Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive323

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Animal rights activist[edit]

An animal rights activist has turned up, two accounts which checkuser to the same IP, which is also editing anonymously: Doingwhatwikitellsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), Untileverycageisempty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).

This individuals edits have been to articles related to animal liberation (the extreme end of animal rights) and include a biography, Joseph Harris (ALF) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which appeared to me to fail WP:BLP1E, as the individual was only notable for a single criminal conviction and the sole source was a news report about the case, other edits are also tendentious, strongly suggestive of a conflict of interest, have included copyright violations, were in many cases speedily reverted, and have been problematic in sundry other ways. I have blocked all for now to allow discussion. If this person is to be allowed to edit, it is quite likely that every single edit will have to be patrolled, at least for a while. Actually I believe that animal rights extremists, like religious and other extremists, are often so carried away in their ardent need to promote "the truth" as to be incapable of editing within policy. But I am open to persuasion in this case. Regardless, two accounts and an IP all editing pretty much simultaneously, is not going to fly, I think. Guy (Help!) 17:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I had already asked the editor to confine themselves to one account, and support the block on all accounts until they chose which one they wish to use. Tim Vickers 17:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I was one of the editors trying to keep up with this users edits and trying to clean up after them. Myself and other editors made numerous attempts at communicating with this user and advising them to slow down and learn how wikipedia works. I think that a short block is in order, however I should also point out that the two username issue only arose because another editor had commented about the original name and so they opened another account. If nothing had been said then it is quite clear that this user would have stuck to one account only. I do not believe for one minute that they were deliberately trying to break any wikipedia rules by having two accounts. I would also suggest that they edited as the IP user, which again was something I picked up, not malicicously but perhaps by forgetting to sign in as only a small number of edits were made using the IP address. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The time period of overlap is thus far limited, but so is the total edit history. But this is certainly a persistent editor; from 13:57, 7 November 2007 to 12:00, 8 November 2007 there was no break of 1 hour or more. Humanly possible, but it shows strong dedication to editing Wikipedia in this topic area. Let's give the user some time to sleep it off; after at least 22 hours of activity nobody is operating in best form. Can we find an experienced editor with the same POV to get them grounded and headed in the right direction? I feel this editor needs to learn quickly to work the wiki way, or they make far too much mess. They also obviously need to use only one of the accounts. GRBerry 20:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me know if you manage to get them engaged in rational conversation, and then we can talk about an unblock. If the edits were not so self-evidently crusading I would probably have been less firm, but I think we need to think long and hard before letting this one off the leash again. Guy (Help!) 20:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I posted long essays based on WP:TIGERS. If the user responds, let's see how. Until then, we can leave the door shut. GRBerry 23:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Given that the user clearly has very strong animal rights views and bearing in mind the one solitary response in which they took offence at someone being critical of their username (untileverycageisempty) during the 24 hour period of posting, somehow I doubt that an analogy about tigers in a zoo will go down too well with them, but you never know! :) ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 23:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I know. I toned it down from stuffed tigers in a natural history museum (that would really have set them off). But I'm not going to produce on my own an essay as well written as Mr. Pietri's, so I went with what I could do. GRBerry 23:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Yup indeed! I have just noticed an IP user - User: who has thus far only made a small number of edits. However already the pattern of edits is remarkably similar to that of this blocked user, if anyone can check? ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Perspicacite‎ incivilty?[edit]

After he filed "a meritless 3RR complaint" according to JzG, Perspicacite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was blocked by JzG for 24 hours (this was after User:TimVickers blocked him for 48 hours earlier today and User:Kwsn overturned that block due to the fact that TimVickers was at the time "in conflict" with Perspicacite. However, 2 hours or so after JzG's block, Perspicacite made a somewhat worrying comment on his own talk page. I extended JzG's block for another 2 days, but requests a few opinions on this. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 17:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason I was "in conflict" with Perspicacite was that he was objecting vociferously to a warning I had given him for uncivil edit summaries. This was not a content dispute, so you might want to reword that comment. Tim Vickers 17:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
That was what Kwsn's unblock comment rate. I've changed part of what I said above in quotes. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 17:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, don't want people to get the wrong idea. Perspicacite is extremely unwilling to listen to anybody else, although he is not gratuitously insulting, his attitude leaves a great deal to be desired. Tim Vickers 17:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The original 24 hours by JzG are appropriate IMO. Adding extra time because the user is testy while blocked is something we should always be very cautious of. Blocks affect people. Try looking away. And in this case, Perspicacite was being gleefully taunted on his talkpage, the only page he can edit, by Alice. After discussion with Penwhale, I've removed his 2 extra days . Bishonen | talk 18:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC).
I really wish you would not just go and undo/reduce blocks like that, it really should be done in line with consensus. I agree with the extension, being blocked is no excuse to be uncivil. (Retracted due to my misinterpretation of events) 1 != 2 18:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Just go and undo/reduce ? It's not good enough to have the blocking admin agree to the undoing now? I truly didn't know that all blocks were sacred, regardless of the opinion of the blocking admin (and of the facts of the case). Does that sanctitude make more sense than saying "I wish people wouldn't just go and block people, without getting consensus for it first?" Which I don't think I've ever heard you say. Bishonen | talk 19:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC).
As long as you discussed shortening the block with Penwhale or JzG then there is no problem. You don't have to clear this with everybody, just discuss it with the blocking admins. Tim Vickers 19:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with Bishonen. Getting agreement from the blocking admin should be sufficient for an unblock unless there are extraordinary circumstances, which I don't see here. Ronnotel 20:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Just want to throw my 2 cents in here: There's absolutely no reason that an admin should have to gain a general consensus when modifying a block: they simply need to clear it with the admins involved. I'm not sure what your personal history with Bishonen is here, and I agree that incivility and personal attacks while blocked can merit extensions, but my opinions don't matter: If penwhale is ok with it, then there's no problem here. SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Perspicacite‎ seems to be a potentially good editor with big civility issues and a tendency to see minor errors or misbehaviors as massive personal affronts. Aside from this, he's been around here thrice this week: report about him nearly baseless retaliatory report by him and another overdramatic report against a user he's in a tiff with. I was hoping discussion and time would bring him around, but it hasn't happened yet. Since other editors are getting drawn into his vortex of grump and misbehaving themselves, a block to get a break in the drama seems reasonable to me. William Pietri 20:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

While I rebuked DHeyward about running to AN/I too early, I also have to say that I find Perspicacite's behavior to be very off-putting and histrionic, and if he wants to be helped in the future, ceasing the histrionics is something he needs to do. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 04:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


At what point are anonymous only rangeblocks appropriate? Since late August, an individual attempting to push a POV at University of Western Sydney and Dapto High School has been evading blocks and periodically causing general mayhem through the use of allocated portable IPs. (See User:Moonriddengirl/Socks for details.) Primarily the individual is currently active on those two articles and on the user pages of editors who attempt to remove the material (particularly mine, since from my first appearance I have been The Symbol of Wikipression). Is the best and/or only option to continue dealing with these as if they were isolated incidents? Guidance from admins experienced with these situations would be appreciated. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(Non-admin) I've only ever seen rangeblocks applied when (semi-)protection isn't enough or inappropriate (i.e. the vandalism is spread over a user hitting Special:Random and a dynamic IP). x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I don't understand something, but if the article vandalism is confined to 2 articles, why not semi-protect the two articles? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
That's possible. It hasn't been entirely confined to those two articles, but it has been there lately. I'm reluctant to protect the articles unnecessarily, since though the majority of edits come from this individual, there have been constructive IP edits at least on one of these articles. On October 31st, an IP editor worked on University of Western Sydney. The last time the articles were protected, in mid-September, the IP editor responded by widening the vandalism. I'm not sure which is preferable. :) Obviously, the goal here is to minimize disruption through whatever process works best in these circumstances, whether that's soft blocking the range, semi-protecting the articles long term or simply persisting in addressing these as if they were isolated instances. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
In any case, it's not a good idea to apply rangeblocks to sites in Australia. Unless something has changed there in the last couple of years, the country is practically one single DHCP pool. -- llywrch 18:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I think sprotecting the articles is indeed the best way to go - good contribution ip's are encouraged to register and be recognised for their work, bad ip's go away or create indef bannable usernames... See how a months sprotection effects the articles? LessHeard vanU 21:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
All righty. We'll go with semiprotection and see what happens. Thanks for the feedback, all. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


User:MadmanBot is not closing the {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} correctly. The closing }}s are commented out. See this diff --Elliskev 17:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it messes up when one of the project banners has an auto-assessment. --Elliskev 17:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Task suspended; it will not be rescheduled until I have fixed this error. — madman bum and angel 21:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Today's main page FA[edit]


Can someone please fix the talk page of today's main page FA Talk:Montreal Screwjob that was moved by a vandal whose contribs seem to only indicated that he takes the days FA talk page and moves it and calls it "archiving". Thank you. Bmg916Speak —Preceding comment was added at 18:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed it. IronGargoyle 18:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Bmg916Speak —Preceding comment was added at 18:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've move-protected it for today. Tim Vickers 19:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

User August August[edit]


User has been warned several times about moving pages yet continues to do so over guidelines of specific projects. Can someone please warn them again and possibly block them from moving pages. IrishLass0128 18:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Message left encouraging consensus. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 19:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)



I feel that some comment is needed regarding the recent attitude of User:Charles towards me. This morning I made a comment on an AfD started by him [1]. I was concerned by his recent nominating articles for deletion, and made comments about it. My response to his comment [2] was perhaps badly worded, and when he took offence [3] I apologised immediatley [4]. I thought the issue was over. However, the AfD was closed today, as a keep. Charles then queried the fact that I removed the AfD tag from Princess Marie of Hanover, which was in the same AfD as Princess Frederica. My comment on his talk page about the matter had the edit summary as "I really don't care what this person likes after the comments made about me at Afd" [5]. I responded like this [6], to get my comment removed with summary "Taking out the rubbish" [7]. Subsquent removals of my comments can be seen here [8], [9], [10] and [11] (this one saying "get lost"). I pointed him to civilty guidelines, but to no avail. In addition, instead of abiding by the decision of the AfD with regards to Princess Marie, he has no redirected the article instead, ignoring my advice of taking it to AfD (on its own unlike before). (Also an issue at Princess Marie's page regarding 3RR, on both sides. I apologise if I have broken this). I am concerned at his general behaviour, he seems to have reacted very badly to not getting his way at the AfD, and his comments to me were totally uncalled for. Discussion is important to Wikipedia, and Charles seems incapable.--UpDown 20:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been an integral part of this situation, if there are any comments, don't hesitate. I can't reply as of now, because of committment elsewhere. I shall be able to reply in around 45 minutes. Rudget 21:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:USERPAGE#Removal of comments, warnings, Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments and Wikipedia:Harassment. The user stopped only after I said I would report him for harassment, which to me says that he knows what he was doing was harassment. I did not want this user to post on my page because I feel that he cannot hold his tongue (such as the comments at the Afd) and I do not want to get involved in conflict. I decided that he was susceptible to doing it again. Telling me to leave Wikipedia after I told him not to post on my talk page time after time is not civil and I do not have to heed his advice after the incivility shown towards me. I was following the previous advice of an administrator by redirecting. Charles 21:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Note that both UpDown and Charles have been blocked for 31 hours for three revert rule violations. Charles has appealed for an unblock, which I am looking into. Sam Blacketer 21:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Charles' block reduced to one hour. UpDown will similarly get a reduced block if he gives satisfactory assurances of no more disruption. Sam Blacketer 22:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment on resolution[edit]

