Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive480

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

Noticeboard archives


My Neighbor Totoro tagging[edit]

Resolved: Discussion on-going on talk page; more of a content issue than a 3RR issue. ➨ ЯEDVERS will never be anybody's hero now 11:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Got a 3RR issue with JJJ999, but I'm rather frustrated with the complete lack of good faith given to a tagging editor, even after I expressed agreement with all of his tags bar one, and the fact that suddenly the aesthetics of tagging seem to have trumped the very valid OR and V issues that this article currently is experiencing. To make matters worse, this isn't even an OWN issue - the editors apparently have pre-existing issues with the tagging editor which clouds their AGF abilities, and therefore only the tagger and myself seem to be willing to discuss the matter at hand (at least as of now). Some experienced and neutral parties - preferably several at least - are needed - I'm unable to get anywhere apparently. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see any issues with the tag since the article has a whole need to be improved but I do see issues with the removal[1]. Bidgee (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd also agree that these tags shouldn't be removed. There is an insistence by some editors that tags are somehow evil in articles, and I've seen more than one who seems to religiously defend certain articles from there ever being a tag placed on them. Instantly reverting them. That kind of behaviour is counter-productive.--Crossmr (talk) 10:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
All the time spent adding and removing the tags and discussing the inclusion and exclusion of them on the talk page might have been better spent actually addressing the article's problems. Easier, too. Nevertheless, there seems little to be done by admins at this point. ➨ ЯEDVERS will never be anybody's hero now 11:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Consider blocking.[edit]

Resolved: No. ➨ ЯEDVERS will never be anybody's hero now 11:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

See and his edit history; his last edit to NSA warrantless surveillance controversy suggests it's time to consider a block. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IReceivedDeathThreats (talkcontribs) 10:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The editor seems to be focused on creating point of view in various articles from neutral points to something a bit tainted. I'd recommend a look through and rollback of most if not all edits.--Crossmr (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
What? As best I can tell, the IP and IReceivedDeathThreats had a minor revert war - four days ago! - over whether some quotes should go around "private network" ([2]). The IP even explained their edit in the edit summary. Most, if not all, of the IPs edits are good faith edits (e.g. [3], [4], [5]). Did you even look at them? For IRecievedDeathThreats to issue that final "this is the final warning you will receive" to the IP is a gross overreaction. fish&karate 10:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Neil: there's nothing block-worthy in recent edits. ➨ ЯEDVERS will never be anybody's hero now 11:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying he should be blocked, I'm saying his contribs should be looked at harder. I had a quick skim of a few edits by the IP and they appeared to be non-vandalism edits, but they all appeared to be changing the point of view of things they were editing. [6], [7] as examples of what I saw the first time through.--Crossmr (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't see anything contraversial in either of those edits. In fact, one of them seems more NPOV than the previous version. ➨ ЯEDVERS will never be anybody's hero now 11:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
(post-archive comment) Thanks for considering the block, as requested. (I thought a final warning was appropriate, given that there had been four prior warnings the same month. A short block might have put the user(s) on a better path.) It's getting worse: --IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikiport cubed[edit]

Fresh back from being blocked for "disruptive editing, and unfounded accusing of Blaxthos being at fault", Wikiport's very first edits again make sideways accusations that I am either lying or editing in bad faith, and he continues to take an adversarial approach (including condescending "quotation marks" and snarky statements) while stedfastly refusing to acknowledge the longstanding consensus that exists. This editor has yet to make any constructive contributions, and has proven time and time again that he's more interested in fighting battles, canvassing (here and here), and pushing an agenda than he is in building a community project and respecting consensus. Not sure what to do, so I'm bringing it here again for a third time. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I think the "canvassing" may be nothing more than an invitation for concensus with perhaps an overuse of "". As for this comments, he does appear to be baiting you slightly, however I am also wise to the possibility that you may be reading more into it than there is intended, as you have been a previous victim of his attitude (note, I am assuming good faith in your report, don't get me wrong, I am just exploring all angles.) I will have a word regarding his baiting, assuming as much good faith for him as warranted, but I personally think that canvassing issue may be taking it a litle far. SGGH speak! 20:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Appreciate the outside perspective. I think the major challenge here is his persistant baiting of admins and established editors, his refusal to acknowledge previously decided positions, and his snarky attitude. Given that he's been given plenty of warnings, and even blocked for his behavior, and has returned with the same agenda and tactics, I think it's time to call a spade a spade here. If there had been any constructive contributions, or indication that there was any sincerety in his comments or that he's interested in participating in the community (rather than battling), I'd be a lot more understanding. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it is clear what you are attempting here. I have made no such allegations towards you. Please do not spin my conduct in such a way, and then portray it as an attack against you. If an editor has an opposing viewpoint then you, fine. I have made every effort to make "editors" PLURAL and not singular, just for you. Regarding the quotation marks, I'm not sure you can make them condescending. Wikiport (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the diffs above. I think Blaxthos needs to look beyond minor baiting or blowing off steam by an editor who was recently blocked. Wikiport needs to try to follow civility policy more closely. Further difficult communications can be discussed at wikiquette alerts, since they are unlikely to need blocks. I note that Wikiport has familiarity with Wikipedia that is unnatural for a newcomer.[8] They could have experience at another wiki, or might be an alternate account or replacement account of another editor. Wikiport is under no obligation to reveal those facts, of course. Wikiport should avoid disruption and honor the collegial spirit of Wikipedia. That is the salient point. Jehochman Talk 20:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe Wikiport should be indefinately blocked. His recent re-factoring and removal of comments here (which he claims he did in error) is not the first time that this editor has felt fit to remove other editors contributions on talk or project pages. I believe this is a troll we would be well rid off. No useful contributions have been made by this account. None are likely in the future. Pedro :  Chat  20:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I strongly support Pedro's statement. With all due respect to Jehochman and any other admins/editors with no previous contact with Wikiport, it's clear to those of us who have had extensive interaction with him that he's a troll. Browse his entire edit history... tt's good to AGF to a point, but there is a clear history of his intent in a very short amount of time, and it's quite unlikely that he'll do anything more than become better at gaming the system, baiting other editors, and disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. In this case, it's more prudent to give some credit to your longstanding administrators and editors than it is to continue to bend over backwards extending good faith to an editor who has never given any reason to continue doing so.

Posted from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed postsGreetings to all. I'm sure some are aware of the now three ANI entries that Blaxthos has levied on me. I think it is clear that Blaxthos and I have differing opinions, although I don't believe it warrants constant ANI entries. I have not attacked him, or degraded his character in any way. I think it is clear that he is using the ANI process to further this feud which quite frankly doesn't need to exist here. I believe that these constant attempts to have me blocked is contrary to the existing philosophy of this section. I would be appreciative if this issue of constantly reporting me could be addressed. He is reading a bit too much into this, to the point of accusing me of making condescending quotation marks! Thanks Wikiport (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

NB: I have advised Wikiport regarding RFC or Peer Review to help reach concensus in a stable fashion regarding the articles he works on. SGGH speak!

If the user is trolling, there is not much harm is assuming good faith and giving them a chance to prove it beyond a doubt. If you think they have already proven it, post diffs and I will look. Jehochman Talk 21:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

We're probably coming to a point of handing out enough rope anyway. As it goes I consider myself uninvolved on this, having not being involved in the Fox News article that seems to be the issue. Simply put, I don't want to sound all Big Brother ish but if Wikiport continues with snide remarks let alone outright WP:POINTy edits I'm afraid my patience has become exhausted. Pedro :  Chat  22:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Some highlights of (not all-inclusive):
  1. Spurious G11 nomination 1
  2. Spurious G11 nomination 2
  3. Spurious sockpuppet accusation
  4. Spurious POV accusation
  5. Removing admin comments from talk pages
  6. Patronizing comment (also here, here)
  7. Spurious warning of an admin (another fake warning here)
  8. POV addition to established FAQ
  9. More trolling
  10. Smart assery
The list goes on... you could almost pick any diff and chances are there's going to be trolling somewhere it in. Go read his talk page (or, should it be blanked, browse through the history) and see if you don't find some very disturbing indicators. Also, please don't be fooled by his faux friendliness, a detailed examination of his edit history reveals the truth. I've never before suggested or voiced support for an indefinite block, and Pedro is a very well known/respected admin. The suggestion is not made lightly. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing this the same way you are, obviously. It looks to me as if he is trying at least not to escalate the dispute, and you are not doing much to damp it down. The two of you disagree, big deal; see if you can find the points of agreement or get a WP:3O. There's nothing for us to do here. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Come on, JzG... third opinion on what? Spurious G11 nominations? Smart assed passive-aggressive comments? Removing admin comments on talk pages? This has nothing to do with a content dispute. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I have agree with Blaxthos. This feels like passive-aggressive behavior intending to drive everyone crazy. I'm not sure I support a complete block now but I would have a single last warning to stop this nonsense. I mean, [proposing to deleted Fox News Channel]? And twice? Even his first comment at talk indicates a very high level of knowledge. This has gone on long enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

