Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive441

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

Noticeboard archives


I am....confused.[edit]

Here's a user: [1] whose last edit, today, is to restore information which was reverted [2] and who seems to have a pattern of making such edits [3] to the point that his/her talk page [4] is pretty much an advertisement for Sisyphean Tasks: Subtle Vandalism Removal Department. So, seeing recent edits in the same style for which the user had been repeatedly cautioned, I reported it to AIV [5]. I admitted that there was no final last uber-ultimate last chance warning given today, but that I felt the pattern itself was actionable. These are the responses I got. [6] and [7]. What did I do incorrectly here? Was I not clear in the way I stated what I'd observed? Should I have just brought it here in the first place, or just left it alone? Thanks for your clarifications. Gladys J Cortez 01:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you stated in your AIV report that you thought it might have to go to ANI, so I don't know why you are so confused. Yes, I believe ANI is the place for this, which is why I declined it on AIV. Other admins may feel differently, and these actions certainly might warrant action. I'll let some fresh eyes look at it. In any case, thanks for reporting it, wherever is appropriate :-) Tan | 39 01:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Tan, thanks for clarifying (and I notice that C.Fred has blocked the user for 72 hrs--thanks for that as well!). It was more my perception of the "edits are not vandalism" template; I took that as meaning that you thought it didn't require reporting -anywhere-, that you were seeing good edits where I was seeing something else. These are the type of vandals that frustrate me most--the ones who seem to be able to game the system by spacing out their bad edits so that they're essentially untouchable at the AIV level. Anyhow, thanks for your clarification and your prompt response, both there and here. All is well; have a good night. Gladys J Cortez 01:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I have given this user a ver y stern warning. You can count on this user never behaving porly again. Smith Jones (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Smith Jones, please do not give such warnings again ([8]). It was incomprehensible, badly written, rude, poorly spelled, and contained broken links, and would have confused the user, rather than helped them. I have tried to clean up your warning the best I can. It might be best if you never give warnings again. Neıl 01:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the warning was either an attempt humor or else trying to make a point. Either way, it wasn't very helpful... --Jaysweet (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I would believe you if it wasn't for a quick glance over the rest of Smith Jones' contributions. Neıl 01:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
And the user was already blocked for 72 h when the warning was given. --Rodhullandemu 01:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I think I'll remove it entirely. Neıl 01:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
C'mon, this was classic. Tan | 39 01:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we should encourage sponstructive edits. Wholeheartedly. --Rodhullandemu 01:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Did no one else find this amusing? When I read Neil's "It might be best" line, I was almost crying. Tan | 39 01:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Would've been except he's not kidding. It's as though Smith Jones's keyboard is broken. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
And always has been. This isn't the first time we've seen unintentional humor from him. Dayewalker (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Its classic Smith Jones. He has never responded to comments to him on his talkpage about his writing. His comments on this page, and to problem users, are generally incomprehensible or clearly wrong or both. Strangely enough, apparently his article writing is normal. Avruch 02:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
"Strange"? Or completely calculated? Not so clear. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I have the distinct impression it's deliberate. Neıl 02:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
He's at it again here in relation to the thread two down from here. I'd stay and open a beer but I need some sleep. --Rodhullandemu 02:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you do need sleep. You forgot to subst the template. —Kurykh 02:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
It was Neil's response that had me banging my fist on the desk... Tan | 39 02:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
This is curious too. What the heck is going on here? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
This is my favourite. "this is a community, not a crazy den of pigs". Neıl 02:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
My favorite is that he has a League of Copyeditors user box on his page and awarded himself the copyeditor barnstar. daveh4h 06:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
He does self-identify as suffering Tourette's, but I was thoroughly unaware that there's a typed form of the disease. ThuranX (talk) 06:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, it's possible. Do you remember that scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail where they find a runic inscription that ends with "Arrrgh!" and they wonder why someone would write that while being attacked, and one of them says, "Perhaps he was dictating!" Meanwhile, I think wikipedia should adopt that slogan and post it on their main page: "Wikipedia is a community, not a crazy den of pigs." Now, who can argue with that? And his paragraph-long warning should be routinely posted in lieu of the bland, milquetoast, "Please don't trash this article again or we might have to warn you" types of warnings. Not only is that user's warning authentic internet gibberish, but it expresses a courage that is little seen in this day and age. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
but... but... but... On the internet, nobody knows that you are a (crazy den of) pig(s)! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Pigs are charming, intelligent and good-humoured, an example to us all. DuncanHill (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
They are, at that. There's also the semantics issue of a "den". Maybe he's talking about the rare cave-dwelling species. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Awww, quit picking on Smith Jones. He means well; he just needs to make use of some form of spellchecker (I'm sure he's turned off any automatic version, probably because of its constant harrassment--I know I've done the same!) If he'd just run everything through a final-pass checker, his posts would be much more comprehensible. So far, spellchecker suggestions haven't been implemented. But I don't doubt that he has good intentions. Gladys J Cortez 16:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
We know he means well; we're not doubting his good intentions. What we are concerned about, however, is his propensity to word his statements inappropriately for the situation, whether unintentionally or not. —Kurykh 18:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Competence is required says it all here, I think. MastCell Talk 18:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Kurykh speaks for himself, not all of us. I, for one, look at his refusal to listen to numerous comments from other editors, and conclude that he is ignoring us and refusing to cooperate to make his efforts here worthwhile to others. I don't think he operates in good faith, but in stubborn belief that he's the only right voice. ThuranX (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
If he was as stubborn and blind as you put it, he would be railing at our removal of his warnings. AFAIK he has not done so. I should say, however, that I was mostly speaking for myself, but I gleaned from previous statements that my sentiment was shared. —Kurykh 21:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Every now and then Smith Jones will become highly incivil for seemingly no reason. Here's a few diffs: [9], [10] (retatard spelling errors indeed), and my personal favorite:[11]. Stale and presently unactionable diffs, yes, but worth noting nonetheless. Skinwalker (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Apparently he can spell correctly when he wants to. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC) IP hopping (rangeblock?)[edit]

Resolved: No longer active (?) –xenocidic (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

He's IP hopping, see Special:Contributions/, Special:Contributions/‎, Special:Contributions/ Rangeblock? –xenocidic (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Spore (2008 video game)[edit]


The article Spore (2008 video game) was just deleted, with apparently no explanation, or discussion, or review process whatsoever. please advise. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Article was restored pretty quickly by another admin, but we may want to check with Jacoplane (t · c · b · p · d · m · r) just to make sure everything is okay. — Satori Son 15:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Left a note. I'm sure it was just a simple mistake. — Satori Son 16:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I restored it presuming it was an error, as Jacoplane had created (sic) Spore (2008 video game (lack of trailing paren) earlier but didn't seem to follow through on anything, thus the deletion may be been meant for that article instead. --MASEM 16:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that makes perfect sense. — Satori Son 17:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct, I'm really sorry about my carelessness there, thanks for restoring it. Stupid. JACOPLANE • 2008-07-2 17:43

Possible blanking being covered as a merge on Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks[edit]

Could someone please take a look at Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch and Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch along with the related discussion at Talk:Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks#Premature merging. In my eyes, someone used a fairly contested merge discussion to perform a page blanking and replacment with a redirect. No content was actually moved to the target article and the blanked article doesn't have a {{R from merge}} template, which would appear to violate GFDL. Unfortunately, I'm too involved in the discussion to take admin level actions so I'd like to have some uninvolved eyes on this please. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Contentious infobox edits by User:Maracana[edit]

Maracana was clearly warned in January[12] and March[13] not to continue certain infobox "country of birth" edits or he would be blocked, unless there was a clear consensus supporting it. After much centralized discussion ending in April no consensus emerged. Now two months later Maracana has now recommenced these same contentious edits across multiple topics, for example these Ukrainian bios: [14], [15], [16], and here [17]. Martintg (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

  • I have give Marakana the last warning for disruption. If he continues the disruption please block him Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
    • His edits are not contentious, they are indisputably factual. Someone born in Kiev in prior to 1991 was born in the Soviet Union. The real problem is ignorant morons constantly reverting his edits due to some unknown agenda. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Yet for all your passionate advocacy during central discussion, you never supported the form [[Kiev]], [[USSR]], which Maracana is attempting to push now. Martintg (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Kiev, USSR is more factual than Kiev, Ukraine. If people dispute it then change it to Kiev, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, which seemed to be a compromise position when there were issues. However, edits such as this are the real problem. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It is a matter of style. I don't see any problem with edits you cite like this, since it is also factually correct as it continued to exist de jure. Of course this was discussed at considerable length during the centralized discussion, and you can re-run all your old arguments here, but the basic fact is that no consensus was achieved during that centralized discussion, due to the fact that there were too many exceptions to the rule, therefore the default position is to treat topic areas on a case by case basis and seek consensus on the article talk page first. Martintg (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
It is hilarious to see the self contradiction in Martintgs style in this. Accusing me of edit warring, while you're just as bad or worse yourself. But since you agree that no consensus is reached, why is it, you insist that you are right and Number 57 and I are wrong? User:Maracana
As a vague comparison, I was checking the article on George Washington. It states he was born in Virginia. Not Virginia, USA, which would be silly since the USA didn't exist yet; and not Virginia, British Colony. Just plain Virginia. The USSR was supposedly a confederation of individual SSR's, right? So the question is, what was the official name of Ukraine at the time of the individual's birth? If it was officially "Ukrainian SSR", presumably now linked under "Ukraine", then that should cover it, da? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Colonies are regarded differently to federal parts of a country - e.g. Kwame Nkrumah was born in "Gold Coast" (a colony), not "Gold Coast, British Empire". However, one wouldn't state that a German person was born in Bavaria (a federal state) and leave it at that. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
You would probably say "Germany". But was the USSR a "country" in that same sense? Come to think of it, how are articles handling people born in West and East Germany? Because that's kind of a comparable situation. Or better yet, Czechoslovakia vs. the two separate countries. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh.. factual edits or not, Maracana is continuing his crusade despite warnings, additionally he's now reached to his 6th revert on Jaak Aaviksoo during 24 hours and 33 min (yes, I know that this kind on disruption belongs to WP:AN3, but this thread here was exactly about this and still active). Ptrt (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I also thing that he should discuss it at least at first and explain his intent instead of just take the initiative and correct everything by himself. Actually the fact is that Ukraine being the Ukrainian SSR "agreed" upon the Union of 3 other republics. It had its own capital, government, and was one of the founders of the UN. Maracana changes everything to Soviet Union no matter what. Some of the towns had a similiar names throughout the whole Union and in a lot of cases the name of the republic was used to identify place of birth with much better precision, and not with the intent to disrespect Maracana. Besides nationalities were based also upon whatever the republic the citizen of the Union resided, which implies of that person nationality. It is not politically incorrct to say that the person lived or was born in one of the Soviet republics instead of the whole Union. At times of the Soviet Union no one was calling that he was from Ukrainian, or the Armenian, or Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic. People were saying that they were simply from either Ukraine, Armenia, and Estonia. When they moved outside the Soviet Union than it was customary to say that they were from the Soviet Union or simply Russia which was perceived by the rest of the world, coincidently. And if I am not mikstaken it was one of the directives from the Communist Party for people moving outside the USSR to say that they were from the Soviet Union rather the country of their residence. Well, it does not really matter. What really maters it is simply the ethics or this case a lack of such. In my opinion it wouldn't hurt for Maracana civilly explain why he thinks naming the country as Soviet Union is more apropriate, but instead of that he recklessly keeps on changing back without warning. It seems that he does his amendments not only for the Soviet Union, but for many other countries, and thus spreading confusion and frustration in the community. I do not know who was my Armenian friend that calls people names, but the agenda is well known and should be considered beforehand meaning that users should show concern toward each other. Maracana does not seem to uderstand the importance of that.

