Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive478

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

Noticeboard archives


IP back for a fifth time[edit]

Prior reports:
third, fourth

Please see this Also, should I just keep reporting this guy under the same section? --Enzuru 01:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Back here too. --Enzuru 01:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't figure exactly what's going on. Could you list the prior IP addresses or something to help explain. Would you rather I just semi-protect your talk page? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for being unclear. This individual previously were warring on Ayatollah Sistani, Ayatollah Khamenei, Shia Islam, and List of marjas, and after the first two blocks (one of which is here), started on Template:Shia Islam and Twelve Imams and now are undoing any change I make as you can see here. An IP I listed earlier included this one. --Enzuru 02:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Also this IP --Enzuru 02:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Enzuru is referring to this [1] and this [2], both above, the only other thing i can find in the archives is this, [3], which seems to be unrelated--Jac16888 (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 12 hours and (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 24 hours. There is probably no point blocking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) anymore. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

They are back here --Enzuru 08:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Blocked. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Back here (taken care of but only temporarily) and here --Enzuru 22:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
He was at it again but was only blocked temporarily. --Enzuru 09:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have hard blocked for a month. This range is within the range operated by Bahrain Telecommunication Company, so please write a stub about this company so we know who to contact about abuse! ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 10:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Only a redirect was needed. --> Batelco. -- fayssal - Wiki me up® 10:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
There exists Boycott Batelco as well though I am not sure if it is notable enough to warrant an article. -- fayssal - Wiki me up® 10:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC) is directly operated by Bahrain Telecommunication Company, but I dont think a long range block is appropriate against this. The person could come back on a different IP in the "217.17.242.*" range. We will have to play that one by ear.
The IP could strike again; if that specific IP does reappear, it should be hit with a month long block.
John Vandenberg (chat) 10:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
John, I saw you blocking some of those IPs with "edit warring" as a rationale :) -- fayssal - Wiki me up® 10:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 31 hours, and reverted. is the Batelco ADSL service. If re-offends, increase the block duration incrementally until we work out how long the ADSL IPs persist for. If another IP in that range repeats the same nonsense, that should also give us a clue how often the IP addresses rotate. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 31 hours. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 31 hours, and protected a few of the articles and templates for a week. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked as this person has appeared on this range again. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: General agreement that the editor's past conduct has been inappropriate, but has kept his nose clean since most recent block.

Mista-X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has made some very slanderous and vicious accusations against me in a discussion about the racial aspects of violent crime in Toronto, specifically related to the Boxing Day Shooting incident of 2006. Mista-X initially made the very insensitive assertion that the article's only claim to notability is the fact that the victim of the shooting between two rival Black gangs was a White person - a 16-year old female named Jane Creba [4]. Completely ignoring the fact that it was one of the most brazen daylight shooting incidents in Toronto, based on its location alone - a popular shopping center in the city core frequented by holiday-oriented shoppers including families and young people. He then responded reaffirming his view with bogus and racialist theories [5]. Then when I responded about the reason for higher violent crime rates among Toronto's Black community lied within the community, and not the evil racist government he proceeded to accuse me of bigotry, fascism, racism, complicity with white supremacist organizations, being a white nationalist, being a militant white supremacist ("If someone started blasting at you would you simply duck and cover if you were carrying? Or would you pump back some of that H & K or Walther (my favs too) in the name of your white race?") being a member of the now-defunct NSDAP (Nazi) party and called Black law enforcement officers "uncle toms" and "tokens" [6]. This I believe goes beyond uncivil, the libelous accusations leveled against me, through completely unfounded, would place me in violation of Canadian Hate Speech laws and subject me to criminal prosecution. A very serious accusation that violates a series of WP policies. I've been the target of incivility several times on Wikipedia, but this I could not leave unchallenged. This combined with his controversial editing past including many blocks proves that the user is not a serious contributor but is a POV-pushing Marxist extremist. Koalorka (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This is part of an ongoing pattern of behaviour from User:Mista-X, in which he thinks it's perfectly acceptable to use Wikipedia to denigrate people that he does not like (see, for example, [7],[8],[9]. He has been warned and blocked for this behaviour many times before, and has actively disregarded these warnings ([10],[11]). I think we should be considering a community ban at this point, since no other measure is likely to work (we could start an RFC, but I think we've already seen how he reacts to criticism). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
My mistake, I'd assumed that the above-posted diffs were recent. Oppose a ban at this time. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I would Support the community ban. People who come and start spouting racial epithets against living people and users are people who need not be on here, especially if they've got scars from LARTs issued by other users. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 21:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Ditto Sarcastic. My comments about racist remarks still stands, however. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 07:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Yep, definitely looks likes banning time. Disruptive, pattern of abuse towards other editors, unable to distance himself enough from his opinions to write in a neutral fashion, and demonstrated unwillingness to change. No reason to continue letting him damage the project. --erachima talk 21:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, none of his edits since his recent block in the beginning of July seem problematic (he has only made 5 edits in that time). Maybe we should wait? Obviously if this behavior does start up again a ban would be in order. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A few things: one, I am actually uncomfortable with some of Koalorka's commentary on Talk:Boxing Day shooting, particularly this. I will not comment on Koalorka's edit patterns, though they may be worth a quick look. Second, am I taking crazy pills, or are the cited diffs between 5 and 9 months old? I find it odd to be "defending" Mista-X (talk · contribs), because in my interaction with him I've found him to be extremely tendentious, uncollaborative, and obstructionist (see this history).Yes, Mista-X may in fact be a reasonable candidate for a siteban; this diff ends unacceptably, though it is from April, people. This particular thread doesn't smell quite right. MastCell Talk 22:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose community ban unless a diff can be pulled up that's from no earlier than the beginning of August. This is attempt by Koalorka to ban an editor over an old grievance. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 23:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose a ban at this time. Why now? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 23:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I have to add, yes, I only stumbled back upon this particular page today, and was absolutely shocked. I removed it from my watch list after several days with no response, so I figured the person I was addressing lost interest or abandoned the subject. I do not have any previous interactions with Mista-X and have no agenda. Koalorka (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Really? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 23:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Truthfully, yes. Koalorka (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
So that's a different Koalorka in the diff, a different Koalorka who had "accusations made in a discussion" against him, a different Koalorka who complained here about a "previous interaction" with the Mista-X? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't quite follow... Koalorka (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
If you had no previous interactions, you wouldn't have been in the talk page argument, would you have? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I had no prior interaction with the member apart from this one talk page a few months ago. Koalorka (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose ban: if the editor has not made any disruptive edits in over a month/two, a ban would be difficult to justify on preventative grounds (which are the only valid grounds). -kotra (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright and NPOV issue with Dala11a[edit]

Dala11a (talk · contribs) has been warned several times in the past about copy/paste copyright violations (see their talk page for those and many other warnings). Today they copied an English sentence from a Swedish website, which I removed, and then Dalla11a replaced it[12] stating "it is legal to qoute this thext if the source is indicated, read the swedish text in the web page "Citera oss gärna, men ange källan". "

Two issues:

  1. This was not inserted as a quote, and as written in the article is an opinion presented as fact. This user has been told before that both of these practices are not acceptable.
  2. The page has a Copyright symbol at the bottom, but the Swedish translates (at Google) as "Quote us happy, but indicate the source".

Could someone please explain the "copy/paste vs. quote" and NPOV issues to Dala11a, as I and many other editors' explanations over the past 6 months (on their talk page and various article talk pages) have so far fallen on deaf ears.

Could someone also let me know what to do when there are both a copyright notice and a "Quote us happy, but indicate the source" notice in Swedish? Thanks, NJGW (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If there is a copyright on the text, requiring attribution, then we can quote it but we cannot use it in the text itself, as all text in articles has to be agreed to be released under the GFDL and in this case it clearly was not. Regards SoWhy 07:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


