Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive461

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

Noticeboard archives

Teresa Cheung[edit]

User:Flowerboat has been removing content from this article, claiming that it is "fabricated and defamatory"; however, everything in the article is attrributed to a reliable source (except the birth date, but that can go if it's a problem). I've reverted the changes and warned the user, asking him/her to provide suitable evidence. Since I'm not sure if this is simple vandalism (the user is an SPA), or whether or not this is a legitimate concern, I would appreciate some advice on how to proceed. PC78 (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I issued a warning about edit warring. This looks like vandalism, but if she has a source I'm willing to give her a chance to show it before blocking. In the meantime, please post here if she removes the information again - someone else will revert, and block if necessary. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Aoso0ck editing restriction[edit]

In light of the previous discussion and continued disruptive editing I've told this user that I'm going to require them to use edit summaries from now on link. So far they have refused to communicate at all with other editors, and their editing style is becoming very disruptive, so this seems the very minimum necessary. Does this seem reasonable to other people? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This editor, whose first edit was only on 26 July, has been quite busy removing warnings from his Talk page, so you can't get a complete picture from the current version. His edits may be well-intentioned but they require others to clean up after him. In about 80 edits thus far, he has never posted to a Talk page. Four different editors have so far left him warnings or queried his lack of discussion. An editing restriction is more logical for a basically productive editor who just goes astray in one particular area. I would suggest a one-week block that would be lifted if he agrees to leave edit summaries and respond to Talk comments. If there is still no response or no change in his practices after one week, an indef is appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd also be OK with that approach, I suppose it would have the same effect without me having to follow them around reverting their non-consensual edits. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Verbal chat 06:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Seems like he shouldn't be allowed to remove warnings from his talk page. II | (t - c) 06:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Request sanity check and block - Still editing without discussion and now edit-warring again to remove chunks of referenced text from the Licensure article. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
update he's finally left a rather cryptic message on the talk page... but then just reverted to his preferred versionI didn't refresh my watchlist! Verbal chat 17:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
That was much more difficult that it should have been, but hopefully he'll now engage in discussion. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Apparently not, now back to edit warring and deleting text at the Licensure article - I honestly can't make head or tail of their comments on the talkpage. I've reported them for edit-warring. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Heads up - my Yahoo! and my Gmail accounts have been cracked[edit]

I've just found out that my someone may have gained access to my Yahoo! and my Gmail accounts. Fortunately, my Wikipedia account appears to be fine. (I've changed the password just in case.) However, if anyone sees any suspicious behavior from this account, please let me know right away.

Also, could anyone with database access please check if any odd IPs have logged on to my account within the last 12 hours?

Thanks. --Ixfd64 (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  • You'll have to ask for someone to perform a checkuser. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Why do a checkuser? Look at your contributions, see if your account did anything funny in the last 12 hours. Change your email address associated with Wikipedia. Change your password. Done. --barneca (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Make sure neither of those e-mail accounts are registered in your Wikipedia preferences. Chillum 22:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I just checked my logs and deleted edits, and there were no suspicious activity. I guess my account is safe. Thanks for you help, guys. --Ixfd64 (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Your account looks fine. If you don't already, you should have different passwords for your email and wikipedia accounts. And you might want to look into Committed identity. Thatcher 22:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the assistance. It is much appreciated. :) --Ixfd64 (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Also see strong password. —Travistalk 00:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A strong password doesn't do much good if it can be reset (or even obtained in plain text) by answering an easily guessable or dictionary-attackable "secret question". If you cannot disable this feature your best bet is to enter random letters (play a couple bars of Louie Louie on the keyboard) as the answer, rather than the truth which can probably be guessed through brute force, like "What is your mother's maiden name?" (see cheat sheet) or "What are the last four digits of your SSN?" (even easier). — CharlotteWebb 01:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What's the rule?[edit]

Resolved: admin continues to learn Toddst1 (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What's the rule on removing a sockpuppet or ipsock template from one's user page? Is it the same as removing warnings from a talk page (i.e. ok and considered acknowledgement)? I had trouble finding the answer so am bringing it here. Toddst1 (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as my reading of WP:BLANKING it's only confirmed notices that aren't allowed to be removed. –xeno (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I figured it was ok for the supected puppet and hadn't found that rule on the confirmed. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The way I've always seen it, if the IP is an obvious sock of a blocked/banned user and they remove the notice, that's still an edit by a blocked/banned user and should be reverted. Dayewalker (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Selective and partisan policy enforcement by Will Beback[edit]

Will Beback (talk · contribs · logs) has a history of turning a blind eye to policy violations by editors who share his POV, while being quick to take action against editors who don't. I have seen this in connection with the LaRouche articles, where Will seems to have a strong personal interest. Recently he chided User:Polly Hedra([1]) for this edit which he called a personal attack and deleted[2], while finding nothing untoward about this edit and this one by User:Cberlet, Polly's antagonist. Another admin stepped in and gave Cberlet a 24 hour block for incivility, which was the subject of a discussion on this board. Will lobbied for a similar block against Polly Hedra, but found little support.[3] In fact, one other editor specifically commented at ANI on the partisan nature of Will's interventions.[4]

