Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive550

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

Noticeboard archives


Repeated personal attacks and intimidation by User:Allstarecho[edit]

Both of you stay away from each other. This is just stupid, and totally unnecessary. J.delanoygabsadds 02:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I believe that User:Allstarecho is using unfounded and unsubstantiated accusations of "stalking", "hounding", and "harrassment" to discourage me from participation in discussions. I am tired of the accusations and would like some admin action to put a stop to them. Per WP:NPA, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are "never acceptable".

On 17 June, in response to a suggestion at ANI by User:Benjiboi that my support of another editor who had an issue with Allstarecho amounted to "hounding", I stated clearly that I was not "hounding" Allstarecho. Benjiboi graciously withdrew his suggestion, but Allstarecho insinuated that I was wikistalking him and did not respond to my request for clarification. I further explained that my interest in Allstarecho's contributions arose from his recent block for the introduction of copyright violations. I hoped the matter was settled.

On 19 June, in another ANI thread, Allstarecho accused me of "hounding" here and here. I asked Allstarecho to stop making accusations and invited him to follow up in an appropriate forum if he had genuine concerns about my behaviour. The same ANI thread also includes the perplexingly mysterious but clearly threatening comment "Disengage from me before my accusation escalates to a worse accusation".

On 28 June, Allstarecho again accused me of "wiki-stalking" here for participating in an MfD discussion. I reiterated that I was not wikistalking him and again asked him to stop making accusations and take it to an appropriate forum.

Today he removed comments of mine from a Village Pump with the edit summary "rmv that which has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion; feel free to post it somewhere appropriate, and thanks for the additional stalking/hounding/harassment".

Please do not respond to this thread with platitudes such as "just disengage from each other". Allstarecho has been involved in a large number of issues just in the past month - block for copyright violations; questionable unblocking for same; egregious ownership and COI issues at Equality Mississippi; insertion of a joke image into an article; similar unsubstantiated stalking allegations against User:Damiens.rf; and creation, re-creation, and re-re-creation of redirects from article space into his userspace. Forgive my bluntness, but there is no shortage of legitimate complaints based on Allstarecho's actions. I have already been run off Equality Mississippi and have ignored other issues that I would not otherwise have hesitated to tackle. Although some of my comments did not help the situation, I do not think I am the problem here. Please address these repeated personal attacks. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Just the fact that you even posted this, speaks volumes as to your hounding/harassment. All one has to do, for evidence, is look at your contribs and see where you've been and they will find it's usually right behind me. That's stalking. Disengage indeed. Your comment I removed today from Village Pump, was indeed just that.. it had nothing whatsoever, not a single letter, space or equation, to do with that thread. It was nothing more than provocation. And that's all I'm going to say on this thread. - ALLSTRecho wuz here 21:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I knew that bringing this here was an invitation for people to scrutinize my recent contributions. If someone feels that I have been wikistalking you, I'm sure they will say so. I'm here because I'm tired of the accusations and personal attacks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The comment(s) that Allstarecho removed as stalking/harassment. McJeff (talk) 04:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Already linked in the fifth paragraph, above. I'm not trying to hide anything. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how useful this information will be to the reviewing admins but a look at the block pages of both editors shows that while Delicious Carbuncle has never been blocked, Allstarecho it seems has a very busy block page--The Legendary Sky Attacker 01:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like Allstarecho has a legitimate grievance here. Was this necessary? And do cheeky edit summaries like these [1] [2] serve any purpose?
I don't know if I'd call it hounding but it does appear that Delirious carbuncle is baiting Allstarecho. Regrettably, hotheads are easily taken in by routines like this one, and they usually pay for it with a long blocklog while their antagonists get away with it completely. McJeff (talk) 04:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I asked Allstarecho, more than once, to pursue his accusations if he felt that I actually was hounding him. He has not done that. WP:NPA is very clear that his repeated unsubstantiated accusations are personal attacks. His response here was to again accuse me of the very same thing. Whether or not you feel that I am hounding Allstarecho or somehow manipulating him into getting himself blocked, at this point the issue is with his personal attacks against me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
And to answer your first question, while it may appear that I was unnecessarily provoking Allstarecho, at that time I was also doing whatever I could to draw admin attention to an article which was in the midst of a nasty edit war and an attempt to vilify a particular editor who appeared to me to be overly bold but well-intentioned. The article's issues remain unsolved, but that editor has been scared off (as have I) by the episode. Here is the archived discussion from Allstarecho's talk page that I was linking to, if you're interested in reading it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