Prom3th3an (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) I'm wondering whether I'm the only one who has had enough of this individual. As far as I can see from their contributions they add nothing whatsoever of value to the project and their childish disruption soaks up far too much time and energy by editors who are actually here to be useful. Recent "contributions" [13], [14], and this [15] nasty exchange they just removed from their talk page really sums up the way they drain oxygen and energy from the project. I'd personally like to see them indefinitly blocked but, if there is not consensus for that, I'd like to see a topic ban from wikipedia space. I'd appreciate thoughts and comments on this Spartaz Humbug! 18:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That looks pretty serious. Has there been a request for comments on this user? SoArrr!Why 18:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
RFCs are only useful when there is a chance to reedem a useful editor. This doesn't look like an option to me. Spartaz Humbug! 18:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, that really is only an opinion. If multiple editors have attempted to resolve conflict/issues with him/her, then a RfC would be perfectly applicable and would gain wide community input. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think with WP:AGF we should assume him to be a user worth redeeming. But my question was just to learn if there was one, because if so, we'd have something to work with, some disputes already lined out, some opinions already expressed. As for Wisdom89's comment, well, we don't know if they have. I think a RFC/U might be a way to see if multiple users have such opinions. SoArrr!Why 18:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I also be thinkin' a RFC be the way to go. It be crazy to make editors walk the plank without parlay first. I be inclined to think there be a way to bring the scalawag back to our side. Cheers, me hearties. lifebaka++ 18:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, since RfCs are finally becoming quasi-useful, it wouldn't hurt to go that route. Wizardman 18:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Personally I see it only as more drama and a further waste of the communities time but I can see which way this is going. Spartaz Humbug! 18:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I predicted this earlier in the month, where I referred to his hostility and bitterness (his words) towards administrators a "trainwreck" waiting to happen. He has had his rollback and account creator privileges revoked, and has been banned from IRC for trolling. It's clear from his prior incidents, battling various administrators and his actions at IRC, that he no longer is a constructive contributor and is only picking and choosing his battles, to which I was warned of earlier that I'd be invoking a witchhunt. seicer | talk | contribs 18:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of what could be classed as disruptive:
  • Closing a Mediation Cabal case.
  • [16][17][18][19][20] *Spamming* a lot of user talkpages with what look like "tips".
  • On a similar note, I'm struggling to know why he has this page in his userspace...
  • Also, he has 6,297 edits in total, only 1,957 are in the Mainspace, only 31% of his edits... D.M.N. (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd support a ban of limited duration. His recent exchange with Raul on his talk, coupled with previous blocks and warnings et al, are all enough to earn himself a break from the Wiki. Either a block for a while, or, at least, a stab at mentoring him. But, alas, I fear, it is "too late" for some users. Utan Vax (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Based on the above, I'd support indefinite block. D.M.N. (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
None of those diffs seem to warrant any kind of temp ban from project space - especially the "tips" spam Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
"Your probably jealous of Jimbo that's all. «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)" A response to me on Jimbo's talk page. It is worth pointing out that dis uzas spelin and gramaz r wurs dan most peepils. Support indef. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone noted this user's struck-out comments at #Request for community ban above? I notice that nobody has commented about them there. Corvus cornixtalk 22:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

From my run-in with him earlier (aluded to by Corvus), I think it's clear that this user has earned a community ban. Raul654 (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

He struck the comments - he shouldn't have made them in the first place, but at least he had the decency to strike them. DuncanHill (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Right, struck them but left them there for everybody to read. Corvus cornixtalk 23:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I did not want to change the context of Raul's reply, as it would have seemed out of place if I removed the remarks (Like he was attacking me for no reason) so i did the next best thing, struck them out per WP:CIVIL. I also gave a sincere apology on his talk page.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 10:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
When you want to remove one of your comments that someone has already replied to, one approach is to replace your comments with something like "Comments removed. Raul (or whoever), please accept my apologies and feel free to remove this part of the thread and your reply". That is an alternative to striking. Another possibility (though it takes a few estra edits) is to include a link to the diff of the comment being removed or replaced (that raises the same concerns as leaving stuff visible, though it places stuff a click away, though it does reassure those who want to make sure that you didn't remove more than you needed to). Finally, to ensure that the subthread doesn't end up not being replied to, leave Raul a talk page message explaining what you did and repeating your apologies and your offer for him to remove the whole subthread. You can even add a link back in the subthread saying "Raul notified of this offer". That way, if Raul doesn't follow up, but choses to leave the subthread in open view, people know that is his choice, not just yours. Yet another alternative (I saw SandyGeorgia do this recently) is to put off-topic or distracting parts of a thread in a collapse box, though sometimes this backfires and draws more attention to the off-topic stuff. This might all seem complicated, but then that is a consequence of people opening their mouths and talking before they think. Stuffing the genie back in the bottle takes some diplomacy sometimes, and some damage takes a long time to repair. Having said that, I personally think your explanations and contriteness here should give you a chance to show you can reform and improve (though I say that without looking in detail at what has happenned). Some of things things that you have done to irritate and annoy people are not deserving of a community ban, IMO, but as I haven't looked in enough detail, some of it might be of more concern. Still, padding the charge list with non-serious concerns not only wastes people's time, but does actually, IMO, weaken the overall case (which is not to say that a re-presentation of the ban proposal concentrating on the possibly serious stuff wouldn't be more deserving of consideration). ie. I agree with those who say an RfC (with clear presentation of evidence, as opposed to a chaotic ANI thread) is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 10:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Im afraid I was not aware of the other methods of removing ones own comments without changing the context of anothers. Its not everyday that situation pops up so I hadnt put much thought into it. Given your detailed summery of alternative ways of doing so, I agree I could have handled it better, but that is the beauty of hindsight.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
It wouldn't have taken much foresight to see that the comments should never have been made at all, let alone the issue of what to do about them once made. Orderinchaos 11:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Personally, i find blanking of comments disruptive, as it interrupts the flow of a thread, and (especially when those comments have been replied to or commented on) may alter the meaning of a thread as a whole. I much prefer striking, though I do agree that this should be done with an appropriate edit summary, and in some cases a talk page apology. DuncanHill (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Raul, that's the second time recently I've seen you propose or support a community ban based on someone attacking or insulting you. If a community ban is needed in such cases, surely it will happen without you weighing in on it? To put it another way, if (according to some) it is not acceptable to personally block someone for insulting you, is it acceptable to support a community ban (which would end up being a block by a more circuitous route) for the same reason? I think what I'm trying to say here is that if you were involved in the precipitating or recent incident, you should be a "witness" if you like, rather than part of jury. Does that make sense? Carcharoth (talk) 10:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Proposal and support of a community ban by an involved editor are two different things. The first is more improper, as it can been seen as vindictive or vengeful, and can be, and often is, dismissed easily. The second is more important, as it says ' I can't try to work with this user anymore, and am all out of AGF'. Support statements can be more carefully examined for vindictiveness or actual 'run of of patience' feelings. Sometimes we have seen insulted users come here and say 'no, not yet, I'm willing to accept him getting one more chance', so reading the opinions of those offended is worthwhile to the group. ThuranX (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
That's a useful distinction to make, between proposal and support. I agree with what you are saying here. Especially the "the opinions of those offended is worthwhile to the group" bit - I should have said that in my initial comment. I'd still be more comfortable if people stated in commmunity ban discussions whether they had any previous involvement with the user (and to be fair, most people do make that clear if asked). The difficult thing to see, when looking at a community ban discussion, is to see who the genuinely uninvolved people are. Carcharoth (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Prom3th3an - Proposed community ban[edit]

Prom3th3an is clearly no there to do anything constructive, but simply to stir people up and crate drama. His block log is demonstrative of this, as are his ridiculous comments. His mainspace contributions are minimal. I do not believe Prom3th3an is a net positive and propose a community ban. Giggy (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