I totally agree Baseball Bugs in case of Germany. That was a bad example from пﮟოьεԻ 57. A Kyrgyz culture has nothing in common with a Lithuanian. The same goes between Armenians and natives of the Sakha republic. In my opinion Maracana needs to learn a lesson to be more courteous towards other people and consider their opinions instead of simply changing stuff. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing abusive behavior by editor[edit]

This has been going on for months (at least) and I'm finally bringing it here. Jo0doe (talk) has been begaving abusively towards me and other editors who disagree with his edits on the article Ukrainian Insurgent Army. He has already been warned a few times already times by editors and administrators: [18], [19], and especially here [20]. This is only the latest example of his uncivil posting: [21]. In the past I've been too focussed on editing to get involved in administrative matters, and this editor has added some good sources, so I tolerated it. But I feel there are limits to everything. Can someone do something about this guy, like issue a final warning or a short block to get his attention? Any help would be appreciated.Faustian (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Editor is incorrect - I call hoax book which does not exist and deliberately inserting numerous time in article as a WP:RS Same story with information which referenced through this book I agreed, my English is not well but as far as correctly read hoax explantion - its is. I would be greatifull if someone provide me correct English word for book which does not exist but used as WP:RS. Thank you Jo0doe (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Book had the wrong publisher and date info, a mistake acknowledged by me. Calling this a hoax (i.e., a lie) is abusive and the editor above has been warned about it yet continues to engage in such abuse.Faustian (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I was never warned about hoax for hoax usage - lie is lie hoax is hoax - is'ntJo0doe (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
This is an ongoing argument, beyond what this board is designed for. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Krokhmaluk, Y. (1973). UPA Warfare in Ukraine. New York: Vantage Press exist or not? see your words -

[22] [23] I would like to point the attention how dramatically changed article over the last half year [24]– how many historical and factual hoaxes were removed [25] – despite the titanic effort of sole editor which repeatedly allegedly accuse me in Lie - @You lie@ Faustian (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Story here is a very simple – in breaching the WP:NPOV and especially in WP:UNDUE policy. As far as exist clear tend to

  • must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

As far as General Doctrine of this formation as repeatedly removed - Accordingly to documents presented to the International Military Tribunal Ukrainian organizations (OUN(B)) which are working with Amt Abwehr have same (as Nazi’s) “objectives”, namely, the Poles and the Jews [1]. Such “objects” described as “all farms and dwelling of the Poles should go up in flames, and all Jews be killed” [2]. OUN (B) General Instruction - “ Fights and activities during the war” stated “enemies to us are: moskali (Russians), Poles, Jews…” and thus them must be“… exterminated in fight, especially whom which protect regime: remove to their land, assassinate, predominantly intelligentsia… Jews assimilation is impossible.” While tend to insert fantastical battles between nationalist and German-SS is never-ending – despite undisputable fact about cooperative actions with SS against Poles and closely cooperation with SS, SD and SIPOJo0doe (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, and the book in question wasn't published by them. I brought issue here not because of content dispute but because of Jo0doe (talk) 's repeated uncivil behavior.Faustian (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please review the activity of User:KgKris?[edit]

The activity from this account has been nothing but a combination of copyvios, vandalism, harassment and general bad-faith activity. I'd post diffs but every edit from this account is questionable. User responded to my first attempt to welcome him [26] and engage him in discussion [27] by copying and pasting my userpage to his, including transcluding my userbox page [28] (I moved my userbox page to resolve that issue). He then responded to subsequent attempts to engage him by blanking my posts and incrementing his vandalism counter. Perhaps most significantly, he vandalizes by repeatedly removing the orphaned fair-use deletion template from Image:Obamaforamerica.png‎. He has not replied directly to attempts to guide him constructively. I can only conclude that further attempts to engage this user will be similarly futile, and that this user account is solely for disruptive purposes and should be indefinitely blocked. --Clubjuggle T/C 16:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Update. The image has been speedied. --Clubjuggle T/C 22:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Parent categories[edit]

Someone has revised every category for olympics sportsmen for specific years, and designated them ALL as parent categories, (by adding them to category:Parent categories). shouldn't there be an overall category for such year-specific categories, and shouldn't THAT sole category be a "parent" category? sorry to bother you, but this seems to be getting out of control very quickly. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, only Category:Olympic competitors by year should be a parent category, but this is not an issue for ANI. Have you spoken with the editor making the changes? — Satori Son 20:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, at the parent cat talk page. kind of hard. it's not a huge cataclysmic deal, but I figured maybe a definitive statement would save us from similar misconceptions (ie a category filled to bursting with categories like "category: Buicks of the 1950s, 1960s, etc..." "Category: skating stars of the 1950s, 1970s, etc" "Category: Comic books of the 1950s, 1960s, etc" ; mega-etc etc., if you catch my drift). appreciate any help with this. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
read my recent contribs list, if you want, to get an overview of my general approach to this. thanks. contribs: contributions --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


Terrasidius (talk · contribs)

I come to seek your help regarding a copyright problem and incivility by Terrasidius (talk · contribs). Several days ago, I was asked to edit Anti-American sentiment in Korea, so edited it a little in which has a subsection and link of Fucking USA a song about anti-Americanism, so I went over the page. I found the article attach its whole lyrics which has no evidence that it is GDFL. So I deleted[29] and then the user in question reverted to his version as claiming that it is under public domain.[30] I checked on his "blog source", but could not find any thing related to GDFL. So I reverted it with a question on his edit summary; fgs. I'm not a native speaker of English, and his edit summary is uncivil, so asked about it along with his alleged public domain evidence[31], and I got his increased uncivil answer like that."grow up" "sudden victim complex of paranoia", "hide behind flawd wikipedia WIKI:RULES" Accordingly, I left a note about his inappropriate behaviors[32] Then, he gave another nice message [33][34] Well, at this time, I am the one who should be pissed off by his improper saying and his attempt to introduce covyrighted material without proper permission.

Can any admin instruct him properly about his lack of Wiki policies such as WP:RS, WP:COPYVIO, WP:CIVIL, WP:QUOTE? Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa Marie Presley[edit]

Hi for a number of weeks (that I have observed) an IP address as well as a signed in editor (they might be the same person) have been causing problems on this article. These editors are and DJ-x3.

One day I was on the article and I decided to add the article to the Michael Jackson wikiproject and added the Jackson catagory to the bottom of the page. I also saw a factual error regarding the marriage between Jackson and Presley. There was a sentence that said "Lisa Maria said she did not see Jackson in the last 6 months of their marriage". However being the Jackson obsessive that I am, I knew this was impossible, they appeared at award ceremonies together in public just before their separation. Instead of removing the sentence outright I added a fact tag, just in case I was making a mistake. The IP removed the fact tag twice and also removed the Michael Jackson catagory from the page; with no edit summaries. See here and here.

Following this the IP address deliberately reinserted a sentence from a source. The source was taken out of context to imply that Presley had seen Jackson abuse children. If you read the source she says the complete opposite (note, the sentence was originally inserted by "DJ-x3" which I will show you further down). This sentence was removed by an admin as misleading on June 20th seen here. Despite this, the IP re-added the sentence multiple times knowing an admin had already agreed it was grossly misleading, it was a little more balanced the second time around but still concerning [35].

To restore neutrality to the article that was controlled by an anti-Jackson IP, I added a well researched paragraph to the article. The paragraph was a copy of the work I did on the Michael Jackson article which I have nearly got to FA standard. I was praised on my talk page by an admin for the piece I added to the Presley article. The paragraph I added was this. The IP removed the material multiple times. Sometimes with no edit summary. However 1 time when he did provide a summary he said that I had taken a book that I own out of context. Considering the work I have done and considering that I use this book quite often, it was alarming to me that he could make such untrue allegations. See here and here.

Ok now to the other editor....

User DJ-x3 introduced himself to the article by adding a picture to the info box that had no rational. See here. As myself and multiple other editors reverted him he repeatedly re added the picture (about 10 times) despite multiple edit summary warnings. In some of his edit summary replies he admitted that the picture was taken by someone else and was owned by a website. He had no right to the picture. See here and here. For edit warring he was blocked, see his talk page.

It was "DJ-x3" who originally added the controversial, misleading sentence claimed to be by Presley. Something the IP address would reinsert multiple times, see here.

Today "DJ-x3" has returned and is causing trouble. He re added that picture of Presley onto the article and commons despite admitting previously in his edit summaries that it doesn't belong to him. We checked the website the picture came from and there is a disclaimer saying all of the pictures belong to them. This is very concerning, he is trying to pass the picture off as his own, he must think we have short memories or something. He also removed much of the content on my famed, neutral paragraph, often without an edit summary. See here and here. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 00:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please look into this, it took me like 1 hour to write lol and its really concerning.— Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 12:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Have left an {{ani-notice}} for DJ-X3. The IP has been advised already. --Rodhullandemu 16:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Using a new IP this editor has gone around asking other editors to help him Seen hereRealist2 (Who's Bad?) 20:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have asked for help and have not hidden behind a new IP. You are in fact MJ centric and not open to discussion I'm not well versed in Wiki. I do not hate MJ I believe an article should be about the subject. (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Per the request on my talk page, I'm looking into the matter. LaraLove|Talk 00:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Moving to article talk page. LaraLove|Talk 01:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing for an off-Wiki survey[edit]

After making zero edits for 7 months, user Emelian1977 (talk · contribs) has notified about 100 or so users yesterday asking them to participate in an off-Wiki survey relating to their editing habits. I was planning on reverting all of his edits as WP:SPAM but I wanted a second opinion on whether these edits are innapropriate or if it's really not a big deal.