I am curious as to what a resolution to this entails, whether it was simply the result of the blocks or if individual understanding of the actions was sufficient. Charles 00:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, it means that further administrator involvement is no longer needed. The underlying debates may remain but can be sorted through discussion within the community in general, and do not require administrative action. Sam Blacketer 00:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! This clarifies it for me. Charles 00:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Lian Godkin[edit]

Resolved: Article speedy deleted

I've placed a speedy tag on Lian Godkin - which appears to be a gag or vanity non-notable bio. The user who created it keeps removing the tag, despite warnings not to do so. Isarig 22:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted it, and will give the user a warning if he recreates it. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Francis Schonken[edit]

Would someone have a word with Francis Schonken please? He moved Lists of basic topics, Lists of topics, and List of glossaries to portal space without any discussion of the move before hand. But it appears Francis believes that moving high-traffic pages without prior discussion is appropriate. It also appears he was mistaken about his interpretation of WP:ASR. (I've placed a move request on the requested moves page). There's a discussion underway at Wikipedia talk:Lists over the apparent contradiction with WP:APR which Francis cited in his edit summaries. The Transhumanist    22:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack userpage[edit]


User:Steeeb has a userpage with a personal attack on it, it does not appear to be directed at a user but rather someone s/he knows. Should it be deleted? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 00:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not just tag it as G10, given it had one revision and all four words on the page were devoted to a tame yet direct personal attack? Deleted. Daniel 00:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)



Would another admin please review the user's page and delete it if appropriate - it may be viewed as biased if I handled it. Carlossuarez46 01:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G10 Deleted. I also left a note on the talk. Mercury 01:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism Report[edit]


I put this on WP:AIV an hour ago:

In the meantime, I've been watching that page and seen at least six other reports cleared and blocks issued. Meanwhile this one has fled into the night unrewarded for his efforts. Shouldn't these be dealt with chronologically? I've been waiting to go to bed as it's now 4:09am here. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 04:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You've been waiting to go to bed until your AIV report is processed? Relax and go to bed. Dppowell 04:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
That IP user last vandalized at 3:07 UTC. You gave them a {{uw-vandalism4}} warning at 3:08 UTC and a {{uw-vandalism4im}} warning at 3:12 UTC. Since there was no vandalism after a "final" warning, no block was warranted. -- Satori Son 06:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive edits, removal of sourced material, POV-pushing, personal attack[edit]

Resolved: content dispute --Haemo 03:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

EliasAlucard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
EliasAlucard has removed sourced material from Neo-Nazism and National Socialist Front, in an effort to push an uncited point of view. I have made comprimises and searched out several references to back up the facts in those articles, but EliasAlucard continues to revert my constructive and referenced edits. He has also made at least one unwarranted personal attack against me in an edit note in the neo-Nazism article, and has used caps in edit notes (aka yelling). He was also recently edit warring to change the capitalization in the titles of Anti-fascism and Anti-communism; without justification, against standard capitalization guidelines, and against the consensus on Wikipedia for articles about isms (although he seems to have backed down from that).Spylab 17:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Spylab here is misrepresenting me. His sources don't claim that National Socialist Front has as its ideology, "Neo-Nazism". They call it a Neo-Nazi organisation/group, which is what it is, but they do not label its ideology as "Neo-Nazi". Second of all, Neo-Nazism, is not a unique ideology in itself, it's a political movement seeking to revive an ideology, namely, Nazism. This is even confirmed by User:Spylab's sources. About his sources, I didn't remove them, I bundled them together into one cohesive source. And as for his personal attack claim, I remarked: it seems you have a reading disorder or something; all of your sources confirm that "Neo-Nazism" is a political movement trying to revive Nazism; and Nazism is an ideology.[12] Why? because his sources, don't say once that Neo-Nazism is a unique ideology that differs from the original Nazism, they all say it's a political movement. This is hardly POV-pushing. I have been accused of vandalism by this user, and that can certainly lead to a block on his part for accusing me of vandalism over a content-dispute. What's more, is that he has been reverted by me and another user over his failure to understand that Neo-Nazi groups do not have an ideology called "Neo-Nazism", and he should be blocked for at least 24 hours for violating WP:3RR. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 19:17 07 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
It should also be noted that User:Slarre reverted Spylab's edit by pointing out that his sources don't support his preferred version.[13] It seems to me, Spylab lacks a lot of knowledge on Nazism and he misinterprets his own sources. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 19:32 07 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
  • My footnotes, do in fact, back up my edits. That is why I chose those references. That can be confirmed by clicking on those references and using control-F (or find) to find the appropriate text.Spylab 22:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The following references call neo-Nazism an ideology, not just a movement:

This is not a simple content dispute at all, especially since part of the problem is incivility in edit notes and talk pages (not just the single personal attack you linked to), and the unwillingness to comprimise. As for the content dispute itself, I have provided several references, and you have dismissed them all out of hand, and haven't provided any references proving that neo-Nazism is not an ideology. We are just supposed to take your uncited personal opinion as fact. Here is a list of 15 more references. That makes a total of 19 references explicitly describing neo-Nazism as an ideology vs zero references attempting to disprove that fact.Spylab 03:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You have been very unwilling yourself to compromise, especially with your reverts. You should be glad I haven't reported you for violating 3RR. There's no need to compromise with you when you are entirely wrong about the facts and misinterpret vague descriptions of your sources. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 12:20 08 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

I have comprimised many times, by combining the two versions and providing multiple references to back up the facts. You have reverted to versions that are not backed up by anything other than your own personal opinion. You may have also violated 3RR, but I'm not petty enough to check.Spylab 15:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Not resolved at all; not just a content dispute[edit]

EliasAlucard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
EliasAlucard has continued to make uncivil and insulting comments in edit notes and talk pages, and has continued to blank out factual content backed up by multiple references; with no justification other than his own uncited personal opinion. He even admitted on Talk:Neo-Nazism that my references do in fact, back up what I have been stating all along, but still blanked out that content for no legitimate reason.Spylab 16:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note two other users have reverted Spylab's edit over his obvious failure to understand what we are trying to explain to him.[14][15] He has also accused me of vandalism over this content dispute several times, and that certainly can lead to a block. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 18:05 09 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
Note I have requested this page to be fully protected until disputes are resolved. --Strothra 17:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to call Spylab to
a) avoid making false accsations ('vandalism', 'POV-pushing', 'uncivil and insulting comments')
b) avoid threats ( '... you will be blocked ...' who is going to block EliasAlucard (talk · contribs)??? you??)
c) accept discussion seriously, by respecting opposite side and by elaborating and supporting his own claims with serious references
If Spylab refuses to accept and follow serious discussion - we shall count this case closed, unblock the article, and prevent Spylab from further changes of the text the way he (or she?) practicised. --Smerdyakoff 18:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Long-term edit warring at Winter Soldier Investigation[edit]

TDC (talk · contribs) and Xenophrenic (talk · contribs) have been edit warring on this articles (as well as on come others, such as Mark Lane, for quite some time (a look through the history should show this without too much trouble). They were once the subject of an ArbCom case a couple years ago (note this Checkuser case that links Xenophrenic to the anonymous editor in the case). It seems to me that this edit warring has gone on for far too long and that we should seek either community sanctions for both editors or another trip to ArbCom. As far as I can tell, both editors are equally responsible here, so I would pursue equal sanctions. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've been half-heartedly working on VVAW, but I've seen them tangling elsewhere. I suggest 1RR per day on Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Winter Soldier Investigation, and Mark Lane (author). Xenophrenic denies he's the IP from the previous ArbCom case, but a) I don't believe him, and b) there has been enough edit-warring from his account to justify a 1RR limitation (ArbCom is now calling this "editing restriction" instead of probation). TDC's long block log and Xenophrenic's lack of any real editing history outside those three articles lead me to support such a restriction now, though it would appear premature under different circumstances.--chaser - t 08:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, concerning Xenophrenic's denials: The checkuser evidence supports that he is the same as the IP, combined with the fact that he shares the same MO (i.e., edit warring with TDC over this and related articles). I do believe I hear quacking. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
If I may respond to the above comments: Heimstern observes that "this edit warring has gone on for far too long." In my opinion, any length of edit warring is already too much. Once an editing conflict is discovered, it should be discussed until the conflict is resolved, before editing continues. I try to let this philosophy guide my editing, but sometimes it is impossible when some parties to the conflict refuse to discuss the conflict. Heimstern suggests community sanctions or ArbCom? It would definitely end up in ArbCom, especially with Administrators making noises like Chaser saying he doesn't believe my denial that I was party to a previous ArbCom; Blacketer saying he thinks I am Reddi; Heimstern misrepresenting a CheckUser result by saying it links Xenophrenic to an anonymous editor, when it does not; MONGO saying Xenophrenic is using multiple accounts. All a bunch of cow dump.
Chaser, your suggestion to reduce the 3RR to 1RR (or expand it to 7RR, for that matter) fails to address the problem. Moving the "electric fence" doesn't mean some editors aren't still going to proceed right up to it, repeatedly, day after day, where ever you happen to place it. Why not address the conflict instead? I've tangled with you about as long as I've tangled with TDC, and on much of the same editing. I don't recall ever edit warring with you. Why is that? Xenophrenic 13:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't address the problem; it reduces the resources we must sink into stopping the edit-warring. Dispute resolution is the way to resolve content disputes. Anyway, in Xenophrenic's case, he abuses 3RR as an electric fence, going right up to the limit (see [16] and the current history of Winter Soldier Investigation). TDC goes over and gets blocked.--chaser - t 17:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Chaser, please. Can we not take things out of context? The link you provided does show Blacketer cautioning me that I've reverted three times, but what you fail to mention is that I contacted him and asked for his guidance. Instead of "abusing 3RR," and just mindlessly reverting whenever "legally" allowed to, I sought 3rd-party assistance to resolve the issue. Following Blacketer's advice, "It is perfectly good editing practice to ask politely what they meant and to revert if you do not receive a reply," so I made the reverts. Now look at the current Winter Soldier Investigation history that you mention, and the talk page. (Since this ANI was posted, TDC has now started to discuss his reverted edits! Xenophrenic 03:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)) TDC deleted text about Winterfilm Collective, and a wikilink to same. No explanation. TDC inserted false text about Cannes Film Festival, and a web link that counters, rather than supports, his edit. I raised these issues on the talk page and didn't receive a reply, so I reverted. The 3RR rule exists, so I follow it. There is also a rule against edit warring, and I follow that, too. This rule in a nutshell: If someone challenges your edits, discuss it with them and seek a compromise, or seek dispute resolution. Don't just fight over competing views and versions. It takes two or more to have a discussion, and I am always there. Your statement that "Xenophrenic abuses the 3RR as an electric fence" is unfounded. Xenophrenic 23:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
A few things, you only contacted 15:11 October 11Sam after he warned you15:17, October 11, and then you responded to him by saying another "too busy to check" admin breezes through. Secondly, you never sought any assistance to resolve the issue. As it turns out, the information was not "false" as the several links inserted in talk bear out. You continual denial of what is obvious to everyone here will make you aware of the old saying "dont piss on my back and tell me its raining". Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Nice attempt, TDC, but all of the edits are recorded in the history. I was commenting on a Diff provided by Chaser above, not on the ones you are slyly trying to substitute here. You can save the personal attacks. Xenophrenic 02:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hum...there is no excuse for 3RR violation, but indeed, TDC appears to have been outnumbered due to, so not sure an "equal" block is fair. Xenophrenic is using multiple accounts (including his IP to evade 3RR) afterall.--MONGO 09:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean tag-teaming? There's never been overlap between relevant IP edits and Xenophrenic.--chaser - t 09:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes.--MONGO 09:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
You might be interested in reading User talk:Sam Blacketer/Archive 101-200#How about a little more info? which relates what happened to a previous 3RR report when I tried to give Xenophrenic guidance on how to avoid revert warring. He did deny being Reddi but I also think he is. I felt that Xenophrenic was trying to spin out discussion of what he knew to be unacceptable. Sam Blacketer 09:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with MONGO: I'm not so sure "equal" sanctions are fair. I have never broken the 3RR rule; TDC jumps that fence regularily, even today on the Depleted Uranium article. I have productive editing collaboration with other editors, where TDC prefers to endlessly revert the very same content. TDC tries to outnumber editors, instead of rely on good editing practices, afterall. Xenophrenic 13:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
As you may or may not known that article has also been subject to massive edit warring by another banned user and his dozens of sockpuupets. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
You are right, I do not know the history of that article. All I saw was you reverting repeatedly, beyond 3RR, while claiming various editors were sockpuppets. I also saw administrators saying they disagreed with you, and warned you to cease casting accusations ... it all just sounded so familiar, so I commented. Xenophrenic 23:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Would one of you brave souls spend five minutes and take a look at TDC's most recent edit and explain it to me? It's not long. He deleted a couple sentences and citations, and sticks in the word "allegations" here and there. Oh, and he added a line saying a film debuted at the Cannes Film Festival when it didn't. Someone explain that brief edit to me, please. Xenophrenic 13:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that I stepped into this one without adequately reviewing the history. I'm going to unblock for now until this is sorted out. Ronnotel 12:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