Two days ago I removed a link that User:Dking posted to his personal, selfpublished website.[5] Dking has a history of violations of WP:LINKSPAM (cleanup by COI noteboard team member ... Dking coming around again to re-add the spam: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13].) Dking responded by accusing me of "censorship" and branded me a "Follower of LaRouche." I replied by saying "I am no more a 'follower of LaRouche' than I am a 'follower of Robert Mugabe,' even though I have worked hard to keep POV-pushers from using both biographical articles as a soapbox against those subjects. Secondly, if I were a 'follower of LaRouche,' it would still be a violation of WP:NPA to use that as a debating tactic: Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." I am emphasizing this here, because I anticipate a similar argument from Will in his response to his notice. I also posted the examples above of Dking's Linkspam violations. In response, Dking deleted the examples and reiterated his personal attack.[14] When I re-added the examples,[15], I received a warning on my talk page from Will, threatening me with sanctions for "taunting." [16] I looked at Dking's talk page for similar warnings and found none. Will then "prematurely archived" the talk page, supposedly to "foster peace," but more likely to protect Dking's conduct from scrutiny, as was the case with Will's out-of-process closing of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Dking. --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Three things: first, can you tell us what the CoI noticeboard's consensus was on Dking's website? And second, could you back up the statement that Will has a "strong personal interest", or withdraw it? Third, where did Will use admin tools in this dispute? Thanks. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. See [17][18][19]
  2. Let's put it this way, I have never seen a LaRouche-related dispute where Will did not weigh in in support of Cberlet and Dking, going back to the LaRouche II ArbCom case where he was a party.
  3. In this instance, Will threatened me with sanctions, while making no equivalent threat to Dking, who actually did make a personal attack, twice. I have seen Will ban editors in the past whom he deemed to be "LaRouche editors," on what I considered to be extremely flimsy evidence. While he has not formally designated me a "LaRouche editor," I take the threat of sanctions seriously; it's not a use of the tools per se, but it does represent an abuse of the office if it is used to intimidate, particularly to gain ground in a content dispute. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The posting from Marvin Diode which I think was out of line was this, in which he said, referring to the prohibition on spam, "In some cases, it may be just to boost a faded reputation for egotistical purposes."[20] That was a clear dig at Dennis King/Dking. I complained about it on the talk page but didn't get a satisfactory response. I warned Marvin Diode on his talk page that taunting is a form a personal attack and will not be tolerated.[21] Meanwhile Dking and Marvin Diode were bickering and refactoring each others comments on the talk page. I decided the best thing would be to "prematurely" archive the discussion in order to end what apppeard to me to be a pointless and contentious debate.[22] I didn't sanction anyone (though I warned that sanctions may happen if behavior doesn't change) nor did I use any admin tools. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
You warned me, you didn't seem to think Dking required a warning. This is what I mean by "selective enforcement." If it weren't such a consistent pattern, I wouldn't bring it up. Note also that Dking made the claim that since he doesn't directly harvest income from his website, it couldn't possibly be a violation of WP:LINKSPAM to post links to it all over the project. This is a misreading of the LINKSPAM policy, which was the point of my comment. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Generic rouge admin abuse complaint, the complainant moves one step closer to a topic ban per the multiple arbitrations on LaRouche and the tendentious editors clustered around that topic. A bit more investigation shows a long-term pattern of activism against Dennis King by Marvin Diode, who has been trying for a long time to get all links to King's websites off the project. While agreeing that they are, on the surface, not reliable sources, he has shown considerable evidence of a deeply vested external agenda against King, and his determination to remove "unreliable" sources appears to apply only to those sources which are critical of LaRouche. Guy (Help!) 08:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
There is only one Dennis King website at issue here, and it is a personal website/blog. Removing links to it should be non-controversial, particularly when the owner of the personal site has very aggressively added and re-added it in defiance of policy. You make a dazzling leap of logic by insinuating that, by calling attention to the excesses of an unusually tendentious editor, I am pursuing a secret agenda of shielding LaRouche from criticism. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
There is only one Marvin Diode at issue here, and it appears to be a participant on one side in a long-standing dispute, bringing said dispute to Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
...and only his side ought to be sanctioned for it, while participants on the other side of the dispute are fine and dandy? "Sauce for the goose; sauce for the gander" really needs to be applied; I guess I ought to write an essay at WP:SAUCE if none exists already. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Uneven sanctions are not by themselves evidence of bias. It is neither "selective" nor "partisan" for an administrator to sanction a single side in a dispute. Assuming the administrator is acting in good faith, it is a simple exercise of discretion. The administrator may simply have found that one person's behavior rises to the level where it needs administrative intervention while the other's does not. Moreover, even if both side's behavior is sanctionable there is no administrative abuse in sanctioning only one side - not unless the administrator truly does have a conflict of interest or is using sanctions to further a position on content. It could be a simple oversight. It could even be appropriate. It takes two to fight, usually, so removing one may well have the desired effect of ending the fight. Moreover, as controversial as LaRouche is, it's hard to equate the frustration of people trying to promote him on the encyclopedia with the frustration of people trying to avoid promoting his views. Reviewing the diffs, even though both sides became uncivil out of frustration, Poly Hedra's accusations were direct and personal, whereas Cberlet was expressing generalized disapproval of a group of editors for pushing content bias. It's not obvious who deserved sanctions and who didn't but that's a moot issue at this point, and there's certainly nothing that shows any abuse here. In short, Guy's right.Wikidemo (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
But Marvin Diode is not a Larouchian, but has been unfairly labeled as one, which is a dirty tactic used by some in this fight, which is not simply a case of "Larouchians vs. Mainstream" as it's sometimes portrayed. Anybody who objects to the actions of some of the "anti-Larouche" people seems to get automatically fastened with a political label that might not have any resemblance to their actual position. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Dtobias, have you reviewed Marvin Diode's contribution history? While we can't say if he is a "LaRouchian" or not, all of his edits are either to LaRouche-related articles or, if to other topics, they promote the LaRouche POV. His attacks against Cberlet and Dking are consistent with the decades-long conflict between them and the LaRouche movement. While Marvin Diode may claim to not be a follower of LaRouche, and may choose to be offended if called that, the reality is that he gives the appearance of being a LaRouche follower by his actions and words on Wikipedia. People can follow any religion or philosophy they like, but when they push a POV or use Wikipedia as a battleground then it's a problem. Wikipedia's problem with accounts that push the LaRouche POV goes back at least four years and includes three ArbCom cases and numerous sock puppets. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This is a standard tactic I've seen Will employ time and again. "Have you reviewed Joe Editor's contribution history? He edits articles on topics of interest to LaRouche." The trick here, as anyone with a slight familiarity with LaRouche knows, is that LaRouche has expressed an opinion on virtually every topic covered on Wikipedia, with the possible exception of the Pokemon characters. If you were to review Will Beback's contribution history, you will find -- shocking as it may seem -- that he edits articles on topics of interest to LaRouche. As far as my edits "promoting LaRouche POV," that's a con job. This goes back to the argument that I anticipated in my initial statement: since LaRouche is a uniquely evil person, anyone who interferes with the use of Wikipedia to denounce him may be treated in flagrant disregard for Wikipedia policy. Which I guess is what Dan T. already said. In response to Wikidemo, yes, I am alleging that Will is using sanctions to further a position on content. I disagree in the strongest terms with Wikidemo's characterization of these disputes as "people trying to promote him on the encyclopedia vs. people trying to avoid promoting his views." I got involved in the first place because I saw a small group of individuals trying to use the encyclopedia as an attack platform against LaRouche, in violation of WP:BLP, WP:SOAP and Lord knows how many other policies. And if someone steps in and says "but what about Wikipedia policy," they are immediately charged with "promoting LaRouche." Again, compare my edits at Robert Mugabe. Would you care to argue that I am "giving the appearance of being a Mugabe follower"? --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I have reviewed your contribution history, and it is dominated by LaRouche articles, and your contributions to those articles and surrounding debates are dominated by an LaRouche apologetic stance. If you are genuinely trying to be neutral on this subject then you are doing a very poor job of it. You are giving a very strong appearance of a vendetta against King, in fact. Guy (Help!) 09:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
An impartial review of my contribution history will reveal that I have never taken a position either pro or con on LaRouche; my role has been simply to insist on the strict application of BLP and other policies, in any article where I have seen a problem. Your comments give a very strong appearance that as far as you are concerned, policy is nothing, POV is everything. You and Will seem to wish to grant a 007 "license to defame" to Dking and Cberlet. If Wikipedia policies such as BLP are not applied evenly across the board, even to the most controversial characters, the project loses credibility. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
@DanT: I did not say that, I said that partisans coming here to bitch because they are not getting their way in a long-term and largely external dispute is not helpful to the encyclopaedia. It's not clear to me why you decided to butt in in the first place, actually, since your input was 100% unhelpful and unproductive. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm still not sure which sanctions I've applied that Marvin Diode is complaining about. I've never blocked him. All I did was issue some warnings not to post personal attacks. As for Mugabe, Lyndon LaRouche is a strong supporter. LaRouche is anti-British, anti-colonialism, and anti-George Soros, all of which are involved.[23][24][25][26] Marvin Diode has been editing to provide the pro-Mugabe POV favored by LaRouche. However that doesn't mean he's a follower of Mugabe. All that matters to Wikipedia is that POVs, whatever they are, aren't pushed behind their proper weight, and that editors are civil towards each other. I think that this editor has problems with both, as have a string of similar accounts going back some years. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. So, let's suppose hypothetically that author Kitty Kelley were to start a Wikipedia account called Kkelley and post links all over Wikipedia to a site promoting her book, The Family, which is said to be "filled with lurid allegations."[27] If one or more editors were to object, do you suppose that they would be labeled "followers of George W. Bush" and that the conversation would immediately turn to speculation about these supposed "George Bush supporters," ignoring the obvious inappropriate behavior by the hypothetical Ms. Kelley? --Terrawatt (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I think there are some valid concerns here. It appears that Will has a long-standing habit of favoring one side in these disputes, and if he is going to take any kind of administrative role in the matter he needs to avoid that. I think it would be best if Will didn't involve himself in this any further, although of course it should still be monitored by someone who is accepted as impartial. Everyking (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
''Everyking (09:22): "monitored by someone who is accepted as impartial"
Will's impartial style is so economical that it's difficult to duplicate. Who else impartial but less economical, wants to waste so much monitoring time – day in, year out – while periodically defending themselves against meritless charges like this, all because of actually being fair?
"It appears ... favoring one side in these disputes"
However, it's not a fact. Based on my many samplings of his actions, Will Beback is among the most neutral editors and impartial admins on Wikipedia. He should be thanked, not criticized.
...um, ok, thanks Will. Milo 06:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • As for being partial to one side, I endorsed the recent block of Cberlet for incivility. Can you point to any action that I've taken which is incorrect? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • While I have no interest in the Lyndon LaRouche article, my experience with Will BeBack is in line with the concerns that Marvin Diode has raised. He takes a non-neutral approach when it suits him. This latest issue makes me more concerned about his actions. I would ask that an uninvolved party review his edits and admin actions with an eye toward either establishing or disproving the bias that Diode and I have seen from him. --SSBohio 18:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I invite all editors to review my administrative actions. To date no one here has asserted that I've made even a single incorrect use of the tools. As for Ssbohio's assertion, I believe the only article we've worked on together is Justin Berry, so I presume that is what he's referring to. I stand by my work on that extremely contentious BLP. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Even if the tools aren't used, a threat of their use or the use of the bully pulpit are also areas open to concern.
    • Justin Berry, Timothy Ryan Richards, and related topic areas and administrative processes are all areas where we've come in contact with each other, Will. For the most part, I think you do an admirable job with contentious situations, but not all the time, and not with an absolute lack of partiality (SqueakBox comes to mind). Even if it's just Marvin & I, it raises the question of there being a pattern and practice on your part. --SSBohio 20:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Based on the articles you list (I think we may have both edited Child sexual abuse and Pro-pedophile activism as well), I presume you think I'm biased against pedophiles/pederasts. I've tried to avoid acting in a biased fashion, but at the same time I've sought to make sure the majority viewpoint is given proper weight, and that minority viewpoints don't dominate. Please explain and document the bias that you allege. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Your presumption is incorrect. I believe you have a bias in favor of anti-pedophile activists, as their grinding their particular axe seems to go unnoticed by you more often than that of the similarly POV-pushing pro-pedophile activists. We both have a bias against pedophiles and pederasts, as do most people. However, we're here to write an encyclopedia, not to fight the good fight against them. Ironically, your defense of hagiography in the protrayal of Justin Berry has the effect of protecting a producer of child pornography. I had honestly intended this to be a simple "I've had the same problem with him" comment, not a rehashing of our history. If you want to get into the details, we can, but it should probably go into a new section; I just don't see the necessity, as my concerns about you don't concern a current issue. As always, I invite you to discuss these matters with me at my talk page. --SSBohio 20:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • If you're going to accuse me of bias and misusing administrative tools then yes, please do document the allegation. It's better to clear the air now than to have you pop up everytime another user has an unrelated complaint. ·:· Will Beback ·:·
    • As to posting diffs, you have the advantage there; Most of the edit histories of these articles have been entirely or partly deleted; You still have access to it, but not me. Still, I'll see what's still available.
    • Concerning your assertion that Marvin's complaint is unrelated, how do you come to that conclusion? He sees evidence of bias in how you carry out your duties and so do I. The conduct in each case seems not only related, but hard to differentiate. --SSBohio 23:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
      • What is the relationship between Lyndon LaRouche and Pro-pedophilia activism? I can think of one - both topics have long been the targets of editors seeking to promote minority viewpoints, and both topics have been brought to the ArbCom repeatedly. In none of the ArbCom cases has there been any finding of fault regarding my edits or admin actions on those topics. Neither Ssbohio nor Marvin Diode have presented any evidence that I have engaged in "selective and partisan policy enforcement". The community can see for itself where the problems are with these topics. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
        • The topics aren't related; it's the conduct that the two situations have in common; Quoting: Marvin sees evidence of bias in how you carry out your duties and so do I. The conduct in each case seems not only related, but hard to differentiate. --SSBohio 13:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Here are the three edits I've made to Justin Berry in the past year:[28][29][30] Please point to the one which shows the behavior you're complaining about. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 14:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
            • You're refuting an allegation I never made. I haven't said that one of the three edits you made to Justin Berry in the past year was problematic. False logic is no defense of your position. That said, I appreciate your work to revert vandalism as evidenced by the three diffs you provided. --SSBohio 14:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
                • Again, if you can't document your allegation please drop it. Since I've barely worked on the Justin Berry article in the past year it appears that your claim, whatever it is, must relate to even older editing. This is not a forum for bringing up issues from the distant past. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
                  • I already addressed that concern some 19 hours ago: I just don't see the necessity, as my concerns about you don't concern a current issue. As always, I invite you to discuss these matters with me at my talk page. When I have time, I'll look at the diffs you've left available to me and find some examples. Until then, I renew my invitation to take it to my talk page. --SSBohio 16:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
                    • So you decided to pop up in this unrelated issue and add your complaint about something you can't clearly recall that happened over a year ago and may not have involved any use of administrative tools to begin with. Excuse me if I think this is not a step to improve the encyclopedia but rather an effort to pursue an old grudge. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
                      • So you decided to deliberately ignore everything I wrote above about how the conduct I've seen is similar to the conduct that Marvin's seen? Just because you're involved with two different topics doesn't make the issue of your conduct into two unrelated issues.
                      • Your constant refutation of arguments I never made is beginning to look like you're setting up straw men to knock down. I haven't said it was your use of admin tools that concerned me; I've pointed that out twice already.
                      • Why would I bear a grudge against you? I don't know you. I'm here to write an encyclopedia.
                      • To reiterate, I'll provide you with diffs to illustrate my point later, when I have more time. Until then, unless you think my words here require administrators' attention, let's take it to talk. --SSBohio 16:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
                        • Yes, I'm ignoring allegations of inappropriate use of admin tools or bias that don't have any evidence. It isn't helpful to make vague, unsupported, and out-dated complaints. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
                          • I haven't said anything as to whether you're ignoring such allegations, so I'm not sure how your statement is a response to mine. I await your response, nonetheless. --SSBohio 18:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Will has a perfect right to possess a strong POV on certain topics, and to enter into content disputes on those topics. However, my view is that he ought to scrupulously avoid the use, or the threat of the use, of admin tools, when it might be seen as an effort to gain advantage in a content dispute. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Again, when have I done so? Warning a user that they may be blocked for posting personal attacks is not a threat to use administrative tools. Telling a user to stop making personal attacks is not an effort to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Please document your allegations or drop them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a list of instances where I posted requests on your talk page, asking you to use your admin authority impartially:

Clearly, we disagree on one point: I believe that informing an editor that he may be blocked does in fact imply a threat to use admin authority, because I have seen quite a few editors blocked by you, after you had first publicly identified them as "LaRouche editors." Obviously, I am not privy to checkuser information, but one case that I found particularly worrisome was that of User:Gelsomina, who was blocked at your instigation two days after posting this statement in a request for arbitration that involved you. It looked to me like retaliation. There were similar cases, such as that of User:MaplePorter. Now, I am willing to concede that there might be compelling evidence to support these bans that I was not able to see. But then I came across this recent statement by you, in which you say about LaRouche/Herschelkrustofsky sockpuppets that "it is probably impossible to find them using Checkuser, and so they can only be determined by behavior." This smacks of banning editors due to POV, and makes me take any implied threat from you very seriously. --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There really doesn't seem to be any substance to this discussion, and we're going around in circles. Unless anyone has some direct evidence needing immediate admin action, I'd say we can close this. Anything else should go to WP:RfC. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It is easy to get involved in content disputes as admins, and not realize that we slowly get involved in a manner that compromises our ability to remain neutral. At least, we should be able to accept that fact and be conspicuous in our interactions with users: just claiming that we are above our human frailties only exacerbates the issues and is not helpful. Once thing that we need to remember is that there are always other admins that we can consult with rather than act alone. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

John Edwards love child allegations[edit]

I'm bypassing the BLP noticeboard and taking this straight here for more immediate attention. We have a new article on the recent allegations about John Edwards here. Does having an entire article about this violate our policy on biographies' insistence that we're not a vehicle for spreading titillating claims about people's lives? What about the neutrality policy's clause about undue weight. The article is quite well and conservatively written, but this issue still merits some discussion here.--chaser - t 17:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The article name is not neutral (if it does survive, it needs to be moved). However, given three-quarters of the references are from either the Huffington Post (blog), the Slate (blog), The National Enquirer (rag), Gawker.com (blog), or (best) the Media Research Center (conspiracy theorists who believe the liberal media is out to destroy the world), what is left amounts to about three reliably-referenced paragraphs that could happily sit in the John Edwards article, which currently contains no mention whatsoever of the allegations, which have been widely reported, and really should. Suggest heavily stripping out the blog gossip, and merging. Neıl 17:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I say, if someone's really upset, send this to WP:AFD. Bearian (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec)The main article had a fairly compact consensus version until recently removed by User:Sceptre. I've asked him to review but so far he has declined to revert. Ronnotel (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The article was written in response to concerns at the John Edwards article that to include details about media coverage of the controversy was a WP:COATRACK problem. The article is intended to discuss the allegations themselves. I don't really care for the title either, but a look at the press references will show that is how the allegations are being pretty much universally to in the mainstream press. Yes, there are blog references, but they are only intended to apply to a discussion of blog coverage of the allegations (a similar situation exists at Killian documents). Any controversial facts are referenced to the mainstream press. Kelly hi! 18:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts)I agree with Neil here. Cut out the chaff, to the point of stubbing it even, and merge it to the Edwards' article. There is not enough here for a standalone, per WP:COATRACK. I definitely do not believe this is a CSD candidate (currently tagged as "attack", also tagged with "hangon" as of this posting of mine). The Edwards article doesn't need a "section", it needs a sentence. Suggested sentence to add to the Edwards' article (with a source, of course), to give it the correct weight: Edwards has been accused of allegedly having an extra martial affair that resulted in the birth of a child in February 2008. He denies the allegations. Anything else is reactionary, trivial, nonencyclopedic, and overwrought. (ref, /ref) Keeper ǀ 76 18:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Article has been speedy deleted by ChrisO as a "G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP: Blatant POV fork of John Edwards". Davewild (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it may be "quite well written" but as the article name and slant makes clear, along with the general history of the John Edwards article, it's a blatant POV fork and magnet for POV-pushing on this issue. I've speedily deleted it under criterion G10 ("attack page"), given the BLP concerns. If this is disputed, which it probably will be, I suggest taking it to DRV. I believe there is already a line in the Edwards article that alludes to the controversy. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I would disagree with the "POV fork" claim - I went to a lot of effort to ensure that the article was written from a neutral point of view, and to carefully source every potentially controversial fact. Shouldn't it at least have been taken to AfD? Kelly hi! 18:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, summary deletion is OK under certain circumstances. Email me if you want a copy of the deleted material, Kelly.--chaser - t 18:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • FYI, since the article is deleted, here is a link to an archived copy of the article as it appeared before deletion. I don't believe it was a speedy candidate. Kelly hi! 18:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate that you put some hard work into it and I'm sorry to have had to delete it. Considering the problems that the John Edwards article has had lately, I think it would have been advisable to obtain a consensus on that article's talk page that a fork was necessary and that the topic was encyclopedic. Bear in mind that not every issue in an individual's private life is encyclopedic - Wikipedia isn't a gossip column or a forum for documenting gossip. Something that's appropriate for Gawker or the National Enquirer isn't automatically suitable for a Wikipedia article. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I respect your opinion, I just believe you acted incorrectly in this case. The article included dozens of references to the mainstream press. Kelly hi! 18:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I can admit that its intrinsic attackness was not completely clearcut, but I share the concerns that the vast majority was not adequately sourced per both RS and BLP, as well as the problems maintaining a balanced unattacking tone would become for the article. That said, no harm has been done here by its deletion; what was both notable and reliably sourced from it fell essentially into the pattern "reliable source A said Edwards' VP considerations have been hurt by blogosphere material B and/or unreliably sourced allegation C". This can reasonably be merged into his main article. At one point, it was. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • For the avoidance of doubt, my tagging the talk page last night with {{BLP}} merely indicated that it was obvious that the BLP policy applies. I didn't have time then to actually read the article and review the sources in use. Nor do I now. I will not offer a meaningful opinion until I have that much time. GRBerry 19:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

While the article may have references that may not have withstood full scrutiny under WP:BLP, I think pre-emptive deletion may have been premature. You don't often have CSD candidates with 80+ references - most from mainstream sources and the rest generally from the higher quality blogs (Slate, etc.). Ronnotel (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Being sourced does not necessarily make it encyclopedic. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 19:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
There's a golden number of references for articles. Too little, it's unsourced. Too many, the article writer is desperate to prove their point and becomes a NPOV issue. Q.V. Scientology controversies, which had around 200 references but is a POV landmine. Sceptre (talk) 19:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Look, I understand that everyone has an opinion, but it really bothers me that people here are saying that I write "attack articles" or "unsourced articles" or that I am "desperate to prove (a) point". The fact is that I have always worked hard to uphold neutrality and the BLP policy, and I challenge anyone to cite an example otherwise. With respect - Kelly hi! 19:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying you didn't include not enough references, I'm saying you included too many. Sceptre (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the speedy was unwarranted, as well. It had already been turned down for speedy once, and I'd have done the same - this was more suitable for an AFD discussion. As I am wholly uninvolved and in no way invested in the future of this article I won't bother with a DRV nomination, personally, but such may be warranted in this case. Shereth 19:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, I've been meaning to compliment you on the excellent work you did in helping to form a consensus about this at Talk:John Edwards. The deleted article also looks very well put together, and I'm again impressed with that part of it. Sceptre, your point that the article writer is desperate to prove their point and becomes a NPOV issue is weak and a failure to assume good faith. Kelly knew this would be controversial: that's reason enough to provide a lot of sourcing. That said, I'm queasy about this:

Blogosphere claims of a media "blackout" extended even to the online reference site Wikipedia and its biographical article on Edwards. Several prominent sites criticized the omission of information about the allegations, most notably Gawker.com[66][67] and the Media Research Center's NewsBusters blog.[68][69][70] Another critic was Roger L. Simon of Pajamas Media,[71] whose post was linked by Glenn Reynolds at the high-traffic weblog Instapundit.[72] The Wikipedia biography was later changed to include a mention of the allegations' potential impact on Edwards' political career. The controversy over the Wikipedia page was covered by Wired magazine,[73] and Kansas City Star columnist Aaron Barnhart opined that the addition of the information to the Wikipedia article influenced later media coverage of the allegations.[74]

We need to think very hard about Wikipedia's role in spreading this information. I don't have the time to think through this now, but frankly, I don't feel Wikipedia is capable of handling that kind of responsibility. We need to be a bit more cautious than news organizations, not less. But that's just an initial thought -- more a feeling, maybe. And to a degree it's technical: John Edwards has the ability to stop this in its tracks if it's false. Noroton (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a stranger to controversial biographical articles (I was one of the primary authors of Ashley Alexandra Dupré). With controversies like this, it's important to ask first if it's notable (this controversy undoubtedly is, with coverage not only in the U.S. mass media, but the international press as well). I don't believe the Edwards article is the right place to discuss it, because the story is about much more than John Edwards - it involves other people, and much of the controversy is not over Edwards himself, but over the handling of the story by some portions of the American mainstream media. To try to include this information in the Edwards article would rightfully raise COATRACK concerns. There are two ways to handle this type of situation - either close our eyes to the event, while numerous POV-pushers show up here to stir up drama about it on- and off-wiki, or to get ahead of the power curve, write a neutral, reliably sourced article about the event, and defend it against POV-pushers. I have no doubt the information will wind up in the encyclopedia in some form; obviously I think it's better if responsible editors control the form that information will take. Regards - Kelly hi! 21:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Good points. You're right. Noroton (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
(e/c, rp to Noroton) To some extent, your concerns are why we have policies like NPOV, RS, and BLP. We follow the reliable sources, not lead them. In the cases where the coverage was impacted by our articles, that would be a symptom that some editing served to lead the story, not follow it. And, to be honest, in principle this also pertains to editing on the Talk pages.
I disagree strongly with your assessment of Edwards' power to stop this, however: Most (by volume; pun intended) of the blogosphere is no better than an infinite number of monkeys at a typewriter. Unlike those trying to type Shakespeare, most fictions that most of those monkeys wish to perpetuate are far less noble. He can only hope to not bait any of them to redouble their efforts. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 21:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree, we follow the reliable sources. Actually, we are doing that -- describing what reliable sources have said. I guess I was concerned because we've gotten ahead of much of the news media. But as I think about it, that's really not our concern, as long as we follow some reliable sources. As for Edwards being able to stop it -- I think I was getting off topic, so never mind. Noroton (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Somebody claiming that Gawker and Media Research Center are "prominent sites" makes me question their motives and their reliability. Corvus cornixtalk 21:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I do want to emphasize that those sites were only included in a paragraph that discussed the Wikipedia portion of the controversy and were in no way used as references regarding the facts of the Edwards allegations. Maybe "prominent" wasn't the best word - by the time I got to that portion of the article, I was frankly sick of working on it and in a hurry to finish. But since my motives and reliability are now apparently in question, it's best I depart before I say something I regret. Kelly hi! 21:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Corvus, assume good faith, will ya? Gawker has been prominent for some time. Media Research Center is prominent as far as media criticism groups go. It's a strain to call that wording reason to "question their motives and their reliability." Please. Noroton (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I think a speedy deletion was hasty, considering the effort that went into the article and the number of reliable references (LA Times, etc) present. I do, however, object to the article title. I think John Edwards paternity allegations may be closer to the NPOV language we're looking for. caknuck ° is back from his wikisiesta 21:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The title is pretty much the weakest thing about this. If it's not there yet, maybe DRV is the best place to handle this, as Chris O suggests. The people who watch that area are more familiar with this kind of question. Noroton (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the suggested title is much better. I went with what the mainstream press was calling it, but what's appropriate for a newspaper may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia. Kelly hi! 22:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
A standalone content fork here is the wrong thing to do. Speedying it was the right call, though I think it would be better logged as BLP special enforcement rather than G10 - but the paperwork is the least important aspect here. It's simple: there may or may not be a place for these allegations on Wikipedia. I have an opinion about that, as do many others. Those opinions need to be discussed at Talk:John Edwards. Creating a content fork is an end-run around having to actually reach consensus there, and it's not the way to go. If there's consensus for extensive, highly detailed coverage in the John Edwards article, then a content fork might be reasonable, but this is a pretty clear abuse of content forking. MastCell Talk 22:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I had a look at BLP - special enforcement and I'm not sure it applies here. As I read it, that mechanism is meant to deal with problem editors who are willfully ignoring BLP policy. That's simply not the case here - Kelly's effort has been made in good faith (e.g. see the barn star she was recently awarded for her work in this area). BLP - special enforcement is not a Writ of Assistance. If a page violates BLP, then it is still incumbent on a prospective deleter to show how it qualifies under relevant CSD policy. Ronnotel (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, MastCell - I don't know if you're aware of this, but I've been heavily involved in achieving consensus at the Edwards article, so please don't say that I'm trying to circumvent the consensus. As I mentioned above, the article was written specifically to address valid COATRACK concerns there. I'm not sure if you read the deleted article, but much of the content was not directly related to Edwards himself and does not belong in his biography - the majority of the content deals with other people, and with decisions and controversies regarding media coverage, as well as a history of reporting on the story. Examples included the Wikipedia controversy (admittedly a minor part), decisions by organizations like The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and CBS News on coverage, and the whole birth certificate issue. Those events are notable but not directly related to Edwards himself. Kelly hi! 22:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I have to echo what MastCell says above (btw, good point about BLP special enforcement - I'll bear that in mind, thanks). The basic point is that there needs to be some general agreement that the controversy is encyclopedic in the first place. Wikipedia is not journalism; if we include articles on current news stories, they have to be on topics of historical significance. Clearly there's no consensus that this topic is of "historical significance". I think WikiNews might be a more appropriate place for this; if you don't already have a copy of the deleted article, Kelly, I'd be happy to provide one if you'd like to knock it into shape as a WikiNews article. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
If the basic point is that there needs to be general agreement that it is encyclopedic, perhaps you could have brought that up for discussion prior to deleting. As it stands, bad delete. Arkon (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Not really. More harm is caused to us by having an article that is a BLP nightmare and a POV magnet than not having it until a consensus is reached. We're not in a hurry here, are we? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This is not a clear case either way. As far as "historical significance" goes, many have said that this has sunk Edwards' chance to be the vice president. But yes, we are uncomfortably close in time to the news stories. On the one hand we're an encyclopedia, not journalism; on the other, we get updated fast, and we do cover events that happen immediately. Is Wikipedia coverage of the media coverage really encyclopedic? We do that in various articles covering controversies -- articles which have passed AfD. Noroton (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Quite independent of Edwards and his political fate, the subject is an important controversy in journalism that we cannot avoid covering. If by any chance these peculiar allegation have some truth behind them, then it will be a possibly unique example of the prototypical US tabloid -- tabloid in the pejorative sense--actually publishing against opposition something of national political importance. In the much more likely situation, it will be a spectacular example of that journal's incompetent/biased journalism , in this case adopted by political opportunists, with the added feature of showing the degeneration of the London Times, publishing on the authority of the Enquirer. We will have to cover this separately form our coverage of Edwards. I don't like the title: I would use "National Enquirer coverage of 2008 presidential campaign. " and leave his name out of the title. But I think the version of the article linked to above was acceptable, and I very decidedly would restore it to article space under a better title. I see no intrinsic reason why we cannot start the article now, describing what the E, the LA T, and the T have published, and the major blogs. As for its role in his bio, we should wait and see. I personally would have been reluctant to add that part now, because the difficulties in doing it at present with a NPOV using RSs. But the paragraph in the current locked version of the article is as fair as is possible at the present, and I see no real basis for removing it. On the more general question of our relationship of the press, we will hear exponentially more about it, but the only course is to follow our principles and let them try to follow theirs'. DGG (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
DGG makes a good point about an article on the coverage, and it's helped to clarify my thinking. Whenever these kinds of things come up in the public debate, I notice, the coverage that the media gave a similar situation is brought up (I'm talking about off-Wikipedia). In this case, the similarities and differences with the John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008 have come up. So it seems pretty clear that there is an encyclopedic reason for Wikipedia to describe how the media handled this. This is a separate subject from John Edwards. An article on the media coverage would downplay the birth certificate section quite a bit and would keep the description of Edwards' actions in the hotel rather brief, because it would be background information to the main subject of the article: the media coverage. I disagree that the focus should be largely on the Enquirer. I'd suggest: Media coverage of John Edwards paternity allegations. We have already established on the Talk:John Edwards page that the allegations are acceptable under WP:BLP. This solution avoids the content fork problem that MastCell brought up. Noroton (talk) 01:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A little thought experiment - let us pretend that we are looking back from 25 years later and everyone agrees that this marked the end of Edward's political career. How much material would belong in the John Edwards article in those circumstances? Probably no more than one or two paragraphs, because what he actually did during his career would need to be covered also, and we wouldn't want to unbalance the main biography. Additional coverage about the mess would belong in a sub article. This projection is comparable to how the Lewinsky scandal is handled in Bill Clinton. If no matter how important this becomes, we wouldn't put significantly more in John Edwards than was already there when Kelly wrote this page, than the issues we need to handle definitely do not include it being a POV fork. As one of the admins who is monitoring John Edwards (and the latest to use my tools on the main biography), I'm reasonably well aware of the consensus there (which continues to shift to fine tune the paragraph as more sources become available - just as it should). I'm also highly aware that new editors will probably be back in a couple days (when the current protection period ends) trying to get more material added. Kelly was attempting to get ahead of that forthcoming problem and wrote an article that if it had a POV problem was only going to far towards "this story matters". (I.e., it was neither an attack page nor unsourced, though bits might have needed to be edited to be more succinct.) Kelly definitely does not deserve any opprobium for his/her writing this article.