Thanks. SWik78 (talkcontribs) 19:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the rule is, if any - but in general these things are usually left alone for the users to participate in or not at their discretion. It's also not appropriate, in general, to mess with someone else's user talk page, except possibly for removing personal attacks. If you feel strongly about this particular case, I would recommend that you could add a comment that you think this is spam that could be ignored, rather than deleting something that the user might actually be interested in. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


The user in question hasn't convinced the other editors in respect to the rocket being an inherent part of the Internal Combustion Engine. S/he seems to think that a reference that claims the rocket to be a type of IC-engine allows the articles' scope to be immediately widened and thereby, somewhat rewritten. Indeed, some of the other editors feel that if a rocket is included, then other combustable devices such as the potato cannon need to be included. The other editors' views on this subject haven't given a consensus to either arguement yet, but I am simply deleted his references as they have nothing to do with claiming that a rocket is an inherent part of the IC-engine. I added the [citation needed] tag and he seems to think I should be banned for this. Anyway, the user in question isn't allowing us to resolute this dispute; it seems as though we're going to have to form a consensus, but for now, I think the tags should be dubbed as "citations needed". I will refraim from re-editing any more today. Thanks for you time. InternetHero (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

From what I see, I believe that Wolfkeeper violated WP:3RR, despite being warned on his talk page. He reverted edits 4 times on July 1. See 1,2,3,4. — Wenli (reply here) 22:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
That's just not correct. Two of those edits (3,4) are actually adding entirely new material. I don't beleive that I have broken 3RR. InternetHero has been repetitively removing valid references from the article though.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Meerkatxoxo[edit]

We have a general backlog at WP:SSP; help is appreciated. I call your attention to the case linked above, where a young editor says he's sorry for sockpuppeting but apparently lacks the competence to edit constructively. We don't really have a policy about this scenario, so I'd like an admin or two to weigh in on this particular case and enlighten me as to the general protocol for dealing with such individuals. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 22:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

In this case all the socks have been indef blocked, and the main account has not edited for a few days. I would see no harm in leaving the main account alone for now, and see what happens. If there are new socks created, then I would support an indef block of the main account also. Kevin (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Grazon[edit]

Could someone please indef-block the suspected socks? Thanks. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 23:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight - you want two accounts indefblocked because you believe they "might be sockpuppets or friends"? – iridescent 00:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Now there's an eminently unhelpful reply... what he's really asking for, but perhaps didn't word properly, is for an admin to evaluate the evidence at that page - which seems to me (as an uninvolved user) to show socking by a banned user - and take action if they agree. - Merzbow (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

User Cspam[edit]

Resolved: Cspam (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

User Cspam appears to be Wikistalking and harassing User Booglamay. [36] Edward321 (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot Malfunction user:DOI bot[edit]

Per this diff[37] it appears DOI bot is removing accessdate= values from cites. This is not one of the functions listed in its description. Please verify and stop the bot if neccessary. Thank you. Low Sea (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It should not be doing that, indeed. Bot blocked, operator notified. Neıl 01:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, actually it should. Journals (without URLs) have no need for an access date. BJTalk 01:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I know, I just realised and was on my way here. I unblocked the bot. While it should probably mention it removes unnecessary accessdate parameters, I should have checked that. I'm going to bed. Neıl 01:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense but then that functionality should be described to avoid confusion. Also, two more things... (1) Shouldn't the bot remove the entire parameter and not just the value portion in that case? Why leave an empty keyword= portion? (2) Doesn't the presence of an accessdate suggest that the journal was accessed as a webpage and not as a hardcopy? Can we be certain all online journals are an exact match for their print equivalents?

In any case thanks for the fast response even if it was a false alert. Low Sea (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Block this IP address for 2 weeks[edit]

Resolved: blocked (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Vandalized User talk:Keeper76 after being blocked, maybe a sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Halosean. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 22:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the pattern of edits in the edit history, I blocked for 3 months. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 04:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch...again -- needs to be protected; ScienceApologist edit-warring to revert all criticism[edit]

Hi. ScienceApologist and QuackGuru are edit-warring to remove a month's worth of edits (and all criticism) from Quackwatch in one edit -- these edits are also inserting citations misleadingly, i.e. citing the Consultant Pharmacist, which is not a laudatory review, after a statement saying that Quackwatch has received many awards and honors. The edits being reverted were done about a month ago, mainly by jossi, myself, and a few others. Shot info was pursuing the same thing, but I told him that he would have to go at these at a time, and he seemed to agree, but ScienceApologist is continuing to edit war. The page needs to be protected at the version that it was a few days ago, not the current whitewashed version. II | (t - c) 23:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Without forming a final judgement, how was this edit from Levine2112 "reverting mass removal of content"? All I see is one sentence removed, one rewritten, and a section moved (not removed, just moved). Neıl 00:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Page is protected and Vassyana has blocked SA for 48 hours. Neıl 00:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The original reversion happened two days ago ([ diff]) (flagged as minor by ScienceApologist, using Twinkle). The Reception section, which had a balanced presentation of laudatory reviews followed by criticism, changed to Recognition, and all criticism was taken out. Start looking at line 236. The misuse of Twinkle and the minor tag are pretty serious. Since then SA has been repeatedly reverted back, but he keeps edit-warring. Wrote this before I saw your note. II | (t - c) 00:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Like Neil, i see no such blanking. Further, blocking SA for a reversion from 2 days ago seems like revenge by someone for the Jossi fight above. More infuriating is that I notice that Jossi shows up for the first time in a month on that page to jump in on the edit warring with SA. Did he miss the section above about getting out of each other's fucking way? How can he NOT EVER get an admin? ThuranX (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
If you're not going to look at the diff (again, diff), then you shouldn't bother commenting on the situation. Look at the difference in the two pages if you have trouble reading diffs. :) There's a difference of 1500 kbs, although the difference in content is greater, as certain things were removed. SA used twinkle with a minor tag to restore a version about a month and a half old, taking out edits which were added based on feedback from RS/N. He removed ALL criticism, and cited neutral reviews as laudatory (use CTRL-F to look at the Consultant Pharmacist). II | (t - c) 02:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I did read it. All I see is rearrangement of areas, and the removal of a redundancy (the founder) in the lead. big deal. There's no blanking and so on.ThuranX (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Start at line 236 and read carefully. Again, sometimes diffs can be hard to read, but there is substantial cutting in that diff. For example, look at the sourcing of The Consultant Pharmacist; who notes that it isn't scientifically sophisticated or technically well-organized, and that the large number of articles by Barrett himself reduces credibility. Then at the bottom, the mention by the National Review that the style is inflammatory, ect. We purposely put the criticism at the bottom of the Reception to mollify it. Now there is no criticism. Reception has been changed to "Recognition". II | (t - c) 03:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon695 (talk · contribs)[edit]

False accusations. Please get involved[edit]

User:Faustian, here, blamed me for being a sock puppet using the next clames: 1. National Bolshevik. 2. Likes music. 3. "Similar writing style" (whatever that means).

I'm an honest Wikipedian and not a sock puppet, and i dont like someone spreating lies on me. Here are my arguments that i wrote to prove it:

A? I like music. Wow!!! I'm the only one. I'm a National Bolshevik. And? Read about the National Bolshevik Party. It's big. Enter the web-site. It has a base in Smolensk. Log in, log out (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
On the Ukrainians in Russia talk page you'll se i'm not the only one making such statements, it's a majority view in Russia. Besides, on the Talk:Russians i supported a many piece image while he wanted a one piece. Your clames are really to general and, excuse moi, idiotic. I can find you many Wikipedians here who are from the US, Anarchists, and like Punk Rock. Block them all. Log in, log out (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
As i can see from the link you have given to his page, he likes rock. I like bard music. Log in, log out (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Do whatever check you like. By location, ip, whatever. And once proved i'm not a sock puppet, i want this user punished for telling lies about other editors. Besides, posting this clame on a user page of an administrator i'm in an argument with right now shows that he doesn't care if it's true. He probably gets a sadistic satisfaction from blocking people. Log in, log out (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

From entering the Russians history page you can see he was very active, and probably wrote alot of what he thinks. I'll give you an example. He created many collages for articles in the Russian Diasspora category. The license law changed in Russia so i re-edited those images. Does that show connection beetwen us? So now what anyone on the talk page would be blamed to be him? I request an administrator, a neutral one, to check the case. Dont get me wrong but in his contribution page i have found out that he's an ethnic Ukrainian active in Ukrainian topics, it looks that he simply wants to get of a Russian "nationalist", because his clames can include such a big category of people and to block them all for being "one man", that it would turn into a witch hunt. Log in, log out (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually I wrote "it seems" that the two users are the same, provided evidence, and suggested that this be checked out further. I addressed the particular administrator because I saw that he was invovled in blocking one of the two identities. By coincidence it seems that you are involved in a conflict with the same one. My motivation is that I have learned not to let problems with troublesome users fester but to deal with them quickly. I have nothng against Russian nationalists or Russians in general and have, for example, with pleasure collaborated with the Russian nationalist editor Kuban Cossack.Faustian (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you know how insulting it was you made all the conclusions yourself? How could you declare me being M.V.E.i.? I dont listen to rock, he does. I was against his possition in the Russians collage on the talk page!!! What i wrote on Ukraine might have the rethorics of National Bolsheviks, which he if he was a National Bolshevik might have had maybe because he learned from the same articles that i have. When you meet, for example, different marxist they will also use the same rethorics. They will use exploitation, the state as an exploitating unit, class struggle. Right? The same thing we, i think. During the oragne revolution there were so much articles on Russian patriotic sited which all used the rethoric of teling what part of Ukraine belonged to who and that Ukrainians should be thankful to Russia. He might be influenced by the same articles. Log in, log out (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Joachim Andersson, possible hoax article[edit]

Could someone with experience in the topic check whether article Joachim Andersson is a hoax or a fun action. Considering nearly single user editing, the external links, and especially the choice of categories, I have a strong suspicion. --Túrelio (talk) 07:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me more like a self created vanity piece by a non notable individual. Since the article creator is a new SPA, I'd take it up with them, ask for evidence of notability, sources etc (a Google search seems to throw nothing much up), and if there's no response on that in a couple of days then take it to AfD. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Given that the username of the single editor matches one of the nicknames given in the article, that seems likely. However, having read through the article, it doesn't actually assert notability, and as such I've put it up for A7 speedy. Mayalld (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with an attack page[edit]

I consider some of the comment here as attacks on my character - if an editor has a specific problems with my a) edits or my conduct, I invite them to file a RFUC or to come here and provide diffs. The elements I have problems with, are as follows:

  • What if a cabal developed a strategy to distract the closure of abusive renominations by tendentious debate in AN/I, and other devices. They might use a "returned editor" to spearhead an effort, to be the fall guy if needed. Complete fantasy and I resent the accusation. If he has evidence this Cabal exists (which it doesn't), I suggests he presents it or he pulls those comments.
  • And, indeed, withdrew the AfD, supposedly. However, he continued to argue tendentiously for Delete, so, in the end, it becomes difficult not to see this as a tactical move, to head off action against him. I was asked if I'd redraw the nom so I did, others objected, so the AFD continues to run. There was no tactical move on my part and if he has anything but inference to present I suggest he produces it.
  • Thus the concern that he might be a returning blocked editor, which can be very difficult to prove, is nevertheless quite reasonable on the face of it. Abd is constantly repeating this accusation up and down the board with no proof at all. I was asked about having a previous account and I answered as soon as asked, so I'm really not impressed with him repeating this slander all over the place.