His block log shews effectively only two blocks - all the rest are adjustments. DuncanHill (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
and let me add that they were for very minor disruption. Oppose community ban or topic ban. Take it to RfC. I suspect mentorship could work well here and I'll happily take him under my wing. He's got a lot to give, he just needs to change his attitude a bit. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Arghh. Make him walk the plank for his disruption, incivility and drama-mongering. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Looks like it's time to help this obvious troll find the door--endorse ban. Blueboy96 22:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose community ban per Ryan. The block log is unconvincing..and the number of edits to the mainspace is pretty irrelevant. Take it to RfC. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I am on the wall on this one, I have seen some rather questionable contributions on and off wiki that make me want to support here but at the same time I am not sure that all other resources have been exhausted (RfC ect..). I think I would support a ban if I was to see a few more attempts to educate and solve this issue. Tiptoety talk 23:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
    I'll echo Tip - if other avenues are exhausted to no avail, I'd reconsider, until then, I think talk of a community ban is premature. Besides, aren't bans invoked after an issue is brought to Arbcomm? Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
No, a ban doesn't need arbitration committee sanction these days, and hasn't for a long time. We do still (as a committee) handle appeals because some bans have been poorly judged, but the majority are fair. A ban isn't usually a step the community goes to without some good reason, so it's more to ensure fairness and a route for review if there's a genuine issue. RFC isn't needed either, many community bans happen without it.
Roughly speaking, what you're really after for a community ban is a consensus that the patience of the community is pretty much done, it's not visibly changing, general net detriment (repeating problem, unhelpfulness), and time to say "the problems mean this isn't really working out for all of us". That may or may not be the case in any given situation... hence communal discussion. RFC is useful when there's a wish to explore in more depth, for example if there are concerns but unsure how widespread, or if it's not completely clear what the real problem is. If it's fairly straightforward, then a debate like this at ANI often covers the same ground more quickly and with less wasted bureaucracy. If there is a clear and visible serious problem, with strong evidence, then there's no "rule" saying RFC has to be undertaken. It's useful as a clarifier though, in some circumstances. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per reasoning above and Grawp-style vandalism off-wiki. -- Manticore (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I too would like to see an RFC first. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - I've personally had enough, and Manticore brings up a god point. Xclamation point 03:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose community ban Prom3th3an has never caused me any grief, and has seemed like a perfectly reasonable editor to me. I would like to see an RFC first. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC) (not an admin- delete if this is not a valid comment)
  • Support - He's harassed me and basically in IRC and Wikipedia to stir up trouble with other users. His morals are lacking. - Tyler Puetz (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Errrrr... just how do you intend to prove that he has harrassed you in IRC when you have already admitted to me that you do not keep a log? That's gonna be kind of tough, don't you think? Thor Malmjursson (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Just file an RFC and we can get a ban from that consensus. I know we aren't a bureaucracy, but I really don't want AN/I to get the image as a good venue to community ban a user. These are the drama boards but plenty of users don't read them or don't feel comfortable commenting. I'm not saying an RFC reaches a wider audience, per se, but it gives him a chance to have people with defend him and weigh in. Absent some serious incident, I don't think we should be debating a ban in this venue. As for the up/down on the ban in general, I'm neutral. I've seen that user here and there and usually not liked what I have seen, but that could be said about me in plenty of cases, so: meh. Protonk (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
ANI is the venue to propose and decide on a community ban. RFC rarely result in blocks or bans and they would need to be endorsed here if they did. Based on the statement below do you see any evidence that they will change their ways? Spartaz Humbug! 06:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I always though WP:AN was the venue for community ban discussions? ANI is for urgent incidents. AN is for the longer, more careful discussions, such as community ban discussions. I'm annoyed I didn't notice this before. ANI and subpages (in the case of another discussion) are not the places for ban discussions. Quite apart from the fact that they distract from the incidents that need dealing with and take longer, community ban discussions should be treated with respect, not suddenly produced in the heat of the moment as part of an ongoing ANI thread. That is a knee-jerk reaction. Any community ban proposal should have careful presentation of evidence, and clearly delineate the point at which the discussion will end. Otherwise you get discussions closed as a ban after only a day, and others that drag on for weeks. Carcharoth (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Per this D.M.N. (talk) 07:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose ban proposal: a ban is not yet warranted by Prom's behaviour. I reiterate the suggestions that an RFC be filed, and note that the proposal to put Prom. into Mentorship would indeed be wise; I think he simply needs a stronger editor to guide him on the right track (eg., with his small heated exchange with Raul yesterday, he apologised upon my suggestion -- obviously willing to listen and learn). I would caution him in the strongest possible words, however, to think before he acts and to give due thought to the consequences of each edit he makes; if he fails to remedy the currently poor conduct he is practising, I do fear a second ban proposal would not result in such a sympathetic consensus. Anthøny 10:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per AGK (Anthony) and my comments further above. Premature - RFC needed first. Carcharoth (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose as premature. This user, who is fairly young, needs serious help and probably mentorship to get them on track, there is too much drama and too many incidents to ignore. However a community ban at this stage when other means have not been tried first are ridiculous. Orderinchaos 11:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose If you give him time (and intense mentorship), he'll come around. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 11:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Prom said he is sorry on IRC, I have the log :) Give him more time 2 weeks perhaps.

iDangerMouse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

He said sorry the last time too. Then this happened. Orderinchaos 11:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Give him 2 weeks only.... iDangerMouse —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Anthony as well as my own earlier comment. Having discussed it with him, he's noted he's ready for mentorship or anything the community will throw at him, and appears to be genuinely regretful of his actions. I considered this a very serious matter and did let him know of how this could've turned out. He knows that he has a fair amount of work ahead of him, and this might require a frustrating amount of time and effort, and is willing to do what it takes. I see no reason not to afford him another chance. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment -- this looks like self-perpetuating wikidrama. You are giving attention to people who misbehave because they want attention. Wikipedia isn't a social network, people. You don't need to psychoanalyse problem editors. If they cause problems, slap blocks on them, escalating lengths in case of repeated offense. Some will get it, others will keep going until blocked for good. All this social drama draws away admin resources from issues with the actual encyclopedia (disputes, trolling, pov-pushers). There is no need to community-ban this user. He's been given a couple of blocks of a few hours' lengths. Well, if he keeps prancing around, just double the block length in every future block and the problem will go away one way or the other. Thanks. --dab (𒁳) 15:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I met him only as a mediator, and he shown himself to be a good one. I was later surprised to learn of the drama surround him, but I cannot support an argument for blocking that is framed like that one ("Prom3th3an is clearly no there to do anything constructive").--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose community ban, but I would support a topic ban from the noticeboards (except for matters directly concerning his own conduct) for a period of time to be determined. Prom needs to refocus on what it is we are here to do. I would also be willing to resume adoption/mentoring of Prom, as I had ended that relationship when he entered admin coaching. –xeno (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Saw this on IRC earlier, I would Strongly Oppose a community ban, but I would Support mentoring. Can I just add that one of the blocks (the incivility one) was defending me after the whole Chemistrygeek incident. He, like many, believed I was innocent (which a CU showed I was) and his incivility was because he was "taking on the system" so to speak, saying that it was all ridiculous. (Or at least that's how I saw it). I do not endorse incivility (and I know I myself have been) but surely when it is for the good of the encyclopedia (ie not losing me as an editor) I think we can let it pass. Thanks, BG7even 08:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If the user causes disruption, please go ahead and post some examples of it. The reasons adduced above are blah. I especially despise the notion that "hostility and bitterness towards administrators" is a good reason to cut somebody off from contributing to the project. No, we're supposed to put up with stuff like that. We're admins, not royalty. Bishonen | talk 22:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC).


I've just spotted this, and I must admit I am absolutely flabbergasted at the amount of people who think I am deserving of a community ban or other type of restriction. However, I heed your concerns and this has been a wake up call. I think that a RFC/U would have come notice to me as to how much trouble I was causing and I wish people would AGF instead of making s summery like "RFCs are only useful when there is a chance to redeem a useful editor. This doesn't look like an option to me" I would seriously give anything a try to avoid a community ban, I must admit it looks ugly, but when you break it down I am trying.

  • In regards to Raul I was totally out of line, I should not have acted upon what one hears on IRC, after realising this I removed or struck out my comments and apologised to Raul without any sort of request, I understand if he would still want me community banned, but never the less its the intention and the thought that counts.
  • I closed the mediation case with best of intentions because it had principally moved on to RFAR and the mediation case was WP:STICK.
  • The tip "spamming" was to members of this Wikipedia:WikiProject_AP_Biology_2008 group, I could have put it on the project page but I it to seem a bit more personal considering the barnstar’s I gave them all (which is funnily not mentioned) for the effort and enthusiasm they have put in. They are all new users and I thought that those two tips would help them fit in. I gave them the tips after congratulating the co-ordinator for the idea.
  • The joke block page is in good humour, its a preload that comes up when you click "To vandalise my user page click here instead." on my message portal. It was going to be used for April fools day (see history) but until such a time I changed it to its current revision.
  • My block log has two blocks, one 3 hour block for civility issues and one 12 hour block for WP:TE. There are far more colourful block logs out there who belong to users who did mend, I would like the same opportunity.
  • The so called "Grawp-style vandalism off-wiki" on a test wiki that has nothing to do with Wikipedia, has nothing to do with Wikipedia or its projects. However if you want an explanation email me. Note that Manticore is actually a key staff member on the test wiki and has not interfaced with me on Wikipedia at any point, I question his motives as it would seem clear he would have a clear-cut bias.
  • In Re: To Tyler Puetz's claims, He was ranting and trolling on IRC, saying how he cheated on a history exam and how he has been through courts (careful to mention for civil and criminal) for hacking and causing massive damges and how the CEO was pissed etc, How He has called the FBI and the police heaps etc. His age made it quite clear that he was making all this up, I and several others told him to stop, he didnt so I !op for trolling and an op re-centered the conversation. I find it ammusing how he said my morals are lacking, when on IRC I said I had morals in regards to his cheating confession. I dont think I need to say anything more about that
  • In regards to the very short removal of rollback and ACC which was initiated by MBisanz, it was restored within an hour later with the following sumamry's "after review, the user hasn't abused rollback, but doesn't need the account creator flag" and "Further review - this editor had a clean record up until now & removing these bits smacks of punitive measures"
  • The block silence for "trolling on IRC" was because I was discussing my 3 hour block intesivly, I have since then not been silenced. I was not aware that IRC was offically related to wikipedia, so I dont know why it was raised here.

I felt that alot of the points people has raised needed addressing as I felt it was Mis-construed or skewed by leaving out alot of the points such as my apology to Raul or the tips were not actually talkpage spamming or the rollback removal was actually an admin's mistake and was quickly reverted.