We are trying to come to a consensus regarding wording for a sentence in the lead of the MSNBC article, based on what is being reported in sources, and Wikiport's remark here accusing us of bad faith isn't helping things. Switzpaw (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Posted from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed postsI have seen many concerns regarding the speedy G10 deletions of the FNC article I made a little while ago. I should have researched it a bit more, but I was mistaken thinking that people would vote on it. I was corrected by Pedro. I know I don't know everything here regarding Wikipedia, but I do think a couple of growing pains are natural. I am passionate about the issues that I believe are important, as I believe many editors are. This feud with Blaxthos is quite simply childish on both sides. I believe much has been taken out of context, and elevated to a point where it doesn't need to be. My goal here is to address the FNC article, and edit a couple other of articles which interest me. My goal is not to perpetuate a "back and forth" argument with Blaxthos in a community setting. We disagree, yes; but, that's how progress is made in history. It isn't made by silencing one side of the table. Thanks again..Wikiport (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Please don't characterize it as a "feud with Blaxthos", as it's not. You were blocked by one admin, and have now had another call for you to be indefinitely removed from Wikipedia. You've made more than a few really inappropriate comments. You've outright lied in accusing me of sockpuppetry, and even tried to misrepresent an anon editor's request for assistance at WP:RFCU as a sockpuppet report against me. When you get your ass in a sling, you start trying to play nice, but every time you're given good faith you turn right back to the same disruptive behavior that got you into trouble in the first place. You've made no constructive contribution to Wikipedia, and you've not shown any remorse, humility, or respect for policy, consensus, expectations, polices, norms, or mores of Wikipedia. In short, you've already shown what your real agenda is, and you've thus far been the epitome of what Wikipedia definitely does not need. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Posted from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts: I don't wish to continue the back and forth. Blaxthos, it is clearly a feud ok? I am not trying to play nice in the wake of a 3rd ANI. I believe you are a bit quick to nominate here quite frankly. Otherwise, I have explained my prior actions. I did nominate the FNC for speedy deletion, prior to me actually understanding it - which was addressed and corrected by Pedro on my talk page, in fact, I thanked him for his patience and viewpoint. I never accused you of "sock-puppetry", I stated I had SEEN controversy regarding the issue which I quoted. You explained what I saw on your talk page. Now, I have tried to establish sections within the talk page of FNC to address this issue, which you continue to perpetuate a back and forth argument. I understand there is a consensus, I am challenging that consensus in the wake of new information given current events and objectivity. I appeal to you to stop this silliness and move on. You have been in constant argument with several editors, that's apparent to see in your history. Please stop the back and forth on the FNC talk page, and move it to my page if you want to continue slamming me for being a novice and etc. etc. Thanks..Wikiport (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
You're a liar who has tried to re-write history; the fact that I've never made such an outright accusation in my four years on Wikipedia should indicate the ferocity of the charge. Though you claim to have honest intentions, your actions belie your purpose. Slick tongue you may have, but at least two admins and multiple editors have already reached the same conclusion. In this circumstance, WP:AGF works in your favor, and few admins/editors will take the time to read all of the history. However, given how quickly you've gone from "newbie" to potential indefinite block I'm sure at some point the community writ large will reach the same conclusion those of us who have interacted with you already have. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
You are letting this get under your skin. Relax. Your behavior is starting to look a bit too emotional. Look, as I said, we are both passionate about the articles we find interesting. There is no need to go back and forth and pick each other apart. I initiated an RFC on the FNC article talk page in a genuine attempt to put this to rest. Let's see where it goes. I apologize if I have in some way caused you harm or insult. Take care, Wikiport (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Very clever to again try and shade this as some sort of feud or "emotional" vendetta. It's not -- you're a liar, plain and simple. You lied about TWO G11 nominations being "typos" when also admitting that "it was a long shot" and an intentional violation of WP:POINT. You lied about a sockpuppetry allegation against me, then tried to repeat that lie here. You lied about removing other editors' and administrators comments from THIS FORUM as well as article talk pages. You've lied about your intentions for Wikipedia. You were blocked for making false statements. You turn nice when you either want something, or realize you're in real danger of being removed, but you always return to your faux passive-aggressive bullshitting, of which your latest comment is slathered like icing on a cake. I have absolutely no doubt that you'll continue to cause disruption should you be allowed to stay on Wikipedia, and strongly believe that you're a troll who should be excised immediately not because I'm "emotional" or "upset", but because you've already proven what kind of editor you are. Anyone who needs confirmation should read all of the diffs I posted in a numbered list above and then re-read this entire thread. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
You are not emotional how? I haven't lied about anything. I did see controversy regarding sock-puppets on your talk page. I did use (2) <G10> nominations for the page, but I didn't quite understand the format and made plenty of typos; all explained on 3 talk pages. I haven't intentionally removed any comments from this forum, as I started to comment on the other ANI talk page, just so that wouldn't be an issue. You are in constant disagreement with editors, constantly threatening blocks, etc. I don't appreciate your language one bit, it only shows how you continue to escalate this silliness. The only continual and constant disruption I see, is from you refusing to let a pertinent conversation take place on the FNC talk page. You bully editors until the point of absurdity. Anyone is welcome to see the diffs and realize how you are blowing this out of proportion. You have consistently attacked me on several forums, and are abusing this ANI process to gain support for your cause. If you constantly need the last word, here; take it. I have neither the time nor inclination to continue to engage your heated attacks. You have stated your point, now stop addressing me as you have crossed the line in your language and accusations. Wikiport (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I have had a talk with Wikiport, and he has agreed to utilise RFC and Peer Review to discuss, openly, the changes he wishes to make to the article. As far as I am concerned, this is the best solution, and you should both hold fire. WP:ANI is not the place to start arguing again, and I believe you are both on the verge of disrupting Wikipedia to make your points about each other. If Wikiport can keep his views to the content along Wikipedia guidelines as he has promised, then Blaxthos you should be able to calm down also, or this is just going to escalate into a back-and-forth gotta-have-the-last-word where no one will be able to untangle the mess and discover what originally happened. Is this acceptable? SGGH speak! 10:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree, thank you for taking the time to address this issue. Wikiport (talk) 11:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, SGGH, I have to take some exception to your WP:POINT claim with regards to me -- I have an unblemished editorial history going back to 2004, and I've never been blocked or the subject of any action or admonition, and I'm not the only person here who believes Wikiport is a troll who should be removed indefinitely. That being said, I'm glad to be done with this ordeal and will happily move forward from here, with one caveat (that I think is well earned given past behavior): If Wikiport returns to any sort of unacceptable behavior (namely: making false statements, violating WP:POINT, making bad faith nominations, engaging in personal attacks, removing others' comments, or making blatantly patronizing comments) he be blocked for a very long time. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


Please block this user's account as his/her updates have been disruptive to both the WPRS and WPTVS projects. Several users have complained and I'm now reporting it. Thanks. --RoomDownUnitStage (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As a member of both of those projects, I have only seen one complaint about User:FMBlogger, when he linked the frequencies in the state-by-state lists. If there are others, I am not aware of them.
Also, RoomDownUnitStage isn't doing anything to really help the situation. RoomDownUnitStage first called User:FMBlogger "Mr. Idiot" in one post (later removed it) and tagged the user's talk page with a "Banned" template. That isn't doing anything to help the situation.
The edits FMBlogger is making appear to be good faith edits, as a non-admin, I see no reason for FMBlogger to be blocked. - NeutralHomerTalk 01:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
While I'd agree that User:FMBlogger has been causing a bit of havoc recently and it's been tough to engage them in discussion, I'm highly inclined to assume good faith. However, it seems odd that User:RoomDownUnitStage created their account only an hour ago, and has done nothing in that time other than revert a change, insult User:FMBlogger on their talk page, improperly add the banned user template to both their user page and talk page, post to the talk pages of multiple administrators asking for them to be banned, and file this report. Seems a little like trying to swat a housefly with a bazooka, but maybe it's just me. Mlaffs (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not just you, I smell something fishy here. Mainly on User:RoomDownUnitStage's end. Check out [9] (mainly the last couple of votes and their editor's histories). User:MrMarkTaylor What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box 02:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, the plot thickens. Dlohcierekim 02:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you will all just be stunned to know that all these accounts edit from the same PC and IP address,

Who woulda thunk it? Thatcher 06:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would "FMBlogger" create something (a template) and create 9 accounts to sway a vote to get what he created deleted? Sometimes people don't make sense to me, they really don't. - NeutralHomerTalk 06:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
There are 10 more sockpuppet accounts, it was easier to just block them from the checkuser interface, so see my block log or Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of FMBlogger. Thatcher 07:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral, it's all about the drama for some people. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess so, just seems like a waste of time that could be spent doing something good. - NeutralHomerTalk 08:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies if I don't understand properly how blocking works, but shouldn't FMBlogger's account be blocked too, or was that just missed in the clean-up of this mess? Mlaffs (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

  • The puppet master account could be warned, blocked briefly, or blocked indefinitely, depending on the scope of the problem. For example, is this a generally good user who messed up a couple of times or is this a generally poor editor who used sockpuppets to disguise how bad he was? An admin or two should review the overall situation, perhaps someone familiar with the radio/TV wiki projects. Thatcher 15:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

What now?[edit]

So, the next question is what to do with the large mass of individual frequency pages created by FMBlogger. And the hundreds of redirects to those pages. At the TFD that started all this, I had expressed that I felt this could be useful once completed. With this sock meltdown, that completion looks unlikely. And IMHO a partial effort on this is worse than nothing. So the question remains, what is best to do with the mass of partially completed frequency pages? Leave them? Mass-AFD them? Mass-PROD them? And there are several hundred redirects as well to the mass of frequency pages. Sigh. I had hoped this would end well. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, indeed. And here I'd hoped I'd only ever have to look at this page as a voyeur — oh well. This sort of drahma is why people are all too ready to skip past assuming good faith. I'm certainly feeling a little burned.
I've said a couple of times that I can see some value to those frequency pages for disambiguation purposes, as long as the template is deleted. In fact, before FMBlogger got all this mess rolling, a handful of frequency pages like these already existed. I cleaned links to them only a few weeks ago.
The beauty of a disambiguation page is that, unlike a list, it doesn't have to be complete. In fact, the common intro line for a dab page — XXXX may refer to: — rather explicity envisions that it might be incomplete. It may refer to these things, which means it may also refer to other things not yet listed there.
That being said, I'd be prepared to adopt them and try to finish the work that was started, assuming that there's consensus for keeping them. I don't think a mass AFD is the way to go to figure that out, though — it'd be an absolute dog's breakfast. Do we have another venue for having that discussion, seeing as it'll interest at least the radio station, TV station, and disambiguation projects, if no one else? Mlaffs (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
If we are not going to mass-AFD them, then yeah, one of the broadcast WP-projects would seem to me to be the logical place to take this discussion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Even though my time is more limited lately, I can take a look after them as well. The template is useful in terms of organization. spryde | talk 16:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Probably a more appropriate discussion for the template deletion discussion, but I think it's only useful for organization for us as editors of the pages shown in the template. It would also be useful if these were set up as lists, because a reader might want to navigate between related lists, but they're not — they're disambiguation pages. I can't envision a reason any reader of the site would need to navigate from one dab page to another. For editing ease, it appears that these dab pages are all included in [[Category:Lists of radio stations by frequency]], which I think is a more appropriate method of organization.
That being said, I'd be thrilled to have more eyes on the pages, in the event there's consensus to keep them — thanks! Mlaffs (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Template deletion[edit]

Just to make sure this doesn't get lost in the shuffle, it would be helpful to get an admin's eyes on the discussion at the templates for deletion page. Before we get too deep into the discussion at either of the broadcast projects about the pages themselves, it would help to have the fate of the template decided. I think we've had all the eyes on the discussion that we're going to get. Mlaffs (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Armenia-related concern over multiple accounts[edit]

The users

appear (from a brief check) plausibly the same user, and also to have edited on the same articles in the same time frame.