He can present factual accounts of difference and that AFD however he likes, but he should not be allowed to use it to make his slurs and unsourced accusations on other editors. If he has issues with my conduct or behaviour that he has both AN/I and/or RFCU open to him. If he wants to take a pop at me (and he clearly does), he needs to do it via the right channels. --Allemandtando (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The page is not an accusation, it is, as it states, a speculation, a worry. And most of the material on the page is pure evidence, the history of an AN/I report, and then a section about what it might all mean. In that, I do comment on some odd things I've noticed in examining the history of this event. I'll stand with the comments above, but, note, I did not make them in a public place and the only reason that Allemandtando would have seen them is that he would be following my contributions. Ah, yes, and I dropped a note on the Talk page for User:Majorly to ask for his comment. That's it. Quite obviously, from what I wrote, there is no proof of any of the things that Allemandtando claims are attacks. If I were recommending action, I'd need proof. If I were accusing, I'd need proof. The second item, though, is a plain description of his behavior in the AfD involved. What I'm describing are causes for concern and watchfulness, not causes for action, at least not without further investigation.
The third item is particularly interesting. He is a returning editor, blatantly so; he did not state it, though, until he was challenged, and he was defiant about that, as I think I note on that page. He is highly contentious and has been warned for incivility. He was the subject of two AN/I reports in two days: I had nothing to do with starting those. Many editors expressed suspicion that he might be this or that blocked editor. It is an obvious suspicion. For me to say that is not an attack. For me to say, "He is a blocked editor," would be. If I wanted to "pop" him, he'd be dead. But I don't, and I won't unless things become much plainer to me than they are. I did not compile that user page to get him. If I were compiling a page to RfC or AN/I him, it would be totally different. He's relevant to what I'm doing on that page because we had this huge flap of an AfD rapid renom because he (1) edit warred with an administrator over closure of it, and (2) successfully, with the cooperation of others, diverted the AN/I report over edit warring into a discussion of a content issue, the notability of an article. Which is not an AN/I issue. Somebody let me know if I need to look further here, if I keep AN/I on my Watchlist, I can't see anything else. That is part of the problem, indeed. So perhaps I'll thank Allemandtando for bringing the attention of that beginning of an essay to everyone's attention. It's not really about him. Watch it if you want to see where it goes.--Abd (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Every minute you spend on this kind of thing is a minute you're not spending on finding evidence that the article in question has any business being in wikipedia. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
At some point it might dawn on Baseball Bugs and a few others that I care more about Wikipedia than about saving a marginally notable article. I've already spent many hours, maybe too many, working on recovering difficult-to-track down sources from the Wayback Machine, and similar activities involved with that article, such as trying to figure out what the bloody hell it is about. (It's actually interesting, eventually. Takes some work to get over the hump). But the work isn't done, yet, at least not for sure. As to wasting time, I didn't bring this report here. --Abd (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Interesting and notable are not the same thing. I've seen easily verifiable national news stories shot down in a New York minute due to lack of "notability". In contrast, you've had lots of time to try to demonstrate the worthiness of this article, and if you can't find any verifiable info about this obscure computer language, then maybe there isn't any; which indicates that the original AFD was skated through in the hope no one would notice. Well, someone did, and he's to be commended for not allowing the spammers to get away with it. This is an encyclopedia (as you keep saying) and the value and appropriateness of the content is more important than anything else. Also, you didn't bring the report here, you were building it elsewhere, and that same alert user brought it here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
It's amazing how much useless argument there is here. I mention that mKR is "interesting," with no claim that it was therefore "notable." Just a comment, it was. And, once again, we are arguing a content issue here. Stop it. Sorry I mentioned "interesting."
This is an AN/I report, allegedly I'm building something nefarious in my user space. So why did BB jump in? There was a point where Killerofcruft started editing what was obviously intended to be an RfC or AN/I report on me, and I saw it.[38] Did I bring it here? No, haven't mentioned it here before now, and this is not a complaint about that file, he had a perfect right to work on it. Instead, I found a friend of his and suggested that he help his friend to stop, because it was going to be practically wiki-suicidal. He did ask, and it stopped, and Killerofcruft behaved himself, at least around me, for a couple of days (And changed his name to Allemantando.) What's in my user space wasn't about him, it was about the breakdown of AN/I, and he's simply a character in that drama, not the center of it. It isn't being written to be an AN/I report or an RfC. It isn't like that at all. However, it is possible that there will be some kind of process come out of it. Not here, though, unless Allemandtando or others insist on bringing it here. AN/I is for emergencies, actually. Not for community discussion, preferably, other than issues of specific editor conduct that might require administrative action. Baseball Bugs, as to conduct, is the proximate cause for the derailment of the ANI report that is documented on my user page.
Take a look. Al_tally files an AN/I report on edit warring by Killerofcruft (now Allemandtando), and Baseball Bugs asks him to respond about the notability of an article, an actually irrelevant question, derailing the process, and then tendentiously argues about it. Disruptive, I'd call it. (But it was only disruptive because the community took the bait, or, an alternate interpretation, nobody with admin buttons was paying attention at that time. The real problem is an increase in scale causing AN/I to become seriously dysfunctional.) So, indeed, it may be time for some further process. Not here, though. Probably ArbComm, because it involves not just one or two administrators and overall policy issues. It's not really about misbehavior, but about some serious and deeply divisive disagreements over what's important, and that's why it might be necessary to go to ArbComm. But I'm trying to figure out some way to handle this short of that. There may be a way. ArbComm is not fun. --Abd (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Notability is far from irrelevant - it's a requirement for any entry in wikipedia. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Bugs, notability is a content issue, and AN/I is not for content issues. It's for behavioral issues. What isn't clear about that? This page isn't a "entry in wikipedia." It's a process page and it is focused on the behavior of editors, specifically where response might require admin tools. This is not a place to discuss content issues, period. That an article isn't notable, supposedly, is utterly no excuse to edit war over an AfD closure. None. Being "right" isn't an excuse for violating policy about edit warring. Multiple reverts without discussion and attempts to find agreement is edit warring. Once was bad enough. Twice was inexcusable. This was not a new editor, a clueless newbie. He knows. And he simply defied the policy and the closing admin and got away with it, largely because you helped him to, by continually turning the matter into a notability question, which it wasn't. Al_tally didn't close the AfD because he considered the article notable (though he may have thought that), he closed it because it was an abusive renomination. And he deserved support from AN/I, not irrelevant questions and arguments. And you are just digging your hole deeper, I'd say. --Abd (talk) 05:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Show me where I've "edit warred" on anything in connection with this article. And show me where notability and verifiability are somehow irrelevant to an article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
You didn't edit war. You supported someone who did. N and V are crucial for articles, never said they were irrelevant to it. They are irrelevant to edit warring. Used to amaze me, been writing on-line since the 1980s. This is written communication. One would think it would be clear. But quite a few people can only see what they think. --Abd (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
When you start writing something that appears to be "building a case", where everyone can see it, you set yourself up for complaints such as this one. You're better off doing something like that on your own PC, until or if you're actually ready to file it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure. And I'm grateful to User:Allemandtando for filing it, in a sense. (But I regret the wikidrama part of it, the expansion of AN/I traffic.) It calls wider attention to his behavior, which seems to continue to be disruptive. Technically, "everyone can see it" in my userspace, but nobody would unless they were watching my contributions (or maybe the Talk page of the one admin whom I pinged about it for comment). Now, it's out there. Though I'd have preferred it be emblazoned across the sky when it's actually more than half done! And it isn't about Allemandtando. It's about AN/I. He just happens to be a player.--Abd (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
And regarding your edit summary, "Thanks, Allemandtando and Baseball Bugs" - You're welcome. I'm always glad to be of service. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
For the record I too have concerns about Allemandtando's behaviour with regard to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MKR (programming language) (2nd nomination), which I have noted on that AfD page. I believe Allemandtando initiated an invalid AfD and then edit warred to prevent it being early closed. And I too have concerns about his refusal to be open about the identity of his previous account(s), claiming the "right to vanish" when he has obviously not vanished. Gandalf61 (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
That's a separate issue you could raise here or at the sockpuppet page, if you care to. He explained the reason why didn't want his previous ID known, i.e. that it was his actual name. I don't know what the rules are in such a case. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Editors are allowed to write commentary on Wikipedia in their user space. Sometimes, solutions to problems or other good ideas come from it. That said, if you feel it's inaccurate, tell him why. Looks like you've already been doing this, on the talk page. I don't see that the mere existence of this page is any kind of problem. Friday (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Post closure of 2nd AfD[edit]

The second AFD has been closed with "no consensus", so the self-promoter gets to keep his article awhile longer. But how much longer? There are no wikipedia-valid sources for it, so a properly-done AFD should kill it. The claim has been made that the second AFD was opened "too soon", although there is no such rule. So the question is, how soon can another AFD be opened on this article and satisfy the ones who claimed the second one was "too soon"? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