As to whether or not now is the time for this article, I've long been an occasional advocate for taking WP:NOT#NEWS a lot more seriously than we do. (I think if someone were to propose adding that to the policy now the community would reject it, because the evidence is that the community largely ignores it and writes articles whenever a major news story occurs.) So I'd be happier if we now had a Wikinews article, and waited a while before we started a Wikipedia article, possibly just keeping a soft-redirect to wikinews at a reasonable title. Assuming this doesn't linger on - and it might, depending on whether or not any of the mainstream news sources decided to do investigative journalism the way they did years ago and what such hypothetical investigations might find - then in a few months we'll be able to have better encyclopedic perspective. I refuse to predict whether the main story will be about how the media and blogosphere handled this, the substance of the allegations, or something else we have yet to identify. And until we know the main storyline, we are just to close to the event to know how to handle it. So my preferred outcome would be to have a wikinews article instead, and adopt a temporary policy of just waiting a few months here. But if this comes to DRV for a straight up/down decision, I'll have to opine based on those two options. GRBerry 02:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Given that the majority of discussion in this thread, as I read it, has opposed the idea of this page being an attack page and deserving of speedy deletion, I am about to restore the page, after which I will move it to John Edwards paternity allegations. This I do only because this article has not been taken to WP:DRV; if it had, I would not have restored the article. Because I myself believe that the page would be best be deleted, I am going to nominate it for AFD immediately upon restoration, moving, and justification on the talk page. I will not be restoring the talk page: upon my recreation of the article, I'll make a new talk page with nothing on it save the BLP header and my justification. Nyttend (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
As a point of order, then, and given that there is some concern over BLP, why not just take it to DRV? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Simply because the discussion here, reviewing the deletion to an extent, seems to have opposed the speedy deletion. Nyttend (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, I scan it now - It sounded more like you were waiting for someone to file a DRV, and then did something else instead of filing one yourself. Got it. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion has begun at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Edwards paternity allegations -- Noroton (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Block of Footballfan190?[edit]

Resolved: block issued, SSP case updated. Darkspots (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A checkuser showed that Footballfan190 (talk · contribs) has used multiple accounts, Titaniumviper (talk · contribs) and 216.93.231.149 (talk · contribs) to attempt to stack the vote on his own RfA [33] and to vandalize a biography of a living person [34] [35]. The admin who performed the checkuser blocked Titaniumviper but didn't block Footballfan190. Should the main account get a short block as well? That seems to me to be what we usually do. I've never interacted with Footballfan190 before and I don't particularly have it in for him—just want to resolve this. Darkspots (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, the Footballfan190 account should be blocked for between 1 week and 1 month (probably a week is more reasonable, but cheating like that sure sticks in my craw), and this should be noted in the archived SSP case. Checkuser was pretty definitive. --barneca (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Blocks noted in the archived SSP per your suggestion [36]. Darkspots (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I'd say it's time for an indef block, actually. Footballfan's a long-term problem user who vandalized articles early in his career. While he appeared to have stopped, it turns out that he only farmed the vandalism off to his bad hand account. Moreover, even when confronted with the evidence, he denied. In the meantime, he's nominated himself at RFA after RFA, without ever even making a show of addressing concerns from his previous failures. This user is not here to help the project. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I blocked for 1 month. I will indef the socks. Feel free to overturn the 1 month to indef if you think it's okay. ScarianCall me Pat! 22:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I was unfamiliar with his early career; I commented after looking at his last 100 or so edits, and it seemed like his article-space contributions were pretty reasonable. 1 month seems ok to me. His future RFA chances are shot to hell, that's probably more a punishment to him than a block. --barneca (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
A month or two seems right to me. ("No mop for you!") Tim Vickers (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Threats of Violence[edit]

Resolved

An anonymous user User:142.163.22.213 added the following: [37] to an article five times before I managed to shut him down. Frankly, it may not be a serious threat, but it's nervewracking so I figured I'd better report it here. L'Aquatique[talk] 23:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and note he was thoroughly warned before I blocked him. He just blanked the page everytime. L'Aquatique[talk] 23:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Either you got the diff wrong or it's been oversighted. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Never mind, threat can be found here, admins only. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that's it. He has now started vandalizing his own talk page, so that has been semi-protected. L'Aquatique[talk] 00:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I think I took care of all the necessary cleanup. — Scientizzle 00:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I cannot see this threat, but if it is as nervewracking as you say might you be able to confirm it's been reported to the appropriate authorities? Is that why it has been marked "resolved"? Bstone (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Just as an update, after discussion Bstone and I have contacted the RCMP out of Newfoundland (he did the calling, I did the digging) and notified them of the threat, the names involved, ip addy, etc. It may have been a hoax, but we're not taking that risk. I believe we can now actually call it resolved. Thanks everyone for the input! L'Aquatique[talk] 06:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Cratylus3 (talk · contribs) baiting me[edit]

About three weeks ago, I removed List of Pokémon (241-260) and its associated talk page from my watchlist after I removed the protection on the talk page (I had instated it due to IP vandalism). Recently, however, I looked at the talk page and have noticed that Cratylus3 (talk · contribs) has been using the talk page to accuse me of administrator abuse ([38], [39]) (User:Seresin did indeed state that my protection of the talk page had been, at one month, excessive; I removed the prot before removing the article from my watchlist in order to avoid any forthcoming personal attacks on me). I warned him against trying to provoke me into, what appears to me, using my admin tools against him. He responded thus.

As he'd ignore any warnings from me about trying to bait other users, could we have someone armed with a rainbow trout give him some clue? -Jéské (v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 01:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

So you want us to warn him for criticizing your admin actions? Why? People should be free to criticize admins. Also "trying to provoke me into, what appears to me, using my admin tools against him" WTF? If you are even slightly tempted to use your admin tools against someone because they have accused you of abusing admin tools you must walk away from it. Admins cannot be baited, and if they are it is absolutely the admin's fault no one elses. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry Jéské, but Theresa is dead right - if you're feeling like you're going to block or whatever then just back away gracefully. I think any action or warnings at this point, from yourself or an uninvolved admin, is just likely to stir the pot. Sorry, I'm not unsympathetic, but it's not the worst example of admin bashing I've seen and I'd just move on. Pedro :  Chat  08:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Breaking ban[edit]

User:Skinny McGee was banned from editing any article regarding his band Talk:Midnight_Syndicate.

Skinny McGee made several more edits to the banned article and to albums associated with the article after his warning:

It's nothing too controversial, just band promotion. Still, a ban is a ban; right? Ebonyskye (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That warning was almost a year ago, and he was not specifically banned by ArbCom. However, Thatcher did make it a bit clear he wasn't to do that... I'll drop him a note making it very clear he is banned, and will be blocked for further editing. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The ban has no expiration date, so it's still valid. The case remedy allows for users to be added to the ban list, so Thatcher's ban is valid. RlevseTalk 09:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
As the editor has an apparent COI, he should be encouraged to suggest edits in Talk. Negative warnings, "Don't edit the article!" should always be accompanied by positive suggestions as to how the editor can accomplish legitimate goals. (But if the editor were uncivil in Talk, that's another story, I have not looked at the original ban, nor at the edits above.) Normally, we don't worry about noncontroversial edits, though. "Band promotion" could be a problem.... --Abd (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
There was a long edit war at Midnight Syndicate between current and former band member(s) (or their surrogates) leading to an arbitration case, and Ebonyskye is not a neutral party but is on "the other side" of the issue from Skinny McGee. Due to the history, the arb case, and to avoid stirring the pot again, it would be best for all editors who have relationships with past or present band members to stick to the talk page. Thatcher 14:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Damiens.rf - stalking and harassing - reopened[edit]

Proposal to unblock User:Ottava Rima early[edit]