Sample articles:

I'm a bit busy, but can another checkuser look into this a bit more? (And notify the users, busy here, thanks)

FT2 (Talk | email) 17:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh-huh. How plausibly is plausibly? Can I take it to the bank? Will it last longer than the bank? I've been stung recently which CU "likelys" that turned out to be not-so-plausible after all. BTW, as of yet this doesn't actually constitute alternate account abuse, seeing as the articles in question are non-controversial and no falsification of consensus appears to be involved. Moreschi (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't speak for others. I prefer understatement; "plausible" in this case means "same IP, likely same computer, multiple articles in common". That is why I have asked for another checkuser's input. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


I am writing to this board losing any kind of belief in balance and fairness of WP:AE in judging the issues of basic civility. I opened a thread at WP:AE few days ago, emanating from the usage of "rv: did you drop something on your head? because you're showing signs of amnesia. See talk" language by User:VartanM. Instead of addressing the issue of personal attack, arbitrator User:Moreschi banned me from two topical pages for this addition of reference on one of them(!), and issued about a dozenth warning to User:VartanM (see some prior counts of incivility warnings: [10], [11]; and incivilities of User:VartanM:

and now: "rv: did you drop something on your head? because you're showing signs of amnesia. See talk"

Please, let me know your judgment as to how many more times does VartanM need to be warned before becoming bolder every single time. As a matter of fact, I expect few users, including VartanM, appearing after me here, opening gigantic thread of WP:SOAP, and accusing me of forum shopping. But provided the evidence and lack of ability by AE to arbitrate in a balanced fashion, I am just frustrated. I contribute to Wikipedia definitely not for listening to such language or to be page banned for adding reference to Oxford scholar. Atabəy (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing administrators should note Wikipedia:AE#Result. Moreschi is an administrator, but not one of the arbitrators (which isn't necessary anyway to do arbitration enforcement).--chaser - t 00:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Note to admins. The matter was closed by an administrator who is very well familiar with the case and all of its intricate details. This report is frivolous, midly put.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 03:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Look, I've told Vartan to cool it. If he doesn't, next time I will block him regardless of circumstances. He has agreed to do so. As regards WP:AE#Result, I can quite understand Vartan's frustration: the discussion on the two pages was hashed out almost a year ago: for Atabek to come back pushing exactly the same rejected arguments (though not completely meritless ones) is just WP:TE and WP:ICANTHEARYOU, something he is prone too. Moreschi (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Moreschi, your judgment is in violation of WP:OWN. The discussion at Talk:Khachen and Talk:Sahl Smbatean was not "closed" neither it was moderated by a third party to reach to agreement. It was just left out of attention because of constant revert warring, baiting and POV pushing by a group of users from one POV side, starting with User:Anatolmethanol, a sock of User:Fadix. If at all, your topic ban is only favoring one party over another.
And you're incorrect that my edits violate WP:TE. In fact, this is one of my initial edits [12] of Khachen page and past edit [13] of Sahl Smbatean, where I indicated both Albanian and Armenian references. Yet the result was an edit war by POV contributors from one side to remove any reference favoring Albanian version.
And now you're banning me from two articles, while VartanM is doing this? - a) removing an Oxford reference violation WP:TE; b) personally insulting me violating WP:NPA. And he is on parole with Nth warning (N being far larger than 5 already), while banning User:Baku87 for 48 hours without any warning for just one revert(!).
Anyways, I expect these facts to be reviewed by an independent admin, and all of these will be further pursued until we find out based on which Wikipedia rule I am being topic banned from two articles for this edit, while others fail to follow WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, WP:OWN.
Chaser, I thank you for archiving irrelevant SOAP, this post of mine is addressed to Moreschi, so I expect Moreschi or another admin to respond to it. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how attempting the gimmick of putting a banned user in the equation would reasonably make Atabek's case stronger. When the only edit made from that sock in either article was this one which was to revert to Atabek's version. VartanM (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is a recent example that shows the problem with Atabek's conduct. Addai is a Osorene related article from all of which he was banned for two months, back in March.
He added this to Addai article, the only reference about the subject in the entire book is on page 16.
Destroit's Chaldean pastor proudly told me in 1962, they have been Catholic from the beginning. Their people, it is claimed, were converted by Saint Thomas the Apostle on one of his journeys; by Saint Addai, a disciple of Christ; and by Saint Mari.
It is true that he is venerated by the Orthodox Christians, but the source he provided does not support the claim, in fact for the Orthodox Christians he is not a disciple but an Apostle. It is very difficult to believe that Atabek did not knew the source was talking about the Catholics. Besides saying disciple alone is misleading, since it refers to to one of the 12 apostles, not the seventy, which is different. It does not seem Atabek even read the article, otherwise he would've seen that the information he was adding was already covered.
It is quite often that Atabek makes such edits, which can not be ignored and will almost always be reverted, at which point he will then accuse the reverter of removing sourced information. The above mentioned was done after he reported me. It was as if he was expecting me to revert and have something to add. Administrators usually do not go as far to check for misuse of sources, so Atabek's claim of removal of sources will be the only complaint being considered.
In short he misuses sources, and when they are removed he reports the user for removal. A lot like fishing, only when nobody takes the bait, the bait starts eating Wikipedia's integrity. VartanM (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Assuming this even requires an administrator's review, continuing the tit-for-tat here makes it less likely that anyone will bother to look at it. Let's not.-chaser - t 13:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Cross posting from User_talk:Moreschi. Please pay closer attention as to how Atabek is cherry picking. For example, his second quote was an answer to his own incivil reply which included: Also, I am not an expert on spiritual or moral matters, but what's your opinion on deliberate removal of evidence,..., for which he was banned for 4 days, by Chaser[14]. You will see here that Thatcher actually agreed with me on the matter.

Third quote, I don't take this back at all, and find nothing wrong given the situation, this was what Atabek was doing. See this edit, Atabek reinstated (material coming from tallarmeniantale) which was already shown in the talkpage to be misused, for example Auron which Atabek attributed the figure to, did not claim this. It was already explained back in March 2006. See here, last paragraph. See the entire talkpage preceding Atabek reinsertions. You can also read this section and see how many times Atabek attempted to put words in the mouth of a scholar.

The fourth quote Atabek presented is ...., please open the link and see what happened, it will become obvious that my comment was way too light. See the context in this report, on this page, about Atabek's conduct here while this usually will have been considered as a severe case of vandalism, he got away without even a block. For the rest, I'm sure you can go on and read the discussions and context. Every user has bad days and may occasionally resort to incivility, but it is quite obvious that Atabek disruptions go beyond this. I will not even bother replying to his claim about Dowsett, that he sustains what has been shown wrong by several users shows that the topic ban was more than appropriate. VartanM (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

And just as I predicted above, here came the WP:SOAP. Anyways, I expect an answer and some balanced judgment by administrators. I guess previous ArbCom based on false identity accusations, WP:HARASS and other flagrant violations by the contributors accusing me above, should be sufficient to see how their behavior wastes community time. And now all of it for a simple inability to say I am sorry for for incivil language which, based on evidence above, seems to be habitual. Atabəy (talk) 08:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


I have just rv an edit on British Empire where a reference was made to a web site of admittedly interesting photographs, although not directly related to the topic. Checking the edit history] the edit concerned (who owns the site) seems to be on a mission to insert the web site onto many pages possibly to gain revenue from Google ads. This seems to me a breech of policy, but I may be wrong. If someone with more knowledge that I could look at and advise/action I would be grateful. --Snowded TALK 08:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like spam to me. I've reverted their more recent edits and left a spam warning on their talk page.-gadfium 08:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree with that, and would suggest a block if he continues as he does not seem to have made any constructive edits. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
If the user continues to insert spam links, report the user to WP:AIV. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 17:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Watchlist problem help[edit]

Hello, I am wondering if anyone can help my technical problem. Whcih is quite important:

Everytime I try to enter "My Watchlist", I get this message:

Redirect Loop

Redirection limit for this URL exceeded. Unable to load the requested page. This may be caused by cookies that are blocked.

The browser has stopped trying to retrieve the requested item. The site is

redirecting the request in a way that will never complete.

  • Have you disabled or blocked cookies required by this site?

  • NOTE: If accepting the site's cookies does not resolve the problem, it is probably a server configuration issue and not your computer.

