting sources

i filed an ANI report which led to the warning here

When it appeared that Binesi realized his mistake, i even tried to pull back my complaint about his copyvio to an admin, but i was forced to retract it after Binesi was uncooperative

Among other edits, one of the things he did on the talk page was to falsely claim that i accused him of legal threats, and that I claimed slander was a legal threat. He provided no such diffs or evidence that I ever said such a thing. I invite him to provide evidence that i did so.

Mr. Binesi's sarcastic "concilliatory" messages to me Yes, I know you will also not understand what I just wrote. I'm wasting my time. Take care Дунгане. I'm tired of trying to empathize with you. Please have the Boxer article fixed up yourself over the next few days. I have no interest in edit wars. You will find that I can also play the rules and procedures game with you. Picking apart every paragraph in that article and comparing it to the Wikipedia rules and standards would become an article in itself.

By the way Дунгане, I'm not your enemy and you don't need to spend so much effort denouncing me. I am only here to try to help bring this article out of contention and fix the numerous errors that plague it. If, as you hinted you did these edits to fix a distorted anti-Chinese viewpoint that originally existed than I applaud your efforts. However I think you have gone a bit too far and focused too much and we need to bring this back to the middle and reflect each viewpoint as valid. The last editor can be the left, and you can be the right - and I will try to be the middle. Binesi (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to make serious accusations against me which I continue to shoot down and then you come back with minor accusations. I see you are really on a mission. I have an alternate idea - let's try to cooperate - what do you think about this? Maybe you can make constructive criticisms on issues you feel are important and I will continue to edit areas in this article which are poorly presented and overly colored? How's that? Or would you like to make the changes yourself and "we" can all come back and revisit this in a few day? Binesi (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel this way Дунгане. I really am. However, honestly - I've stopped taking your personal attacks seriously and now find this whole thing to be more amusing than concerning. I don't mean this to belittle you, but I am not going to reply to your claims here as I already have on the Boxer Rebellion talk page and I don't want to clutter up your personal space (as I don't want you to clutter mine). But please, do give it a rest with the slander. It reads as transparently as your attempts at slanting Wikipedia articles do. It's more juvenile than effective.

It appears that Binesi did not even read references when he deleted content look at his comment, in which he - enters into an off topic monologue about original research, in which he totally ignores the fact that the content he deleted was referenced and not original research These were the edits in which he removed referenced information- [63] [64] These were the references- criticised the behaviour of the relief forces: all except the Japanese indulged in pillage and rape&dq=He criticised the behaviour of the relief forces: all except the Japanese indulged in pillage and rape&hl=en soldiers watched with amazement as western troops ran amok for three days in an orgy of looting, rape, and murder&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Japanese soldiers watched with amazement as western troops ran amok for three days in an orgy of looting, rape, and murder&f=false

In general, the tone in which he talks is sarcastic and mocking, pretending as if he is "friendly" to me and hopes to "work with me", then after insulting me more, he pretends to be "horrified" and "disgusted", with me.

I tried being nice, and explained to him exactly what was wrong with his edits, in these two comments- [65] [66], but i only receieved an extremely sarcastic, insulting response

i consider this message from him to be an attempt to bait me into insulting him back- "Thanks for encouragement. I am really trying to improve this aspect of my character - remaining cool headed and neutral that is. I was fairly disgusted at first that someone would slant this article so blatantly and cherry pick from the given references fragments which suited a particular viewpoint."

We have both agreed not to touch the article in question, what i want is for a definite warning set up by an admin that anyone who accuses another of being a "Wu Mao Dang" (a term used to describe internet users paid by the Chinese communist party to insert propaganda) as ip 208.64.63.176 claimed that the article was "hijacked" by wu mao dang"

I consider it a personal attack to be accused of being affiliated with the communist party, and I also protest against Biseni's baiting ( Wikipedia:Bait)

WP:BAIT states that- "They may manipulate the civility policy as a weapon." "In content disputes, a common baiting strategy involves badgering the opposition—while carefully remaining superficially civil—until someone lashes out. They then complain to an administrator."

regretfully i may have taken the bait here in response to his insulting message, but i apologize for responding to his insult and next time I will report and delete such messages with responding.