Resolved: Withdrawn by OP as no consensus to unblock. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As this user's treatment of me at WQA was one issue cited in User:Nandesuka's block message, I felt that it might be aprapos for me to now suggest an ublock. Based on this user's recent interaction have shown, s/he is very much an asset to the project. I can appreciate the frustration that comes with using this interface for personal communication. And while I do not condone the accusations this user made against me (and categorically deny that I in any way attacked anyone during the issue that led to OR's block), I feel that the good work that Rima could be doing now outweighs the need to serve out the balance of this block. As far as I'm concerned, the accusations that were made are now water under the bridge. As such, I'm proposing that User:Ottava Rima be unblocked immediately, as serving out the remainder of the 8 day block serves no real preventative purpose. (Note: this is not a commentary on the appropriateness of Nandesuka blocking for 8 days. In no way am I saying Nandesuka was mistaken in the setting of the length of the block, just that circumstances have now changed a bit, and I feel an unblock would now be appropriate.) S. Dean Jameson 01:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have notified both User:Nandesuka and User:Ottava Rima of this thread. S. Dean Jameson 02:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • SupportTravistalk 01:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't agree that letting this block stand serves no preventative purpose. Ottava Rima needs to stop being disruptive, period. He has been unblocked early before, recently, when it seemed he was going to end his tendentious behavior, and yet here we are again. The way we deal with repeated disruption is by setting progressively longer blocks until the message gets across that such behavior isn't tolerated. If I'm counting the unblocks and resets in his block log correctly, this is OR's fifth such block in six months. Eight days is perfectly reasonable. By unblocking early twice in the space of just over a month we're sending the message that he can get away with quite a lot if he makes nice afterwards. We want to discourage future disruption. -- Vary | Talk 02:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    For the record, he didn't "make nice" with me, nor did he solicit this request for unblock in any way. This block has served its purpose and the situation it was placed to prevent (presumably OR's accusations against me) have long sinced passed, and there's no evidence they will continue. We don't levy blocks to punish people. We do ban those people we find whose disruption outweighs their contributions, but User:Ottava Rima is not one of those people. S. Dean Jameson 02:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it Ottava Rima was not blocked because of his accusations against you; he was blocked because of his reaction when the thread he started on you didn't get the result he wanted. At any rate, I already explained why I think this is a preventative block. -- Vary | Talk 03:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
That said, I'm less concerned now I see that the user is apparently going to be mentored, but I still don't think that another early unblock is a particularly great idea in this case. -- Vary | Talk 03:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As Vary mentions, previous early unblocks have resulted in backsliding. Let the block play out, and he can continue to advocate from his talk page. He seems to be doing quite well from there, and we can hope that the extra time ingrains teh good behavior deeper by repetitition. ThuranX (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose A very long block log just for 2008. I'm not convinced this user will change their ways. RlevseTalk 02:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Isn't that a little self-fulfilling - suggesting that the cumulative block length be increased because it's long? --NE2 02:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I must say, this is incredibly disappointing to me. I felt like this should be little more than a formality, since as the aggrieved party I was requesting the block be lifted. I choose to assume good faith on OR's part. S. Dean Jameson 02:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. As long as the proposed mentoring occurs, I have no objections to any admin unblocking Ottava. Nandesuka (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    Would you mind doing it yourself? As the blocking admin, it would be noncontroversial for you to remove it, even with some opposed to doing so. If I had thought this through better, I would have simply approached you at your talkpage. S. Dean Jameson 02:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons listed above. The user is approaching 6 days through the 8 day block. The world won't come to an end if he has to wait a couple more days. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • No, I am concerned that OR may be subject to baiting when the block ends;[47] [48] one of the admins who volunteered to mentor has been tied up with a personal family emergency, said recently she hadn't yet been able to explore everything, and I'd not like to see her caught by surprise on the mentorship, when she may be counting on another day or so. The Candide FAC that Ottava Rima was responding about on talk is not being held up based on Ottava Rima's declaration (see my talk). The gesture is appreciated, S. Dean, but it may not be in OR's best interest to come off block when a family emergency intervened and the mentors may not have had a chance to sort out how to proceed. (If Karanacs (talk · contribs) and Ceoil (talk · contribs) disagree, my concern is lifted; I will notify them now.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    • If Ceoil is ready, then I support an unblock. It will take me until the end of the day to read up on mentoring and to become familiary with Ottava's more recent contributions . Karanacs (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm leary on early-releases, especially for a user who has a block log that makes me wince. seicer | talk | contribs 02:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. User:Abd has weighed in with his unhelpful pot-stirring at OR's page, reiterating his claims that OR's initial WQA wasn't baseless, notwithstanding the fact that every editor there said it was. I've asked him to step back from this, as OR and I are seemingly past it, and he's not helping. Would someone else mind asking Abd to poke around for trouble somewhere else? S. Dean Jameson 04:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I ran into an edit conflict, and I wrote what is below before seeing the comment above. It has erased the assumption I was holding with regard to this editor's good faith. That's unfortunate. This is not about OR vs. Jameson, it is about how the community treats OR, and I was reporting the results of an extensive investigation that I have been making into a related incident. But, now that Jameson has done, here, what Jameson did previously, on my Talk page, attempt to stop me from speaking out,[49][50] I'll report it. When I made a consoling remark on OR's Talk,[51] Jameson attacked OR on my Talk,[52] without any necessity, suggesting I investigate (apparently thinking I was excusing bad behavior, though I had not). I did look into it, and found that OR had been correct, and when I reported this to Jameson, he warned me against becoming involved or going to AN/I. This led me to think that there was something seriously amiss here, and, sure enough, the more I looked the more disruptive behavior I found. I did not research Jameson's behavior, but the editor who had triggered this affair, User:Blechnic and what I found was a harassing editor, previously blocked for incivility and harassment, whom Jameson had been defending. I've been focused, the last few days, on undoing some of the damage done, by working to lift the apparent topic ban on User:Wilhelmina Will and otherwise making it a bit more congenial for her around here.--Abd (talk) 05:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
      And you continue. I stand by all my contributions thus far, and maintain that at every turn you've simply stirred the pot, and caused far more heat than light. What are you really trying to accomplish here, Abd? S. Dean Jameson 04:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I have not had an opportunity to review all the circumstances that led to OR's block, but I have done enough research, in looking into the topic ban that resulted from an AN/I report about User:Wilhelmina Will, to conclude that OR had been correct, that the edit of User:Blechnic that OR had claimed was a personal attack was in fact a personal attack, and that OR had acted properly in requesting Blechnic to retract it, and it was User:S. Dean Jameson's vigorous defense of Blechnic that led to the WP:WQA report that, in my view, improperly, led to OR's block. This does not mean that OR did nothing wrong, but that two major actions of hers, referred to repeated in the AN/I discussion that led to her block, were actually proper. While I'm sure that Jameson intended no harm by bringing this here, he is also correct that the proper course would have been to discuss this with the blocking administrator. AN/I is a terrible place to make these kinds of decisions, because many editors pile in with snap judgments or axes to grind. (In my experience, a fairly high percentage of editors who are later banned have participated here, vigorously arguing that others should be banned.) That's why we have admins actually make the decisions, and then we can sit down, so to speak, with them and work out ensuing process, outside the heat of AN/I. --Abd (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    Heat>light, per usual. This is not about the underlying cause of the block (which you remain a pot-stirrer about, and unnecessarily so), but about whether the block as it stands is necessary to prevent further disruption to the project. It's not a place for you to pontificate about your views regarding Blechnic, me, or Rima. S. Dean Jameson 04:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Unblock once the mentorship arrangements are complete and accepted - The olive branch extended by S. Dean Jameson is an admirable gesture. Nonetheless, it was the view of many that OR would benefit significantly from mentorship, and two very good editors have offered to provide that guidance. It is best, I believe, for them to complete their discussions with OR prior to the unblock so that the desired supports are in place to assist OR in reaching his potential. As a side note to Abd, this is entirely the correct place to discuss a variation in an editor's block; discussing it strictly with the blocking administrator would have been unsuitable in this case because of the community's expressed support for a period of mentorship for Ottava Rima. Risker (talk) 04:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    In all fairness, Risker, I suggested that perhaps I should have went to Nandesuka directly, as an admin reversing their own block didn't seem too controversial. S. Dean Jameson 04:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Support - I felt the block was gratuitous to begin with, so I certainly support its early lifting. Gatoclass (talk) 05:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - except if mentorship arrangements are complete and accepted (per Risker and Nandesuka). Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose unblock - user has shown disruptive behaviour in the past; I don't see any reason why this block cannot be served out or why it needs to be pre-emptively removed. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support As per the tenets of WP:AGF. A continuation of the block, in view of the sincere requests for its being lifted, runs a very serious risk of appearing to be mean-spirited. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support dragging this AN\I report on and on, with strawpolls, in-bickering, more back and forth, and other such red tape, so that it lasts for two more days before coming to a resolution to do anything. Then, OR himself, having served out his 8 day block, can come here and add his support to getting himself unblocked. Keeper ǀ 76 15:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah, it seems my attempt was a bit misguided, in retrospect. I assure you it was done in good faith, though. I really didn't think it would be that controversial of a proposal. S. Dean Jameson 15:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    • No worries, SDJ. I know you were acting in good faith and "doing the right thing". I just found the whole thing hysterical in it's ironicalness, sorry if I came off overly snarky there. I've seen similar threads started about "end the block early", when the block was only a 12 hour block in the first place. I saw one that was a 3 hour block, and a wheel war, several AN threads, lots of hurt feelings, and an RFAR happened, several hours after. Sigh. I'm pretty sure there are several "wiki-watchers/lurkers" that are having a good chortle over our "efficiency" here :-) Keeper ǀ 76 15:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
      • It might be noticed that, while I became convinced a few days ago that OR was probably improperly blocked, I didn't come here with it. This, quite simply, wouldn't be the ideal place to deal with it, until and unless the matter becomes very clear yet a recalcitrant administrator stands in the way. The mess can be cleaned up later, including, if it turns out that the editor was truly innocent -- a conclusion I haven't made yet, but it's possible that the editor's errors were minor -- annotating the block log so that there isn't some prejudice in the future. From other evidence, including later posts above and on OM's Talk and on mine, earlier, I'm far less confident of SDJ's good faith than I was before this report, but, again, that's a matter for later, if at all, I see no urgency, and I only became involved in this mess in the first place because I was trying to console OM to avoid the departure of another productive editor. I'll note, as well, that while OM has been appreciative of my comments, the editor asked that efforts to stop the block not be made. --Abd (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
        I'll ask you again: please stop baiting me, and attempting to make me angry. Your portrayals of me and my intentions are wildy inaccurate, completely unhelpful, and very much not appreciated. S. Dean Jameson 17:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Who's OM? Do you mean OR? Keeper ǀ 76 17:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Yes. --Abd (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: First, he's actually not making so nice as far as I can tell. From his talk page, he wants to battle every correction or question of an article he worked up for DYK and seems convinced that I was looking for occasions. (I read the main page. A DYK on my field will get my attention.) Anyway, I don't see any sign that things have changed in such a way that the central issue -- being able to deal with other editors -- has changed, and so, if the circumstances haven't changed, neither should the block. Geogre (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about this comment. The user is committing some kind of offense on the user's own Talk page? Are users allowed to have strong opinions and express them in their own Talk? --Abd (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm beginning to seriously regret opening this thread. I apologize for any problems it has caused. S. Dean Jameson 17:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    No, it was fair to bring it up. I think if this were his only block, then (1) your request might well have been honored; and (2) it probably would have been much shorter anyway. It's the pattern of behavior that's at issue with that user, not just whether you feel comfortable with shortening the block. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    The opinions are sufficiently varied enough that the status quo will be upheld, someone should close this. –xeno (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit war at Gender of God[edit]

Closing - ArbCom request being considered[53]--Cailil talk 16:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Involved parties:

Would somebody mind over-viewing this issue for me. I've just blocked User:LisaLiel for 24hrs for a blatant breach of 3RR at Gender of God.[54] But I'm concerned that other users may also be edit-warring and possibly gaming 3RR.