OOPs, I spoke too soon. The second closure was again done by a non-admin, which is part of the trouble with the first one, and an admin has stepped in and reverted the closure. So the soap opera continues! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I actually started to reply to this here more extensively. However, this is all moot here. There is, true, minor misbehavior by an admin, referred to above, but it's minor and certainly not any kind of an emergency. (The reverting admin had voted in the AfD. Naughty, naughty! Kids, don't edit war! Let a neutral editor or admin sort it out!)--Abd (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Good grief. It's like dealing with kids. Yes, notability, sourcing major problems for that page. The first AfD didn't really touch on that, so it's really an issue of "should a DRV have been created instead". Yet there have been many megs of text typed opining various issues, agendas when quite frankly, you've a case on someone new to wikipedia not knowing the often arcane ruleset. All that really needed doing was a delete/userfy action, with an admin/experienced editor working with the guy to a) educate him in wiki protocol and b) attempt to rectify the concerns with the page in question prior to it possibly being mainspaced. Seriously, does anyone with an IQ higher than double figures actually believe the page required such megadrama? And people wonder why wikipedia is a laughing stock... Minkythecat (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I resemble that remark! >:( The AFD was re-closed, by an admin, as "delete and userfy", so hopefully everyone's happy now and this can be marked "Resolved". Or not. Either way, I'm done with this subject. Have at it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The notability issue is resolved for now, because the community of those !voting Keep, including 3 of the 8 administrators who voted, the overall total was 18:14 for Delete, are not contentious and gratuitously disruptive and seem to have no plans to go to DRV. That community discussion, in fact, was No Consensus, however. The decision was technically incorrect, in that there was no consensus behind it (but the admin, of course, had the right to make that decision, and I congratulated him for it, and no charge of impropriety could stand against him), and it seems to have simply depended on opinion as to relative primacy of the two issues involved: notability and process (which is why we had an unusual level of participation from long-time Wikipedians: We had one !vote each from accounts registered in 2001, 2002, and 2003.) I've not seen that in an AfD before. I disagree with Minky on one point: this was not a "new user." This is a sophisticated returning "vanished" user, who came in swinging, appearing on AN/I twice in as many days, being so actively offensive that he is being massively vandalized (which does not mean that he did something wrong, only that this simply points how he dove right into massive disruption, as his original user name announced, Killerofcruft. Disruption can be a good thing, but it's a very delicate issue, and he's not delicate. The name, however, worked, politically. It endeared him to the deletionist faction, who have rushed to congratulate him, barnstar him, etc. And I consider this very, very dangerous. He edit warred. He was uncivil. He makes massive edits to "cruft" articles without discussion, and largely ignores protests. Why should he discuss, after all? He's "right." Being "right" is one of the most dangerous positions for an editor to be in. It can justify, for starters, edit warring. It, indeed, has been used to justify the AfD itself. "Okay, it was out of process, but ... he was right, the article isn't notable." And Bugs did this from the beginning, with the edit report about Koc's edit warring: "What about the notability?" As if that admin was supposed to make, or even have an opinion, on notability. *Notability was, at that point, irrelevant.* Gotta pick up the kids. I'll be back later. --Abd (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The contents of the encyclopedia are what matter the most, because that's what the public sees. Allowing articles with non-notable subjects that don't pass the verifiability rules does not serve the public well. That should be your primary focus. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Your constant sniping and obsession with me is getting getting frankly creepy and a bit scary. If we lived in the same country, I'd be getting stronger locks about now. Do you think you could fit *some* editing in between snipping and obsessing? --Allemandtando (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

All this megadrama was because people didn't follow process. As a result, there were two WP:AN/I incidents filed, both still open and unresolved, and 44 letter sized pages (almost 24K words) of votes and commentary in the 2nd AfD. With more commentary elsewhere. This is far from resolved. There is still a WP:DRV for the article, and a WP:RFC/U for behavior. And potentially a WP:ArbCom case eventually. — Becksguy (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The megadrama was triggered by people's blind obsession that process is all. The first AfD ended unsatisfactorily as people clearly hadn't looked at the page, looked at who created the page, realised it's an area that needs expertise of sorts. People didn't address the notability or sources, didn't grasp that aiding the page creator, who is new to Wikipedia, would be beneficial for attempting to improve the standard of the article. Should a DRV have been created immediately? Maybe. Should the second AfD have been created? Possibly. Either way, the glaringly obvious, simple solution to the initial AfD was overlooked by blind obedience for process as be all and end all with a staggering lack of common sense applied by all. ANI threads? RFC/U? Possible ArbCom case? Dear gods, fish rights groups would be after my head for all the deserved trout slapping I'd love to apply over all of this. Delete/userfy, assisting the creator - who having written the language is clearly the best person to work with on the article - was the bleeding obvious way to have gone initially. Anything else happening is just process wonkery for the sake of it... people who have performed the minor miracle of environmentally regenerating a molehill into a mountain really need to consider if this makes Wikipedia look good... Minkythecat (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I for one object to being labelled as a"blind obsessive" and a "process wonk" just because I do not agree that the end justifies the means in cases like this. As the excellent essay Process is important says "If everyone acts outside of process, there is no process, no organization to our efforts. Then we do not have a collaborative project; we have chaos." The problem with making exceptions for editors such as Allemandtando because we believe they are "fighting the good fight" is that the exceptions grow, and this stance eventually degenerates into anarchy. Already I see Allemandtando has started yet another AN/I thread about a new wiki-drama below. The admin who closed the second AfD was brave - I wish the community were equally brave in tackling the reckless and disruptive behaviour of editors such as Allemandtando. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Bangs head. Did you plainly not read anything other than a couple of quoted words? "End justifies the means"? No, although to deny there are always cases where that's necessary is somewhat unrealistic. FACT. The original AfD was mismanaged, focusing upon the wrong areas of concern. The notability, sourcing were always the real issues but got ignored - so sure, DRV could/should have happened, but then you'd be accepting the process (original AfD) was wrong... so then blindly following routine for that doesn't necessarily help. This was a simple thing to resolve, instead too many people got into a "how high can we piss" contest. CLUE. You might win, you'll still get wet. So, getting back to the original point, I assume the page has been userfied - are any admins/experienced editors assisting the page creator by helping him try to gather references to try to satisfy the article problems of notability and sourcing, or is that now secondary to the lulzdramaz? Minkythecat (talk) 10:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess I'm not quite done with this. Yes, the page was deleted and userfied: User:abd/MKR (programming language) The complaints about process were over a non-existent rule. There is no "minimum" wait time before filing a second AFD. And because the first one was swept under the carpet (or attempted to be), the second one was essentially a continuation of the first one. But one of the main objecters, User:Abd, now has it userfied to him, where he can work on finding sources, to his heart's content, and I gather he's OK with that. If the article proves to be worthy, it could always come back. Never say never. The issue of the article itself seems to be resolved. As far as behavior... well, you summarized it well. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs here, as with the AfD, made one of the more interesting wikilawyer comments I've seen in a while. The policy requires a reasonable pause between AfDs, and it is true, there is no specific period stated. Therefore, the argument goes, the period in this AfD did not violate the policy, because there is no minimum period. Yet the minimum period was violated. From WP:DP: Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.
The minimum time is whatever is less than "a reasonable amount of time ... to give editors the time to improve the page." Apparently Bugs likes his argument, because it was answered similarly before, so what Bugs been doing is justifying disruptive behavior, and encouraging it, which is disruptive, when he should know better, and may result in sanctions. At this point, since he hasn't been formally warned, he shouldn't worry, a block shouldn't come down because of what he's done in the past. This, here, should be considered a warning, if he shows that he's read it, so if he stops replying here, he could later claim he wasn't warned, so maybe somebody, maybe me, (better if it's not me) will warn him formally on his Talk page. If he doesn't repeat the behavior, then he can respond here, no worries about that either.--Abd (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Rather than trying to get revenge upon other editors, you need to focus on finding sources to justify the restoration of that article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for acknowledging the warning, BB. Tell me, which is more important, cleaning up a single marginally notable article, or addressing disruptive behavior? A single marginally notable article, present or not, will make very little difference to Wikipedia. One disruptive editor can damage hundreds of articles, drive away hundreds of editors, get whole groups of Wikipedians fighting with each other, and generally make this a quite unpleasant place. And, more to the point, which is the subject for AN/I?
User:Arcayne was just blocked. Totally improper block. My jaw dropped when I saw it. An admin lost his marbles and could lose his buttons as well. Why? Provoked, I'd say. (No excuse for the admin, who may have protected himself by unblocking and making some attempt at an apology. Or maybe not, the admin may also have been edit warring.) What would have brought him to that? I'm not prepared to come to a firm conclusion, but, from seeing the immediate preceding history, he was faced with a user disregarding the consensus process that is the very foundation of how Wikipedia works. This isn't a complaint about Arcayne, whom I have seen try to tone things down, he actually tried to restrain Killerofcruft (now User:Allemandtando), though with a bit of wink-wink perhaps, but, even a very gentle and well-behaved dog, running in a pack, can become quite dangerous. What I saw forming around Killerofcruft was a coterie of cruft-haters, using battle metaphors, cheering when massive swaths were cut through articles, without discussion with other editors of the articles, without the gentle pressure toward reliable sourcing, the placing of cn tags, the attempt to serve the article's community by finding sources oneself, and the seeking of sources from other editors, explaining what RS means and requires, the extensive warning that text will ultimately be removed if not sourced, the seeking of consensus and the avoidance of edit warring, the acceptance of reasonable compromises, all the courtesies of peers editing articles as a joint project, if this is set aside in favor of "immediate clean-up," massive chaos and disruption and, yes, angry and impudent response can result. That admin may end up before ArbComm, but if he does, the whole affair will be examined, and, I'd predict, there will be other sanctions against other editors come out of it. That admin did not act in a vacuum, or, more accurately, he was sucked in, suckered into making a very bad move. If he's smart, he will listen carefully to all the criticism which arises, and completely abandon any defense of himself, acknowledging the mistake openly and completely, showing the community that he's unlikely to make the same mistake again, and, if he does this, I predict, he'll keep his buttons. As to the other editors involved, I can't make such predictions. Being a POV-pusher (and "deletionism," when it becomes a Holy Crusade, is a kind of POV) isn't a blockable offense. But disruption and aiding and abetting disruption is. Revenge doesn't interest me, I haven't suffered any personal damage here. Honesty, however, is an avenging angel, it's amazing what it can do. --Abd (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Your complaints have been noted and logged. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Abd is continuing to work constructively with the page creator, as he has done throughout this saga. I'm not going to waste time and space re-stating the legitimate concerns of myself and the other "process wonks" - they are already spelled out at the AfD page. Minkythecat and Baseball Bugs , we clearly disagree about identifying the "real issues" here, and there is no hope of finding common ground, but I suggest you try to be less derogatory and more civil towards editors who disagree with you. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I wondered how long it would take to throw a civil comment in there. It's clear you're seeing only the words I wrote that you want to see. No big deal. This whole saga is nothing more than a total lack of common sense from day one, hopefully Abd will be able to either make a decent article or not be able to, to hopefully put this shambles to bed. Minkythecat (talk) 11:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The article was rightly killed due to lack of any apparent evidence that it belongs here, and now Abd has all the time he needs to try to prove otherwise, which was one of his primary complaints about the AFD. So everyone should be happy at this point. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I plead guilty to sarcasm, although I've seen a lot worse. And I see nothing uncivil in Minky's comments. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

He's now setting up a kangaroo court in his userspace - he does no editing that is not either about me or involves me - check his recent edits. How long am I expected to put up with being stalked? Do I have to approach the foundation about this? --Allemandtando (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