McJeff, please look at the links given by Delicious Carbuncle. Allstarecho has clearly been disruptive a lot lately and there should be severe consequences for these actions as well as the intimidation and personal attacks and other disruptive actions. Delicious Carbuncle did the right thing by reporting this here. Allstarecho's actions lately are unacceptable and very, very inappropiate. In fact, this is some of the silliest behavior I have ever seen on Wikipedia.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 05:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I know it may seem to some that I'm just doing this to create drama or antagonize Allstarecho, but I'm really not. Despite my repeated denials, I have no way of defending myself against the accusations if Allstarecho chooses not to make a formal complaint. Allstarecho's accusations have been seen by editors who have no knowledge of the events which precipitated his attacks and now unfairly associate me with hounding. And making unsubstantiated accusations is a personal attack, as very clearly defined in WP:NPA. Ignore the rest of the issues and look at it as repeated personal attacks if that makes it easier, just please do something about this. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Having looked at all the links above (yes, I really did - that's half an hour of my life I won't get back) my inclination would be to suggest that both editors refrain from interacting with each other. We can formalise this if you want, but it clearly is the common-sense reaction to such editing. Black Kite 22:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I shouldn't have to be the one telling you this, but I will nevertheless. There's clearly no immediate problem that needs to be dealt with, so this is not the appropriate venue for your complaints. If you feel that a case can be made against Allstarecho then prepare one and take it to WP:RFC. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
This isn't the place for me to report repeated personal attacks? The most recent actually occurring in Allstarecho's reply to my starting this thread? The one that prompted me to start the thread was just hours before? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
No, seriously - you need to start an RFC/U on this. It is very unlikely that, given the timeframes above, any admin will take action on this immediately. Black Kite 22:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. A personal attack in an ANI thread usually results in an automatic block, but in this case I'm being told that this isn't even the right forum? Do you at least acknowledge that WP:NPA very clearly states that unsubstantiated allegations of hounding are personal attacks? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Please stop block-shopping. Those who have commented here have made it very clear to you: no administrative action is going to be taken at this time. Your next step would appear to be an RFC about ASE's behavior, if you find it so untenable. Or you could just stop going places on-Wiki where you know he frequents. Unitanode 22:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "block-shopping" means. Would I like Allstarecho blocked for his personal attacks? Yes, but I'd prefer that he stop making accusations against me. Do you at least acknowledge that WP:NPA very clearly states that unsubstantiated allegations of hounding are personal attacks? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
It does say that, but from what I've seen above, there is substantiation for ASE's claims that you're hounding him. Now I'm asking you to please take this to RFC or let it go. Unitanode 22:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your opinion, although I note that your account is barely 3 months old, but permit me to quote WP:NPA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki". Note especially the last two sentences. I have encouraged Allstarecho to make a formal complaint. He has not. You acknowledge his personal attack in this thread, yet it is not being acted upon. Why is this particular thread so different from any of the others here? (And please explain what you mean by "block-shopping". Thanks) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I just spent a solid twenty minutes reviewing all these diffs and some of the situations, and I have to say, I wish I had that twenty minutes back. Any further comment on the situation, from me, would most certainly end up in a block for myself. As I have gone on record as having an extraordinarily low opinion of Allstarecho's editing, I won't issue any blocks - but if I were a completely uninvolved admin, I'd issue a final warning against disruption - to both editors. This bullshit needs to stop on all fronts - Allstarecho's accusations, DC's baiting, and DC's persistent whining on this page. Tan | 39 23:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That would work for me - who'd like to do that? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If I were an admin, Allstarecho would already be gone.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 23:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute here, I agreed to a solution proposed by Tantalus39 even though it wasn't what I was looking for. NeutralHomer (who isn't at all neutral in this instance) solicited J.delanoy on his talk page to close by misrepresenting my position. I didn't bring this here so that it could be blown off without Allstarecho being so much as warned to stop making personal attacks. I get that this is annoying, but there's been almost no discussion of the agreed upon personal attacks. Why close this without taking the proposed solution which Tan39 would have done himself if he felt less involved? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Tan39 wanted you both warned (which I did) and you both to leave each other alone (which I said in my warning). So...I am confused at what you want. Tan39 said it, I said it, J. said it in the resolved message and then closed it because it has been said three times. What do you want here? Someone else to say it? - NeutralHomerTalk • 03:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