Users Teclontz & Alastair Haines may have gamed 3RR.[55][56][57][58][59][60] I have warned all parties at the page to seek dispute resolution and stop edit-warring. But I am also aware that Alastair has been that subject of a recent user conduct RFC[61] and hs received 2 blocks for edit-warring within the since June 2008.[62] However I'm also concerned that there may be an ongoing issue between Teclontz/Tim and LisaLiel - Teclontz has alleged harassment and I am awaiting diffs to demonstrate this. I would be grateful for more sets of eyes on this issue.

Also considering the possible gaming of 3RR should further preventative action be taken? I was considering protecting the page but I'm hoping the warning will make that unnecessary--Cailil talk 22:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Alastair Haines is also edit warring at Why Men Rule. I tagged the article and explained my concerns on the talk page. He repeatedly removed my tags without a valid explanation. I requested a third opinion, which User:Jclemens provided. He suggested using inline tags with a rationale for each at the talk page. I did that and User:Alastair Haines removed my tags without responding to my concerns on the talk page. JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid that cuts both ways JC - you've both reverted each other twice on two separate issues on the same page - you both should stop and find consensus. Open an RFC for the page if after a WP:3O you are both still dead locked. Also please note that your warning is not helpful may escalate rather than a resolve this issue[63]. I can see no evidence of Alastair vandalizing the page--Cailil talk 22:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
His definition of consensus is his and only his opinion or something about "silence is consent". If removing tags without responding to the corresponding comments on an article's talk page or achieving Wikipedia's definition of consensus isn't vandalism, then what is it? JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
In relation to the history between editors here please see Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-07-07_Shituf & Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gender of God (deleted)--Cailil talk 23:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with JCDenton2052's assessment that Alastair places his own opinion before consensus. There have been three primary content disputes in the past few days:

There is a clear double standard here. When someone disagrees with a change Alastair agrees with, they must argue against it on the talk page before the change can be reverted. When Alastair disagrees with a change someone else is making, they must argue for it on the talk page before the change can be made. In effect, the protocol at work seems to be that Alastair's preferred version of the article must remain until he is convinced that it is inferior. His delusion that he owns the article is even clearer in some of his talk page comments, such as this one, where, when facing disagreement over whether a subheader he inserted should be there, he declares "subhead stays until it can be demonstrated that [...]". This is not the language of respectful, collaborative editing.

Additionally, he is incivil and aggressive. He is quick to make threats ([64], [65]) and personal attacks ([66]), even going so far as to do so on pages he has never edited before. These incidents are all since the closing of the RfC/U and are in addition to the evidence presented there. Neither the RfC/U nor the counsel offered to Alastair by User:Wizardman appear to have had an effect, and he still staunchly denies having (ever) done anything wrong ([67]).

I'm not sure how this can be taken forward. Of the two attempts at mediation made so far, one was terminated by the mediator due to what he perceived as hostility against him from Alastair, and the other was rejected by Alastair on the grounds that it focused too much on content and not enough on attacking me. I believe that Alastair has a great deal to contribute to the project, but he will inevitably cause more and more conflict if he does not learn to deal with disputes in a civil and cooperative manner. Ilkali (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for providing diffs Ilkali but I'm going to ask you to withdraw your remark about double standards. This thread was opened specifically to ask what else should be done in relation to all parties in this issue. I will remind you once that this thread is for dispute resolution not escalation.
Just a question weren't all many of the issues regarding the above raised at Alastair's RFC/U?--Cailil talk 00:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Also I've added you to the list of involved parties Ilkali--Cailil talk 00:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
"Thank you for providing diffs Ilkali but I'm going to ask you to withdraw your remark about double standards. This thread was opened specifically to ask what else should be done in relation to all parties in this issue". My intent isn't to attack Alastair, and I don't think I've been in any way gratuitous in how I've described his actions - I've said only what was needed to indicate the extent of the problem. If Alastair is practicing a double standard regarding edits, isn't that pertinent here?
In response to your struck-out question: All of the evidence I've given is for events occurring after the RfC concluded. Ilkali (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

LisaLiel's view of this issue can be seen here--Cailil talk 00:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that someone finally brought this to AN. I tried to mediate this case a while back with medcab, was unable to reach consensus. I attempted to get it moved over to the medcom, but Alastair made some comments that someone took as legal threads and immediately closed down the whole thing. When he redacted his comments, no one ever bothered to reinstate the case. I'm honestly not sure if it would have helped, but I didn't have the patience or strength of will to subject myself to more of the needless drama. Ilkali and Alastair seem to have some sort of vendetta against each other, and Lisa and Tim (Teclontz) will usually disagree on any given topic but I've found that they are slightly more willing to talk- in fact my interactions with Tim have been largely positive. Just my five or six cents... L'Aquatique[talk] 07:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I am glad that this has been brought up. Too many editors are following one another into unsubstantiated claims regarding my actions and character. There is in fact not even a single example of me having done anything out of line with either common politeness, let alone Wiki policy, not only at this article, but in two years of editing.
Unfortunately, first Ilkali, then others like L'Aquatique have made not only unsubstatiated, but demonstrably false allegations, in addition to defamatory speculation. This is inappropriate behaviour and needs to be identified and addressed as such.
The result of this inappropriate behaviour has been uninvolved editors reverting text I've contributed, refusing discussion on various presumptions of my bad faith, citing the opinion of anonymous editors like some listed above. That's objective defamation and clearly something the community must address.
As a simple form of evidence of the point I'm making, please note how blatant edit warring by Lisa, opposed by two independent editors is being construed as "possible gaming of the system". The contrary is, of course, the case. Edit warrers have smoke-screened their behaviour with personal attacks, and parties that have attempted to take responsibility to investigate have been deceived by the misrepresentations of character.
As I've mentioned before, this is genuine slander in the legal sense, and while holding the community (and ultimately the foundation) accountable for it, I have confidence that the processes, convoluted though volunteer structures are, will ultimately remedy this situation.
I look forward to this finally being resolved. I also thank, in advance, those who patiently wade through all the misrepresentations in order to fact-check them. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Here [68] is an example for you. JCDenton2052 (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I have asked Alastair to refactor some remarks made above in view of WP:NLT. I have also unblocked LisaLiel after she committed to not breaking WP:3RR again--Cailil talk 11:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Alastair has clarified the remarks above[69]--Cailil talk 14:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I really don't want to make this any more dramatic than it has to be, but the notion that Alastair is patently innocent is complete and utter... well, you know. Apparently, he never read his RFC/U, which was chock full of diffs that showed his edit warring and uncivil behavior. I rest my case... L'Aquatique[talk] 18:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I find it rather disturbing that Alastiar keeps using the word defamation here. I don't think that's toeing the line at WP:NLT, I think that's running roughshod over it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I actually agree with both of you. As far as I can see all four editors listed above are behaving improperly. And I have advised Alastair of NLT and of the problem with the post here. I do agree that there is perhaps a letter & spirit of the rules issue, but AFAIK he can't be blocked for this (the above) as he has made it clear he is not threatening anyone with action. (If I'm wrong do correct me.) I would prefer if he removed the remarks & I've advised him about changing the name of his account - he doesn't want to. So all I can do now is take that use of language and refusal to refactor into consideration.
There is also a problem with all of these editors indulging in ad hominem remarks and there may also be a civil pov-pushing issue. None of the editors I've listed at the top are innocent in my view and I'm open to suggestions on ways to resolve the issues with all of their conduct, together at gender of god and separately between Alastair & Ilkali and LisaLeil and Tim--Cailil talk 20:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm unwatching this page, I have very little interest in following speculations based on hearsay. When someone can present even one supposed allegation of even a minor infringement of anything on my part, I'll be happy to hear it and discuss it. Until that time, I'll get on with my usual flawless and constructive editing.
When the hoohah dies down, I will pursue having the defamation dealt with, unless someone does this on my behalf without prompting by me, which is the way it should be. The defamation is obvious, serious and someone needs to do something about it.
Please feel free to let me know how I can help, one thing at a time, at my talk page, best regards all. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Uh huh. User_talk:Alastair_Haines#This_stops_now.... L'Aquatique[talk] 22:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggested measures[edit]

I'm hoping that this dispute cools down after the warnings from myself, Slrubenstein and L'Aquatique. However I'm not 'over the moon' about the way they've all reacted at the talk page or here. These are three measures that I am prepared to enforce to prevent further disruption. I'd like uninvolved editors and sysops to review these proposed measures (please see above and linked pages for case history):

  1. Enforce a 1RR restriction on all four editors (for 3 months duration) at Gender of God and treat any "tag-team" reverting as a breach of the 1RR restriction.
  2. Place Talk:Gender of God under heightened civility watch for 3 months duration.
  3. Ask Alastair & Tim not to post in Ilkali & LisaLiel's user talk pages for an indefinite length of time. And ask Ilkali and LisaLiel not to post in Alastair and Tim's user talk pages for an indefinite length of time.