First, let me state that I truly do not believe that I was in violation of 3RR, as I don not believe that the first edit was a reversion. As something that I have been chastised for on numerous occasions, I am very careful to explain revisions if required and not to cross the threshold.

Now onto the other things. From the checkuser checkuser and Xenophremic's behavior and particular focus on Wikipedia, I think its rather obvious that he was the IP user who was involved in the same Arbcom case as I was over the Winter Soldier article. Its difficult to surmise the depth and extent of his article ownership tendencies and edit warring habits, as the IP address was dynamic, and not easy to keep tabs on, bet believe me it was extensive, and involved at least a dozen other editors.

Article that Xenophrenic has been edit warring on include, but are not limited to the following: Mark Lane (Author), Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Winter Soldier Investigation, Fulbright Hearing, Going Upriver, Russell Tribunal, List of Vietnam War veterans, Al Hubbard (activist), and Massacre at Hue. I would also like to point out that I am not the only individual Xenophrenic has engaged in long and pointless edit wars with, there have been at least a dozen other editor that he has done this to.

Even editors whose only involvement was the removal of mass quantities of copy written material (this point is very well documented) were edit warred with, called names, and they eventually gave up.

It should also be evident that Xenophrenic has another account on Wikipedia, as the user account of Xenophrenic is always able to revert an edit he disagrees with within several hours of that edit being made, regardless of the accounts activity. That can only mean that either Xenophrenic goes to Wikipedia every few hours without making any edits (which would be rather odd) or he edits under another account and switches when he wants to assume the role of his sockpuupet. For example, the recent editing over at the Winter soldier article, Xenophrenic remained inactive from October 22nd until my first edit on the article, where he proceeded to RV it in less than a day. He admitted to as much a while back on one of the talk pages:

“my not logging in under my registered psuedonym - please don't let that be a distraction from the real issues here. Almost 2 years ago there was an argument that resulted in a challenge to me, which then resulted in a little experiment, which is presently ongoing. I beg you to humor me on this. On a Wikipedia that claims anyone (even the unregistered) may contribute, and prides itself on the content of articles, not the contributors of them, this should not be an issue. I will continue to remain not logged in, while reserving my logging in for voting and other procedural matters as required.(UTC)”


How anyone can deal with an editor like this and WP:AGF is beyond me. I have tried RfC on content, Arbitration and mediations, taken advice from Chaser and left certain things to work themselves out ... but nothing seems to make a difference. I know my behavior here has not always been appropriate, but I have never used sockpuppets to evade bans or deceptively edit articles.

There is a lot more to this story, and I am glad it is coming to a head. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC) )

“RE: my not logging in under my registered psuedonym - please don't let that be a distraction from the real issues here. Almost 2 years ago there was an argument that resulted in a challenge to me, which then resulted in a little experiment, which is presently ongoing. I beg you to humor me on this. On a Wikipedia that claims anyone (even the unregistered) may contribute, and prides itself on the content of articles, not the contributors of them, this should not be an issue. I will continue to remain not logged in, while reserving my logging in for voting and other procedural matters as required. Rest assured that TDC would still make his misrepresentations of me even if I were logged in - his sleights really have nothing to with his confusing multiple unregistered editors, but in the interest of polite discussion I figured I'd leave him that egress. -Rob 06:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)”

I filled in the quote above provided by TDC, that he attributes to me, and added the real signatory. Strange that TDC deleted from this page my first attempt to display this unparsed version. It was posted by an earthlink IP user calling himself Rob, apparently a Robert Morrison by the looks of other edits here and off-wiki sites. Other users also commented on that same archived page:
Apology accepted, and no - that is not one of my edits. Looks like one of Rob's, or one of the Poli-Sci students editing that mess during the election season. 04:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Again, my apologies. As I mentioned above I assumed you were the anon who initially inserted this copvio (you both have EarthLink ip's)--Duk 05:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I share a service provider with some editors, and I share some disagreements with TDC, but not much more in common. I don't have sockpuppets, sorry. I don't have tag-team partners. My name isn't Rob, or Morrison, or Redding and I'm not a political science student. There is nothing "odd" about me noticing edits to articles I have taken an interest in, some are on my watch list. I also spend most of my work day, and much of my leisure time, at my computer. You will have to find your conspiracies elsewhere. Xenophrenic 23:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Funny, but after dealing with you on talk for a while, user:Duk changed his opion of you a bit.

I guess that's the joy of editing behind anon ip's. You can deny you were the initial ip that installed this copyvio and beat your breast in righteousness over being falsely accused. While continuing to reinstate copied paragraphs that other people wrote, and which you modified slightly, over and over again. But what really matters is that the whole article is now a copyvio. --Duk 01:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, you cannot get away from the fact that all of this is saved for review. Anyone checking your blockquote can quickly tell that Duk was speaking to User:, not me. Xenophrenic 02:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
And everyone here would seem to concur that Xenophrenic=Anon editor in question. And for those who were curious, your copyvio seems to have carried over to yuor new account as well [19].Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The link you provided show your copyvio issue, TDC. Would you care to explain what you mean here in more detail? Xenophrenic 03:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Both users in question seem to have forgotten that the three-revert rule is not an entitlement to three reverts per day. Who has or has not crossed the arbitrary threshold of three reverts per 24 hours is simply irrelevant. What matters is that both sides are edit warring. Both the three-revert rule policy page and the more important one, the policy on edit warring, make this clear. It is time for the community to put a stop to this. A 1RR restriction would be one way to attempt this, and I would support it for now. If that does not solve the problem for either or both editor(s), we can seek a ban for the one(s) in question. Does the community agree that such a restriction is a good idea? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I would agree to a 1RR restriction on the effected articles, but only if Xenophremic’s 3 year edit warring is put to an end, and his master account is revealed. Otherwise, I would like to see him banned from the above mentioned articles permanently. He has not even waited for the resolution of this ANI discussion to make his Rv to the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
TDC, you are already restricted to one revert per article per day. If you have a problem with other editors, suggest you try RFC or Arbitration. Thatcher131 21:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC) My bad, it expired. However, renewed edit warring on this article is not promising, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Winter Soldier. Thatcher131 21:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
As you know both have been tried (including mediation), with little to show for it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I've tried mediation with TDC twice, on the Mark Lane (author) and VVAW articles, with success to show for it. Xenophrenic 03:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If I could demonstrate that Xenophrenic had edit warred with other users, other than myself, would that demonstrate that he might be more culpable in this dispute than I am? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the easy solution to this edit war found in:
After months of edit warring, I was the editor who called the Arbcom in 2005. If the behavior is the same as it was in 2005 (and it sounds like it is--though I maybe wrong) I think both editors are too blame for the edit war. Travb (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, the remedies from that case are now expired, so we'd have to have a new one for there to be any more effect. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I would accept a community decision, Arbitration can take months. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There has been little discussion here of how to solve this problem; rather we simply discuss the problem itself and the solutions that haven't worked. I ask the community again: Shall we impose a 1RR restriction on both of these editors, or is there another solution we would prefer? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Winter_Soldier/Proposed_decision#Proposed_enforcement is still valid. The one year revert ban has expired, but the Ban violations and Parole violations have not expired. I would suggest asking an arbcom. Maybe I can. User:Xenophrenic seems interested in a new arbcom, I am strongly encouraging him to take a community decision, as TDC has offered. User:Xenophrenic also keeps refering to the anon in the third person. Travb (talk) 05:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I keep referring to that anon in the 3rd person? Go figure. Xenophrenic 07:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
It's true, that proposed enforcement has no expiry given; however, there is no proposed remedy to go with it (the proposals in question did not pass the vote), so I believe it was determined to be a meaningless enforcement. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I am with you, Heimstern, in seeking a real solution. Previously, you said,

"Who has or has not crossed the arbitrary threshold of three reverts per 24 hours is simply irrelevant. What matters is that both sides are edit warring. Both the three-revert rule policy page and the more important one, the policy on edit warring, make this clear."