If that's what you are after, please consider it said. This is silly, just please stay away from each other. -t'shaelchat 03:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Delicious carbuncle wants Allstarecho to receive an explicit NPA warning for making accusations presented without evidence. I may be more receptive to this concern, having recently had cause to review that particular NPA item. From the comments above referencing mitigating factors and mutual antagonism, it appears that DC will not have his druthers. Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I would strongly recommend that Delicious carbuncle refrain from the pointless, antagonistic little digs at other users (i.e. NeutralHomer, who isn't neutral at all in this instance) in the future, as they themselves are as much a violation of WP:CIV as the accusations of hounding that he so resents. McJeff (talk) 04:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
To me this seems like a damned witch hunt that will only end when Delicious carbuncle gets a correctly worded statement from someone to someone (and one Delicious carbuncle knows what that is) and he doesn't intend to let it die as he said in this edit summary. ASE seems to be leaving Delicious carbuncle alone, I am at a loss as to what more he could want. - NeutralHomerTalk • 04:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Where to start? (a) I'm at a loss to see how my statement NeutralHomer, who isn't neutral at all in this instance is uncivil in any way, even if it were untrue. Let me repeat it. NeutralHomer, who isn't neutral at all in this instance, was blocked for some very extreme and uncivil comments on Talk:Equality Mississippi to User:Damiens.rf. While I disagreed with Damiens.rf's aggressive actions, I believed that they were motivated by a desire to follow WP rules and guidelines which were, and are, being ignored on that article. NeutralHomer may also feel that I am responsible for his block due to this report to ANI. (b) As Flatscan suggests, I am looking for a resolution that, at the very least, involves a clear warning to Allstarecho. I understand that I am not blameless in this episode, and I am perfectly willing accept a similar warning. Tan39 suggested this hours ago and I agreed to it. Allstarecho is still welcome to file an RfC on his hounding allegations if he desires. (c) The edit summary that NeutralHomer cites was intended to generate some admin involvement, since the only comments at that point were the supportive comment from The Legendary Sky Attacker and the provocative one from McJeff, neither of whom are admins. It seemed to work. (d) I came here looking to resolve an issue, why does anyone think I'd be satisfied with anything less? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"Resolved" does not mean "resolved to your satisfaction," DC. This is becoming tedious and disruptive, as you keep insisting you get it your way and refusing to stop when everyone tells you it's not going to happen. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I haven't "insisted" on anything - I brought an issue here for resolution and resolution is what I want. I'm aware that I may not get it. Replying to comments (such as yours) can hardly be considered disruptive. I find this tedious, too. Perhaps if people stopped telling me what a whiner I am, this would get archived. I accepted the proposed resolution, and yet no one seems willing to enact it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
What does my last block have anything to do with this? I am going to extend the archive template to the bottom of those section. This is over. You are now just trying to pick an arguement and are being disruptive. - NeutralHomerTalk • 23:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I've moved the archive template back, only because I think it will be less confusing. I am not trying to pick a fight, I'm trying to end one. I explained how your block is relevant - because my report prompted it. It wasn't intended as any kind of an attack, simply an illustration of why I don't consider you to be a neutral party. You, Allstarecho, and, I believe, Benjiboy were involved in a dispute with Damiens.rf on Talk:Equality Mississippi. I supported Damiens.rf's position. Since that time you act as if we have some kind of conflict. Just for the record, I have no issue with you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, good, no conflict. So, what is it that you want that you can let this post die it's slow archivable death? - NeutralHomerTalk • 02:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