It appears that Biseni is attempting to deploy this tactic against me. I request an admin promise to ban everyone, from this moment, who attempts to bait and hurl insults on the talk page of Boxer Rebellion. I know this will apply to me to and I will not use aggresive language from now on. For my part, i will not accuse people of "pro western POV", and others should not be able to bring up the straw man of the chinese communist party, especially since none of the sources in the article are chinese, and i have harshly criticized the use of Chinese government sources.

That would be like me calling for tobacco to be banned, yet another person slams me for spreading pro Tobacco POV, which makes no sense.Дунгане (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You will get a much faster response if you make your situation brief but clear, and not 22 paragraphs long. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background:
    • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive626#User:Дунгане and questionable edits
    • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive648#Boxer Rebellion
    • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive650#Дунгане/Arilang1234
  • Uncle G (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I won't add too much to this as I think the situation is self evident to anyone doing an overall check of Дунгане's history and to our conversations and to the general negative response he gets from the community at large. This in my mind is a highly disruptive individual who adds little positive contribution to Wikipedia. He seems to persistently get into conflicts and abuse the system to silence editors. He has also posted numerous diatribe personal attacks on many talk pages. I also have suspicions (but I need time to research further) that he may have created puppet accounts to get previous users silenced.

  For my part however, I will say I was too confrontational in dealing with him and I need to take more time to study Wikipedia policies so I can acclimate to how things are done here and respond more effectively. My only purpose is to ensure Wikipedia reflects reality and does not try to influence it. I don't hope to see referenced information being twisted to suit a narrowed POV, whatever that POV may be. If that means championing a neglected article to get it cleaned up, I am happy to do what I can and welcome any criticisms that could improve my effectiveness at that purpose. I really did try to empathize, compromise, and see from his point of view, but some people just make a habit of missing the point. Binesi (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I know this is a huge block of text already. I just want to add that I read something just now that seemed appropriate:

"In content disputes, a common baiting strategy involves badgering the opposition—while carefully remaining superficially civil—until someone lashes out. They then complain to an administrator. Time-pressed administrators may look only at specific edits without delving into the background that led up to the incident, resulting in a warning or block for the targeted editor." Binesi (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, i can't ignore the fact that Binesi is essentially copying my comments and repeating exactly what i said to him, over here

In addition, Arilang1234, the user whom i had a dispute with in the ANI threats Binesi has just brought up, has a terrible track record of insulting Manchus and Mongols, insisting that they were barbaric because they were not chinese. Even other Chinese editors like HongQiGong harshly berated Arilang1234 for his comments.

Binesi claims that i "persistently" get into conflicts, yet most of them have been with Arilang1234, whom I have pointed out above has spread anti Manchu and anti Mongol POV.

User:Binesi has failed to point out any POV twisting in the references, and failed to justify his edits to the article, which twisted and misrepresented sources, go see one of his "edits" to the article.Дунгане (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Criticism of Twelver Shi'ism (AfD discussion)
• Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 November 30

Please notice of the behavior of this user here[67] and here[68] who keeps on igniting sectarian crisis and accuses all users of wrongdoing except him/her. This user is in complete bad faith and has no respect with regards to other editors in his dealings. - Humaliwalay (talk) 11:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the tone of comments is inappropriate. I have left a WP:NPA notice on the users talk page. We can go from there if the behaviour continues.--Korruski^Talk 11:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, let us try to convince him/her about assuming good faith and I do not advocate any harsh action against the user as that will demoralize him/her as an editor. I agree this happens with the newcomers. I hope a third person coming in and asking the user to stop attacking will help. Thanks. - Humaliwalay (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the User:Suenahrmehas been baiting and insulting me, refusing to have a constructive dialogue over disputed content on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Twelver Shi'ism. I have tried to point out during discussion that I'm uncomfrotable with his wordss but s/he relies on same language. I'll classify his words as personal attacks based on religion/creed. S/He during discussions at various times have used following word which imo are abusive in nature:

• false shia propaganda
• faizhaider is lying
• he is lying for sectarian reason
• do not lie
• you are lying
• only ones adding stupid garbage POV again and again are shias
• absurd and blatant lie by you faizhaider which only make you look more untrustworthy
• not using bad words except to say you are lying
• you2 just to help further your sectarian causse
• you clothe a wolf in sheeps clothes

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 11:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the user is making personal attacks. However, per the discussion immediately above this one, I would personally prefer to wait and see if his/her behaviour changes after my warning, and then take further action if necessary. Up until now, I don't believe the user has received any warnings, so I'm not sure that an administrator action is currently required, although that may well change.--Korruski^Talk 11:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! I'll wait more. Before reporting I have already given three chances, after two consecutive events of insults I gave him a chance & warned her/him by saying "But imo Suenahrme statements above are violation of comments on people rather than the article is considered disruptive and I take them as personal attack." But it seems s/he is not bothered and used same set of abuses third time, thenI reported this misbehaviour to admins. Usually I'm cool but this thing crossed my line of patience. In whole bargain I have never been personal to him (or anyone, as per my own policy I try to be general as much as it is possible) but I don't know how s/he has interpreted that I'm targeting her/him & her/his edits specifically on the article. IMO its his/her general behaviour as evident from another page Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 November 30 where s/he is being abusive to another user (which I came to know from the post above).--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 12:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – blocked and tagged. Horologium (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think the account Loom91 (talk · contribs) may have been corrupted or hacked into. The user had mainly constructive edits leading up to 2008, then in the past couple of weeks carried out three acts of vandalism:

• Move of Chandrabindoo (band) to ChandrabindooOnHueels on November 18 2010
• Move of Moheener Ghoraguli to Moheener Ghoraguli On Hueels on November 20 2010
• Move of Bhoomi (band) to Bhoomi on Hueels on November 21 2010

All these moves went unnoticed until today when I happened to be looking for an article on Bhoomi. I don't know if there is any action that is necessary against this account, just thought I'd raise it so it's known about. -- role^player 14:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the account and tagged it as compromised. The last edits from that account were over two years ago, until a spree of page-move vandalism with snarky edit summaries. Horologium (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compromised! That was the word I was looking for! Thank you for taking action. -- role^player 15:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did I just edit war with this? A number of us reverted the persistent removal of content and insertion of personal opinions, then the IP got blocked, and he created new IPs to continue removing it. He also made personal attacks on my talk page, which other users reverted a number of times. When I realized I might be edit warring, I stopped editing the article. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All you did was get others to continue it for you. Then had someone unjustifiably protect the page. Good job. I'm glad the ideals Wikipedia is build on matter so much to so many people! 174.91.1.138 (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP's edits seem to border on vandalism (and the personal attacks in his/her edit summaries do not help matters), and reverting vandalism is an officially recognized exception to 3RR, so I'd say you have nothing to worry about. Kansan (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the IP editing above admits here to being the same IP editor blocked for personal attacks, so I would think another block should follow. Kansan (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you bothered to look, you'd see it was Reaper Eternal who vandalized. What do you call it when someone unjustifiably and blindly reverts a legitimate edit? I call that vandalism. You're right that he doesn't have to worry, though, as you nerds stick together. 174.91.1.138 (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's this one about, I thought, as I clicked on the link. Ah, Palestine! No... Hang on... Plasticine! You are edit-warring over Plasticine? Only on Wikipedia... I'd agree that the IP needs to be a little more malleable. And a lot more polite. This is a content dispute. Or at least it should be. Try talking. On the Talk page... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP may also profit from reading Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