I agree. The number of reverts allowed is arbitrary, and irrelevent to the real problem: edit warring. What confuses me is that you immediately followed that observation with a proposal to change the irrelevant threshold from one arbitrary number to another arbitrary number, as if that would solve something? As I said before, that sounds like an attempt at punitive action instead of a solution. Xenophrenic 07:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
One thing you're exactly right about, Travb, is that Xenophrenic and TDC most certainly should seek a community sanction rather than arbitration. Given how long this edit war has continued, it's very possible they will face harsh sanctions if ArbCom does become involved. If no community-based sanction can be reached, I will bring this matter to the committee (barring someone convincing me not to, of course), so I suggest both editors agree to a community-based sanction. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion received, but I must pass. Please don't misunderstand me, if you feel punitive sanctions are warranted, like changing an arbitrary number from 3 to 1, then please do and I will abide. You are in effect saying, "There now TDC, you will only have to visit that article 1 time per day, instead of 3 times per day, to carry on your edit war. Let that be a lesson to you." I will still, however, be seeking a solution to this problem -- an actual working resolution. So far, ArbCom, along with thorough investigation, seems the only way to accomplish that. Your comments about harsh sanctions through ArbCom give me hope, since previous sanctions do not appear to have had the desired effect. He is still at it years later. Xenophrenic 07:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The idea behind a one-revert parole is that it makes it extremely difficult to edit war. Once you've made your one revert per day, you're required to discuss it as part of the parole, and can make no further reverts. Ideally, the user will realize the need for discussion. If not, the parole also allows administrators to more readily block the offender and thus prevent the edit warring. That is why 1RR has, at least, the potential to be an effective sanction. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
So the two benefits of the one-revert parole are easier blocking by Admins, and required discussion. I don't give much weight to the easier blocking benefit, as I've been told that an Admin can block an editor at the first sign of edit warring, whether there has been 10 reverts or even just 1, with equal ease. The required discussion thing, however, is an actual benefit. Based on my experience with TDC on the three articles we have both edited, I have my concerns about the simple way you have described the sanction. The sanction is too easily gamed, and can be wiki-lawyered around. Let me describe some past situations...
  • He "discussed" his revert, but not to the point of resolution. Instead, he refuses further discussion and just reverts some more.
  • Or he stalls the discussions with an insincere statement like, "I will photocopy Stacewicz, and upload it for all to evaluate" while he continues to revert for days. (The source didn't even exist.)
  • Or most recently on the WSI article, he repeatedly reverts while discussing just one small segment of the edits contained in his reverts.
  • Or he follows me to another article (Mark Lane (author)) and picks up edit warring with me there, no longer restricted by the one-revert sanction.
Maybe redefine the sanction to include, "...always discuss reversions, until fully resolved to both party's satisfaction even if Dispute Resolution needs to be used, before making another revert; applies to all articles..." I'm still not convinced it would be an effective sanction, even though I could really get behind the must discuss reverts stipulation. In fact, as a show of good faith, as of now I voluntarily submit to the following requirement: I will not implement a revert, on any article, without also discussing that revert on the appropriate talk page. This applies to any revert, even of simple vandalism, no exceptions. This requirement is for an indefinite duration, and violation of this requirement will carry a penalty of a 1 week block.
It isn't an imposition, since I already discuss the majority of the reverts I make. I'll remain under this requirement independently of whatever other course of action we decide to take here. I'll put a similar statement on my user page so those communicating with me will be more readily aware of this requirement. Xenophrenic 11:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
As for ArbCom: We could go there now, if you so chose. Nothing prevents you from making a request at Requests for Arbitration now. But I would advise against it. When I referred to harsh sanctions, I did not mean for TDC alone, but for both of you. I'm not an arbitrator, so it's no decision of mine, but I suspect that you, too, would be sanctioned. So here's the question: should we go to ArbCom, or should we mutually agree to restrict you both to one revert per day and to always discuss reversions? Or is there another solution we should consider? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand your advice against an ArbCom, but we are looking at it from two different perspectives. You are trying to resolve an edit war between two editors of the WSI article. My perspective covers the interaction with this individual over several articles, edit warring and tendentious editing, deceptive editing practices, harassment and personal attacks since I started editing here. I am confident enough in my editing practices and history, good intentions and respect for the project to go before an ArbCom with my grievances. You are looking for a bandaid while I am seeking a cure. Are there any other solutions that can be considered? Xenophrenic 11:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with sanctioning the both of us equally is simple, Xenophrenic is a sockpuupet of another user, and as such his primary account and all of his other sockpuupet accounts (if they exist) will not be affected. If Xenophrenic would voluntarily reveal his main account, I would agree to equal sanctioning, unless for some reason his behavior in his main accounts calls for something else.

As for community based sanctioning, I would be willing to submit to the following community sanctions without objection.

  1. An edit ban for myself and Xenophrenic (with an expiration date based on demonstrated good behavior) on the effected articles, if another editor(s) will spend some quality time remedying the sourcing, POV, and longstanding Copyvio/plagarism issues present in them.
  2. An unconditional 1RV limit on these article (with discussion of all edits) if Xenophrenic is banned from editing them.
  3. A general 1RV limit on any article (with discussion of all edits and an expiration date based on demonstrated good behavior), if Xenophrenic and his future manifestations are banned.

I feel that considering Xenophremic’s conduct, article ownership, personal attacks on other editors, sockpuupet (which even after the overwhelming consensus here he still refuses to admit to), the above three are more than equitable. Sockpuppetry is one of the most damaging issues here at Wikipedia, and to not factor this into any community based decision will only encourage it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, when you accused myself and Starkrm - falsely - of being sock-puppets, (violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL in the process, imho) the standard procedure for reporting suspected sockpuppets worked pretty efficiently at showing you to be in error. Perhaps you should use that procedure in this case as well. Dlabtot 18:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
So TDC has a history of making false accusations of sockpuppetry? Making a wild leap here; did you, Dlabtot or Starkrm, make edits on his article that disagreed with TDC's edits? Let me take another wild guess; did TDC's accusations try to associate you with another editor that was Banned or under other sanctions? He has done the same thing with me. I see the pattern now:
  • TDC sees edits to his article that disagree with him, so
  • TDC alleges sockpuppetry link to a sanctioned user, and demands enforcement,
  • The effort fails; the CheckUser doesn't confirm the link, and the user isn't even sanctioned after all.
  • TDC looks around for another sanctioned user and casts his accusations again.
  • The effort fails; the CheckUser doesn't confirm the link, and TDC is urged to try Dispute Resolution.
  • Since WP:DR usually leaves TDC "with little to show for it", he choses to continue to attack. He creates an attack page containing insults and offering monetary rewards to Wikipedians that provide him with more fodder for his accusation tirade. Several Administrators immediately admonish TDC and speedy-delete his creation.
  • Now he is on this AN/I page continuing his attacks. I must have other main accounts, he says. I must have sockpuppets, he says. His reasoning: It would be "odd" if I didn't. Odd indeed. Xenophrenic 21:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The Checkuser confirmed that you were likely the user in questions, so you wrong there. Nearly every other editor here believes you are the user in questions, so you are wrong there, and at least one other editor here also thinks you might be Reddi, so on that too you are wrong. There is really no point in continuing this line of debate with you, except that you continue to dig into an obviously transparent fallacy. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Dragging other issues into this thread is not helpful. This was originally about a 1rr editing restriction and has turned into the airing of lots of old grievances by people other than the two this thread is about. Please stop it.--chaser - t 00:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree that this is an airing of an 'old greivance'. Rather, I was firstly trying to suggest that throwing out accusations instead of following procedures is not helpful. And further, I am trying to get some help in working with User:TDC, which has been difficult. I would refer you to recent edits to Gulf War Syndrome and it's associated talk page. After he and I engaged in some edit warring on Depleted Uranium, I've pursued an approach of, rather than reverting, discussing. But I might as well have saved myself the effort. User:TDC seems unwilling to compromise or work towards consensus. He also seems to be unnaturally fixated on a past dispute he had with some other editor. If you still think it is inappropriate for me to post here, I would appreciate suggestions as to how I should proceed. Dlabtot 17:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Both sides in this dispute seem convinced the other is more guilty than they. This makes for a difficult situation in terms of finding a proper sanction. This suggests to me we may need a visit to ArbCom. But first, I have decided to ask another editor with much experience in community sanctions to weigh in here. If she's willing to, we'll see what happens. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

While there may be two sides here, comparing these two sides reminds me of a cartoon that used to be linked over at WP:NPOV [20]. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Durova, I'd guess? I think there's generalized support for a 1RR (outsiders and TDC mostly in favor, Xenophrenic seemingly warming to the idea, the recent message on my talk page notwithstanding). A third way might be for ArbCom to renew the editing restriction from the prior case and expand it to the other articles I mentioned above. Perhaps this other editor can comment on that.--chaser - t 00:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
A problem with your "third way" suggestion is that renewal of those sanctions will affect TDC and not me, and I don't think that will sit well with TDC. He says there are people that believe I am an IP-user from that ArbCom, and I say there are people that believe I am not. He says there are people that believe I am User:Reddi, and I say there are people that believe I am not. All irrelevant beliefs aside, the fact is I am not any of those editors, and I will not be saddled with the baggage of those editors. Any ArbCom dealing with the edit warring issues here is going to have to address these frivolous charges, resolve them, and get them out of the way before we get to the nitty-gritty of the real problem here. Warm up to that, please. Xenophrenic 01:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The complexity of this situation, especially given the allegations and denials involved here, have made this a particularly complex situation, and I suspect it is too complex for the community to handle. Therefore, I have initiated a request for arbitration. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

User:PeterStJohn canvassing of DRV[edit]

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_November_7#Category:Erd.C5.91s_numbers has been extensively canvassed by the nominator, PeterStJohn (talk · contribs). (See the relevant contribs list). The extensive list of those notified of the DRV appears to include none of those who !voted to CfD "delete", and at least one editor who did not participate in the CfD debate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I !voted for delete, and I was indeed very fairly and properly notified of the deletion review. DGG (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The user who you refer to as not participating in the CfD debate is somebody who has certainly expressed an interest in and has been involved in this issue, as can be seen by looking at this page that he created in his own user space: User:Mikkalai/By Erdos. -- Ramsey2006
Why is this posted here? It seems obvious to me that PeterStJohn is very new here and not aware all our guidelines. He merely needed to be pointed to the canvassing guideline, which is what one of the DRV participants did. I don't see a need for administrators to intervene. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I posted a bit too fast here. PeterStJohn is not that new, but it looks very much like he was not aware of the canvassing guideline. In fact, after Jc37 pointed this guideline out to PeterStJohn (diff), the latter notified people that supported deletion like DGG (diff), as noted above, and MeegsC (diff). So the canvassing accusation seems baseless. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not noticing that some of "delete" voters were notified, however I can see that at least two delete voters were notified, and it appears that the notifications went to all the "keep" !voters, and to others. WP:CANVASS does permit "Notifying all editors who participated in a preceding discussion of the article or project, as long as it goes out to all editors", but the notification still remains selective, albeit not exclusively partisan.