A page designed to examine the behavior of the above editor neutrally has indeed been created in my user space, User:Abd/Allemandtando, but I'd suggest WP:AGF. It isn't a kangaroo court, it has no indictment or subpoena power, no authority to determine and impose sanctions, it is simply a place to collect a neutral description of the record, so the above hysterical response may say more about the user than about that page. What stalking? Looking at the contributions of an apparently disruptive user (alternative view: bold and brave user ridding the project of cruft and junk), and documenting them? I'd urge reading the page before jumping to conclusions about what it is (and the Talk page attached.) The above is a reaction to a mostly blank page! Wait until there is some actual content! --Abd (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
He will get nowhere with an ArbCom. It will be seen for what it is: a personal vendetta. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Let's say that I wouldn't waste my time and theirs even presenting such a thing. It's correct, they would not accept a case that was a personal vendetta, unless they believed that there were issues worth their time and the community's time; if it was based on a personal vendetta, whatever they determined with respect to the user, they would surely censure or sanction me. I'd beware, though of considering me some vengeful nut case. I'm not, and most of what I do finds pretty substantial community support, at least lately. --Abd (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
If you try to bring my name into it, claiming I'm his "cheerleader", don't forget to point out where I had suggested on this ANI page that he be blocked for a week or so, for disruption on an earlier topic. I am no one's "cheerleader". I thought he was wrong on the earlier issue, and I think he was right on this one. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest not anticipating what I will do and then vigorously objecting to it. Users are not consistent, and may do one thing (a good thing) and then another (a not-good thing). What was mentioned here was the effect of certain actions. "Cheering" does not mean "meat puppetry." This incident report was based on allegations regarding a file I was preparing on how AN/I was diverted from its task, and the initial disruption grew out of a question posed here, in another AN/I report, by Baseball Bugs that was irrelevant to the issue brought there. The article could be utterly and unquestionably not notable and it would have been irrelevant (except that if this were the case, the whole thing would not have happened). Edit warring isn't permitted even if the edit warrior is "correct." This is a fundamental operating principle of Wikipedia, which can be set aside only for clearly necessary reasons, which did not exist here. Baseball Bugs has not actually addressed the specific point made here, which relates to the purpose of this report and an important point raised by it: how a legitimate AN/I request for admin support, by an admin facing edit warring in a reasonable performance of his function, was diverted over a truly minor issue: the notability of the article, which is clearly marginal, not utterly non-notable (there is at least one decent reliable source, when red herrings are set aside), but neither clearly notable (there is otherwise a paucity of RS, beyond minimal references -- listings -- by experts --, and only the personal testimony of several knowledgeable Wikipedia editors that it is, in fact, notable, even important, which is, yes, not sufficient in itself). Edit warring was the issue there, in the prior report, not notability. Was Killerofcruft edit warring? Nobody has claimed that he was not. Yet a number of users, including Baseball Bugs, have effectively condoned it by raising the notability issue, then and now. We have a process for determining notability, and edit warring is not part of that process, and neither is rapid renomination; Baseball Bugs has wikilawyered with an argument that, since no minimum time is specified in the policy, a few days violated no policy, an utterly preposterous argument that, again, has found no support. Here, the issue was, again, something different: the propriety of my working file, which was claimed to be an "attack page." The page has been judged, by the community, to be legitimate, but Baseball Bugs continues to claim that User:Allemandtando was "right on this issue." What issue? If Baseball Bugs is not again bringing in irrelevancies, this would only mean he is confirming the claim that the page was an "attack page." Yet he has not substantiated that argument. What about the page is an "attack"? Does it contain "personal attack" that violates policy? If so, I'd certainly need to know. Warn me, with specifics. Or stop filling up AN/I with useless distractions. Every post to this page postpones archiving by a day. This is not a trial of Baseball Bugs, and if he fails to defend himself here, it will not harm him. No proposal has been made for sanctions against him. All that has happened is that a specific behavior has been called into question; that may become relevant later, but he, and others, would then have the opportunity to question and correct any errors.--Abd (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Every minute you spend concerning yourself with this matter, is a minute you're not spending looking for sources for that article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Move this thread[edit]

Although the 2nd AfD was closed, this thread has effectively become a continuation of the 2nd AfD debate. No admin action has been taken on this, and I think it's highly unlikely at this point that any will be taken. Therefore, unless there are objections, I will move this thread to a subpage of the 2nd AfD talk page and leave a link here. That way, this thread can archive and stop clogging up the AN/I board. Those that are interested in this thread can watch the subpage much more effectively. If someone wishes to file an issue that requires immediate admin intervention, they are, of course, free to open another thread here. — Becksguy (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, this is an AN/I thread, even though it was hijacked into "a continuation of the debate," and I, many times, attempted to return it to that topic. I don't think it belongs there, with the AfD, I don't recall much mentioned here that wasn't already discussed there. But a link from the 2nd AfD talk page, which does have some post-AfD discussion, to here, once this is archived, would be fine and, I'd say, more useful. So I oppose the creation of that page. This AN/I incident isn't about the AfD, it is about an alleged attack page, and it belongs here, in the archives, not there. What should really be done is to close it, since there appears to be consensus about its topic. I would do that except, of course, it's about me and so I'm COI on it. --Abd (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

inappropriate content hiding on Intelligent Design[edit]

would someone please come over to Talk:Intelligent_design and look into the weird archiving practices there. archives are being used as a tool to close any active discussion that suggests revisions to the page - this is clearly against the basic principles of discussion that wikipedia relies on, as well as being a rude page-ownership violation. thanks. --Ludwigs2 20:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

They have reasonable-sounding rationales for being closed this way. I took a quick glance and agree that some of what was closed was off-topic and irrelevant. These articles are plagued by some recurring problems; if people are trying to keep the talk page in line, this is generally a good thing. It's possible it goes too far sometimes, though. Which one specifically do you think is a problem? Friday (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As frustrating as this is, it has been a standard practice in this part of Wikipedia for years. For example, see my draft essay. And the archiving or hiding or userfying or removal of off-topic or repetitious material is allowed under Wikipedia policies. If an editor has dealt with the same complaint 100 or 200 or more times before, and someone brings up the same thing yet again, usually because they do not understand policy, then sometimes people are a bit curt in how they deal with the situation. Sorry.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Not acceptable. Explain it 100 times if you have to. Better yet, make an FAQ. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
You mean like the big yellow box at the top of the talk page? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Simply redirect them to the archives. It is not fair to ask people to explain science 100 times, specially since most on those pages have their minds made up. Brusegadi (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) There's a whole bunch of boxes there, perhaps if things got tidied a little? (or make it the top box, and somehow different from the rest?) or... something. People ignore boxes :-)
If it's any consolation, if there's 100 new people, and we assume only 1 in 10 people "gets it" enough to be able to explain to others as well, that means you only need to explain 30 times. (less if you're better at explaining) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but half of them think its a culture war, so its not really "explaining" its more like arguing. I have seen honest questions, and we answer them happily at climate pages, but I have seen far many more just out there to prove science wrong (or religion right.) Strict TPG works best. Brusegadi (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, explain there's no culture war going on, explain we just post attributed stuff, show them how to help, etc... It's kinda worth it when you manage to get through to people. :-) (Otoh, I know how hard it can be ^^;;) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
What Brusegadi is referring to when he says "culture war" is a US-specific thing. And yes, there is a culture war going on. That is exactly how it is described by those on both sides. And the courts are involved. And politics. And it is quite ugly. It has been going on in the US for many decades, and likely will continue for a long time to come. Think of it as having a Taliban right inside your country. If things continue down their current path, maybe Holland will get a taste of it eventually.--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification on the term. I have been living in the US for too long now! Brusegadi (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Kim, I salute you for your optimism! I babysit if I see hope, but most of the time (at least in GW pages) people have their minds made up. No offense to anyone, but concerning Intelligent Design, I doubt wikipedia is as good at indoctrinating people as churches are, which have been going at it for a while. So, if they dont learn policy the nice way, they'll learn it from experience, or move to a more "conservative" project (if you know what I am talking about!) ;) Brusegadi (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
In hard topics such as ID, where passions run high, it is a good idea to be strict regarding WP:TPG. This involves removal of tangential stuff. To keep coolness, anything remotely off-topic should be avoided and you should strictly focus on the article. Brusegadi (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I myself never userfied and did not hide material in this way. I would engage the person complaining and say it over and over and over and over. And you know what? People got extremely angry at me for doing so. And so now, I have topic banned myself from those articles. See? They got their wish. Attack me and see how much better it is now? --Filll (talk | wpc) 20:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Making a FAQ is a great idea, and I have suggested this to people in a number of cases. Might be nice if there were a standardized way of presenting them...? --Jaysweet (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kim. What's more, FAQs can sometimes be helpful. Either way, if the pith is so self-evident, it should be a breeze to either explain or see in the article text. I left a friendly note for User:Odd nature and undid the latest thread closure. Talk pages are for the discussion of sources. If the article isn't cutting it for some good faith editors, it only means the article is lacking, as highly nettlesome and tiresome as this may sometimes seem. Meanwhile if a user is truly being disruptive about reliable sources in the article, there are other ways to deal with that. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

On FAQs: As far as I know, I was the originator of the first one on Wikipedia, for the evolution article. This idea was copied and there is one at the intelligent design article, where it has been for many months now.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Ludwigs2 has been referred to the FAQ, to policies and guidelines, and to WP:TALK, but has continued to present unverified original research with demands that the article be changed, in defiance of the talk page guidelines, while taking this alleged closing of discussion or alleged incivility in providing guidance with links, to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Intelligent Design#policy misuse. Ludwig was engaged in disputes with ID editors over civility and attempts to rewrite NPOV policy before starting to produce these extraordinary unsourced screeds on the ID talk page. Gaming the system comes to mind. . . dave souza, talk 20:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Still no need to close article talk page threads. If Ludwigs2 is pushing OR over and over, that's disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Gwen. You can create sub talk pages for each repeated issue. If there is a post on the main talk page about a repeated issue, simply move the post to the sub talk page and leave a note on the main talk page such as "duscussion thread move to ...", providing a link to whereever you moved the discussion. Bebestbe (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

On the Global Warming page we simply delete such talk page comments. Count Iblis (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwig's actions do indeed look like disruption, and I'd appreciate another opinion on that. See the RfC thread I've linked above, and talk:Intelligent Design. . . dave souza, talk 21:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't feel I can look at this in an unbiased fashion, however, I would urge a previously uninvolved admin to please investigate this, as it has some tangential bearing on the ongoing OrangeMarlin saga... --Jaysweet (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Rationale: Talk:Intelligent_design#Please_respect_other_people.27s_time_and_patience Ludwig2 seems to be playing the victim bully here. Odd nature (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Having seen this sort of drama play out, hundreds upon hundreds of times (many times with the same editor, banned, come back as a sock puppet), I can see that some in this thread just have no idea what it is like to be involved in this sort of discussion. None. No experience. Nada.

On one hand we always get the response "if they are pushing OR over and over, that's disruption, so just ban them", etc. Well you know what happens then? All kinds of charges of unfairness are made. Demands for leniency erupt! How dare those terrible pro-science brutes act like that!