I really need some help on this one, thanks. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 16:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This is under discussion here already. Try bypassing your cache to see the Watchlist again. Regards SoWhy 16:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but that doesn't solve the problem for me at all. Instead, things run as slow as treacle as well as getting the iedntical error message that was posted above. I've cleared the cache, bypassed the cache, set the cache to zero and tried all the solutions suggested in the link you provided: none work. Firefox 3.0.3 being used here, but the problem also persists if I use Internet Explorer instead.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I cant even log in now, I'm User:Police,Mad,Jack, I really need some help. (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Apparent_server_problem. While wikipedia is still very slow for me, adding "?action=purge" to the end of the URL worked to at least get my watchlist back. – sgeureka tc 17:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Its on a bit of a go-slow. But its fixed now, thanks very much for your help. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 17:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Its fixed, thanks very much Sgeureka. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 17:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

  • See here for explanation. In short: squids got confused and it takes a while to untangle their tentacles :) – Sadalmelik 17:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that link provide good explaination. AdjustShift (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Violence threat[edit]


Does anything need to be done about this or is it a case of RBI? (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a death threat. Anyone live in Newfoundland? Gwen Gale (talk) 11:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
No one lives in Newfoundland. It was abandoned back in the 70s. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
IP is blocked. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was the subject of a report here last week due to a suicide threat. Anyone in Canada want to report this? Contact details are here -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
This is the same troll IP account that posted the suicide threat last week (see his contributions). He's almost certainly watching this thread, having enjoyed the drama last time. He's blocked for 6 months, now ignore.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
While I'm loath to say WP:RBI for a death threat, this IP has a history of trolling. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 13:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Policy_on_threats_of_violence_and_suicide. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

First a suicide threat, now a death threat? Reminds of the old joke about a guy holding a gun to his head and telling his audience, "Don't laugh - you're next!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wiki libs[edit]

Hello, I've been a Wikipedia editor for about 3 months and I've enjoyed being a part of the site--until today:

At about 9:06 PM today, I went into the "Grace Under Pressure" (the Rush album) page and decided to revert the page back to a version that Stereoroid had written. It contained a section about the equipment that Rush used on the album. Originally, the whole section was Original Research and was removed. Being a follower of the band, and good observer, I knew his edits were accurate (even though they were uncited) and I found [15]. This page was simply about the equipment that Geddy Lee used over his career with Rush. I cited Stereoroid's edits and went back to reading Wikipedia.

I came back to the page about 35 minutes later, and the referenced edits were deleted! I couldn't believe it! I looked in the revision history and saw that Wiki libs reverted them back using pop-ups. I started a section in his talk page called "Grace Under Pressure" and wrote, "What was wrong with the Grace Under Pressure edits? They had references." He replies back 13 minutes later with, "Destructive edits rather than constructive edits." (He didn't spell destructive right--he spelt it "distructive)."

I was completely baffled!!! How was my referenced edits "districtive" as Mr. Wiki Libs wrote?!?!

Well, I replied back saying they were properly cited. I thought I did the reference right--but just in case I didn't I wrote in parentheses "At least I think so."

A few minutes later I get a rambling, incoherent, and completely wacked-out paragraph of BULLSHIT saying that I vandalized the page, tampered with the links, and that I violated rules and policies (WTF?!). And if that wasn't enough, Mr. Wiki Libs writes the following sentences: "I thought it was funny when you created your RedPenofDicks sockpuppet account. But your attempt at real editing is not funny and 95% of them have to be reverted."

I read this and I was completely shocked and enraged!!! I write "What in the blue blazes!" And all this idiot writes back is "Goodbye." I tried writing back, but I couldn't because of "edit conflicts."

Let me say some stuff first:

1. Lets get something straight--I DIDN'T FREAKING TAMPER WITH THE PAGE!!! I wasn't aware of the "vandalism" edits that Stereoroid made: I thought it was just the instrument section that needed to be edited. I had no intentions of doing anything else to that page besides fixing that one section.

2. Wiki Libs has made personal attacks at me. He is completely out of line and HE needs to be AWARE of the policies here.

3. The last thing I need to hear is being accused of creating sockpuppet accounts. I have edited from only one account "Greg D. Barnes." That's my freaking real name! My account is clean. (No warnings, etc)

4. Most of my edits are good faith and reliable. No vandalism edits. I can guarantee you that some of my edits them are are still in their respective pages.

5. Who in the blue hell is "RenPenofDicks?" If you are talking about RedPenofDoom, that is an editor here who is known for identifying sections of pages without references/links. I will admit, I was mad when he deleted half the page for The Game (Queen Album) but he says he did it because it was unsourced. I was in the process of rebuilding the page with accurate references (he said I could as long as they had sources) when Wiki Libs deleted them all AGAIN!!! (Even though they were sourced).

6. I have no beef with RedPen. I am a good person who obeys the policies here.

Have a good day Sincerely, Greg D. Barnes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg D. Barnes (talkcontribs) 03:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well this is rather unfortunate. The communication on the part of both wasn't terribly good in this case (explaining what you're doing in edit summaries is encouraged). I'm also rather confused about Wiki lib's allusion to "RenPenofDicks" (an account created specifically to annoy RedPenofDoom, actually), as I can't obvious evidence linking you to that account (I assume this is because there is none). I hope this incident doesn't cause you to leave the 'pedia; we need to keep as many editors as possible. Cheers, and feel free to let me know if you need help with anything. lifebaka++ 04:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I sounded like a dick in my statements. I don't think I'm going to leave Wikipedia--but I'm going to stay low for while until Wiki Libs calms down. I just want to talk to him to straighten this mess out--but he won't listen!--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I told him of this thread. I assume he just lost it for a bit and I hope he apologies. I do have to agree with Lifebaka that you should use edit summaries. Most of your edits are clear but when you are adding new content like that, it is helpful if others understood what you were doing. Next time, I would wait a little while (both of you sleep on it overnight) before going any further, instead of coming straight here. This really isn't the place for this kind of stuff anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rick, you're a good guy. I'll just sleep this incident off. I will use edit summaries from now on.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 06:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I am late coming to my own defence... but... as I said before... it was as plain as the nose on... oh never mind. What am I apologising for again? :-D The Real Libs-speak politely 18:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Red warning.png

Blocked: Greg D. Barnes blocked for 1 week for disruptive editing proven by checkuser, including creating the vandal accounts Hagrid's half brother (talk · contribs), G.r.a.w.p.y. (talk · contribs) and RedPenOfDicks (talk · contribs), editing warring while logged out (from multiple IP addresses), and harassing user:TheRedPenOfDoom from those IP addresses. Thatcher 16:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Greg D. Barnes indefinite ban[edit]

After my block of him for a week, see his talk page, also this. Having been caught red-handed, the thing to do is apologize and promise not to do it again (even an insincere promise will get you a second and even a third chance). But he is not just caught with his hand in the cookie jar here, he has crumbs on his shirt and melted chocolate chips on his fingers, and he says, "No it was the other guy" while simultaneously vandalizing my user page. No contrition, no apology==no editing privilege. Thatcher 20:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Not questioning the ban, but the link is not working for me (probably related to Thatcher's having to purge Grawp vandalism from history). Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, sorry about that. One of Grawp's tactics is to post a link to an old diff on /b/ and ask people to click "Save"; basically reverting to an old vandalism edit. So periodically I purge my talk page history of 4chan edits. Barnes' vandalism (pretending to be Grawp, in fact) can be seen in these admin-only diffs [16] [17] or by looking in the deleted contribs of (talk · contribs) and (talk · contribs). Amazing what a $17,000 per year education buys these days. Thatcher 21:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Real life threats[edit]

Resolved: Sockpuppet indef blocked. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 18:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Assuredly decided to go gung ho and call me in real life. He threatened to remove me from the internet forever or something like that. I hope it doesn't mean coming to my house with a hatchet. But supposedly one of his IPs registers him in Alaska which might help. While I calmed the user down enough to divert them to IP, I'm left disturbed. Besides leaving messages on various pages, should I inform WP of such incidents? Another user claims he has done the same to another WP user (a Federal employee). .:davumaya:. 04:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Two threads up. Totally not cool. If it's not too late, I'd do a call trace on the number. If you need to call the authorities eventually (ie. he continues harassing you or whatnot), that will help. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
How did he get your number? Grsztalk 04:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh I make no effort to hide an easy Google path to "find me." Partially because I haven't taken much effort and that if its really important, it will be for a reason. Perhaps it hasn't been. Oh well. .:davumaya:. 04:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to let ArbCom know by emailing them at arbcom-l /a/ Cheers, Daniel (talk) 04:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Assuredly has been blocked indefinitely by Jehochman. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I sent an email to the rest of the Committee with links to this and and the above discussion so they will know the background information. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is the only ohe, a user in the same project he was causing trouble in, said he got called as well over Wikipedia. See User talk:Hurricanehink.Mitch32(UP) 13:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That might be what Davumaya was referring to in the last sentence of his initial post. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

How to remove things from a Deletion Log[edit]

I've gotten an interesting request on my talk page, namely someone who says that there is inacurate personal information in the deltion log of a certain article. I could direct them to Oversite, but I'm not certain that even oversite can clear out entries in a deletion log. This edit, last section, now only accessible to admins, is the one from my talk page asking for the assistance. I've deleted it from my talk page because I don't want to publicise the specific situation beyond admins, and many, many people read AN/I.