174.91.0.0/22 has been blocked 3 days. Blatant harassment and edit warring are not acceptable here. –MuZemike 19:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to inform Reaper Eternal and his buddies. I'd have thought blind reverts, blocks, and protecting pages without justification might be something also unacceptable. They did it because he's one of them. Does someone have to go to the bother of creating an account and becoming an administrator just to have a chance of being listened to? If so, forget that. I've already wasted way too much time on this, and I know that you people have barely a nodding acquaintance with reason. 174.91.5.19 (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the rangeblock didn't cover it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say the IP may be right that the image he kept trying to remove is of "poor quality", but his behavior shouts "Troll!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admittedly that is so, but I don't think the other side behaved any better than I did. The first several times I changed it I didn't give a reason, but even after I did it was still very quickly reverted before I even had the chance to go to the discussion page and give a more detailed justification. After that it kind of just went downhill. Someone with an account and I guess administrator priveleges has made the change I wanted anyway, though I can't help but think that if someone else with an anonymous IP had made that same change it would have been quickly reverted. 174.91.5.19 (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's bold-revert-discuss not bold-revert-reinstate-discuss. Uncle G (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the IP colony needed to take it to the talk page after at most 2 reverts. Edit warring is futile. It's potentially an infinite loop. Hence the reversion rules. And in this case, there is by no means a clear-cut reason for deleting the image. It's a matter of opinion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have received quite disturbing mail from User:Don Zaloog, the mail was sent to me thru wikipedia. I'll classify his words as personal attacks based on religion/creed, religion, nationality. Following is the content of the mail:

To an Indian Muslim Moron:

Stop the edit wars! Stop deleting my edits and additions you biased Shia loving idiot. I demand you cease and desist from deleting my edits without any reasons, or I will report to the Wikipedia administration! Hazrat Abu Bakr was the prophet Muhammad's (صلى الله عليه وسلم‎) closest and dearest companion. Closer than Hazrat Ali. Relative or no relative. Period. Abu Bakr was the rightful successor to Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم), and that is final. Ali accepted it. Every respectable person accepted it. Indeed, Ali had no greed to become caliph, he was in full agreement with the appointment of the greatest of the Sahaba: Hazrat Abu Bakr, as calioh. This fact is present in the authentic works of the great pious commentators (e.g. Ibn Kathir): Muhammad, during his last days, prayed behind Abu Bakr. This was related by Aisha, Muhammad's (صلى الله عليه وسلم‎) wife, and many other close companions. You can deny the truth, but it will not change it. Stop your fallacious statements, you wretched liar, you malevolent hypocrite. Abu Bakr was the rightful successor to the caliphate. Also, what's with the title "Sayed" in your name. Don't tell me you claim to be related to the most pious human of all time! You fully know your ancestry and your genealogy. You are of the lineage of brown Dravidians and indigenous Indians who converted to Islam upon the arrival of the great Muslim conquerors (e.g. Timur, Babar, Muhammad bin Qasim). Stop your lies, you are by no means related to the greatest of the prophets himself. In other words, stop interfering with my edits, you dummy.

With Great Contempt,

Abrar Ahmed Kissana

I don't remember having any interaction with User:Don Zaloog, on Talk:Aisha (or as matter of fact anywhere) another User:Ibn Katthir was active in the discussion. User:Don Zaloog has not done a single edit on article Aisha. IMO User:Don Zaloog, User:Ibn Katthir, User:Ahmed Ghazi, User:Sahil45n, User:Filoofo, User:Zaza8675, User:Jparrott1908, User:UmHasan, User:Markajalanraya, User:Allah1100, User:Rehan45n, User:Markanegara, User:MazzyJazzy, User:Fabbo10, etc. are one and the same (or at least few of them) and an investigation for them being sockpuppet should be taken into consideration.

Please let me know if any further action from my part is required.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 21:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]