In fact, did you know that the horrible alleged mythical ID Wikiproject cabal is under attack on all sides for just this terrible kind of behavior? There was a brutal attack at a WP:BLP, orchestrated from an off-wiki attack site, the article Rosalind Picard. There was an RfAr against the members of this alleged cabal for unfairness. This devolved into not one, but two RfCs (one of which is still active) against the members of this terrible putative cabal. And now there has been a secret trial against two members of the awful purported cabal where these editors were not allowed to present evidence in their defense. And their convictions from that secret trial were vacated, but now an expedited RfAr against the same evil ID Wikiproject editors has surfaced, which is to be followed by an expedited Arbcomm proceeding. And there have been hints that this is just the first of more such proceedings to come against the other members of this brutal cabal!

All because of acting the way you suggest. That is the entire point of User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing. The culture that exists on Wikipedia will not let you just enforce the rules against this kind of disruptive behavior. The only thing you can do is maybe after the disruptive editor drops the "f-bomb" 3 or 4 times in a row, block them for incivility. That is your only recourse. And that might not even work.

This was the entire motivation for me creating User:Filll/WP Challenge. Because so many people have no clue what it is like to edit these kinds of articles and what sort of actions you can take. So I created the challenge to expose a wider range of people to this kind of environment that exists in some dark corners of Wikipedia.--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This is tiresome. I believe that the problems with an approach predicated on hasty archiving and so on have been extensively discussed on the talkpage of one of the essays linked above, and alternative, workable, policy-compliant and tested approaches explained over and over. Perhaps a FAQ is required? (Irony alert.) --Relata refero (disp.) 21:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I will repeat my comment here that I made there. Unfortunately although you claim standard methods work, you have not presented any evidence that they work. And many people with 10 times or 100 times or more experience in these matters have said clearly to you, over and over, that you are mistaken; these "alternative workable policy compliant tested approaches" otherwise known as the same old methods do not work. By the way, archiving or usefying is policy compliant and has been used at Wikipedia and on many other online communities to handle this sort of thing for years and years and years. So in its own way, it is also a "workable policy compliant tested approach". --Filll (talk | wpc) 22:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Considerable evidence was provided, and ignored. Several editors pointed it out to you there, many of whom have considerably more experience than you in these issues, including myself. I believe IDIDNTHEARTHAT was referenced several times on the page. As for your similarly substantiated claim that over-hasty archiving is policy-compliant, no doubt you can point out the relevant mention here. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 05:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Well I must have missed it somehow. A group of editors with much more experience on contentious articles than me who claim that there is no problem with CIVIL POV pushing on Wikipedia? Who claim that the status quo is just fine? I have about 32000 edits and several thousand edits in the evolution, creationism, intelligent design, racial and alternative medicine areas, all of which are hotbeds of controversy. I would be very interested to meet anyone who has much more experience than I do on controversial articles who believes our current set of tools is completely adequate, and is just being implemented incorrectly or misused somehow. Please tell me who these people are. Please link me to the discussions I must have missed with the evidence that the standard methods work beautifully and efficiently and that everyone is happy with them, including FRINGE proponents and disruptive editors and those mainstream editors who are trying to maintain NPOV and other Wikipedia principles in these controversial articles.--Filll (talk | wpc) 13:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we measure experience by more than edit count here. As I said, the userspace proposal talkpage above has several explanations, all of which have been made to you. This is the third time I've mentioned it: are you illustrating the problem through your behavior, perhaps? :) --Relata refero (disp.) 04:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah ok. So those with minimal edit counts are much more experienced. I see. I also guess I am just too slow to find what you are referring to without diffs.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
DGG has worked in areas all over this encyclopaedia for years. I've been here, one way or another, since 2004. If you wish to suggest that we have 'minimal edit counts' and thus are irrelevant, you will fool only yourself. That extends to the other people who explained to you and to others at length why your methods of dealing with disagreement were counter-productive, at the talkpage of Raul's absurd little essay. We experienced editors know that pretending to have forgotten where something was mentioned is Obfuscatory Method #34. (#34a is maintaining you don't know where even after being told.) --Relata refero (disp.) 05:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The very term Intelligent Design is a nest of worries and hardly worth the time spent. I've reviewed Ludwigs2's comments and they're mostly unsourced OR ramblings. My eyes glazed over. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Not to be an agitator here, Gwen, but the ArbCom (or at least FT2) seems to take Ludwigs2's opinions quite seriously.... heh.. Seriously, though, you may want to consider commentting here... --Jaysweet (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I just noticed some of Ludwigs2's recent contributions at WP:WQA on subjects in which he doesn't have a bias, and I will admit I may have him figured all wrong. It looks like you've been doing a good job over there, Ludwigs.
I just don't know any more, I guess. Wikipedia is too effing confusing for me since the ArbCom imploded the other day :D --Jaysweet (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
That's what I've seen happen a couple of times. Perhaps part of the solution is to invite troublesome people to come help in some other part of the wiki for a while to learn the ropes? They can then get back to the troublesome article in a constructive fashion. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
This of course is a great idea and one I have encouraged. Some even go to a related wikimedia project and contribute in severe situations. Unfortunately, traditionally things often have to become very unpleasant before such remedies are considered or imposed.--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Filll, it is quite simple, really. Mrs. Picard is not even a scientist in the life sciences field, therefore her views on ID are quite irrelevant. POV sections and paragraphs on the subject are unwarranted. All it does justify is perhaps a single sentance midway through the article. That is the proper application of WP:UNDUE, nothing more, nothing less. Please stop obfuscating the conversation by bringing in the tired old WP:BADSITES argument, nobody cares. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, I am afraid that I am still allowed to disagree with you. And as for the BADSITES comment, I will direct you to my comments here.--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The archiving practice needs to be spelled out clearly in the talk page headers. There is no reason that tired arguments need to be kept on the main talk page. However, that main ID talk page should have a clear table of links to existing talk subpages that allow new comers and others to express their views. The FAQs can be a subpage as well. Bebestbe (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
hmmm... I seem to remember reading somewhere that comments were supposed to be about edits, not editors. yet I keep seeing evidence that disconfirms that, from highly experienced users. I'm beginning to get a bit confused on this issue; can someone please clarify? :-) (err... yes, that was sarcasm...)
now, I understand the need to keep talk pages under control, and normally I wouldn't have an issue with it. however, this has stepped over the line into abuse. the argument I am making is not some angry POV spiel that goes on endlessly, nor is it a rehash of some older argument. it is simple, direct, clearly reasoned, and not something that's been presented before. If you can respond to it as a reasoned argument, properly and thoroughly, then it and I will go away as soon as I realize that you're correct. but if you can't respond to it as a reasoned argument, then you have no right to squirrel it away and mark it as resolved. in fact, you have an obligation to let it sit there until someone comes along who can resolve it, or until you admit it's correct.
fact of the matter is, here, that I'm pretty sure I'm right. I might be wrong, and I'm always open to that possibility, but in this case it doesn't strike me as very likely. the only way we're going to find out for sure, though, is if we discuss the matter. sorry if that cases you inconvenience, but... --Ludwigs2 21:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ludwigs2. On one hand, discussions should not be prematurely archived to win the argument because consensus can change. On the other hand, the main ID talk page probably should be reserved for issues not addressed over and over. The compromise seems to be to create topical ID talk subpages that allow editors to post their views and others to contribute as they desire. Bebestbe (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, I think you're editing in good faith, but if you don't start citing some reliable sources in your talk page comments, you may be blocked for disrupting Talk:Intelligent Design. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Bebestbe - that might be a possibility, but in this particular case it strikes me as another way of pushing an argument out of sight and out of mind. I'm willing to discuss the matter, though.
Gwen - I have cited where needed, but unfortunately my arguments get crunched into archives before I can really develop anything significant. also, I need point out (a) that this is a talk page, not article content, and so the rules of citation are somewhat more lax, and (b) that citations are support for statements that are being made by an editor, not claims in and of themselves. if I can't actually get a discussion going, there's no actual place to use citations, yah? if anyone cares to question any claim I make, I will be happy to source it as best I can. --Ludwigs2 22:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
P.s. Filll - I haven't really had any dealings with you to date, so I hope I'm not being rude, but it seems to me that your entire above post was about bad experiences you've had with other editors. however, I'd prefer to be treated as a unique individual rather than an amalgam of all the unpleasant people you've dealt with before, if at all possible. --Ludwigs2 22:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2: Perhaps you did not quite understand. My long post is an explanation of why we cannot easily block you. And you probably will not deal with me near as much as you would have a couple of months ago because I will not work on those articles. I have found that editing those kinds of articles leaves me open to attack.

Now if you would prefer that I not intervene to explain why you should not be blocked, well then, ...what can I say?--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, Ludwigs2, I suggest that you create a subpage of the article, or even a subpage of your own userpage and develop your argument to your heart's content in private. Then when you feel comfortable, invite others in to see it and comment on it.--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Ludwig, I've already referred you to WP:TALK. Note that at the outset it states that Wikipedia's verification, neutral point of view and no original research policies, and though there is some reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation, it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements.
More generally, a request for advice. One of my replies[39] has been cited by Cla68 as a bad example, but to me it accurately summarises the problems with Ludwig's talk page rambles, and gives good advice on how to contribute successfully. What do others think? . . dave souza, talk 22:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I love that example Dave. So you made a polite statement which was really deemed to be a hostile uncivil statement in disguise. And you, or for that matter KC wondering if it isnt a personal attack to unfairly characterize your polite statement as uncivil is itself deemed to be a personal attack: [40]. And I suppose someone else could come and claim it is a personal attack to say that it was a personal attack to say that it was a personal attack to mischaracterize your polite post as uncivil. And so on and so forth, as an infinite regress. And so I have placed this example in a place of honor as number 28 in my CIVIL Abuse Hall of Fame: [41].--Filll (talk | wpc) 23:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks ok to me, I see it all the time. I can only say that sometimes, an editor's PoV is so overhwleming and to them, self-evident, they either can't possibly imagine Wikipedia's sourcing policy has sway over their edits, or simply game the policies in the belief their outlook is so worthy as to trump anything else. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
sorry Filll - guess I'm getting confused by the unexpected welter of emotions here. my apologies if I offended; I didn't mean to.
Dave, you continue to miss the point. I've made a good argument, with proper sourcing to the extent I was allowed. you could have chosen to dispute it, you could have chosen to refute it, you could have chosen to agree with it, all of which would have ended this debate relatively quickly and cleanly, and probably without ANI. you chose instead to play the bureaucrat, and brush me off as though I was some annoying flea who dared to buzz into your office. well, it's not your office, and I'm not a flea, and if you are unhappy with the confrontation that we are having now then I suggest- respectfully - that you go take a good long look in the mirror. --Ludwigs2 23:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
tl;dr. Friday was right on as always. The talk pages are not a free expression zone, megaphone, or soapbox, but a space to concisely discuss concrete and specific improvements to article content. People who enjoy debating the ins and outs of the scientific method (and I'm not solely addressing Ludwigs2 here) have any number of other online forums in which to do so. Stop fighting about the archiving, and open one thread briefly addressing one problem with the article and proposing a specific solution, ideally with sample text. Do not base your argument on your personal beliefs about the scientific method, but on what reliable sources have said. MastCell Talk 00:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I concur with MastCell and Friday as usual. Oh well. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately Ludwig2 is still at it with the OR there, ignoring all calls to find sources or move on. Would someone do something about this please. Odd nature (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

actually, even discussions about stylistic changes to the lead (which can be in no way construed as OR) are now being archived peremptorily. see this diff which shows Professor marginalia's response to a discussion about a change in style for the first paragraph of the lead, and this diff which shows my response, and the immediate archiving of the section, even though Professor marginalia and i are having a productive conversation on the topic. this is pure absurdity... --Ludwigs2 00:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Block review of User:Ludwigs2[edit]

Yes check.svg Resolved.