Despite being notified of the problem, Pete still hasn't completed notifying the "delete !voters", an this comment seems like a fairly clear statement of intent to do try to stack the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks all very much, I was waiting, and prepared (forewarned is forearmed!) for this. I contacted all of the people who voted on the ballot to delete the category, with exceptions as follows. I put a note on each of the eleven editors who voted "keep", Gandalf61, Roger Hiu, KSmurg, etc (I have the list). There were only 6 votes to Delete (the nomination to delete carried anway, by Kbdank71's fiat). Of those 6, one was an anonymous IP address, which I ignored. Three I contacted as you can check in the hisories, DGG, MeegsC, and Carlossuarez46. That leaves two I did not contact; BrownhairedGirl and SparsityProblem. Since the message of the "canvassing" had been to point out (for purposes good or ill) that I had opened a review towards reversing the deletion, it was not necessary to contact those two because they had both already responded to it. As Brownhairdgirl well knows. I consider her ad hominem accusation to be detrimental to the process of reaching editorial consensus. Brownhairedgirls arguement is completely eristic, as she presumably knows that she already knew about the review process, as she has already participated in it, so her claim to have not been notified is vacuous and unenthical. I believe this is abuse of the system to promolgate a PoV with personal attacks. Pete St.John 18:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Please see WP:NPA: a good faith report of canvassing is not a personal attack, and the claim that I had already participated in the DRV is demonstrably false (do check the logs before making that sort of claim). I did not post to the DRV on Erdos numbers for over 12 hours after your canvassing (at 14:42 today), nor had I contributed to any other DRV on the same page (see the DRV Nov 7 revision history). SparsityProblem has still not commented at all on the Erdos numbers DRV, and SparsityProblem's contribution to another DRV on the same page was at 22:58; but as PeterStJohnPeterStJohn's logs show, the last notice he sent was at 22:21. It seems risky to assume that an editor is aware of another thread on a page where they have participated in a separate thread, but even that was not the case when Pete stopped notifying. There may or may be any significance in the fact the two delete !voters lrft off the notification listhad been the most vocal at DRV, but Pete's other explanation doesn't fit with the logs.
      I accept that the initial canvassing may have done in ignorance of the rules, but it was quite extreme, and the subsequent notification of editors of the opposing view was incomplete. As above, this comment seems like a fairly clear statement of intent to try to stack the discussion, even after being warned.
      If Pete didn't really mean to be selective in notification, he should now notify SparsityProblem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't know what you're claiming I "already responded to", but I didn't know about the deletion review until 5 minutes ago when I happened to be reading this noticeboard; if I hadn't happened to read the incidents board, which I don't read regularly, I probably would never have known about it. SparsityProblem 19:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, in all of my previous encounters with Peter St. John, we had been on opposite sides. He notified me because he thought I might be interested, not becuase he knew how I would side. --Pleasantville 19:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I must concede a point of fact. Brownhairedgirl, while very active at the Deletion Review page, e.g. the 21:46, 7 November 2007 item, did not in fact post to this particular thread prior to my canvassing. That is my mistake, and it's a significant mistake, as I had deliberately ommitted her not just because she already new (which I merely assume she did, but mistakenly thought I had seen in the activity) but because I expected her to accuse me (just as she did), on the theory that she was looking for accusations against her opponent, as opposed to looking for unethical conduct. I now must restate my case, which is appreciably weaker:
  • I canvassed the voters (as per precedent, and in respect of stated policy guidelines, as I had been alerted, or if you prefer warned, already by jc37). There had been 11 votes to keep the category and 6 to delete. That the motion to delete carried despite the clear preponderance of informed opinion, made some of us feel railroaded, so I have resorted to the most severe rebuttal I can manage within the scope of ethical conduct. Of course I notified all the 11 keep voters. Of the remaining 6, I notified DGG, MeegsC, and Carlossuarez. One of the 6 was an anonymous IP address that I ignored. That left Brownhairdgirl and SparsityProblem. I mistakely believed (probably on account of a false, or exaggerated, assumption on my part) that both already knew of the Review. I was mistaken about their having posted to the particular thread in question, I reviewed Brownhairedgirl's contribution history for that day. However, as both Brownhairedgirl and SparsityProblem, particularly the former, have been exceeding active in the movement to delete the Erdos Number category, the presumption is not so ill-founded and the claim that they had been left in the dark seems weak to me. In particular, before opening the ANI item, I believe that Brownhairedgirl should have checked the other voters (it's all plain as day as consecutive, and near-consecutive, items in my own contribution history) and seen that in fact 3 of the 5 non-anonymous "delete" voters had been informed, and that she overgeneralized from omitting her. The fact that my contact with her has been vitupritive, unproductive, and unpleasant, plus the fact that she plainly is extremely well-informed and active in the politicing, makes my having omitted her no so unreasonable, IMO. However, I was mistaken about the particular point of fact; otherwise in fact I would have notified her. I can't apologize because my overall categorization of her behaviour is highly negative, but I must admit the mistake. Pete St.John 20:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
No apology, hey?
I had indeed monitored DRV intermittently for a few days after the closure of the CfD, but when there was nothing, I gave up. I only became aware of the DRV when I spotted some of the canvassing (not at that point by Pete), on the talk page of someone who had not expressed any substantive interest in the subject. I'm disappointed that you can't apologise for your mistake because we disagree about the substantive issue, and because, as you put it, I am well-informed.
Your canvassing of the DRV was widespread, and although you belatedly made some limited attempts to balance the audience, your message was not neutral, as required by WP:CANVAS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Could it be a coincidence that BrownHairedGirl and I, probably the two most vocal editors in favor of deleting these categories, were the two delete voters who were not contacted? And as for your claim "the presumption is not so ill-founded and the claim that they had been left in the dark seems weak to me", I request that you assume good faith and take both of our words for it that we were not aware of the DRV. SparsityProblem 00:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
You are right, SparsityProblem, it's no coincidence: your and Brownhairedgirl's high level of activity in the opposition is indeed part of why I ommitted you, on two grounds: one, I would prefer to minimize contact with the people I most associate with making me angry; but the other, the (mistaken) belief that you already knew about it, and so didn't need to be contacted. I admit the mistake, and I believe that Brownhairedgirl has admitted the mistake in overgeneralizing (that since I didn't notify her, I hadn't notified the oppostion voters as a class). Also I take we agree it was ok not to notify the Anonymous IP voter. This leaves two issues: first, do you feel disadvantaged in this debate because of my mistake? If so I apologize, but frankly I'm skeptical. Second, my notification of the majority "keep" voters was in the tone "please help" and of the minority "delete" voters was "I'm obliged to notify on account of canvassing guidelines". Is that unfair? I would have thought it perfectly obvious that I am on one side of this; I'm not pretending to be a neutral judge, but an open advocate of what I take to be the strong consensus of my profession. I'm trying to follow guidelines but I mean to be open and honest and to admit mistakes, as that is fundamental to the mathematical process I mean to advocate. If you caught me in a lie I would be severely discredited in the community I purport to advocate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterStJohn (talkcontribs)
First, if you're rendered unable to follow policy because certain people "make you angry", that's a good sign that maybe you shouldn't participate in this debate until you can rein in your emotions.
I don't feel disadvantaged, since I did find out about the DRV eventually. But that was only a coincidence, and I might have never learned about it if I hadn't happened to click on the admin noticeboard while browsing fairly randomly.
I'm not really familiar with the canvassing guidelines, so I can't say whether it was unfair for you to canvas in the way you did as per the guidelines. However, characterizing opponents as "vampires" is never a good idea and always a breach of WP:CIVIL.
Finally, on your user page you state that your profession is software development. Is that right? (I wouldn't mention this at all if not for your statement about "the strong consensus of my profession.) It would be good if we could be clear about whether we're talking about the supposed consensus of mathematicians about Erdos numbers, or the supposed consensus of software developers about Erdos numbers. SparsityProblem 23:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Be all that as it may, there is a new ANI, perhaps we agree to continue the debate there, as this particular issue is mostly settled? I take that ANI items don't get "closed", just acted upon (or not) by any interested admin, and that eventually items are archived, as opposed to closed. Is that about correct? Pete St.John 18:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The votestacking exercise continues[edit]

    • I apologize for placing this remark at the top (feel free to move it) but I explain. Brownhairedgirl already has an ANI against me (which I haven't gotten to yet today). I'm surprised by a new one already. Presumably the previous one, which last I saw had been satisfactorily addressed, partly by my admission of a mistake, and partly by the testimony of people who had voted against me (thanks), has been closed, I'll go see. So as spammy as I may well be, I'm overwhelmed by the opposition, and I physically can not be fast enough to keep up with this. I'll do my best however. At this moment I have not read this ANI at all yet. Pete St.John 17:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
addendum I appear to have been mistaken; this is not a second ANI item, but a subcategory of the previous one, addressing something like campaigning generally, rather than the particular "canvassing of previous voters" item, which may have been satisfactorily addressed.Pete St.John

There are two threads running at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics in which continues to blatantly and unapologetically attempt to votestack the Deletion Review:

I have never seen an exercise like this one: most canvassers attempt a measure of subtlety, but this is acknowledged as an all-out campaign:

To me campaigning openly is preferable to canvassing covertly, e.g. by email. Pete St.John 23:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • characterisation of those who support deleting the categories as "like vampires who crave blood but can't be killed"[21]
I employed that (possibly uncivil) allegory at the math project talk page, where the "streamliners" had just been characterized as "crazies". I've wanted to keep the debate civil on the pages where the debate is taking place, but I've expressed myself more freely elsewhere. I have never pretended to be neutral on the subject of the debate, or the urgency of protecting a benign group from being railroaded, which is how some of us feel about the unilateral action to delete the category after three successive votes had clearly been in favor of keeping it. Pete St.John 23:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • saying "I felt, and feel, that it's important to get out the vote"[22] - this nearly 24 hours after he was first warned by jc37 about WP:CANVASS
I wish we kept time in days. It's about 16 hours between the time I log off and the time I log in the next day. I have responded to the canvassing criticisms in stages, mostly at my talk page. I logged in today to discover both a second ANI against me, from the same author as the ongoing one, and also a threat to ban me, regarding canvassing. It's difficult for me to respond nimbly to the overwhelming reactions. Fortunately, the 24-11 vote (so far) to overturn the deletion makes me feel that at least I will perceived as relevant, and not merely eristic. Pete St.John 23:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • saying "As for slanting my notices, I am deliberating attempting to countervail a movement. I have a side."[23]
as opposed to pretending to be neutral. Apparently, canvasing openly is contrary to wiki guidelines, but eristic demagoguery and repeated threatening insinuations are not. Pete St.John 23:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Repeating a characterising by another editor of support for deletion as "craziness"[24]
I think "crazies" was someone else's term. I may have used the term to reference back to the other comments. I characterize the opposition generally as deletionist and you particularly as a polarizing, eristic demagogue.Pete St.John
  • Posting updates of the count of "endorse" and "overturn" !votes at deletion, urging editors at that project to "send a message"[25][26]
Yes as I said there, and freely admit here, I was doing everything I could to raise community awareness and collect support. Since then, the vote update has been removed and I have stopped campaigning at the project page, on account of the threat to ban me at my user page, which followed rather closely on the heels of these canvassing guidelines being pointed out to me. If I seem to act impatiently, it is because of the abrupt nature of the attacks, not any personal proclivity to act without thinking. As I learn more about wiki guidelines I'll do better navigating among them. Pete St.John 23:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If this sort of all-out campaigning to "get out the vote" for a particular result in a decision-making process is allowed to stand, we might as well tear up the guidelines on conduct in wikipedia's decision-making processes. What is the point of trying to make decisions by consensus if editors campaign to "get out the vote", despite multiple warnings to desist? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the way I campaigned, before yesterday, was not appropriate according to wiki guidelines; I believe the way I'm campaigning since yesterday is improved. I consider yesterday transitional. I believe that starting a second ANI concurrent with the first, on the same subject, is unethical. Not by wiki guidelines, just my own sense of ethics. Pete St.John 23:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I retract the "second ANI on the heels of the first.." item. Apparently it's just a subcategory of the first ANI. Brownhairedgirl employs rhetorical technique quite sharply, but that's fair to me. Quantity and redundancy are other issues. Pete St.John 23:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I moved the most recent thread to the user's talk page. There's no need to lament the entire decision making process; this just seems to be one editor who has strong feelings about an issue. I hope that a few comments by uninvolved people will help to resolve the issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I've left a note on his talk page asking him to desist. I have to agree that neutral notifications to a Wikiproject that an AfD or DRV is in progress are generally acceptable, but this goes way beyond that into the realm of active canvassing, campaigning, vote-counting, etc with a distinctly uncivil tone to boot. If there's any more campaigning by this editor outside the DRV itself, I would favor (and will impose, unless there is disagreement) a block for the duration of the DRV. MastCell Talk 00:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for those responses, but at this point it's not just a matter of restraining Pete. I don't see how the DRV itself can possibly be considered to represent real consensus when there has been such a aggressive campaign to votestack it, even accompanied by a readymade pile of arguments to deploy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
We deal with that sort of thing pretty often (think slashdot). I haven't had any part in the AFD or DRV, and I'm not planning to, but someone could leave a note for the closer pointing out this thread. The admins who close DRV discussions should be able to deal with it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
If mentioning proposed decisions on relevant WikiProjects is outlawed, we might as well outlaw WikiProjects themselves. And deletion sorting pages too, for that matter. Maybe even outlaw watchlists. It would be inappropriate for anyone who might know something about the subject to find out and influence the decision, after all: we must let the ignorant make their decisions on their own, because they're the only ones who are truly unbiased. —David Eppstein 02:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
That (banning WikiProject notifications) has not been proposed here. Neutral notifications to WikiProjects, as stated above, are generally acceptable. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the discussion on WT:WPM was less neutral than I think appropriate, but it's natural that someone would have difficulty remaining neutral when a page or category he feels strongly about has been deleted, seemingly unreasonably. (I don't want to argue whether the closure decision actually was unreasonable, only that it likely seemed that way to that participant.) And in this case, other editors on WT:WPM already admonished him to calm down and stay civil. Why does this rise to the level of something needing admin attention? —David Eppstein 02:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
David, "less neutral than I think appropriate" is such a serious misunderstatement as to be a misrepresentation, like describing someone who reverts ten times in a day as "slightly inappropriate". The discussion at WT:WPM after the closure of the CFD was generally OK: one personal attack, but otherwise it was well within bounds. However, there's a huge difference between editors discussing how they feel about an XfD closure and what actually happened here: using the WikiProject to host a partisan list of "reasons to overturn" and aggressively canvassing and campaigning to "get out the vote". WikiProjects don't "own" a set of articles, and their areas of interest frequently overlap with other projects (in this case with the biography project); imagine the mess we would have if XfD or DRV became a battleground to be fought out between competing wikiprojects, which is the logical next step of allowing this sort of disruption to proceed.
It's good that other editors on WT:WPM had urged caution, but the aggressive campaigning came after the editor in question had his attention drawn to WP:CANVASS, and it continued after several warnings at WPM which the editor concerned rejected. Pete repeatedly acknowledged that he knew he was out of order but intended to proceeded regardless, replete with a stream of personal attacks. In what other context would that degree of disruption be characterised as unworthy of admin attention?
After the welcome removal of some of the more outrageous votestacking posts, the last remaining comment that discussion at WT:WPM is Pete's "stubborn-ness in the cause of mathematics is no vice". How is this end-justifies means approach compatible with WP:CONSENSUS? I support Mastcell's proposal to block Pete at least for the duration of the DRV. There is no indication that he has any intention of respecting the consensus decision-making process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Something along the lines of a "WikiProject War" was the crux of an ArbCom proposal recently, in my opinion a not very well considered proposal. See here for part of the discussion (I provide this particular link not because I'm attached to this particular WikiProject but because this is the area I added my comment). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
We all have feelings, but as adults, we're all responsible for behaving maturely, even when it's difficult for us to control our feelings. I agree with Bhg; calling other good-faith editors "vampires" goes far beyond the bounds of reasonable behavior. SparsityProblem 17:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