  «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Does it not worry you that so many people have had enough of you? Please can you explain how you will change your behaviour if you are not blocked/banned? Spartaz Humbug! 06:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
It is of upmost concern and hurtfullness that I have ended up here, being discussed. If you had asked me four months ago the possility of me being here or having a block I would have laughed the suggestion off becuase Community bans were are thing that happened to other people. Now the scenario seems so more real. I was, up untill now organising measures in place to help me get back on track, I can but hope that I have the chance to finish them, and to see if they work.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Some people have brought it to my attention that my statement implies I may be trying to defend my actions as completly innocent. This could not be further from the truth, I admit I have done many wrongs over the past 2-3 months however I am willing to change. If its any constellation I think mentoring would be the best resolve from this and that I would try my hardest to gain as much as possible from it. I am willing to burry the hatchet, get over that which has plagued (what some have described as) an otherwise promising editor for the past 3 months. I still have alot more to give and do. Again I stress that this particuler discussion has been a wake up call that going around feuding with other editors whom you have a brush with isnt acceptable. And I am most willing to consider anyones suggestions or requests.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Information (for what it's worth) -- I had not heard of Prom3th3an until the Steve Crossin incident (~Aug 23). In that incident, the Arbitration Committee were emailed with anonymous emails of what we felt to be a game-y and uncertain faith nature ("Have you figured out who it is yet?"), and then made posts on-wiki about it that led to this by Deskana and these comments by myself: Prom3th3an's comment, mine, Prom3th3an's 2nd post (later modified), mine. FT2 (Talk | email) 07:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I think we should give the "devil" his due, After your requests for me to effectivly "butt out" of the whole steve-crossin thing, i did exactly that (butt out) from memory.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

So, where to from here?[edit]

Given a community ban appears to have been rejected, what should take place? I think for Prom3th3an's sake, there needs to be clarity, so that he can move on in the appropriate manner without this hanging over him in an unresolved fashion. My own idea of a solution would be some form of enforced mentorship, with recourse to blocks (not indefinite - enough to stop the behaviour without being punitive) if we see repeats of the personal commentary incidents.

I talked to the user at length last night on IRC and I think it's a reasonable conclusion he is good faith and means well, that the eruptions are more stemming from a lack of control/forethought than any genuine ill will, and that an area of concern is priorities. The priority of an encyclopaedia should always, first and foremost, be building its content and providing the means for content to be built, and anything else (drama, social networking, who's saying what at Jimbo's talk page, adminship etc) comes a distant second. He is an intelligent and capable user who is in the top classes at school, and I feel he could become a highly useful contributor with appropriate guidance and direction as long as he is willing to cooperate.

The level of mainspace contributions in recent weeks is something I have already raised with him, and seeing just two more in the eight days hence (both of which could be classed as technical or minor), I really hope to see an improvement in that as well. Orderinchaos 03:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for your input, concerns and direction Orderinchaos. I totally agree with the "priorities" statement and I have one thing to add and that is, I dropped all the work I had to do this weekend (including Year 11 assignments, 3 of them) to attend to this ANI thread, more particularly the community ban thread that another user has described as "self-perpetuating wikidrama" (Whether or not I personally agree with that statement is irrelevant), I would hope that what ever method/outcome the community decides is swift (without being hasty), free of unnecessary drama and stress for all. In self reflection the community ban thread achieved something it may not have intended, that being it made me realise that I've been walking a misleadingly fine line for some time. My thanks go to those who have shown faith that I can change, it is a moral booster that will help.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 04:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


Im starting to get concerned that this (what would have seemed as productive) discussion has stalled. Theres still the matter of wether we accept the proposal above, or weather the community wants a RFC/U. I would like to get this dealt with (and over and done with) sooner rathor than latter   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If we can find a willing mentor who the community would trust, I'd be happy to vote for its closure. I have a few people in mind but it would be unfair to name them without asking their permission. Orderinchaos 13:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
FGS Ψrom3th3ăn does not need a mentor, he knows where he went wrong, or at least where the community feels he went wrong. I completely concur with Bishonen, Admins have to remember they are here to ensure the smooth running of the project, they are not here to act in an overiding and imperious fashion, we have another body who acts in that fashion on our behalf. Ψrom3th3ăn has a had a wake-up call, give him a chance to sort himself out, and this will probably be the end of the matter. No story. Giano (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Giano ... from what I see, Promethean has had his proverbial member slapped. Many of his "reasonings" are indeed sensible, but I believe it has been the sum of the issues that has led people to where we are today. I would be quite happy to say "hey, Promethean ... you've played with fire. Today, you've been singed, next time you might get burnt." Let's not tie him to any rocks quite yet, as I'm not in the mood for liver (mythology puns purposeful). BMW(drive) 11:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
If nothing else, I have met someone who knows whom my username is derived from. Rather ironic to say the least.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if most regular editors my age hadn't picked up on the Prometheus reference - I dunno how much Greek mythology gets taught to youngsters these days but I'm a grumpy old 'un and I recognised it immediately. I'd say that we can archive this discussion now. You clearly have a sense of what issues you need to work on and I don't see anyone clammering for the task of mentoring you and perhaps you can manage without. My final advice is to stay out of project space and go do some article work - yes before you say anything this is advice I can probably take myself. Spartaz Humbug! 19:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Aye, lay the past to rest   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 23:21, 23 September 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.

It seems that Raul is on a whichhunt now, that was the only usurp he has been involed in since the 9th of april. His motives are extremely clear and certainly morally wrong. What im I supposed to do? If I was trying to runaway I would make a new ccount, clearly im trying to get the numbers out my name.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It does look rather mean-spirited of Raul to do this, and certainly a change of name like this does not look in the least like someone trying to hide. Raul also seems unfamiliar with the well established practice of allowing editors to remove comments from their talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Also note the time difference between the two edits, make of that what you will. Withdrawing and resubmitting per (the message behind) Fruit of the poisonous tree and because the bot made an error. I have given Raul a courtesy notice that I have done so and that I hope he doesnt make me do it again.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Usurpation is a courtesy we extend to users in good standing, which Prom3th3an is not. Changing his name is a further attempt to selectively wipe his history of disruption here, which is evident from his past behavior here. I have denied his request. Furthermore, it's worth pointing out that he just "resubmitted" his request (e.g, deleted all the commentary about it) and then threatened to do it again if I re-added my comment. If have re-added my denial of his request, and informed him that if he re-removes it, I will be blocking him. Raul654 (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, you just pointed out what he already came here to tell everyone he did. You have made it blatantly obvious that you want to get rid of him, how petty and vindictive can you get? DuncanHill (talk) 01:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Raul is just pointing out that Prom3th3an is a disruptive editor not in good standing, and blocking a user over a repeated removal of a denial of a request is perfectly legitimate. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, I forgot that there are no other bureaucrats at all who could have made the decision. DuncanHill (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
A second opinion could be obtained without deleting Raul's first opinion. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Or Raul could have given his opinion, and asked for another bureaucrat to make the decision, given his recent spat with Prom. Avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest is, I think, generally regarded as good practice. I'll add that Prom announcing on ANI what he had done is not the action of someone trying to hide it. DuncanHill (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Let's be clear here - Prom picked a fight with me. Until that time, I had never had any contact with him (I think I might have seen him in IRC once or twice) He does not get to pick fights with users, and then cry about a conflict of interest when he later interacts with them. (Trolls have previously tried that with members of the arbcom) Raul654 (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
You're not a member of the Arbcom anymore are you? Anyway, you could very easily have given your opinion, and asked another bureaucrat to make the final decision, which would have reduced the likelihood of drama. When he reposted, you could have asked another bureaucrat to review the history of the request, again, that would have been a more open and constructive way of dealing with it. DuncanHill (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I don't think getting a second opinion from another b'crat will cause fire and brimstone to rain on Wikipedia. Of course, that does entail allowing the comment made by Raul to remain. I will not comment on the worthiness of the request. —kurykh 01:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Your reason in your first deny made it clear you are not in the frame of mind to make decisions about me per my recent attack, of which i withdrew and apoligised several times for. Userpation does not aid in covering ones past so please check your facts. I'm tempted to resubmit the usurp minus your opinion as i will be the first to admit your are an influential editor and would bias the outcome hence fruit of the poisionous tree. I think the other crats are smart people and are capable of making the decision without your two cents worth. If i am wrong about that please let me know. Also good standing is your opinion, the actualy term is "we prefer only to grant requests from reasonably well-established users". I think I am beyond well established. You were clearly at WP:USURP for a reason that is what we a are discussing.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 01:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Also note that the deny reason slaps of punitive measures, which ARE agaisnt policy.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing something, or is there a request here for admin action that is unusually latent. Prom3th3an was nearly banned earlier in this thread for disruption, has been block or final warned on several occasions, and is now disrupting the usurption facility, which isn't even an admin forum. This should be at WP:BN since this is a crat dispute, and even then, I believe Raul has properly exercised his discretion. If Prom3th3an adds another Usurp/Rename req, I would support a block for disruption. MBisanz talk 02:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been blocked twice for clarity, and i was far from being banned.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, and the administrative action you are seeking today for teh rename issue is? MBisanz talk 08:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
None now, This ANI thread did what it was made to do, get the attention of others. I have now gained control of the account globally via unification on simple wiki. WJBscribe has indicated that the username change should go ahead, an excerpt is "Prom3th3an is, by virtue of having obtained control of the Promethean global account, the only one who can use the name on this project anyway. I will ask Raul654 to reconsider his position with respect to this request. " This thread can be laid to rest.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrats have a high degree of clue. I bet that all of them who are active have noticed what Raul654 has done, and they will surely comment if they think something is improper. There is no chance this will go unnoticed. I think the thread here is misplaced, and prone to create drama. I suggest Prom3th3an takes their concerns to the bureaucrats' noticeboard if they are unsatisfied with the result here. I am closing this discussion now. Jehochman Talk 13:12, 24 September 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.