Anyway, the basic question is whether what the user wants, removal of an entry from a deletion log, is even possible for Oversite, or are they out of luck. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is just a big database, and someone with full access to it can delete (or alter) anything. I'm not sure if there are limits on what an Oversighter can delete, but a Developer could do it, for sure. --Abd (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
And I would assume then that if an Oversighter considered it a needed removal, but could not do it themselves, that they would pass it along? The point then being to just go ahead and direct the user to Oversight, and let Oversight handle it, I'm assuming. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted revisions can be removed by an oversighter - if absolutely necessary, they can simply restore the versions they need to remove and then oversight them. The only reason a dev would need to be involved if there were personal information in the log entry itself, in this case, "Deleting a specific edit from the page". As long as the edit is accessible somewhere by an oldid number or timestamp, that's all an OS needs. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
It *is* in one of the logs, the deletion log of a page, rather than a specific edit. Kinda moot now, as from Alison below this has indeed already been sent to oversight. Either they'll fix it or they'll be able to get someone to fix it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and I deleted the request from my talk page so that this AN/I thread would not send a flood of people looking at the problem information. There's nothing directly problematic about the edits on my talk page, other than them being a link to the true problem. There's nothing on my talk page that needs oversight. The one deleted edit can stay just deleted for now, allowing admins/oversight to find the problem, and keeping gawkers away from it. If the problem log gets oversighted/removed, I may or may not restore the one edit, as it'll be moot with nothing to track to. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Oversight can't really do this (I just tried as there was a request placed), but we can restore the page, move it to some other-named place, like temp00001, and delete it over there. Any sysop can do this. I've seen the log entry in question and doing this will effectively disconnect the guy's RL name from the deletion summary - Alison 15:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I kinda tried this but to no avail. I was able to oversight the move, though :) I've sent a note to Brion to see if he can purge the log entries as this has now gone to Oversight - Alison 15:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Alison, look again at the page log (not just the deletion log). The move is still there.--chaser - t 21:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for trying all this...I offered as much advice as I could to the user in question, but was unsure of the limitations of oversight. Cheers, — Scientizzle 16:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Autoblocker causing extra collateral[edit]

Just a warning to everyone: based on an email we recently received at the unblock list, and a short test I just conducted on myself, the user talk page locker recently added to the block menu appears to be interfering with the autoblocker. Users who are affected by someone else's autoblock do not appear to be able to edit their own talk page, which means they cannot request unblocking through the normal means, only via email or through IRC, neither of which are the most accessible or desirable means, especially for someone we didn't mean to block. The logs from my test are here: [18]. I've filed a bug report already at bugzilla:15789, but I'd appreciate someone else looking at this and making sure I'm not going mad. If there is a problem with the autoblocker, please be careful about when you block and possibly consider disabling the autoblocker in cases when it's not entirely needed until this is fixed. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

A temporary solution is to not use it at all and just protect talk pages where needed. Like we did in the olden days of... last week. ➨ ЯEDVERS will never be anybody's hero now 19:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, I honestly can't see any benefit in this new blocking option. In my opinion you simply can not know whether there will be continuing disruptive editing on the talk page when blocking an user/an IP or not. From where should you know? You can't know what will happen in the future (!). Therefore, as far as I can see, this blocking option is completely needless. If there actually is vandalism after blocking an user/an IP, the talk page can be protected. That worked well until now and there is no reason why it shouldn't work any longer. Is that just my feeling on this issue? —αἰτίας discussion 20:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a followup that in my experience with some of the blocking scripts, the talk page disabler is being applied by default instead of by choice. Can we force the software to default to non-disabling? MBisanz talk 20:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The bug 15789 has been fixed apparently. Re MBisanz, there's a thread over at WP:VPT questioning that, but the default doesn't look likely to change. People will have to update their scripts. Re aitias, see my comment here. At the moment, anyone who was blocked before the introduction of this feature cannot edit their talk page. It's due to be fixed apparently. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I also applied a block to an account that was on a shared IP. Another editor was using the shared IP and got caught in the autoblock. As above, he emailed to say he couldn't request unblock on his talk page. This is a pretty major flaw and we need this fixed ASAP - Alison 20:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
User:Mr.Z-man has reported on bugzilla that this should be fixed in r41444. As for when this will become live, that's not yet certain, but I'm guessing it'll be in a couple days. In the meantime, it may be possible to consider temporary IP Block Exemptions if the autoblock really shouldn't be removed. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Ave Caesar & CadenS on Jesse Dirkhising[edit]

I'm having a problem with two editors on Jesse Dirkhising, an article I've fully vetted, re-written and am trying to get to GA status. The article has been largely free of disputes and stable since the rewrite several months ago.

Another editor and I were discussing converting over the citation style to make editing the HTML easier for them when Ave Caesar (talk · contribs) added the {{citation style}} tag, which was odd because the discussion was already in process and the tag is about the uniformity and appearance which was already done. Our discussion was about switching over from one system to another. I explained in my edit summary "rmv tag as unneeded, they are all consistent at present and there is presently a discussion on converting them". They re-inserted the tag so I tried to explained the tag wasn't addressing any relevant issue to Ave Caesar and they deleted the thread citing my concern should only be placed on the article talk page. They didn't join in the discussion but instead re-added the tag. I, tried again to explain how the tag was unhelpful - they deleted this thread as well. As far as I know tagging the article and reverting my edits has been their only involvement on that article. Looking at some of their recent edits I was a little shocked to see edit warring over the WP:LGBT project tag on Lindsay Lohan with Dev920 who has, as part of their signature "who misses Jeffpw". Stunningly Ave Caesar follows up with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Jeffpw/Isaäc's Memorial Page.

My introduction to CadenS (talk · contribs) was a bit more blunt as they were a newbie, as far as I can tell, and on the Jesse Dirkhising article they plain out just accused me of a few things and lobbed a few personal attacks my way then left the article about six months ago. We had been dialogging on their talkpage as I tried to help find them some grounding and on-wiki resources so thought that whatever hard feelings were there had dissipated. Then again within the last month or so on E.O. Green School shooting I could feel the level rise a bit and CadenS takes a bit of a dig at me and follows it a day later by accusing me and two others of "hateful attacks". No requests for explanation are answered but they seemed to be dialogging with others on their talk page so I left well enough alone. Now CadenS is back to Jesse Dirkhising and their first edits there were to change instances of gay to homosexual, which is generally considered pejorative outside a research context - for instance, it's not the "Homosexual Pride Parade" except to some conservative religious folks - it's Gay Pride. They also changed some content thus misrepresenting what the sources stated. I reverted back and point out the concerns and they respond by calling me a POV pusher. At this point Ave Caesar reverts "restoring encyclopedic language" which i revert and going back to the sources to see if there is a better way to reflect what they state I return to the article to insert a quote in hopes of resolving misrepresenting a source to find CadenS has again reverted.