After reading all of the above, the user's talk page, (and more), I've given the user a warning that he may be blocked for the duration of the DRV, if he continues. I think by now enough "notice" has been given, and this has strayed quite far into "disruptive territory". - jc37 15:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Kizor and inappropriate speedy keep[edit]


Kizor and I disagree on deletions in general. He does not like me nominating things for AFD even though they clearly don't meet Wikipedia standards. However, I believe this closure was inappropriate and that he did it solely because he doesn't like me. He gloated inappropriately about it on my talk page. Now, if the AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Star Wars Jedi knights) had been a snowball keep then I would have agreed, but it is not. He simply doesn't agree with the AFD so he just closed it. This is not appropriate behavior from an administrator. Pilotbob 17:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

...I closed it because the article had been kept less than a month ago, and because two other administrators I asked agreed.
I keep away from closing fiction AfDs specifically to keep my opinion of the merits of the articles from being a factor, and made an exception here because the closure was on fully procedural grounds.
Later on, I decided to explain my reasons in detail on Pilotbob's talk page, to make sure this didn't jeopardize our good relation - he'd previously made a polite, respectful reply to me that was highly refreshing, and I want(ed) to talk to him further later - by making him think what he now does. Obviously the message went gravely wrong, so I'd appreciate your comments on how it did.
:(. --Kizor 18:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I just put it up on deletion review. I know we disagree on deletions and it struck me as a bad faith move. If it had been an admin that never voted on my AFDs or expressed their displeasure on my AFDs, I wouldn't have tought that. The same as if all the responses were keeps. But seeing an approximately equal number of keeps and deletes gave me pause and I was a bit upset. I'm sure Kizor is just trying to help out and do what he thinks is best, but we disagree on some things. Pilotbob 21:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, I'm not sure your closure was appropriate. You closed it as premature due to a recent AfD; normally that would be correct, but the previous AfD was closed as "no consensus". I believe current guidelines allow for near-immediate (although not compulsory) re-nomination in the case of no consensus. Powers T 19:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Those I asked were Jimfbleak and Resurgent Insurgent, though I mistakenly gave the time from the last nomination as five weeks. Jim told me to go ahead, Res said that he wouldn't close a nomination made over a month after a nc - and this turned out to be made under one. I searched the rules before closing, without finding anything about the grace period of a no consensus being shorter. --Kizor 19:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no hard and fast rule about the time frame for nominating articles for deletion after a previous attempt, nor is there a hard and fast rule about closing such nominations. Personally, I wouldn't have closed an XFD discussion where there were already good faith !votes expressed unless it were clearly slanted one way or another or it was clear the nominator was not acting in good faith. I don't think either of those were the case here. That said, I don't think Kizor was acting maliciously and he was simply exercising his judgment. Unless Kizor feels the need to reopen the discussion at this time, I'd simply suggest the nominator wait 2 months, and then renominate it if the reasons it was originally nominated have not been addressed. This isn't an "emergency" situation and there is no timetable for considering this article for deletion.--Isotope23 talk 19:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If Pilotbob were to relist it at WP:DRV, I would surely !vote that the AfD closure was inappropriate, in light not only because of the obvious ill-will from Kizor, but Kizor's closing explanation being that there was a recent AfD, which is an invalid speedy close rationale. Corvus cornix 19:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, deletion review is certainly an option as well.--Isotope23 talk 20:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to note that this issue is no longer a problem and there is no longer any dispute. Pilotbob 07:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat[edit]

Kafhimpa [27] has accused Touch Of Light of vandalism and spam [28] and made a legal threat in the edit summary in response to Touch Of Light posting the standard greeting on Kafhimpa's talk page. Edward321 00:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Contribs look bad all around. There's a definite hostility going on. Probably needs a block, as he contribs show an ongoing pattern. ThuranX 00:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I've blocked for 24h, but am open to extension of the block if people think that is too lenient. Tim Vickers 01:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
That may depend on whether or not you get berated for spamming his talk page :) ---- WebHamster 01:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Users who make legal threats directly or by implication should be blocked indefinitely until the threat is explicitly withdrawn. In his edit summary Kafhimpa states, "I will withold [sic] from pressing charges against him for now. . ." which qualifies as a LT, I think. R. Baley 13:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


I believe that the block for sockpuppetry is mistaken. No evidence has been given and so I propose that the block be removed and the editor allowed to make his own case. Kindly note there is a related discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pilotbob which make have given rise to this problem.--Gavin Collins 17:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please try to contact David Gerard at his user talk page. It appears that the CheckUser result was affirmative. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The checkuser accounts show all three usernames from different IPs at matching times. They're blatantly single-purpose sockpuppet accounts. Pilotbob has been blocked for AFD dickery before, it's entirely in character - David Gerard 19:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I deny that this I have any sock puppet accounts and also deny any dickery Pilotbob 13:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I checked this out too, in response to a private request for investigation. I strongly agree with this finding of David's that AndalusianNaugahyde==Doctorfluffy==Pilotbob ... further I agree that the user Pilotbob could vastly improve his approach to contributing here (less AFD disruptiveness and more writing about things he says he knows about, such as Flight training for example) and I have counseled him to that effect. The block was sound but if the user confines to one account going forward the lift is OK by me. ++Lar: t/c 15:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Consider a rangeblock for 58.8.21.*[edit]

  • All the latest Cheri DiNovo vandalism is coming from that area (see Meggie Cleary and Lilith), and it would really help avoid future pointless nonsense. JuJube 12:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
A range block might be too excessive as that could impact thousands of other users. I'm looking at a semi-protect on one of the articles. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 13:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
After more review, I have issued a range block (/20) which should help. Advice or change from other admins is welcomed. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 14:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Rangeblocks are probably a better bet than semiprotection, as the anon user simply moves on to other articles. They don't really care about what article they edit, only that their bizarre obsession spreads all through Wikipedia. Also, I have rarely noticed any non-vandalism edits coming from these IPs, so I think the collateral damage will be minimal if not non-existent. Natalie 15:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Re User:Fodient[edit]

This is something I came across while RC patrolling, and I'm not sure I want to get involved, but . . . I see that there was a report here a couple of days ago about this user's repeated recreation of a deleted (via AfD) article on one Russell Timoshenko. Now the user has launched himself on a campaign to add redlinks about Timoshenko to various marginally related lists and disambig pages, repeatedly violating 3RR on several articles. I've placed a 3RR warning on the user's talk page, but I can't revert any more of his/her edits without violating 3RR myself. Mightn't a time out be in order for this user? Deor 15:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, multiple violations of 3RR despite warnings. Given a 48 hours block to reflect on his editing patterns. ELIMINATORJR 15:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Concerns over legal action in the US chess community. (User:Sam Sloan et. al.)[edit]

I have a concern regarding Sam Sloan (talk · contribs). He has filed a lawsuit against various officials of the United States Chess Federation. The list of defendents looks like the list of candidates for the USCF board plus the USCF itself, including Susan Polgar and Paul Truong and also User:Billbrock. The lawsuit has been posted prominently on Sloan's personal webpage ([29]) and the entire text of the lawsuit is available there. One will note that the Wikipedia involvement is mentioned in the suit.

Note that User:Sam Sloan has mentioned the lawsuits in the articles of Susan Polgar (diff) and Paul Truong (diff).

I do not know if the suit has any merit, and that issue is definitely for the court, and not the Wikipedia community to decide. However, I feel that the Wikipedia community can take a stance on the involved parties' editing priveleges while the lawsuit is being processed. I feel that involvement of this nature at this time brings up all sorts of conflict of interest issues, and possibly WP:NLT concerns as well, and would appreciate any administrator attention to the subject.

I will add the following notes regarding myself:

  1. I am a member of the United States Chess Federation, but a passive one since I have not played in any USCF sanctioned tournaments, hold no positions of trust within the organization, have not voted for any board members (foreign members cannot vote), and I purchased the membership solely in order for the Chess Life subscription and access to "members only" areas of the USCF website. My active chess association membership is with the Norwegian chess association, an association Sloan is not affiliated with. I am not among the people Sloan has cited in his lawsuit.
  2. My interactions with Sloan have been purely on-wiki. I think I spoke against Sloan on an ArbCom request he filed against User:JzG (case was rejected), and voted to endorse the deletion of one of his articles on DRV. I voted to "keep" the BLP Sam Sloan on an AFD once.

Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I echo Sjakkale's concerns. Sloan is and always has been completely unable to check his biases at the door, many of his edits have a blatant conflict of interest. He has also stated on Usenet that he will repost articles deleted by AfD, and has done so, and has personalised matters when they are deleted again. The lawsuit also involves individuals who edit Wikipedia. I cannot tell whether his contributions to chess articles outweigh the problems he causes, what is certain in my mind is that his edits to articles on people against whom he has an off-wiki vendetta need to stop. And actually I have serious questions in my mind whether Sloan is capable, in his own mind, of separating his opinion from objective truth. Here's an example of the kind of thing that's being directed against Polgar: [30]. It's almost as if a Certain Website were involved... Guy (Help!) 11:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    "...a Certain Website..." That would be Wikipedia Review, wouldn't it? LessHeard vanU 21:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

For Sam I find Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive125#User:Sam Sloan as prior AN or AN/I discussion. (There is also one complaint that received zero response and a complaint about someone with a username impersonating this user.) Sam Sloan attempted to file an ArbComm case against Guy at one point; it never opened and I haven't dug into the history of why it was rejected. (Being completely ridiculous would have been an appropriate reason for rejection, from what I can see.) There are about a dozen bot produced subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam that I don't grok how to parse.