Revision history of William Todd[edit]

Could an admin review and revert as appropriate the change from "cousin" to "grand niece" and the addition of the non-reliable source as shown here per this conversation. Could someone more knowing than I look a bit more closely at the situation around David Winters (choreographer) and the brothers Prior. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW the same source is being used here to show the relationship as cousins. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Repetitive disruptive edits[edit]

Can someone please have a look at the edits over at Aquarius (astrology)? There's an editor who keeps removing sourced material and inserting unsourced or badly sourced claims. I've been giving him warnings, to no avail. Thanks, Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, any opinions? Maybe I am wrong? --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Looks like the user in question was blocked. Shereth 15:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Blast, Shereth ec'd me as I was gonna' say it. Blocked 12 hours for disruptive editing, given the length of time this has been going on. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks guys, glad I'm on the right side :-) Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attack[edit]

Hello. I wondered if I could find a reasonable administrator to look into a personal attack matter from another apparent administrator:

Content in question:

If you object to the use of a word like "fuck", you will probably be surprised by vagina, sexual intercourse, list of sex positions and seven dirty words. Wikipedia is not censored, not even for the benefit of children or over-sensitive parents. Moreover, this is the wrong place to discuss this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What's more, this topic (above) was blocked from further edits .. might there be a history of harassment of users from this source in this manner? One hopes there are more professional entities in the administratorship of Wikipedia. (talk) 10:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

But what if your name is Ice Cube and you're crazy as fuck? (That line has always cracked me up.) caknuck ° is geared up for football season 17:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandal user:Pionier has new IP[edit]

Please see: User talk: It seems to be Pionier again, as in:

Also please see: User talk: and User_talk:

He is persistent and really obsessed with category damage, often disguised among simple edits. Please block again before he does more damage. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


User:Levine2112 reverted my explained removal of an off-handed comment without substantive explanation. Another editor shares my concerns that he is being tendentious and obstructionist. He has stated that he thinks people pointing out that he is edit warring are "lying". He's also on a weird harassment campaign of editors who resist his alt medicine POV-pushing. Please advise. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Also note previous run-ins with this character: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Levine2112. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Levine2112 has been placed on 0rr for the article based on his/her threat [22] to edit war. Any reverts by said user to that page will result in a block. User has been notified. Vsmith (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
User warned as requested below. Vsmith (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
What threat to edit war? I simply stated that I was going to revert. Not continually revert. Just revert that once. There is no implication (much less a threat) of edit warring on my part. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Hang on a sec... I'm not opposed to a 0RR restriction, if needed, but let's make sure that we have proper authority for it. There's a requirement that the editor be formally notified ahead of time, with a template or formal warning to their talkpage which informs them of the ArbCom case, so they have an option to avoid the restrictions if they wish. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy: "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." Also, there should be a time limit specified. Lastly, these bans need to be logged at the appropriate ArbCom case page. But no matter what, it's the same as when blocking an established user, we have to warn them first, and give them the opportunity to modify their own behavior, before imposing a sanction on them. --Elonka 19:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd say said user is aware of the Arbcom case - so it seems the legalese stuff is a bit redundant. Duration of restriction - how about a month. Will amend my notification to said user's talk page. Vsmith (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Amended notice. User has the option of avoiding the consequences of the restriction - simply don't revert. Vsmith (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The purpose of general sanctions is to bring an area into good conduct that's been a persistent problem. To do that, administrators need, and use, a wide range of restrictions which they apply at reasonable discretion, and that is backed by the Arbitration Committee's decision. So yes, for an editor who is engaging in revert warring, 0RR is a completely appropriate answer and uses the remedy exactly as intended, to achieve the goal.
However you're slightly misunderstanding the practicalities. Such sanctions are usually intended to deal with actual disruption in most cases, not just that they "might" or "will". Admins and other established users should be aware and take note of others' concerns more than most. Just because a sanction exists does not mean it should be used before its time. You haven't said "please don't edit war", nor warned him that he faces restriction if he reverts in a non-collegial manner, and that's fairly useful to do.
The warning in our decision is not arbitrary, it's not just "he knows sanctions exist" or "legalese". It is so the user knows they themselves specifically will face restriction if they persist in a specific behavior they are doing. It's not optional. The correct use of a sanction like this is to consider if the time's come to restrict their conduct, and if so to tell them that if they repeat you intend to do so. At that point, it's their call. Could you amend your post and make it clear - and perhaps a bit more congenial too.
You might like to try something like this: "This [=LINK] really isn't okay. The topic area is under restrictions [=LINK TO DECISION] to prevent exactly this kind of edit warring. If you have a dispute, please follow communal norms. If you unilaterally revert, whether right or wrong I shall place you under a restriction, since this kind of edit warring has to end." That kind of wording is both firm, but also, explains fairly the concern, and gives a better chance to resolve it amicably. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for further clarifying for me. The problem I saw was that the user stated an intent to revert or edit war on a particular point. That threat on such a contested page was going too far. Said user is well aware of the nature of the page and the arbcom case - so it seemed best to nip the threatened behavior in the bud. But, as I seem to be lacking support - I'll amend again. Vsmith (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Understand. A "recipe" I often find myself ending up using is something like this: be clear what the problem is (disputed article to the point it has had general sanctions approved on it). Be clear what they are doing that's not okay and why (proposing to revert war which is exactly what we're trying to prevent). Say what they should do to solve their problem (dispute resolution, not edit warring). Say what is likely or will happen if they continue (restrictions on reverting, whether right or wrong). That helps a lot in disputes, and also as an admin helps you ensure you stay firmly in a neutral "whats best" stance by being clear what you're trying to achieve.
The reason why an article gets general sanctions in the first place is when its impossible to sort out the content issue until the conduct issues are brought under control, so it's a case of "right or wrong, doesn't matter, this isn't okay". That applies to an awful lot of disputes, and helps users understand you aren't taking sides if you say so. You also want to be careful that if someone's are being provoked, or others are doing stuff too, to note it. It reduces the risk that people see you as being one-sided. It takes a few more words, but it can help avoid confrontation and heated anger and get people who might have disagreed, to understand what you're trying to accomplish and why. Hope this helps :) FT2 (Talk | email) 21:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Levine is a seasoned edit warrior and proponent of fringe views, a 0RR restriction is reasonable I would say. Levine is fully aware of the contentious nature of these edits and the history and restrictions which apply to the articles, requiring additional explicit warning seems to me to be needless bureaucracy and an invitation to gaming the system. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I am helping to mentor ScienceApologist. Levine2112 cannot credibly claim to be unaware of the sanctions in effect at these articles. They have been involved in the homeopathy disputes since before I set up the community article probation that predated the ArbCom case. Jehochman Talk 20:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I've notified Levine of the ArbCom pseudoscience sanctions. PhilKnight (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This demonstrates, IMHO, complete ridiculousness or complete misunderstanding. My goal was to have a stable article and discussion environment and I did nothing to betray this goal. I had no intent to edit war, nor did I allude to any such intent. I simply stated that the "agreement" which ScienceApologist claimed existed, obviously did not and was his own fabrication. In fact, the only agreement at that point was to revert to a version of the article which all parties felt comfortable enough with while discussion resumed cordially on the Talk page. This is all I did. I reverted once to the version which was agreed upon and stated my intent to do so on the Talk page. Please read the Talk page here and see how Fyslee, Arthur Rubin, Ludwig2, and myself (all on different sides of the disputed article) all agreed to revert to the stable version and begin discussing any desired changes. I am happy to take the "warning" but I object to characterizations of my behavior as "edit warring". The only edit warring that I saw was from ScienceApologist who started the downward spiral of this article from its previous peaceful and stable version to the quagmire of edit warring that it is now in. We can all see the results of his actions (and the allowance of such actions). The article is in turmoil. It has been almost completely whitewashed (much reliably sourced criticism has been removed) and thus no longer comes close to conforming to NPOV or CON. Whereas before, there was at least a willingness to discuss controversial edits before they were made, now there is no such regard given. I am glad that Elonka's restrictions have been re-imposed because that seems to be the only thing which curbs edit warriors such as ScienceApologist and QuackGuru (among others). My feeling remains that the article should be reverted back to the last stable version, and discussions about any edits proceed at Talk with none being enacted without consensus. -- Levine2112 discuss 16:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What was the mind's worst disease comment about anyhow? I would like an explanation. Thanks. QuackGuru 19:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a little Eastern philosophy which I though may help you. If you are truly interested and want to learn more consider watching this short video presentation. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Unaddressed issues[edit]