Any thoughts on these suggested measures? A further measure would be a restriction on all four editors to 3 or less posts per day on Talk:Gender of God, but I'd hope that would not be necessary--Cailil talk 22:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm replacing No.2 above with "2. Place all four editors on civility parole" --Cailil talk 18:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Also I'm not suggesting we ignore other outstanding issues - just deal with the problem at Gender of God first--Cailil talk 22:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Views from involved users[edit]

"Enforce a 1RR restriction on all four editors". Sounds like a good first step, but it will do nothing to stop edit-warring in someone who refuses to acknowledge that he is even guilty of it.
"Place Talk:Gender of God under heightened civility watch for 3 months duration". Can you elaborate on what this means?
"Ask Alastair & Tim not to post in Ilkali & LisaLiel's user talk pages for an indefinite length of time. And ask Ilkali and LisaLiel not to post in Alastair and Tim's user talk pages for an indefinite length of time". Fine by me. I think the only time I've posted in either was to give Alastair some advice on edit summaries. Ilkali (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
It's a positive thing to try and be fair and not take sides in a dispute. But there's a point at which treating everyone equally when some people are willing to listen to you and some people basically spit on you just isn't that reasonable. Equal treatment should mean treating everyone according to what they do; not treating everyone the same regardless of what they do. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Listen guys first of all I'm looking for outside uninvolved editors to review these measures; second you all share a collective responsibility for the problem that all of you contributed too (edit warring); and third individual sanctions will follow separately as they go beyond the Gender of God article and thus the remit of this thread and this sub-section. For information on what the restrictions are see Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions (note that in this instance the restrictions will be applied to the 4 of you only in relation to the specified pages). Some people may need further sanctions - but that will be handled separately. If I can get outsiders to find a consensus on these measures (pro or con) we can then move on--Cailil talk 14:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry folks, I forgot to put this on watch and lost it until a few minutes ago. As for restrictions on talk pages, I think Lisa and I have already toned down our rhetoric on each other's talk pages a few months ago, so I don't think this will be a problem to keep. There really needs to be a way to stop the edit warring long term, though. I think I've been in about 4 edit wars and they were all with Lisa. They were quite unnerving and I had to completely give up on all three pages they involved -- that is, Lisa had to have the last edit in every single case. The first time, the ENTIRE PAGE disappeared. The second time, the ENTIRE PAGE was rewritten by Lisa. The third time is this time, and the ENTIRE SECTION was simply rewritten by Lisa. Whatever measures are taken, all I want is to stop being followed around, dragged into edit wars, and then have to watch as days, weeks, or months of work from numbers of people are all eradicateed in favor of one. If you put a gag on me and Lisa, GREAT! I don't like edit wars. I don't want edit wars. And I don't want to be followed around from page to page. But please, DO SOMETHING. It's getting to be that if I care about the integrity of a page, I need to stay away from it so I don't get followed there and watch helplessly as everyone else's edits are destroyed just because I had the misfortune of visiting the page.Tim (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This morning, I'd made a small edit. To something that Tim hadn't written. Tim reverted it. That's all. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I reverted your revert of another editor you yourself had invited in to help! If you didn't want his help, you shouldn't have invited him. But don't call your revert an edit and my restoration of another editor's edit a revert. Technically, they are BOTH reverts. I can't believe I'm in trouble for helping to defend an edit of someone YOU invited to help you defend Judaism against ME! How's that for irony? And I would appreciate a retraction on the Wikiproject page. I am not trying to misrepresent Judaism.Tim (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand. Yesterday, we had started to cooperate. This morning, I go to the computer, and there are two edits by you. One a reversion, and one an attempt to pick a fight on the WikiProject page. What happened between yesterday and today? -LisaLiel (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Lisa, you went to the Wikiproject Judaism page and made it sound as if I were some co-conspirator in a plot to misrepresent Judaism, and you needed help to defend the faith from me! And then when one of those people you enlisted DID try to help [70] (as you asked him) you reverted his edit [71]. I merely supported it [72], because the page needs more hands than just your own. Honestly, I'd really rather you and I and Alastair and Ilkali ALL be blocked from the page for a month just to let other people do some constructive editing. If you won't let ME edit in peace, at least let the people you enlist to combat me edit in peace. You're even reverting people you bring in!Tim (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
For the record, here are today's edits to the WikiProject page: [73]. Judge for yourselves. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
For the record, here is your initial edit: [74]. I would appreciate a retraction of "misrepresentation of the Jewish view". But I don't expect it.Tim (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
For crying out loud, I'm entitled to my opinion. And rather than get into another war with you and Alastair, I did what everyone was telling me to do, and pursued dispute resolution. And now I need to apologize because my opinion differs from yours? -LisaLiel (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
No, I've asked for a retraction of the idea that I'm trying to misrepresent Judaism. And I'd like you and I to BOTH step aside from the article and let the people you've enlisted edit in peace.Tim (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Improper use of NPOV/POV tag on Female Genital Cutting[edit]

Resolved: Editors warned. — Coren (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I need some assistance on the Female Genital Cutting article. Some time back I removed the POV tag from the article, explaining my reasoning on the talk page. There seemed to be no active discussions on the talk page about the content of the article. I was reverted fairly quickly. The person reverting, editor Garycompugeek, stated that he disputed the article title as being non neutral. This despite a previous discussion (now in the archives) about the very topic. The standing consensus has been, for some time, Female Genital Cutting, rather than the other two terms used Female Circumcision and Female Genital Mutilation. The other term point to the same article, and all terms are desribed and part of the history of the terms, in the article as well. All in all very neutral. The most neutral term was used as the article title, and the two terms considered to be represented by extremists on either end of the spectrum use the other two terms.

Well, So GaryComputerGeek said he added the POV tag because of the article title. He submitted a change request to rename the article "Female Circumcision". He started a survey, and there was a number of people who responded and gave their views (10-12 depending on the way you look at it.) I left the POV tag to stand, based on waiting for the results of the survey. Well, after a few weeks, the name change failed, and GaryComputerGeek, and cohort, editor Blackworm failed to generate a consensus for renaming the article. They had neither a majority, nor a consensus for their view that the article be changed to "Female Circumcision". Read the talk page for the reasoning of various people who offered opinions, should you be interested Requested move and Survey.

So, satisified that the issue of the title had been resolved, I removed the POV tag again, since there is/was no active discussion or dispute on the talk pages, the issue of the article title gaining closure.

The removal of the tag was reverted by editor Blackworm, no explanation given. I discussed on the talk page my reasoning and explained my view on the proper use of the WP:NPOV and the tag. I removed the POV tag again. This time I was reverted by editor Garycomputergeek. I explained again why there should be no tag, and asked if there was any open dispute regarding the neutrality of the article. Garycomputergeek basically said that because he and Blackworm both disputed the article title (still, even though their consensus change failed) that the POV tag should remain. Maybe they do not perceive that there was a standing consensus already, as they did not participate in that (see archives).

I explained that putting the POV tag only because one or more editors disagreed in unspecified ways (that they weren't willing to work through) was not appropriate use of the tag, and that I felt that they were trying to be disruptive.

As I have been reverted twice on the POV tag, I am not going to get in an edit war about it. It is not like it is that important of an issue. I would just like the WP:NPOV policy properly applied. Anyonewho can explain to those editors (and perhaps to me, should I be mistaken) the appopriate use, would be welcome.

The section where we have been discussing this is at removal of POV tag.

Enforcing the POV tag as a form of protest because you didn't get your way doesn't seem like appropriate use to me. Atom (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't. I have removed the tag and will warn the editors. — Coren (talk) 01:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Please read the talk page and make your own opinion. Don't be so easily guided by Atom. He has been making false claims since I have encountered him which are easily verifiable by reading Talk:Female_genital_cutting. Notice he didn't notify Blackworm or myself of this post. I would say nothing further and ask that you draw your own conclusions. Would it be possible for another uninvolved admin take a peek as I have lost faith in Coren. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Please explain why this issue needs any further discussion at ANI, since the proposed rename of the article failed to gain consensus. See the closed debate here. JPG-GR is one of the regular move-closers at WP:RM. Disagreement with the result by a minority of editors doesn't appear to be sufficient reason for an NPOV tag. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no disagreement with the closing of the Request for name change. It ended in "No consensus" and I'm fine with that. The issue is the use of the NPOV tag. The tag is being used for its purpose. To draw attention to unresolved debate. Perhaps new editor will see the tag and help with a solution. If my logic is incorrect I apologize but can point out many pages where seems to be the case. (see Circumcision) Garycompugeek (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Your logic is flawed, I'm afraid. The debate was resolved as "no consensus to change the title." Perhaps in a few months, it might be worth bringing the question up again, but adding the Disputed tag is not correct at this point. As to other pages with the tag, other articles do it isn't a valid argument in this matter. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok but not sure point is being understood... Tag was there before the Request to change was made. I reverted Atom's removal of the tag because "No consensus" means there were editor's for and against name change. Revert to keep tag in place was not added for any type of disgruntlement but to bring attention to the debate. Other editors agree tag should stay besides myself. Shouldn't we have some consensus from involved editors before removing it? Garycompugeek (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand your point, but I believe you're approaching it from the wrong angle. If we did as you say, then tags could never be removed from the article as long as a single editor considered it disputable. The tags aren't meant to stay in place once the debate is resolved, and "no consensus" is considered a resolution. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I see Garycomputergeek's view, but as I recall, I checked the article to see if there was any active dispute occurring, and seeing none, removed the POV tag. It was reverted, on the grounds that the article title was not perceived to be neutral, as was being disputed. Immediately following that, the name change request and survey was submitted by Gary. I let the POV tag stand on the article based on that. A few days after the completion of the name change discussion, which ended in no consensus for change, I removed the tag, as again there was no current dispute on the neutrality of the article. Atom (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

New process page?[edit]