Note: see User_talk:Ludwigs2#blocked_for_disruption_at_Intelligent_Design. Gwen Gale (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has blocked Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log) for 55 hours (his first block) for alleged disruption. On that page I asked for, but have not yet received, the specific diffs, that support the block. I suggest this block is excessive at best, and possibly completely unjustified. I'd suggest review by uninvolved admins. ++Lar: t/c 18:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

On further review of this, after review of the diffs supplied, I do not think this block is justified, and I call for its immediate lifting. I suspect that if uninvolved admins (that is, admins who do not regularly and have not recently participated on the ID page or its talk) review the matter, they will agree. I could be wrong of course. ++Lar: t/c 19:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Endorse removal of the block at this time. While this is a complicated matter, I'm just not seeing the justification here, even with the diffs cited on the respective editor's talk page. RFerreira (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
After reviewing the evidence, I don't see any reason for a 55 hour block, if any block was called for in the first place. I strongly recommend an immediate unblock. Dreadstar 20:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever edited ID-related stuff, though I have engaged Ludwigs2 on policy talk pages, e.g. WT:NPOV and WT:FRINGE, and at Talk:Royal Rife. My concerns about his editing are pretty much those expressed by Gwen Gale, and have to do mostly with ignoring the talk page guidelines and arguing at length about beliefs, the scientific method, and so forth rather than discussing concrete article improvements. This kind of talk-page abuse is really tough to deal with - everyone gets mad and cries "censorship" if off-topic posts are removed or archived, and blocks seem awfully blunt of an instrument.

I think there is a real issue here, albiet perhaps not one warranting a 55-hour block. Ludwigs2 hasn't requested an unblock yet, so I'd like to see his response to the block. Ideally, he could agree to focus more and respect the talk-page guidelines, and the block could be lifted. I do think it should be shortened (or lifted) regardless as the length seems excessive, but I don't think that should be perceived as a complete vindication of Ludwigs2, since there is a real issue needing improvement. MastCell Talk 20:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 disrupted the article's talk page for many, many days with an endless stream of Original Research challenges and proposals. He rejected input from many others to provide sources and later to abide by consensus. He repeatedly reverted the archiving of OR discussions. And lastly he ignored warnings about the problems with his actions. Ludwigs2 met 3 of the 4 definitions of a disruptive editor given at WP:DE and was given chances to reform which he dismissed. The only question is not whether he should have been blocked, but for how long. 48 hours seems reasonable to me considering he wasted at least that many man hours at Talk ID. Odd nature (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Are you an "uninvolved admin" by my definition? I'm personally more interested in the views of those who are uninvolved in judging whether there is a consensus to unblock, although I thank you for your input in any case... ++Lar: t/c 20:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Ludwigs2 has already been unblocked. Kelly hi! 20:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked User:Ludwigs2 following this thread. The consensus for it was too highly mixed and I don't think a 24 hour block would have been meaningful. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anyone objecting except Lar, and I disagree with him. However, I'm not interested in arguing about it. If Ludwig continues to disrupt the ID talk page, we can always simply ignore him and/or remove his comments, depending upon how blatantly off-topic or repetitious they are. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've objected. But I'll be happy to re-block if the disruption continues. Dreadstar 20:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I read your post as a block review, supporting Lar, rather than as a separate objection. The difference is negligible, at any rate. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
It has been brought to my attention that this ill-thought out comment of mine might read as less than respectful to Dreadstar, and/or insinuating that he is merely a follower of Lar in this, rather than having given the matter his own attention and come to his own conclusion. I commented thoughtlessly; I hereby retract and apologize for the comment. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Gwen, I think it was a compassionate and understanding decision to unblock. If Ludwigs2 proves to be a disruptive, tendentious editor, I will support a re-block. I think all the other editors involved in ID and other editors that edit the same articles and policy/guidelines that Ludwigs2 edits should be examined for WP:TE, WP:HARASS as well as other Wikipedia policy infractions. I see some editors and so-called "groups" or "cabals" are already under community and ArbCom scrutiny. This entire situation over WP:FRINGE and paranormal articles needs to be investigated in detail and the paradigms for what Wikipedia presents should be clarified. We are not here to promote truly fringe OR, nor are we here to debunk. Some here seem to be confusing scientific methodology with debunking. That dichotomy needs to be addressed. Dreadstar 20:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I so agree with everything you say. It's clear we need to find more consensus as to how to go about dealing with this. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how those editors could possibly be under more scrutiny. One was just the subject of a completely secret ArbCom "case", and was deemed so uniquely dangerous that he was not even allowed to know that a case was being considered until after it was "finalized". Others have presciently just left, rather than deal with the current psychosis that seems to be afflicting the community from top to bottom. There are multiple RfC's and AN/I threads on a daily basis. What additional scrutiny should these editors be placed under? Or maybe our existing dispute resolution mechanisms are actually sufficient to deal with this if we don't lose our minds over it? MastCell Talk 21:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
There's no psychosis, there's just a bunch of people who own a bunch of articles and talk to everyone else like they're "anti-science". This pisses people off, and since this unch of people have played off each other for a while and developed a fondness for the fine art of troll-bashing, they've pissed off many non-trolls over time. Most of those people would like this behaviour to change. You help them change that, the problem goes away. Its not fixed yet by a long shot, so even more scrutiny is required. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

<undent>People over and over have said that the standard methods work fine, that there is no reason to have the discussion at User:Raul654/Civil_POV_pushing, that removing offtopic posts from talk pages is wrong, that I am just stupid, etc (see above comment, which is quite representative). The atmosphere around the controversial articles is quite different than around regular articles, and quite poisonous. And now we had a little tiny demonstration of it.--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, so you do know where the discussion took place! hooray! --Relata refero (disp.) 05:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you that the atmosphere around some controversial articles is indeed quite different, and indeed quite poisonous. ++Lar: t/c 22:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
To make it clear what Lar says, he is assigning partial responsibility for that to your methods. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

They are not my methods. I have never hidden posts or userfied a thread. They were in use long before I came to Wikipedia. And they have been in use on other websites long before Wikipedia existed. I have merely watched these techniques in action. And I am one of those claiming the current standard methods are inadequate; remember? And I have topic-banned myself for the most part, and do not edit these articles any more, so if you want to blame anyone, you better look elsewhere. And I am still waiting for a link to the evidence that the standard methods work and are adequate. I find the claim that those who have few edits on Wikipedia have more experience editing Wikipedia than those with more edits on Wikipedia to be somewhat dubious, but you are free to make that assertion.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Without my putting words in anyone else's mouth, I think it might be useful if you admitted the possibility that what is referred to is not anything that are not your methods, but strictly things that are. For instance the last time I encountered you, re: two sourcing issues, was this outburst an accurate reflection of my editing at that point? My reaction: [42]. The thread in full at this point: here. That section apart, the talk page demonstrated no consensus on these issues, indeed John Carter had alluded to similar concerns, though had been rebuffed with a statement by you more absolutist than any I had yet made.
Endevouring to never encounter you again, I wandered off. Some hours later, feeling uneasy leaving an article possibly mis-sourced so easily, i asked for a third opinion here. Soon after, five days after my first raising my points on that busy talk page, many involved editors chimed in, meaning that i felt i had to withdraw my TO request.[43] Out of all of them, you included, I feel only Hrafn made any attempt to seriously engage with what I was saying. I soon left the page.
Since then, one source has been very moderately strengthened, by linking to the paper in full rather than a footnote that did not support the assertion (this was a suggestion of mine in response to Hrafn [44]). The other remains untouched, despite its having nothing to do with the assertion that it supports that i can see, or that has been explained to me.
This is my experience with checking two of the first four sources on the article. There's every reason to believe other ones are similarly problematic. I certainly will not be checking to see. Perhaps this is an example of what might be called your "methods"? (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: No merit to this report --Jaysweet (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos is coming after me for my edits. Let's start off by saying I'm a conservative (completely for fairness and neutrality on Wikipedia) and Blaxthos is a liberal (from his edits, discussions, talk page) with an apparent axe to grind. He will not allow liberal bias to be added to the NBC article, but staunchly defends the conservative bias entry to be added to the FOX News page. Now, I've had this problem before with a liberal administrator who found it "necessary" to put me in his cross-hairs just because I was a self-proclaimed conservative. Now, it happens again. Other than Talk pages, I have kept my neutrality high. I removed quotation marks over words which makes one side seem right and the other wrong. I put liberal labels where needed. I changed progressive to liberal once because they are the same thing and "liberal" is a much clearer label. I don't like it when a liberal admin tries to abuse his power in order to ban me from editing just because I'm conservative. That is all.PokeHomsar (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please provide links to the edits that you are concerned about. FCYTravis (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Just check his talk page as it should give you a clear idea of his obvious liberal bias.PokeHomsar (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're filing the report, you need to provide the DIFFs. Just glancing, it seems like you're upset with him for filing an ANI report at you earlier. Some context and examples would help. Dayewalker (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
We're really not concerned about someone expressing a personal view on a talk page. Unless Blaxthos is abusing his admin tools in order to enforce his POV, there's nothing actionable here. FCYTravis (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the NBC/FOX thing. Read that part and read the discussion on his discussion page. His DIFF didn't include specific example of MY editing behavior, yet other admins took it at face value. Why the double standard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PokeHomsar (talkcontribs) 03:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, specific DIFFs please. It would help your case if you could show specific examples of this bias from an admin, and how he used his tools in a biased manner. Dayewalker (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
What I see on the talk page are unsupported accusations of bias based on an editing conflict. You obviously disagree with Blaxthos' position on these edits. Work on the article talk page to discuss the dispute, and perhaps use the request for comment process in order to bring