And this justifies you again blatantly violating CIVIL, HARASS, and NPA? Your misrepresentations of others? --Ronz (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
It justifies my actions as being ones of helpfulness in the face of disruptiveness. That's all. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Huh? You're saying that repeated, blatant violations of CIVIL, HARASS, NPA, etc are acceptable if the editor making the violations thinks they are helpful? --Ronz (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I am confused. Which one(s) of my actions at the Quackwatch article or talk page are you interpreting to be a blatant violation of anything? Please provide a ref and an explanation of why you specifically feel I have blatantly violated CIVIL, HARASS or NPA. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Funny how you're suddenly confused after you said you were justified. What do you think it was you justified?
One diff has already been given. It speaks for itself for anyone familiar with the policies and guidelines in question. --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I am confused by you stating that I have blatantly violated CIVIL, HARASS or NPA in terms of the Quackwatch article. Please provide diffs that justify such an accusation or please withdraw it. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Please, if anyone is going to be making accusations of policy violations at ANI, it's necessary to provide proof, in the form of diffs. Without proof, please don't make the accusations, thanks. --Elonka 21:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Given that, I would like be given proof that I threatened edit war. This is the stated reason for my "warning". I would like to be provided with some proof in the form of diffs that I threated edit war. Without such proof, the warning should be rescinded. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The diff has been provided. How many times in the same discussion should a diff be given? Per WP:TALK I expect that editors contributing to a discussion will actually read the discussion and look for the references to previous points within the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
So, in the diff provided which is being called 'harrassment' [23], Levine says "hope this helps you if you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. the struggle between "for" and "against" is the mind's worst disease...."
In what way is this harrassment? I would say it is quite the opposite. Sticky Parkin 01:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Truly. And I thank you. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Just maybe I'm referring to the other diff? I guess looking at a total of two diffs is too much for some editors. --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
That second diff reveals that you were harassing me yet again - even after I've asked you over and over not to post on User page. Yet you still did, and really only to harass me. In my edit summary I point out that your post was false. You said that I shouldn't revert an edit without commenting on the talk page, but if you look at the facts, you will see that indeed I did comment on the talk page and explained quite clearly why I was going to revert. So what's the issue with the second diff as you see it? As I noted, I appreciated your apology to me following that post as I thought you had recognized that what you posted was untruthful and viewed as harassment. So why are you changing your mind now? -- Levine2112 discuss 17:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) So you're allowed to violate CIVIL, NPA, and HARASS because, whenever it is convenient for you, you say I'm not allowed to post on your talk page? Sorry Levine2112, but I'm allowed to post to your talk page. Get over it. Stop using it as an excuse for your misbehavior.

Regarding my apology, please do not misrepresent me to justify your harassment and incivility. I told you, "I'm happy to explain my previous comment in detail." Let's look at some diffs:

My comment to the four editors involved in the edit-warring, including Levine2112, was "Please do not simply revert edits. Instead, please make a clear corresponding comment on the talk page discussing your reasoning." --Ronz (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

    • Okay, so by the look of this, I commented in clear correspondence to my reversion within 5 hours of my edit. However, your message to me came at 17:17, 20 September 2008, nearly 16 hours after I had post my clear corresponding comment. So we would have to agree that telling me that I did not provide a clear corresponding comment is a false claim on your point. Perhaps you missed the fact that I posted a corresponding comment. If that is the case, I apologize for calling your post a "lie" rather than just an "oversight on your part". Regardless, I must have taken your advice to heart because this whole ANI post seems to be about my corresponding comment to ScienceApologist that I was going to revert his edit BEFORE I reverted. In retrospect, I wasn't clear enough because Vsmith misinterpretted my post to mean that I was threatening to continually revert, but in actuality all I meant was that I was going to revert that once. Vsmith and I have talked about this and he has apologized to me for the misunderstanding. As for you telling me to "get over it" - frankly, that is rude. If I request that you stop posting to my User page, you are certainly allowed to disregard my wishes, but it is still rude behavior on your part nonetheless. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
What happened next? Levine2112 reverts without a valid reason.[24] Levine2112 did not explain his reason for reverting, only his intent to revert. QuackGuru 18:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect. I explained quite clearly that the edit I was reverting was made without discussion or agreement. That was my reason for reverting. Is that so difficult to understand? -- Levine2112 discuss 19:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
That's not a valid reason to revert without a clear explanation of your disagreement with the edit. You reverted without any specific objection to the edit. QuackGuru 19:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
You say that it is not a valid reason to revert an edit. I disagree. I think given that the article is fragile, that the edit was contentious, and that there was an agreement among the other editors to restore the article to the prior stable version and discuss all future edits and reach an agreement before implementation, my reason for reversion was quite valid. My only mistake was not clarifying that my intent to "revert accordingly" should have been written "revert once accordingly" because it seems that Vsmith had interpeted it to mean "revert over and over again accordining". Frankly, I thought the "once" was implied, but I guess I can see how others may not infer that. Anyhow, Vsmith has apologized to me for misunderstanding my intent and now that my intent is clear to you (and all), you should not continue to say that my intent was to edit war. That is not even an assumption of bad faith - it's just bad. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Reverting because you feel the article is fragile is not a valid reason to revert. No specific objection was made to the edit. There is no agreement among editors to discuss edits first. Please tell us a valid reason you reverted or is it because you don't like Barrett? QuackGuru 19:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Again, I continue to disagree with you. I feel that given that the article is fragile, that the edit was contentious, and that there was an agreement among the other editors to restore the article to the prior stable version and discuss all future edits and reach an agreement before implementation, my reason for reversion was quite valid. If you read the archives, you will see that there is a clear agreement among editors to discuss edits first. In general, this should be the case in all contentious articles. There is always WP:BOLD, but in the case of contentious articles, it is best to follow WP:CON. This is what Elonka has been trying to enforce at the article and this what many of us - including myself - have come to respect. Editors such as you seem hellbent on quibbling over what is the meaning of ORR or what is a revert, when at the end of the day, if we all just work together, we can accomplish writing a decent encyclopedia article - which by the way, is our mission here. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
This comment by Levine2112 asserts that he disagrees with the edit but never explained any objection to the specific edit. Levine2112 wants everybody to discuss all edits first. If editors do not have a specific objection to the edit then we have consensus. Please abide. The text failed verification anyhow. QuackGuru 21:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So, because Levine2112 discussed two reverts within five hours of making them, after someone else brought up the issue of edit-warring, Levine2112 feels justified in responding to a edit-warring warning by assuming bad faith, making personal attacks, harassing others, and misrepresenting others. Thanks for clearing that up Levine2112. --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. I discussed one reversion within 5 hours and the other I discussed minutes BEFORE the reversion. I never edit warred. I made no personal attacks. I harrassed no one. And I misrepresented nothing. You, Ronz, on the other hand, have assumed bad faith in placing a message on my page claiming that I didn't comment on my reversion 16 hours after I had commented on my reversion. You have harassed me by commenting on my talk page when I have asked you time and time again to stay away. You have misrepresented my actions over and over again. You continue to harass me here with your spin and condescending tone. I assure you, your poor behavior here is not going unnoticed by a couple of key admins. So before you go pointing fingers, consider your own actions here first and how they are looking to others. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Please provide diffs. The diffs I provided clearly show you made two reverts and only started discussions after Elonka identified the situation as edit-warring.
Please read WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:HARASS, and WP:AGF.
There is no "lie" on my part, nor "oversight" on my part.
"I never edit warred." Multiple editors think otherwise. I suggest you read WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR
"I made no personal attacks. " Read WP:NPA.
" You, Ronz, on the other hand, have assumed bad faith in placing a message on my page claiming that I didn't comment on my reversion 16 hours after I had commented on my reversion." You are misrepresenting me. I said I'd explain, and have done so here. I never made the claim that you didn't comment on your revision "16 hours later".
"You have harassed me by commenting on my talk page when I have asked you time and time again to stay away." You're just assuming bad faith on my part. If you look at the editing history on your talk page, you'll see I've made a number of edits there lately where you haven't objected at all. In this case, of course, others agree that edit-warring was taking place.
"You have misrepresented my actions over and over again. " Diffs? As always, I'm happy to explain in more detail if there has been a misunderstanding.
"You continue to harass me here with your spin and condescending tone. " As always, I'm happy to rewrite what I've written if only you would indicate exactly what and why.
"I assure you, your poor behavior here is not going unnoticed by a couple of key admins. So before you go pointing fingers, consider your own actions here first and how they are looking to others." That is a very clear threat.
I'm happy that you're changing your story from 18:30, 23 September 2008. --Ronz (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