I'm unsure if they are working together on purpose but they are effectively causing the article to fail the GA process for being unstable, amongst other concerns, and I see no future in trying to complete the clean-up with two users edit-warring and inserting problematic and POV language. I would appreciate others looking at this and I'm uncomfortable reverting either of them and don't see engaging them any further as a good path for me. Just writing all this up has taken away the rest of my time for editing today. I have to get some sleep but I think the above lays out what I see as the issue. -- Banjeboi 14:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree that these users should be discussing on the talk page instead of reverting. Have you contacted kotra (talk · contribs), who is CadenS's mentor? Although that is an option, I expect editors to be responsible for their actions, and not require a mentor talk them out of disproportionately defensive posts. CadenS is clearly passionate about gay-themed articles and has been asked to avoid them in the past, to my memory. Though his comments about E.O. Green school shooting correctly indicated the poor writing and layout of the article, the stressful way it was brought about was unnecessary. --Moni3 (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Moni, Benji never once initiated any type of discussion on this matter. He went and filed this report instead. Let me remind you that Mr. Benji was reverting left, right and center. How convenient to see how you leave that part out. Furthermore, Kotra did not talk me out of anything. You insinuating such a thing is insulting to both Kotra and I. And another thing, since when is rape, murder or shooting's suddenly classified as "homosexual-themed" type of articles? That's a narrow way of thinking on your part and I'm shocked that you would post such a thing here. Caden S (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I find Benj's choice of words ("they", "their", "them"), to describe me personally, as very offensive. I have a name. My name is Caden. That's C-A-D-E-N. I'm also a male. That's M-A-L-E. Therefore my gender is "he", and not "they" or "them" or "their". Got it? Now, in regards to the word "homosexual", this is the correct word to be used. It's used in the same way as the word "heterosexual" is often used. Homosexual is only considered pejorative by those who support the political correct movement. I did change some of Benji's POV content because he was misrepresenting what those sources stated. He deliberately did that to mislead the readers just like he's been doing with the E. O. article by adding the POV "see also" sections that serve his biased POV. The real issue here is the issue of POV language used by Benji and him misleading the readers by insinuating this in the main article. I also find it highly insulting that he is accusing me of working together with Ave Caesar on purpose. I've never spoken to User:Ave Caesar, and he or she has never had any contact with me. Furthermore, Benji claims I took a dig at him? Please. I was defending myself. I was replying to an attack made by him (on the E.O. page) towards me when he had the nerve to say: "Let's not paint all gay people as predators or liars or anything else". I found his statement offensive, bizarre, and completely uncalled for. Caden S (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Caden: Chill, no one can tell your gender on teh Internet. A simple "Oh, btw I'm male" would have done. Your "get it?" etc is very hostile. I am sure no rudeness was intended. People on Wikipedia refer to other editors as "he" "she" and "they" almost at random it seems, and it is generally best to ignore or tactfully inform the editor using the incorrect term. As regarding "homosexual" vs. "gay" that is a content dispute and belongs on the talk page of the article - but the parade is certainly the "gay pride" parade and not the "homosexual pride" parade, so at least one of your edits is simply wrong. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, it's me. I haven't been contacted, but as you say, all editors are responsible for their own actions (though I would appreciate it if these issues were discussed with me occasionally). I want to clear up a few things, though. Caden has already apologized for some of the issues raised above, and has voluntarily maintained long breaks from LGBT-related articles in the past. As for this recent incident (changing "gay" to "homosexual" on Jesse Dirkhising), that seems like a minor content dispute that you should discuss with each other first before bringing up here. So concerning Caden, I'm not sure what this incident report is for, since it's a minor dispute and has not yet received much discussion. Concerning Ave Caesar, I don't really have an opinion about their edits, except I very much doubt they are conspiring in any way with Caden. -kotra (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Killer, I'm sorry but you are so wrong. Benji knows full well that I'm a male and he knows my name very well. He and I have had conflicts in the past concerning the Dirkhising and E. O. pages. Furthermore, I know nothing about such parades and have no interest in them. And for the record, I made no edits on any parade so I have no clue what you're talking about. Also, I agree with Kotra. He should of have been contacted regardless of my actions. He is my adopter. Caden S (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, did he? Still not seeing why you should bother to care. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I beg your pardon? How would you like it if I called you "it", huh? Because that's basically how he's referring to me on this report. And that sir, is why I bother to care. Caden S (talk) 09:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
A bit of a side-note concerning this: "I expect editors to be responsible for their actions, and not require a mentor talk them out of disproportionately defensive posts.". I actually disapproved of that comment, and I did not "talk him out of it". -kotra (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, this is a content dispute and not really a matter for ANI. This should be on the discussion on the article talk page. The issue is over the inclusion of encyclopedic language. The user wishes to replace "homosexual" with the slang term "gay." --Ave Caesar (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Sorry I see this as an editing dispute. Ave Caesar's only participation there has been disruptive, IMHO, coupled with their other, apparently anti-LGBT concerns are also alarming. With CadenS, his changing gay to homosexual, reinforced too by Ave Caesar, along with misrepresenting sources is basic vandalism that should be reverted under normal circumstances. Gay is not considered slang and that both these editors fail to see its pejorative connotations is also disquieting. That CadenS couples this with bad faith accusations and hostility aren't encouraging. Wikipedia isn't a battleground or a place for POV pushing. If any of the gay people involved self-identified as homosexual it's usually good to put that in the article as such. Instead mainstream society and media outlets use gay. I find having to explain this is this decade a bit odd - homosexual is used predominately in conservative religious venues to vilify LGBT people - its use on Wikipedia is dubious - especially on biographies. I came here because I'm trying to get the article to GA, I see these two as disrupting that process. I want to nip editing warring in the bud here. Considering each of their recent actions and looking at editing histories of these two my concerns are justified. The article had been stable for six months - with gay intact - why now the interest? Why now the changes?
To CadenS specifically, you assert "Please. I was defending myself." here is the comment I made in full
If you felt I was attacking you I apologize, that was not my intent at all, I was trying to figure out what actionable items on that article needed to be addressed as there was a POV tag you had re-inserted and the consensus was that POV concerns had largely been addressed. -- Banjeboi 23:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
You are correct that it is an editing dispute. Therefore, it should first be discussed at Talk:Jesse Dirkhising. It is not proper to escalate it to WP:ANI until lower levels of dispute resolution have failed, as you must know. Regardless, I believe you are seeing an example of bias where there may not be one. "Homosexual" as a derisive term is very subtle and recent and depends largely on regional dialect and context. It is not unlikely that it has been used in Wikipedia bios without any actual bias intended, particularly since Wikipedia strives to be somewhat academic in tone. So I don't think there are any actionable items for an admin here. To get more eyes, WP:RFC would be the proper place. And I sympathize that this dispute has come at an inconvenient time for your GA review, but these things happen. -kotra (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, upon rereading, I now realize you mean "editing dispute" to mean "a dispute over how a user is editing", as opposed to "a dispute over particular edits". If that is what you meant, I disagree. I don't see any problem with how users are editing, except that there isn't enough discussion (which is the fault of all three parties). -kotra (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
My experience with CadenS on this article in particular and then again on E.O. Green School shooting was generally being on the receiving end of bad faith accusations and hostility. Ave Caesar deleted talk page threads about the concern on their talkpage and never discussed any concerns except in edit summary comments. Either are welcome to engage in civil discussion on the talk page but edit-warring is unproductive and, really, do we need an RfC to confirm that homosexual is pejorative and gay should be the default? Or that we shouldn't misrepresent sources? Both have indicated they feel their edits are fine - they really aren't. I'm looking for the edit warring to stop and I've been on the talkpage consistently. -- Banjeboi 03:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I had thought the hostility at E.O. Green School shooting was over, so it surprised me that you would bring it up again here. But as for this recent dispute, I still haven't seen any discussion about it on Talk:Jesse Dirkhising, from them or you, so I guess I'm still at a loss as to why you brought this up here, without hardly discussing the issues first. And, you acknowledge that "homosexual" is not always pejorative, so perhaps it is not being used in that tone here? These things should be clarified first before one assumes bad faith; this is why I suggested RfC before ANI, if talk page discussion fails (which has still barely been explored). I think we're going in circles, though. (by the way, since blanking is usually ok on your own talk page, that particular part of Ave Caeser's behavior seems fine) -kotra (talk) 07:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
My experiences with Benji have been unpleasant. I feel he's anti-heterosexual, anti-Christian and anti-conservative due to his biased POV. I don't know what his problem is with conservatives, or Christians or even us heterosexuals. But his edits are more than clear he has some serious issues concerning the three. He often assumes bad faith and he's assuming bad faith once again by attacking my good faith edits as "vandalism". My edits are fine and have all been done in good faith. Benji's edits are questionable, in my opinion. "Gay" is a slang liberal word. "Straight" is a slang liberal word. Homosexual and heterosexual are the correct words to be used in a encyclopedia. I am not using the word "homosexual" in a pejorative way (like Benji accuses me of), and I highly doubt that Ave Caesar is using it in a negative way either. But as always, Benji assumes bad faith over any edits made by any editor who does not share his homosexual POV, regardless of the topics. I wonder why? Could it be because of his problems with heterosexuals, Christians and conservatives? He claims: "homosexual is used predominately in conservative religious venues to vilify LGBT people". Please. That's PC nonsense and is not true. You cannot group all people together as one just so you can push your POV on here. Doesn't Benji understand that not all christians are conservative? I assure you that not all conservatives are religious. Furthermore, the slang word "gay" is a liberal mainstream word that liberal society and liberal media outlets use for political correctness. Regardless of all this, Benji's issues are focused on a individual editor's way of editing. That's bad faith on his part. It should be focused on the true issue, which is a content dispute. I don't see any problems with how I edit, nor do I see any issues with how Ave Caesar edits. I do have some serious concerns with an editor who vilifies other editors as, "they" or "their" or "them". That's extremely rude. On a final note, Benji failed to initiate discussion on the talk page. Had he done so, I would of gladly taken part. Instead he filed this report. This alone was bad faith on his part. Caden S (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
As soon as you throw "liberal this" and "liberal that" and "political correctness" about, then you are showing your prejudices very clearly, thank you. Never mind what you think should be the correct wording and usage, what does the community think? This is after all a collaborative project. Black Kite 09:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Your statement above shows me where your prejudices are. But yes, what does the community think should be the correct words to use? Caden S (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
"Gay" is hardly a "slang liberal word". Conservatives use it as well. So does the mainstream media. I'm more interested in the terms used by reliable sources to describe the subject than in a community referendum, though. MastCell Talk 16:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
You have zero idea what my politics are. However, it is a standard Wikipedia (and general) fact that editors who rail against what they think is "political correctness" and use "liberal" in a pseudo-pejorative manner are rarely very good at editing articles in a neutral manner. Black Kite 18:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The use of the word "gay" to refer to the LGBT community, or it's members, is entirely appropriate and is in accordance with the Wikipedia community guideline WP:Naming conventions (identity)#Sex and sexual identities that states: For people, the terms "gay" (often, but not always, used for males only) and "lesbian" (which is used for females only) are preferred over "homosexual," which has clinical associations and is often considered pejorative. However, homosexual may be used in describing people in certain instances, in particular in historical contexts. Homosexual is considered pejorative, and gay is very mainstream usage. It has nothing to do with liberal bias and it's not slang. — Becksguy (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, "gay" could still be considered slang, in the same sense that "Coke" could be considered slang for "Coca-Cola". Both terms "Coke" and "gay" are widespread, though, and much more commonly used than their alternatives. Even so, we use "Coca-Cola" instead of "Coke", though we use "gay" instead of "homosexual". I think the reason we don't use "homosexual" too is because of its pejorative meaning in many contexts. In any case, WP:Naming conventions (identity)#Sex and sexual identities is pretty clear which we should use. But back to the topic at hand, I don't think either user was trying to be disruptive or particularly POV-pushing by using the more clinical term. Many people are unaware that "homosexual" is considered pejorative. -kotra (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The point is that if an editor informs you clearly that the word you're using is pejorative - perhaps your first action should not be to revert them. That just maybe if someone brings an issue to them your response should not be immediate spite, deletion or sarcasm. This is not a battleground and we can work with people even if we don't agree with them. That CadenS also chooses to add more POV and heap bad faith accusations towards me is also unhelpful. That they were misrepresenting sources also seems like a bad prospect for the article. I too had thought their hostility towards me had ended when they again lobbed a jab and personal attack me on E.O. Green School shooting - that's why I mentioned it. They also accused me and two other editors of attacking them. I didn't really see it myself but I apologized anyway as I certainly didn't mean any offense. Up above they attack me a few more times. What exactly do I do to prove I'm not anti-conservative, anti-Christians and anti-heterosexual? Ave Caesar chose to simply revert me as well, I rather doubt either of these editors really thought much but simply reverting someone they disagreed with. If they honestly think homosexual is the default word for gay and lesbian people I'm concerned what else they are changing and inserting. That neither has accepted that just maybe the choice to simply revert without discussing was a bad one also seems alarming - yes it happens but we have a pattern with each separately - unfortunately - of what certainly seems to be edit warring. That each save their most troubling conduct for LGBT-related subjects and hostility towards an editor and have no ownership of their actions bodes ill for the project. -- Banjeboi 10:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

CadenS' behavior[edit]

  • Comment. Another hostile attack this time on my talkpage. -- Banjeboi 10:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Do I have to bring up my past ANI reports and links against CadenS or is he going to stop editing articles relating to sexuality like he promised last time to avoid a block? — Realist2 15:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Would it be possible to provide a diff or pointer to his promise to avoid these articles?