For Billrock I don't find prior AN or AN/I discussion. There are a pair of those bot produced subpages that I don't grok.

My impression is that we need to watch this. Wikipedia:No legal threats and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest are obviously relevant policy. I note that the particular diffs aren't obviously troubling - linking her blog responses is plausible, but there is a risk from comments (potentially later) to those blog responses. Billrock has indicated that the lawsuit received some NYT coverage. I think Sam and Billrock should be reminded that due to conflict of interest it would be best if they refrained from editing related content directly and limit themselves to proposingon the talk pages. This requires an uninvolved editor with at least some subject matter knowledge who is willing to watchlist the relevant articles. So I see two questions: 1) which articles are relevant and 2) who will be the uninvolved editor(s) with subject matter knowledge? GRBerry 16:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

In his lawsuit, Sloan claims:

... purveyor of these false accusations [is] Defendant William Brock. Brock was banned from posting to the USCF Forums for this but he has continued to post to other public forums the same or similar accusations, including even on the Wikipedia Encyclopedia where he listed Sloan under the category of “child molesters”.

I'm assuming that William Brock is User:Billbrock. I looked briefly for that edit at Sam Sloan but haven't found it. Does anyone have a link for this edit? If so, it needs to be oversited. --Duk 04:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a good option for calling in oversight. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Sam Sloan (talk · contribs · count) per my interpretation of WP:NLT. Although not a threat specifically, ongoing legal action involving this user and another (Billbrock (talk · contribs)), involving accusations of harassment on wiki is in my opinion grounds for blocking until the lawsuit is over. Please discuss here if you disagree with this action. ViridaeTalk 05:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you've interpreted the letter of WP:NLT just fine. Usually people get blocked per NLT for using the threat of a lawsuit as a weapon - do as I say or I'll sue. In this case that hasn't happened. Instead, a person is being blocked for bringing a defamation suit, while the alleged wrongdoer continues to edit. Interesting. --Duk 05:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you clarify that? please? ViridaeTalk 06:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure. What would you like me to clarify? --Duk 06:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
You seemed to support the block at the start of the comment but not at the end. ViridaeTalk 06:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I think your block is correct per WP:NLT. --Duk 06:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I support a block. I do not think Sloan is capable of shelving his biases, and he has clearly abused Wikipedia in furtherance of an external agenda. The legal case is just the last nail in the coffin. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it is quite clear to regular Wikipedia editors that the intent of the block is to last for the period of the legal action and to be lifted thereafter, but it might be good to clarify that for casual observers, with an eye toward the press and legal authorities. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem is that the as the locus of the lawsuit is outside of Wiki, and by banning Salon, it gives the impression to an outsider that Wikipedia is taking side. SYSS Mouse 22:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


I have a real issue with Pilotbob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Witht he exception of a (failed) deletion review request for Brian Peppers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), pretty much 100% of this editor's contribution is tagging and nomination for deletion of popular culture topics, especially character lists. The edit pattern also looks very much like that of a sleeper sock. I have blocked for 24h for debate, to stop further disruption, as he's currently tagging articles like Rincewind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy (Help!) 01:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sleeper sock of whom? --EoL talk 01:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Anyone. The behaviour is pretty standard; a small batch of edits, months of inactivity, and then start disruption. Guy (Help!) 01:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, there are several editors engaging in articles for deletion sprees on content about fictional universes recently - does Pilotbob's pattern differ from the others? In many cases, these have succeeded in deleting the articles in question, so consensus might indicate that this pattern isn't inherently disruptive. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 1, items 17-60, for example. JavaTenor 03:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
You're not paying by the minute; you can spend the time needed to type 'for what it's worth'... HalfShadow 03:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not so much the rate, it's just that it's all he's done since the Brian Peppers mention. Everything he's done is an AFD of some sort, and he does not actually read the articles half the time. With one, he said that an article on a television program wasn't notable per WP:FICT.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know which is the sock and which is the socketteer, but: [31]. -Chunky Rice 16:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
He really needs to slow down the AfD tagging. Corvus cornix 03:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that he's deliberately doing this to be disruptive, but it is clear that he is at the very least taking little to no effort to review the things he is trying to delete. The AfDs of character lists and obviously notable characters such as Rincewind make that fairly obvious, as do his consistently phrased rationales when nominating them. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, a lot of people feel the deletion sprees are very disruptive. For example, there's an RfC for Gavin Collins brought by 5 separate editors and endorsed by 28 more that finds his tagging and deletion sprees disruptive. [32] Near as I can tell, this hasn't affected Gavin's behavior at all. Edward321 06:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of the character lists have little secondary sources as most of the primary sources are accurate(why would the creaters of the an anime/movie lie about their characters?), which he uses as a excuse to get rid of content. And because of the lack of them, many are getting deleted because almost all secondary sourcs are considered fan sites and even though they are clearly notable subjects.I think we should close every Afd he as nominated and the undeletion of the ones deleted, if anyone disbutes the undetetion, they can take it to Afd in a normal manner instead of a tagging spree. Af648 09:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Articles sourced exclusively from primary sources are not really what the encyclopaedia is supposed to be about. We are supposed to work from non-trivial reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • In the interests of fairness, it should be pointed out that a lot of the articles Pilotbob nominated for deletion have been rubbish and fancruft created from a couple of primary sources, and were rightly sent to AFD. Neil  11:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
That's your opinion. A fair bit isn't and mass nomination is not helpful, nor is nominating material because the article is disorganized. I get sick of the bizarre cultural snobbery that seems to view anything more recent than 1940 as trivia. Anyone with half an interest in the area can find massive amount of secondary sourced on the most obscure bits of pop culture, just that much of it is extremely esoteric and many of us aren't doing it. The idea of prompt citing is for where material may be challenged, not like, duh, Nemo is a Clownfish (which was removed recently). I have found some stuff but haven't prioritised it. Anyway we're getting off topic here. Pilotbob sprang into action as a deletion happy account around the time a number of other accounts have been blocked. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
It's my opinion too. I think that the advice Pilotbob has been given is sound: cut down the rate of nomination and actually do some work before nominating. That is generically sound advice, in fact. Guy (Help!) 13:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, I don't think the blockage is at all justified. Nominations for AFD are just that, they are not deletions per se. I could understand his concerns if this action related to WP:PROD, but AFD is a process that is subject to peer review. All of his nominations I have seen have been justified; by examining the AFD's you will see that they all concern plot summaries without real world context, having few or no primary or secondary sources. The nominations were made in good faith, and the articles concerned all fall outside of WP scope would have been nominated for AfD eventually.
Secondly, I think Guy may have overstepped the mark, because taking a dislike to an editor's edits is not reasonable grounds for a block. His attempt to discredit the edits of Pilotbob in this way is not appropriate; there is due process to be followed in these circumstances. Village pump, or RFC have been created for situations. The arbitary exercise of admin power against editors acting in good faith is basically tyranny. --Gavin Collins 16:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason why Rincewind shouldn't be sent to AfD? The Discworld books are notable, I think. But its individual characters probably aren't; they're not studied or analysed like characters in literature books -- Tom Sawyer, Holden Caulfield, and so on -- so there's not enough third-party paterial to write a well-cited article. This article is in-universe, and full of speculation and is almost completely unreferenced; things that WP:N, WP:V, and WP:FICT teach us to avoid.
Further, I can't see any reason he needs to "slow down the AfD tagging". The process isn't meant to be throttled -- if lots of articles need to be considered for deletion, then lots of articles should be tagged with AfD. If Wikipedia is about forming consensus, and AfDs are a venue for building that concensus, then PilotBob is doing what Wikipedia has asked and he should be allowed to carry on.
As Gavin Collins points out, nominating for AfD is just nominating; I think it's less disruptive than posting marginal articles and fan cruft. -- Mikeblas 17:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "Is there a reason why Rincewind shouldn't be sent to AfD? The Discworld books are notable, I think. But its individual characters probably aren't; they're not studied or analysed like characters in literature books -- Tom Sawyer, Holden Caulfield, and so on -- so there's not enough third-party paterial to write a well-cited article. This article is in-universe, and full of speculation and is almost completely unreferenced; things that WP:N, WP:V, and WP:FICT teach us to avoid."...
  • I won't touch other issues here, but I'd like to take (very minor) issue with this above (quoted) statement (folks, feel free to skip the next few paragraphs if you don't like reading long comments). First, because "literature books" is redundant, as books are a type of literature to begin with so long as they aren't completely blank (even pamphlets are "literature", remember); I believe you're actually thinking of the oft-used term "literary fiction", which is sometimes used by writing critics and trade magazines to refer to anything that isn't basically just purely intended as mass-market entertainment or in the words of literary fiction's WP article: "...principally to distinguish 'serious' fiction (that is, work with claims to literary merit) from the many types of genre fiction and popular fiction. In broad terms, literary fiction focuses more on style, psychological depth, and character, whereas mainstream commercial fiction (the 'pageturner') focuses more on narrative and plot.". However, in real-world terms, what is or isn't a "literary fiction" work is often a matter of opinion, and even massively popular entertainment can sometimes be of a "literary" (read: "serious/intellectual") nature and regardless of whether or not it is officially labeled a "literary fiction" work, has often been analyzed a great deal - Charles Dickens was one of the best-selling authors of his time, period, and was the equivalent of a "mass-market" writer in his era; and I'd like to add that even Buffy the Vampire Slayer has an entire academic circle and online journal devoted to analyzing it ("Slayage: The Journal of Buffy Studies" or somesuch, I believe it's called) in addition to the countless armchair critics seen elsewhere, owing to its focus on characters' psychological issues, morality issues, feminist themes, existentialist themes and so on (, seriously, it has them all in spades. No joke, Joss Whedon loves including existentialist themes and so on in his work - if you're interested in a casual look-over in regards to Buffy, there's at least one entire book devoted to philosophy in the show; I believe at least part of the title is Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy. I have a copy somewhere, let me know on my Talk page if you have trouble finding it and I can give you more information later when I've got it handy). I find it hard to believe that Discworld will have all that much fewer academic critics interested in it than Buffy does that there is no academic commentary on it at all. The Discworld novels include a great deal of satire, and despite their tone and popularity, I would have to argue that they're not of any less potential "serious" literary value than older comedies - yes, even including some of Shakespeare's comedies, which were popular entertainment in their time as well. (Taming of the Shrew, anyone? It's not any sillier than the stuff Pratchett's (sp?) been writing lately, except Pratchett's been working mostly in the fantasy genre - itself not an invalid target for satire, or lacking in "serious" works - JRR Tolkien, anyone?)...
  • ...more importantly and less digressively, though, Rincewind from what I've seen is a very frequently-recurring character in the Discworld novels, which are very much notable due to being very, very consistent best-sellers in the UK and elsewhere, and having also spawned several popular adaptations in other media; and if you looked in the right places, I would not actually be all that surprised to see a few academic analyses of the character in question (though perhaps more in Britain than North America, as the books are far more popular there than here), additionally... the other issues you stated, such as being written too "in-universe", should NEVER be used as an excuse to delete something, because they are easily fixed (and often are) - and they have nothing to do with things like copyvio, autobio, or especially non-notability, which are another kettle of fish entirely from merely being not up to full FA standards. ;)
  • I can, however, see what you're probably attempting to argue: that Rincewind is not nearly as inherently and obviously independently notable as say, Holden is; I would even agree that he does not inherently seem any more commonly analyzed than say, Buffy Anne Summers or Faith Lehane are (fairly popular amongst academic critics, those two) - though I'll readily admit as well that it could be just that I'm not that big of a Discworld fan and might not be aware of the "serious analysis" that may well be out there in droves for all I know. In any case though, I'd argue more in favor of a Merge (into a "list of recurring Discworld characters" type article) than a full deletion anyway, as the character is at least slightly notable simply for being used frequently in a best-selling book series... just not necessarily notable enough for an independent article. And I WOULD fully support a list article in this case, as most of these articles on Discworld characters I've seen appear to be fairly short and still easily pared-down, and yet if you were to simply merge all of the key recurring characters into the main article, it would be far too massive (the books feature a LOT of recurring characters, and I mean a LOT). I think in this case trimming and merging most of these characters' articles into a common list article would be a good compromise. :) (Heck, I might just propose that one the relevant pages now...) Runa27 21:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not taking a position on these AfDs - they may be valid - but he's engendering a lot of ill will. He should start off slowly, let a few AfDs go through, and then if the articles do get deleted, go on to another small batch. Corvus cornix 17:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There's a practical limit on how many AfDs can be reasonably reviewed in a given time period. On the extreme end of things, if a user nominated 1000 AfDs in one day, it's simply not realistic to expect that editors will have time to fully review and discuss that many articles simultaeously. What the upper bound on our AfD capacity is not a hard line, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that people slow down when they push that capacity. There's no rush. -Chunky Rice 17:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
If he was nominating a 100 articles for AfD I would agree; but he is not. Guy's accusation that he is nominating AfD's "en mass" is just not supported by any evidenced and I would be supprised if the number of AfD initated by Pilotbob exceeds more than 10 a week. In any case, block cannot be justified; AfD is an important part of the editorial process. If only we had more editors like him working on buisness deletions, perhaps we could get rid of the endless spam that pass for articles and stubs.
On a related point, you can see that Pilotbob pays attention to objectors to the AfD's and gives reasoned answers, which is why I urge you to lift the block now. You are dealing with a polite, established editor who makes reasonable edits. He is not an angry teenager committing vandalism. I urge you now to raise the block, there is no reasonble justification for gaging an editor whose persective is not share by an admin. I hope this is not the first shot in an open civil war between deletionists and inclusivists. --Gavin Collins 17:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Just as a point of information, there were over 30 AfD nominations in the last week initiated by Pilotbob. Surpirsed? -Chunky Rice 18:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The triple-teaming trio of Pilotbob, GavinCollins, and Mikeblas barely give the rest of us any time to breathe with their loads of AFDs. It would be more than wonderful if they at least slowed down. And yes, especially Gavin and Pilotbob seem to have taken a very adversarial, opinionated stance against the articles they nominate and the people who defend them. When Gavin PRODs an article I wrote instead of AFDing it, I just redirect it, no mess no fuss. It would be nice if Gavin and Pilotbob actually read an article before nominating it, so that we don't see so much of referring to a female character as a "he", stating that characters who were primarily used in novels as "being created to fill a game guide", or making other baseless assertions which clearly show their lack of knowledge of the subject they are trying so hard to get rid of. State the facts - if notability has not been established, then leave it at that; this seems to be an effective enough tactic as it is, and making things up (or just guessing, as the case may be) to make your case look better can backfire on you. BOZ 18:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