On an aside, would somebody care to explain how the article Quackwatch falls under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy? Shot info (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Where Elonka said Homeopathy, I guess she should have said Pseudoscience. PhilKnight (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, but the evidence doesn't support that - and even at this very moment in time still doesn't support that. Shot info (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
We used the Homeopathy case before, because its scope is "articles which relate to homeopathy, broadly interpreted", and the Quackwatch article is homeopathy-related (the term is right in the article). Though if folks think that the newer Pseudoscience case might be more appropriate to use at this point, I'd have no big problem with switching over. The discretionary sanctions are the same, regardless of which case we use. --Elonka 23:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious as to your reasonings for how you got to your conclusion. So what you are saying is effectively "If Article X has a word that is mentioned in a RfA then it falls under the broadly interpreted clause"? Shot info (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I've notified Levine of the ArbCom pseudoscience restrictions. PhilKnight (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
FWIW Phil, I think you have two RfA crossed in your warning to Levine (the SA/Martin one and the Pseudoscience one). Shot info (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
That's more or less intentional, the Pseudoscience restrictions require the notifications to be logged on the other ArbCom case page for some reason. PhilKnight (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I just thought you may have had a cutnpaste error :-) Shot info (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The reason for the crossover is that when the ArbComm set up the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions, it was as part of a request for clarification/amendment of both prior cases. The MartinPhi/ScienceApologist case is more restrictive about which admins can enforce its remedies (members of two Wikiprojects are prohibited). Supposedly, from conversations with the amendment clerk, the ArbComm was going to issue a later clarification about they actually intended, but until they do, better to keep the admins out of trouble by having the links and logs on the page where the admins will be cautioned that certain admins may be supposed to avoid enforcement activity. GRBerry 19:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Quackwatch is a major critic of homeopathy and one of the few sites on the web that takes the time and trouble to point out that water memory is complete bollocks, and why. It is also a major source of criticism of other forms of pseudoscience and quackery, so the article (and indeed the site) is under constant attack from kooks, quacks and other assorted ne'er-do-wells. The major bone of contention right now appears to be that mainstream sources lend the site a credibility that the frings and pseudoscience proponents would rather it did not have. They try to fix this problem by citing biased, polemical, unqualified or non-expert sources - in other words, another example of trying to use Wikipedia to fix a real-world dispute. I suggest arbitration (again) as nothing else seems to shut these people up. Levine's idea of a "decent article" is one which undermines the credibility of a source he clearly dislikes intensely. I have strong suspicions that Levine has a real-world conflict of interest here. At the very least, 0RR should apply, and actually I would be more comfortable with a complete ban from that article for that editor. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Clay Aiken[edit]

Resolved: Article no longer full-protected, currently at semi-protection due to vandalism. Cirt (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Perez Hilton has posted an image on his blog that allegedly is a future People Magazine interview in which singer Clay Aiken comes out as gay. Every IP on the planet is currently trying to add said "fact" to the article. I've semiprotected it for the moment (until People is published, and either does or doesn't feature said story) but it could probably do with extra pairs of eyes on it and possibly full protection (I'm reluctant to do so), as it's liable to break into a full-scale revertwar. – iridescent 23:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Full protection may be necessary, but hopefully for just a day or less. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Full-protected for 2 days. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
While there's no official word, given the coverage this is getting, if that's not the People cover this will take more than a day. NJGW (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

[25] - it appears this has now reached coverage in reliable sources, I won't mind if another admin steps down the protection to semi at some point. Cirt (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this appears to be resolving itself quickly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Shazam! Surprise, surprise! This is likely true, and not likely a surprise either. People is being coy, but their banner says, "Come back Wednesday for the full scoop on Clay Aiken at 7 a.m. EDT." Although maybe it's just going to be an article about ice cream. [26] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Material which in my opinion continues to violate WP:BLP was added after the article was full-protected, see here. I do not believe this material warrants inclusion at this stage. I understand that many Wikipedia editors view People magazine as a wonderful reliable source for all kinds of important personal information about celebrities, but to me it remains an unreliable gossip tabloid. Furthermore the magazine is not out yet. Thirdly, sources seem to be advance images of the cover of this magazine. What the article actually says remains unknown, let alone the question of whether what it says is true and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. In summary: the notion that advance images of the cover of a tabloid gossip magazine constitute a reliable source for the statement that this person has "finally come out of the closet" is substantially beneath the standards Wikipedia is striving for. In many respects. Material should be removed while article is protected. BCST2001 (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
If the story turns out to be false, I assure you that wikipedia will be way down the list of targets for a defamation suit. CNN and USAToday wouldn't run the story if they didn't think it was true. My only objection would be to the wording of it, because it's not People reporting this (yet), it's CNN reporting that People will be reporting it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Your personal opinion doesn't make People an unreliable source in the eyes of Wikipedia. It's a gossip tabloid that's a pathetic waste of money, but a reliable one nonetheless. Sadly. Suigetsu 00:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Offhand, I can't think of any major scandal of People getting a major story dead wrong, but I'm not a student of that mag; maybe someone can enlighten me. Meanwhile, it's obvious they've leaked the story to news outlets as part of the hype process. There's no BLP issue here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I found the CNN source just as Cirt was protecting the article. I only saw the protection template after I had added the ref. I left a message for the editor who requested the protection, but I have yet to hear back. I don't want anybody thinking I was contributing to the edit war... aside from trying to quell it, that is. caknuck ° is geared up for football season 01:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, it's now on Reuters andthe Sun-Times (although, apparently, both are based on the Perez Hilton post). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
We could taiw for the airticle to come out before we start throwing out accusaitons of Homosexuality. i mean, i understand that vlaid sources are talking about it, but it seems unfiar to the writers of the Intenret snf the readeras as well to link to a source that they wont be able to read themselves at the time, the equivalent in my eyes to linking to a website thats been taken down and refusing to update it to one that is still availiable. Just wait till the article is out before we start flinging around these terms towards Clay Aiken, especially on the sayso of a person like perez hitleron who is not necesarily WP:RS. Smith Jones (talk) 01:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Three things lead me to believe that the CNN source is solid: 1) People and CNN are both part of the Time Warner empire, so editors probably would have nixed running an unconfirmed story involving a sister company. 2) It's an Associated Press article. 3) No mention is made of PH or other gossip blogs. caknuck ° is geared up for football season 01:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I am shocked to find myself in agreement with Smith Jones, but I see no reason to report anything until such a time as the People issue actually comes out. Corvus cornixtalk 01:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It's all based on Perez's site. Even Reuters [27]. AP seems to be as well even though they don't say so directly "The magazine has an interview with Aiken and confirmed that he was on the cover but refused to release the article to The Associated Press until Wednesday."[28] Until tomorrow the wording should probably be "Several media outlets began reporting that... blah blah... when Perez Hilton... blah blah blah." NJGW (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of how many reliable sources report that a tabloid magazine may be going to report something in an upcoming issue, that does not count as a reliable source for the statement that Celebrity X is "finally coming out of the closet." The current perverse situation is that full protection is being used to retain contentious material which in all likelihood violates WP:BLP. As things stand at the present, there is no justification for including this material. The enthusiasm with which Wikipedia editors embrace sensationalism and tabloidishness does Wikipedia no service. Again: the material should at present be excised. Retaining this information through use of protection is itself a violation, with the potential to do harm. BCST2001 (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the wording of the article is wrong and should be changed to be factual. Excising is not necessary, just rewording it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"This protection is not an endorsement of the current version. " from the top of the page, every single protection template. Come on, man. Suigetsu 02:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC) confirms it here: [29] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You have to click through to find it, but does state: "The former Idol star, who has long kept mum about his sexuality, revealed that he was gay on the cover of PEOPLE, where he appeared with his newborn baby boy."[30] caknuck ° is geared up for football season 02:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Edits made during protection reverted without prejudice. Get the protecting admin or an uninvolved admin to unprotect, or get consensus on the talk page and use {{edit protected}}. Let's at least pretend that admins follow the rules we make for others, yes? Thatcher 02:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • My edits were pretty much simultaneous to the protection. Per the request of Will Beback, I commented out the addition I had made, if for no other reason than to eliminate any perception of impropriety. It does seem, however, needless considering that People has verified the cover story. caknuck ° is geared up for football season 02:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I accept that it was an accident. Thatcher 03:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The magazine is supposed to release the story in less than 12 hours. With any luck it will be clear and authoritative and we can put this to rest once and for all. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I think their own website would be considered sufficiently clear and authoritative. Meanwhile, the cover of next week's People will feature the Pope, with the headline, "Yes, I'm Catholic." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Touche, monsieur Bugs. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but what about the bear and the woods? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately for the bear, he is being forcibly constipated by an abuse filter 718smiley.svg --NE2 09:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Arjun MBT page[edit]

There is a particular case that is going on for such a long time because someone wants the vandalized version to stay. I want to put an end to it. I request the opinion of people on this.[31]Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a content dispute; it certainly is not simple vandalism (a term I believe several editors have used). Wikipedia:Dispute resolution may help. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Threats for reverting BLP violation at Jeffrey Masson[edit]