MastCell Talk 16:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

        • Here. Basically to diffuse the post I made at ANI, that would have likely resulted in Caden being blocked. He instead declared that he quit, thus making a block pointless, came back 5 hours later wanting adoption and promising to avoid sexuality articles. He was back to sexuality articles very quickly. That said, and I must stress this, Caden contributes in a very positive manner to articles unrelated to sexuality. --— Realist2 16:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't believe it but my wiki stalker Realist2 is back at it sticking his nose where it don't belong. He was warned by several users in the past to stop harassing me. He agreed and promised me that he would stop. And now he's back at it with more threats. I'm fed up with you harassing me. I'm sick of you stalking me and watching my every move on Wikipedia. Get a life. Stop stalking me Realist. You have been stalking me since May 2008. Caden S (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
CadenS I'm not stalking you at all! There is a HUGE post about you at ANI. It's quite hard to avoid you know. You also broke your promise not to edit articles on sexuality. Then I see a post where you tell another editor that they disgust you. Christ CadenS, I'm not out to get you, I tried to help you the other week. I'm strongly advising you as a friend (I consider use on friendly terms) to stop editing these kinds of articles before your blocked. You are doing some wonderful work on other articles on wikipedia, but this other stuff is too much for you I think. I don't want to see you blocked, I really don't. Please calm down, before you get yourself into more trouble, please Caden. You love wikipedia (I hope), and we want you here. But you have your hot buttons for understandable reasons. Please make yourself some coffee or tea, take a chill and come back to what you do best. :-) — Realist2 16:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm certain this thread about the content dispute and the use of "gay" vs. "homosexual" did not have to come to ANI as members of WP:LGBT would argue about this, but Caden's posts must be addressed. Caden is an impulsive editor who allows his past experience to color his responses, which are disproportionately vehement in the scheme of natural discussion and disagreement editors have over article content. He has posted before that he has had a traumatic experience with gay men in the past, but his trauma should not define how editors communicate about problems within an article. In short, he's making his problems everyone else's problems. It sucks time away from what needs to be done to an article, and requires further intervention by his mentor kotra (talk · contribs). I can only imagine how draining this must be for kotra to have to calm Caden down this frequently. This diff provided by Benji regarding Caden's umbrage taken to non-gendered pronouns is a prime example. I can't think getting this stressed out is fun for Caden, and I suggest taking a break and doing something else that is much more enjoyable. The bottom line, however, is that other editors should not be forced to avoid his temper, especially when it's this unpredictable. He needs to take some responsibility for his behavior, tone it down, drop out of LGBT articles, and come back when he behave calmly and dispassionately. --Moni3 (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with Moni's assessment here - it's disappointing to see the same user here again for the same thing, as I remember the original AN/I from a few months ago quite well, and the promise made which essentially got him out of that one (noting I don't edit in the area but do watch AN/I fairly consistently and have done so for almost two years). Orderinchaos 17:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
After reviewing all of this, I'm afraid that I agree that Caden's temper flares when working on sexuality-related articles. That said, I just want to note that he has sometimes been a positive help on these sexuality-related articles, but unfortunately I'm not sure if it's worth all the anger and fighting behind the scenes. So I would be ok with a restriction on articles about sexuality. I agree with Realist, though, that he has usually been very helpful and an asset to the community on other articles, and his behavior had improved greatly until this recent flare-up. So I would support a topic restriction, but in the interests of the project, not a complete block. -kotra (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
As his mentor, I'm glad you suggested a possible solution that was also at the back of my mind. I think a sexuality topic ban is not necessary at this stage. Caden has every right to feel the way he does, but if he can't keep his feelings from disrupting the project in future, I think implementing such a ban is the next step, if only on a temporary basis. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you SheffieldSteel! Yes, I do have every right to feel the way I do, but many editors have attempted to strip me of my rights. At least that's how it appears to me. In regards to why my temper flared, it had nothing to do with the article content dispute. It was based on Benji's offensive description of me in all posts (as "they", "their" and "them"). I asked him many times as did my adopter, for him to refrain from describing me in gender-neutral languge. He has continued to disrespect my wishes nevertheless. A sexuality topic ban, or even a restriction on articles about sexuality is not necessary. My work on these articles speak for itself. If it weren't for me, both the E. O. Green School article and the Jesse Dirkhising article would not be NPOV. There are few POV issues still remaining on the Dirkhising page. Regardless of that, I fought hard against many POV pushers to save these articles and my good edits reflect that. Although those editors created an extremely stressful environment for me and painted me as the bad guy, I'm proud that I did what was right according to NPOV policy. I'm proud that I have the balls to speak up, the courage to be bold, and the strength to take action by doing what's right. Caden S (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I think a temporary topic restriction should go ahead, Kotra and even Caden himself seem to think it's probably for the best. We had a similar ANI post a few months ago, Caden said he would stay away from sexuality articles then, yet somehow we are back here. Caden has taken multiple cool of breaks (that last for weeks at a time) in the past yet things soon heat up again. Caden's talents as an editor should be kept to what he does best on other articles, without these other articles as a distraction. We really don't want another overblown ANI episode in the future, something I fear will put Caden off any interest in wikipedia. — Realist2 22:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Realist, please do not speak for me on my behalf. You have no business to put words into my mouth. I mean no offense to you, but I never agreed to any type of agreement in terms of avoiding any sexuality articles. All I said to you, was that I understood your suggestion, but I did not agree to any terms. Although I believe your intentions are good, I'd appreciate that you refrain from speaking on my behalf. At this point I have not been contacted by any admin, therefore I have no clue what options are available to me. Caden S (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
As an outsider here, it seems obviously better all round if Caden avoids topics that wind him up, however justified the reasoning, and in the long run it's better that he does that of his own accord than have it forced upon him. There are topics I specifically avoid because I know I'd only get het up, and to reduce the risk of threads such as this, er, um, I don't go there. Caden, whatever your past, its a cliche to say that "Wikipedia is not therapy", and neither (to a lesser extent) is it a soapbox for anger. Two and a half million articles should give you plenty to do. Your edits are generally good, from what I've seen, and you just need to point those talents to where they'll make you feel appreciated in the right kind of way. You have good guys on your side here; time is one healer, but doing something else is another, particularly if you've got people batting on your side. --Rodhullandemu 22:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Rod, I can see your point on this but I disagree with you. If I were to avoid these type of topics, they would end up being the horribly biased and POV articles they once were before I fought for them to be NPOV. However justified my feelings are concerning these subjects, the articles do not wind me up. It's some of the editors on those pages that get me going, like for example Benji. But I'm working on keeping my cool even when I'm personally attacked, which has been often. I do agree with you that it's better that I choose on my own accord, whether I shouldn't work on these articles or not, instead of it being forced upon me. I am open to feedback and suggestions though. As for working on other articles, I do work on many unrelated type of articles. I enjoy doing so. But as it stands today, I'm not sure what's going to happen with me or this ANI report. I'm not even sure why Moni went and shifted the spotlight from the original content dispute (of which this report is supposed to be about) to my behavior. I have a lot of questions but no answers. Am I going to be blocked or not? Am I going to be given a topic restriction or not? Why is the content dispute not being discussed anymore? What about the other editor Ave Caesar? This ANI was filed against this editor as well, not just me. Why am I being singled out? Why has the real issue here (the content dispute) been forgotten? Caden S (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
With the best will in the world, what worries me is that I doubt you are sufficiently disinterested to preserve NPOV, and that is why I think you should avoid those articles, for the very reason that this thread came to be. Up to you, of course. --Rodhullandemu 17:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
There's several categories of articles I never go anywhere near for that exact reason - I know that no matter how good my intentions, my personal opinions on the area are so strong that I know I could not be neutral and hence it is best left to others who are. Orderinchaos 18:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
L::Well, User:Mastcell has suggested a restriction, at this point though what's most important is ensuring that we don't have another ANI thread like this. This is the second and I'm not sure the community will tolerate a third incident like this. We should be looking to help Caden make the most of his abilities without all this other stuff muddying it up. If a restriction is the best way to prevent that, who knows. — Realist2 18:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Rod, you didn't answer any of my questions. Furthermore, this report is not about just me. It was filed against another editor as well. And Realist, this report is not about me. I already told you this before. Caden S (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. The other user - Ave Caesar - basically only reverted and I personally saw their contributions there as disruptive although generally adding tags is usually helpful. That they reverted without discussing and in doing so restored pejorative language and content not supported by sources was also not great. They seemed to be following your lead but in doing so affirmed they felt those edits were correct, they weren't. However, your actions coupled with your previous talkpage conduct and given the recent issues on E.O. Green School shooting put you on a more prominent level. That you interpret my nearly universal use of gender-neutral language as a personal attack against you was news to me. That you coupled that with another personal attack against me didn't help. The issue from the beginning was two editors' conduct on the article using content examples to illustrate the problem. I've held off reverting the problematic changes - switching gay to homosexual and adding an extra molestation in, etc - as well as fixing the refs until I know things are more resolved. Just to be absolutely clear, I don't believe I've ever attack you but if you felt attacked then I apologize as that was never my interest or intent. -- Banjeboi 12:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Refactoring this page is hardly a great demonstration at this point. [19] Guyonthesubway (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


As CadenS's Adopter, I have been asked to impose whatever restrictions I feel are appropriate. However, due to my status as Adopter, I feel I am too involved to make the decision on my own. Therefore, I would appreciate input and/or a decision from other editors, particularly uninvolved editors and administrators. The options I see are as follows (please suggest any others you feel are appropriate):

  1. Do nothing (assumes CadenS is not at fault).
  2. Continue to urge CadenS to assume good faith and remain civil in disputes with editors.
  3. Recruit an additional mentor to help guide CadenS.
  4. Suggest a temporary/permanent voluntary topic ban on Jesse Dirkhising.
  5. Impose a temporary/permanent involuntary topic ban on Jesse Dirkhising.
  6. Suggest a temporary/permanent voluntary topic ban on all sexuality-related articles (including E.O. Green School shooting and Jesse Dirkhising).
  7. Impose a temporary/permanent involuntary topic ban on all sexuality-related articles.
  8. Temporary/permanent block. (above discussion seems to indicate consensus is against this)

Whatever the restrictions meted out, both CadenS and I would prefer the decision be made sooner rather than later. So please comment! -kotra (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel I'm too close to this as well so would prefer others input here. CadenS has genuinely good feedback and concerns but they need to be dialed down - we can disagree without being disagreeable. -- Banjeboi 02:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I was going to say a voluntary topic ban, but actually Kotra has come up with the idea of an extra mentor. I think two mentors is bound to be better than one and could help. I think an additional mentor is the best way to go 100%. I recently saw some of CadenS comments at an RfA and he's even passing on advise about civility in a brilliant manner to other people. This proves Caden has and will continue to learn from mistakes. With guidance he will be a strong asset. — Realist2 14:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ave Caesar's behavior[edit]

We seem to have been distracted from the other user in this report. Only a few of the issues with Ave Caesar have yet been addressed, so for the purpose of discussion, I'm copying Benji's original report on Ave Caesar below:

Another editor and I were discussing converting over the citation style to make editing the HTML easier for them when Ave Caesar (talk · contribs) added the {{citation style}} tag, which was odd because the discussion was already in process and the tag is about the uniformity and appearance which was already done. Our discussion was about switching over from one system to another. I explained in my edit summary "rmv tag as unneeded, they are all consistent at present and there is presently a discussion on converting them". They re-inserted the tag so I tried to explained the tag wasn't addressing any relevant issue to Ave Caesar and they deleted the thread citing my concern should only be placed on the article talk page. They didn't join in the discussion but instead re-added the tag. I, tried again to explain how the tag was unhelpful - they deleted this thread as well. As far as I know tagging the article and reverting my edits has been their only involvement on that article. Looking at some of their recent edits I was a little shocked to see edit warring over the WP:LGBT project tag on Lindsay Lohan with Dev920 who has, as part of their signature "who misses Jeffpw". Stunningly Ave Caesar follows up with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Jeffpw/Isaäc's Memorial Page.