PilotBob has been busted sockpuppeting too, as Doctorfluffy and AndalusianNaugahyde. Anyone want to put together an arbcom case asking for a ban from deletion discussions? I fear this editor cannot, on present evidence, be trusted to behave - David Gerard 19:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I can swear that Doctorfluffy was utilized to comment in one of the seven AFDs that Pilotbob initiated and that I've had to deal with in my primary subject area, like this.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
...and then there's this weird statement by Pilotbob....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not that weird. He's basically saying that they're meatpuppets, not sockpuppets. -Chunky Rice 01:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Not impossible, but highly improbable, based on what I saw when I ran the checks. And if they ARE meatpuppets, well... WP:DUCK, they're ACTING like sockpuppets so block on behaviour anyway. Pilotbob==Doctorfluffy==AndalusianNaugahyde ++Lar: t/c 05:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it can appear this way, but we are not acting in concert. One example is that Andalusian was mad about a Star Wars related AFD I made and voted to keep it (he told me personally). However, I can see that there would be the appearance of meatpuppetry here, and I would agree (and hopefully they would agree) not to vote on the same item in a consensus building way. I'm unblocked now, but they are not. They really aren't sockpuppets. I hate to say this (and potentially get myself blocked), but they don't deserve to be blocked any more than I do. Pilotbob 07:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
At least two checkusers (David and myself) and possibly more, have investigated and both of us have come to the conclusion that all 3 userids are the same user. You can protest that they are different as much as you like but they only way I would buy that they are different from you is if they were your friends over at your house editing from your computer... even then it would not really matter. We block on behaviour and appearance of collusion, and the things the three accounts were doing are a) similar and b) somewhat disruptive. I think you should be glad you yourself are not blocked, for the time being, and stick to one account in future. I will opine that if you continue with the general outlines of your current behaviour and approach, you might find yourself blocked again as well, for longer. Go forth and edit some articles ... add some useful, well sourced things to them, instead of focusing only on AfDs in a particular area. You say you're a pilot, and that you work with VMWare... there is lots of great stuff you could be adding in those topic areas. As pointed out below, you currently nom so many things now that no one pays attention. But if you continue to do it, you're wasting the time of others unacceptably. ++Lar: t/c 15:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I think most people have stopped paying attention to Pilotbob's afd noms, I often support the deletion of some of these in-fiction "cruft" articles, but that "team" has been nominating so many lately I don't read them anymore, and I think others feel the same because there seem to be less people taking part in the discussions, or when they do, they're saying "keep". Crazysuit 03:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    It's hard to take the noms seriously when he does so many, even less so with the recent sockpuppet abuse and obvious lack of effort in actually reviewing what he's deleting. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The AfDs in question here are now falling due. By and large, they look to me like straightforward deletes; see for example the many on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007/November 5. Often, I am minded to overrule the simple content of the debate and make a redirect out of it, as long as the target is sensible. Sometimes, I am more minded to delete the cruft. However, in most cases is the trio of editors discussed above in the debate; sometimes there are others too, but they are mixed between delete and keep in fairly random ways with often only one other person in a debate. In short, I'm asking whether we should 1) cancel these AfDs; 2) read them as they stand since most of them have some reasonable basis or 3) by-and-large make redirects out of them. Splash - tk 20:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Proper process theoretically would be to factor these users comments out and check for consensus. If consensus was clear, do what it suggests. If consensus is unclear and there are a fair number of comments, close as no consensus. If there are few or no comments, relist. That's I beleive proper process. However I'd advocate doing the right thing. Use your judgement and if something really needs to go, do the needful. Going with redirects instead of outright deletes is always a good idea in any case wherever it makes sense to do so. You already know all this of course, I'm just validating for you. ++Lar: t/c 21:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I need some kind of mediation[edit]

After the month blocked by the arbitration committee, Maurice27 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) comes back trying to destroy everybody-who-doesen't-accept-his-POV's nerves. Without discussing in talk pages or, when he does, using a style too close to trolling and assuming he has the only truth, he started again his indiscriminate reversions.

Since I am already too tired (let me emphasize it: too too tired) of discussing with him with no result at all until a mediation is required (and by the way, then he accepts the solution proposed by the mediator, even if this one is exactly one of the many I proposed and he didn't accept), this time I decide directly to expose here the last reversions and then I will quit the discussion: I don't want to start an edit warring and I don't want to continue an already bad quality discussion which will bring us no more fruits than a complete loss of time.

  • In Manuel Fraga Iribarne: this man has been considered in the category of fascists since may 2006. A couple of days ago, Maurice27 removes this category with the only argument in the edit summary: "removed a nonsense". Well, I thought that if a category remained for one year and a half in an article that is being edited quite regulary, perhaps is not so nonsense and, at least, it must be discussed in the talk page this removal before proceeding to remove it. Therefore, together with some other minor improvements, I added again the category just after asking in the talk page more detailed reasons to proceed with the removal (let's note I do not take part if Fraga is or is not a Fascist, I just ask for a justification). Maurice27 then deletes again the category after a despotic answer in which he asserts he has the only truth and I am wrong (excuse me, did I said if I deffended or I regected the category?) and moreover he adds "I really believe that your vision of how was Spain under Franco is rather weird". Sorry? Why this ad hominem attack? And then he starts speaking about his mother. I'm astonished. I have no arguments. Didn't he understand the question or he just acts as he didn't?
  • Catalan Countries and Northern Catalonia: Both articles descrive both concepts clearly as (in other words) the name that certain Catalan people gives to certain territories (... a term which is sometimes used, particularly in Catalan writings..., ... The term is politically charged, and tends to be closely associated with Catalan nationalism and Catalan independentism...). But he includes in both articles the template {{Globalizecountry}}. Let's remark that in one article there is even a section about the controversy about the use of the name. Therefore, I don't see the point on putting those templates. Should we add also this template to Salegy, Bisi Bele Bath, Malagan, etc, because they don't represent a worldwide view of the subjects but they just represent the view from Madagascar, India and Papua New Guinea respectively? I asked the reasons to put this templates and the answers are... well, I'm sure we could be ages discussing without saying absolutely nothing: [33], [34].
  • Estanislao Figueras, Salvador Dalí, and in general any article about any Catalan/Spanish person. I think no rule says that a biography must start telling the official citizenship of the person. So then, we can find many articles about people from Scotland which start with "xxx was a Scotish musician" and other which start with "xxx was a British musician (from Scotland)". And there is no problem and we can respect both ways, because both are correct. Well, it seems that is not possible with Catalan people. Maurice27 tries to make disappear any reference to Catalanity of any person in wikipedia. He argues: 1) There exist no catalan nationality and 2) Catalan is unknow, Spanish is known. Well, if there exist a Catalan nationality, neither Spanish politicians have it clear (almost 90% of Catalan politicians deffend there exists the Catalan nation -seen as cultural terriroty, NOT as a soverign state-, most of all the Spanish deffend there exists no such nation). So, if Spanish politicians don't know the answer to this problem, is my answer correct? I don't know. Maurice27 is however SURE, there is NO DOUBT, he has the truth once more and no, there doesen't exist the Catalan nationality. And this if already for him just enough to change all Catalan for Spanish. And about the knowledge of Catalonia, it deppends on the knowledge of the reader (some people from Europe will have problems to locate Missouri in a USA map, and some from USA will locate Spain under Mexico). Anyway, there is always a blue link that gives you this information you didn't know. But not being this enought, one user proposed some days ago in one symilar case a consensus solution: "xxx is a Catalan (Spain) musician...". Everybody is represented: Catalonia and Spain. Maurice27 seemed to agree. Well, it was just a mirage, because when after his change I tried to follow this formula and reach consensus, this time the solution was not valid: No consensus needed, his passport was from Spain. Note the sentence: "No consensus needed". Good example of his way of acting.

There are more articles, more disputes, more reversions. But as I said in the beggining, I am already too tired to discuss with him, it is not possible. I hope some administrator can mediate once more and we can find a solution that can please everybody and which increases the quality of the Wikipedia. Thank you, --Xtv - (