I am being threatened by administrator Will Beback for discussing a conflict of interest issue with User:Esterson, and also for reverting BLP violation. Esterson made an edit (see here to the article on Jeffrey Masson that was a clear case of BLP violation, given the way it tried to discredit Masson. Together with the fact that User:Esterson is part of a group of scholars who have been trying to discredit Masson for many years (something he certainly does not deny), I considered it perfectly reasonable to raise the possibility of conflict of interest with Esterson, and did so. Beback is threatening me for doing this (see the discussion here. I raise this issue here partly because I'd rather not be threatened for doing the right thing, but mainly because of the possibility of further BLP violation by Esterson, who is being misadvised by Beback. Could uninvolved admins please tell Esterson to be more careful with BLPs, and tell Beback to stop making unreasonable threats? Skoojal (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has not been participating in a collegial manner. In this particular matter, he has a apparent issue with another person, Allen Esterson/Esterson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), a scholar who studies Freud and Maric. Skoojal is making accusations about Esterson's editing violating COI and BLP, and is attacking Esterson in the process. I asked him to explain and justify his assertions but he came here to complain instead.
Skoojal and Esterson had previous disputes on another forum before meeting on Wikipedia. Skoojal recently wrote the bio about Esterson, a marginally notable academic. He has said that Esterson and he may be enemies.[32]It appears to me that Skoojal has something of an obsession with Esterson. He should not bring a previous, personal dispute here, per Not a battleground.
Regarding the supposed Masson BLP issue, that is a content matter that should be handled on the article talk page or an appropriate noticeboard. Skoojal has not substantiated his assertion that Esterson and unnamed scholars are biased, which he has said is based only on his own impression of them.[33]
This latest behavior is similar to his actions earlier this summer, filing a complaint here: against Jokestress. That complaint turned against him and he was given a "final warning" about editing warring. There was also a complaint against him at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive47#Frederick Crews. Editors complained about his obsessiveness at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 19#Category:Queer studies. He is also complaining about unexplained BLP issues at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Christina Hoff Sommers. There are a number of complaints about edit warring on his talk page as well. This isn't an RfC, but I hope that Skoojal will see that his aggressive behavior is not conducive to collaborative editing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I did not "attack" Esterson, unless one considers that suggesting that someone may have a conflict of interest is, in and of itself, an attack. The suggestion was reasonable under the circumstances. Esterson's edits to Jeffrey Masson were obvious BLP violations, as anyone who takes the trouble to review them will see. I provided Beback with the relevant link. Most of Will Beback's comments above are irrelevant, and I will not respond to them. Skoojal (talk) 09:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is mainly at User talk:Esterson#BLP Violation at Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Since Will linked to both the userpage and BLP for Esterton above, I'd just like to point out that Skoojal created the Allen Esterson biography page on User:Esterson, and that User:Esterson has objected to the existence of this page here, and argued that is not WP:N (nor meets or WP:PROF) here. I'm nominating it for deletion through the usual process. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I certainly agree with that evaluation of the article on him. As for the more general issue, I can only advise Skoojal and Esterton to keep away from each other here. Not that Esterton has done anything wrong in their interactions, but further prolonging it will not help matters. As for the BLP, 3 uninvolved editors have by now taken a look, and none of them think that the material added violates our policy. DGG (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The three uninvolved editors in question are all mistaken, to put it bluntly. It is up to all concerned to show that they know enough about the issue to be able to comment. Will Beback has effectively admitted not having read the two main relevant sources. Skoojal (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, I concur with Will, DGG and Pete. In fact I'd point them to the talk history of other BLPs, for examples of the same behavior: Christina Hoff Sommers, Judith Butler. And the biography of the deceased Michel Foucault. It seems Skoojal has a tendency to edit biographies of people that he feels strongly about (see [34]) - this is problematic on its own, but couple that with his tendencies to get into edit-wars with other editors and protracted and often borderline civil talk-page exchanges and you've got a problem. But in these case there's yet another layer - Skoojal used the Frederick Crews article to "get back" at the subject (see [35]). There are also concerns about a COI with the Allen Esterson page due to an off-wiki disagreement between the two. Admins should also review the deleted history of the User:Skoojal page[36] for further evidence.
    Personally I think this pattern of behaviour in regard to biographies in general is tendentious and I think we need to consider taking steps to prevent it happening again. I'm also afraid that the pattern of behaviour in regard to BLPs is unacceptable - it places the project at risk and we must prevent that. We also have a duty to the subjects of these articles to prevent recurrence of this behaviour (see WP:HARM).
    I'm loathe to begin down this road because I have seen Skoojal make a lot of positive and useful contributions to biographies, but I would suggest that the attitude displayed by him - using BLP articles as a way to settle scores with living people - puts the project at risk.
    I should also disclose that I directed User:Esterson to WP:BLPN and our 'advice for subjects of BLP articles' when I saw his objection to the existence of the article--Cailil talk 22:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, in fairness to Skoojal, it should be noted that in a number of these conflicts Skoojal was interacting with users who were acting less than appropriately themselves--Cailil talk 22:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Cailil, rather than attacking me, it would be more helpful if you could comment on what Esterson did to the Masson article (and disclose whether you have read the books relevant to making a judgment about its rightness or wrongness). Using BLPs to attack people is exactly what I'm trying to prevent this time round. Someone's past wrong behaviour, in regard to different articles, has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of this particular issue. Skoojal (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Skoojal, I forgot to mention it, but the heading of this section is not reasonable, as no threats have been made to you by anyone. You have been told by a number of people now that what you are doing is unreasonable, and it seems only proper to warn you that you are likely to be blocked if you continue along this course, but that is not what we mean by "threats'. DGG (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I reverted what I considered BLP violation. It may take me some time to explain why the edits were BLP violation, but that doesn't mean that they weren't or that I behaved wrongly. I'd request that you wait until I offer a full explanation before jumping to the conclusion that I was wrong. Skoojal (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I continue to see the word "threats" in this context as an attempt to intimidate editors on Wikipedia, and very close to a violation of NPA. DGG (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • OK. From the deleted history of Skoojal's user page, I am a wikipedian with an agenda, and I'm happy to tell anyone what that agenda is. Much of it relates to Frederick Crews. Starting in early February 2008, I began making a series of modifications to the article on Crews. To begin with, these modifications were minor and uncontroversial, but as I proceeded they became steadily more provocative. This was partly an attempt to find out what it is and is not possible to get away with on wikipedia: just how critical could I be of Crews before someone decided that I had gone too far?; so we have self-admitted WP:POINT (a breaching experiment) and evidence of using Wikipedia as a battleground for an off-wiki dispute. Sounds to me like this user should not be editing those articles at all. And another doozy: My purpose in mentioning Crews's criticism of Butler there was not to make Butler look bad - on the contrary, it was to make Crews look bad Anyone here think that deliberately making ana rticle subject lok bad is an acceptable use of Wikipedia? I have to say that the deleted userpage gives me a very itchy block finger. Guy (Help!) 08:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I've just looked at the deleted user page. Skoojal seems clearly to have admitted WP:POINT and I find it difficult to get my head around his accusations of threats by Will Beback, I'd think he would know by now the difference bwtween a threat and a warning. I agree, he shouldn't be editing those articles. Doug Weller (talk) 09:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The more I look at this, the more uncomfortable I am with this editor. I am blocking now and invite comments on User talk:Skoojal. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Endorse Guy's action. I would make this point however, I have seen Skoojal make positive contributions to the project. I would suggest we request he seek mentorship and impose a topic ban on him for all biographical articles and material - to be reviewed after 6 months. any thoughts?--Cailil talk 19:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to that, at all, my concerns lie in the are of pursuing external battles on Wikipedia, and especially in respect of manipulating BLP articles in support of that agenda. If a suitable mentor can be found, and Skoojal is prepared to co-operate, then we're good to go. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I endorse the block also. The user has made positive contributions in some fields and if a mentor can be found who will provide guidance to him then I would support that as well. But I do think that even with a mentor there are several biographies, and topics related to them, that the user should stay away from no matter what. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible WP:CANVASSING at Obama/Ayers/Dohrn/Weatherman WP:RfC[edit]

Could I please get a quick read on whether there is WP:CANVASSING going on at the Ayers/Obama/Dohrn/Weathermen RfC here? I'll try to present this as neutrally as possible rather to perhaps get a fresh read from someone not involved.


    1. At 19:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC) I created an WP:RfC on question of "whether Wikipedia should describe the Weathermen, and their various members, as 'terrorists'" and if so, "where to put the material - one article or many? In a section? In the lead? Footnotes? In BLPs?".
    2. Noroton and I promptly notified this page, the articles involved, and an overlapping group of 20 editors about the article probation.[37] Of these all but two or three eventually commented on the RfC.
    3. As of 12 September 2008 I tallied four editors in favor of a "terrorism" discussion on Ayers, Dohrn, and-or the Obama campaign article, and ten who opposed inclusion.[38] Around that time renewed edit warring by multiple editors lead to long-term full protection of the Dohrn and Ayers articles.[39][40]
    4. Consensus seemed clear so I proposed closing the discussion as it related to Ayers, Dohrn, and Obama, to focus on the question of how to describe terrorism in the Weathermen article.[41] I did not get agreement to partly close the discussion.
    5. From 18 to 22 September Noroton proposed additions mentioning "terrorism" to the category, lead, body, and heading (e.g. "Ayers termed a terrorist") of the Dohrn, Ayers, and Weathermen articles.[42] [43] [44] Each proposals was followed by a "case for it" subsection arguing in favor, then an open "Discussion" subsection.
    6. A few hours later Noroton noticed 30 user pages of his new proposals.[45][46] [47] [48] [49] [50]