Is there anything that needs to be addressed here? -kotra (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

  • IMO - Caden needs to stop letting his POV influence his editing, and Ave Caesar needs to stop being a WP:DICK - that MfD of the memorial page was particularly dickish. If they can manage both of those things, we can close this, I think - there's no need for prescriptive blocks or topic bans yet. Black Kite 10:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Homosexual is a more formal word than gay, and I expect it would be used more in encyclopedias etc. I've not read all the ins and outs of the discussion, but I would like to disagree with the claim that 'homosexual' is always a slur word- it's more often just a formal word. And I'm a bisexual woman so I'm not being shockingly homophobic by saying that.:) It does sound like Benji was trying to get Corden into trouble by posting here, but no-one could really deny that AC's attempt to delete the memorial page was wrong. Sticky Parkin 17:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Guys, let's stay on topic here (just to be clear, I'm not singling out Sticky Parkin). This section is only about Ave Caesar, not CadenS. There is another section above to discuss CadenS. -kotra (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Sticky Parkin, I wasn't trying to get anyone into trouble - I was working to stop edit warring as outlined in my original post. And has been discussed homosexual is generally pejorative on biographies and should be used with care elsewhere. It's a loaded word persistently used in American culture wars - we don't need to perpetuate it's use needlessly just as avoid doing so with other terms used as such. -- Banjeboi 21:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
This is still open? Anyway, not that it should matter but I did edit alongside Jeff under a previous username [20]. My reasoning for putting the memorial page up for MfD was clear. I did, and still do, think that memorial pages violate WP:USER. Wiki is an ongoing project to build an encyclopedia. It is not a social networking tool and is becoming far too personalized. Further, the MfD is irrelevant to the matter of my relationship to Benji which is simply in terms of the content dispute over the Dirkhising article. Two editors (myself included) disagree with him over content. Rather than bringing the matter up on the article talk page as appropriate he decided to bring the issue here which is completely nonconstructive and disruptive to ANI. --Ave Caesar (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Not exactly, Myself and another editor were sorting out how to convert cites to make it easier for them to edit and you starting templating the article. When I brought the issue to you, as stated above, you deleted my concerns and persisted. That was quite disruptive. Then CadenS inserted pejorative words and misrepresented sources and you reverted my in cleaning that up. I agree with Black Kite's assessment - you seemed more interested in opposing me or my editing there than in anything else. Hardly helpful to articles to simply disrupt the editing. -- Banjeboi 07:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I removed your messages on my talk page because the content of your messages concerned article edits; not due to an unwillingness to discuss them. Discussion of article edits belong on the article talk page as I stated.[21]--Ave Caesar (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps actually discussing the issues then - either on the talk page, which you never did, or on your talk page when I brought the issue to you - would have be seen as more constructive than tenditious. -- Banjeboi 21:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Since you were the objecting party it was your responsibility to bring up your concerns on the article talk page. You did not. I am fine with the article in its current form - you are the one complaining about it. Instead, you have decided to disrupt ANI with an article content dispute. That being said, that's the last I'll discuss this in this forum since it's simply not appropriate - not all of us are so easily drug down into pointless bickering and ad hominem attacks. If you wish to discuss the article then do so there. --Ave Caesar (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The issue was already being addressed on the talk page, you never joined in even after insisting that's where I should be discussing concerns. Civility concerns are hardly pointless bickering - I wouldn't have posted here at all if previous efforts hadn't failed. Based on your rather dismissive comments it seems likely you see no issue with your conduct. It was disruptive, in conjunction with CadenS's actions I felt nipping edit-warring was a good thing. -- Banjeboi 02:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Minor who was a victim of a sex crime[edit]

Resolved: Error made, apologised for, corrected. That's that. ➨ ЯEDVERS will never be anybody's hero now 11:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
But see my comments below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Or we could just mark it as unresolved? I've added comments as well. Carcharoth (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

An administrator has just recreated an article about a minor who was a victim of a sex crime. This cannot be okay. AniMate 09:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(A non-Admin view) Seems notable but would need to follow the WP:BLP policy. Article needs to be better sourced and cleaned up. Bidgee (talk) 09:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted to the protected redirect. There's a valid, binding DRV result to keep this a redirect; a single editor ought not to use his admin status to unilaterally override the protection and create a new article against that decision. Fut.Perf. 09:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
That seems like something you could link to, and frankly if the citations are valid, there isn't a BLP concern. BLP only comes in to play regarding poorly sourced negative material about an individual--Crossmr (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 28 and [22]. It was a speedy deletion made by Newyorkbrad, who gave a very detailed rationale for it at the DRV (worth a read), and it was upheld at the DRV. Fut.Perf. 10:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't know that I would have closed that the same. There are many good points raised about why Shawn's article should exist (he has a foundation in his name, numerous articles, reader's digest put him on the cover, etc) That ends up going beyond one event (the foundation).--Crossmr (talk) 12:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My worry would be that although the crime is notable, the crime victim(s) here may not be notable in themselves. Moreover, section headings like 2002: Typical 11 year old boy:, A deal with the devil and 2007: Rescue during search for kidnapped "replacement boy" are much more tabloidish than encyclopedic, making me wonder what the writer had in mind. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) First, using admin tools (ability to edit protected article) to take a content position (article should be recreated) is not permitted. It also overturns a DRV decision and previous administrator's decision to protect the article. So on strictly procedural grounds it's shaky. Second, of course there is a BLP concern for discussing the sexual victimization of a minor. Poorly sourced negative information is only one of the various things BLP addresses. It also says this about human dignity: "Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects". There is also this: "It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." And WP:ONEEVENT. All of these urge against an article about a crime victim. Wikidemon (talk) 10:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't seen the DRV when I posted the above, no way should this content have been recreated, much less how it was written and by whom. Unless I hear otherwise, I'm going to delete the history following both the DRV and WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I was totally unaware of all the previous actions, or I wouldn't have touched it. I write many articles beginning with previous redirects, and I should have but didn't spot the distinction in this one. My record is clear that I do not take radical actions deliberately, so I ask you to accept in good faith that this was unintentional on my part. Vaoverland (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Accepted here. Drama over, IMHO. ➨ ЯEDVERS will never be anybody's hero now 11:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Good. Sorry to jump to the assumption that it was deliberate. Wikidemon (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
He has a foundation in his name, a website detailing what happened, and was featured on the cover of reader's digest...just how worried are we about this person's privacy when he obviously isn't? The foundation moves him beyond oneevent as the foundation is an on-going and likely permanent event. As I said above, there were a lot of good arguments for keeping the article and a lot of support for at least relisting it. So frankly I don't think consensus was overwhelming in that debate. I understand erring on the side of caution, but notable is notable and we've kept far less notable people here than him. Clean-up and removal of tabloid writing, sure. Deletion? I don't think so.--Crossmr (talk) 12:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Although this is not really ANI fodder, it is probably time to revisit my speedy deletion of Shawn Hornbeck in May 2007, as I mentioned last week to the editor who originally created the article.

Shawn Hornbeck was an 11-year-old child who was kidnapped and was then mistreated in a horrifying way over the ensuing four years. I deleted his article, together with another article about another child who has been kidnapped and abused by the same criminal, under WP:BLP because these articles publicized the details of the abuse of these children in a fashion that I was concerned could cause grave damage to their well-being. My rationale for the deletions, and a spectrum of other editors' views, is contained in the DRV cited above. That DRV should be read, in detail, by those interested in background on these issues; my comments are perhaps as "tl;dr" as always, but they contain my most introspective writing on any issue since I started contributing to Wikipedia, as well as thoughtful contributions from a number of other editors, some of whom unfortunately are no longer contributing. (For what it is worth, the conclusion of the DRV—protected redirects from the names of the child victims to the name of the criminal—was not a satisfactory one in my estimation.)

I stand very strongly by my views expressed in that DRV debate that articles concerning living crime victims simply as victims of crime raise serious privacy issues. Moreover, as a matter of common decency, especial solicitude must be shown toward crime victims who are minors. (In general, even the mass media will refrain from reporting the names of minors who are victims of sex crimes; in these cases, however, there was a flurry of "missing children" publicity when Hornbeck and the other boy were missing, and given that we are in the Internet age, it is not usually possible to put the genie back into the bottle when the missing child is found, however horrific the events that occurred while he or she was missing turned out to be.)

At the time of these deletions, the community was engaged in a debate centering around the question of whether and to what extent respect for the privacy interests of article subjects is a valid consideration in deciding on the content of the encyclopedia, even in instances where the information that many of us believe should not be publicized is accurate and can be sourced. Fortunately, that debate has largely been resolved in favor of giving appropriate consideration to privacy and related factors (see generally,