AfD notice being removed at Laura Lee[edit]

An SPA, Brody Steel (talk · contribs), is repeatedly removing the AfD notice at Laura Lee (adult model) without explanation. He's blanked warnings on his talk page (which is allowed), and also accused the nominator of "molesting" the article [3]. I'm not making any comments on whether or not the article would survive AfD, only on the unexplained deletion of the notice. There seem to be several SPAs in the contribs list of this article, some assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 24h for the 3RR violation. –xenotalk 20:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The real question is why would anybody want to delete an article about a sexy woman like that :P Loosmark (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Without illustrations, it's hard to tell. In any case, Laura has not been nearly as successful as her sister, Aura. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand her great-aunt Sara did cheesecake, too. PhGustaf (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
You bet. And nobody didn't like her. In fact, I would guess there's an article on Sara Lee. I'm so confident that article exists, I'm saving without previewing. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick block needed -- Sockpuppet impersonating admin[edit]

Resolved: Indef blocked by Tanthalas39. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The "new" account User:Ricky28618 is a sockpuppet account, created to harass administrator User:Ricky81682 . More fallout, it looks like, from the longrunning Catalyst/buzznet/Jessicka disputes. The sock is starting frivious AFDs [4], attackng the legit editor, [5] trying to inflame old disputes [6], and generally being a disruptive little rodent Special:Contributions/Ricky28618. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Block review - uninvolved admin request[edit]

Being bold and archiving thread. Original issue is now moot and the acrimony is now feeding on itself. Recommend all involved to disengage and move on. Abecedare (talk) 04:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

William M. Connolley has blocked A.K.Nole for 24 hours for trolling. I think this is a bad block, and AKN has requested an unblock. However, as I am involved (see, e.g., my talk page), I am requesting an uninvolved editor to examine this. LadyofShalott 00:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  • FWIW, I took a look at the situation which seems to be an editing disagreement between two users over technical descriptions in the article Butcher group. That article is beyond my comprehension, I'm afraid, so it's difficult to tell who has the better of the argument. However, it is somewhat disturbing that someone who seems to be willing to help out on such a technical subject is blocked for making apparently innocuous comments on talk pages, suggesting improvements or questioning the presentation in the article. Talk page comments are given much wider latitude for content and even nit-picking or even ignorance before it would be considered trolling, and for the mathematically-challenged the comments that seemed to earn the block didn't deserve that. However, I am not answering the unblock request, because in the context of this technical area the comments that look innocuous could be the equivalent of adding "But doesn't Newton's second law need to be repealed" to the ABBA talk page. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • If LadyofShalott or someone else who understands the underlying content debate could elaborate on it that would be useful. Like Carlos I don't know enough on the subject to understand what is going on, and anyway since I have recently (and in the past) taken a negative view of admin actions by WMC I'm probably not the person to undo one of his blocks. But this block does look very questionable on the face, if only for the fact that the explanation is so vague ("trolling") that I can't tell why exactly the editor was blocked. WMC asked A.K. Nole to "ponder the reasons for this" block, but I personally have no idea what those reasons are, since Nole simply seems to be in a content dispute with another editor (perhaps adding some questionable material as well, but apparently not since the warning). It appears that Nole was blocked for continuing to discuss an issue on their own talk page, though I could have missed something else. At the very least this is a problem because admins need to have an understanding of the rationale for a given block when considering an unblock. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm also having trouble understanding the reason for this block. After reading over Talk:Butcher group, I was actually much more disturbed by Mathsci's behavior and comments than A.K. Nole's. --auburnpilot talk 00:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Just to give everyone some more reading material until WMC shows up: I'm pretty sure this is related to the whole ChildofMidnight/MathSci tempest of a few days ago. I think CoM was doing something similar, on the same page, and was blocked. Just providing a little context, I just remember seeing the CoM thread, but I didn't read it, and I have absolutely no opinion on the underlying blocks of either CoM or AKN. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I came across the Butcher group article on new page patrol, one of many Articles I worked on that evening, and made a very reasonable copy-edit [7]. This was met with rude and hostile attacks on my talk page including accusations that I was stalking Mathsci. I tried to disengage and worked elsewhere, but Mathsci made an ANI report, where his behavior was criticized by many editors, and William Connelly inexplicably blocked me unilaterally without any shred of consensus. Most editors and admins noted that Mathsci's behavior was uncivil and unacceptable. The talk page of that article is clear about Mathsci's attitude and hostility to other editors working on "his" article. Connelly appears to support and encourage this rude, obnoxious and childish behavior and has made levying these inappropriate and bullying blocks a pattern. Together they are quite a team against anyone who dares edit an article against Mathsci's wishes. Mathsci also made this rude and uncalled for attack on my talk page [8] today after I politely suggested on A.K. Nole's talk page that the block should be reviewed [9]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • CoM, might I respectfully suggest that you might not be the best person to comment on this/it might not be in your best interests to comment on this, lest it appear that you have some sort of vendetta going on? → ROUX  01:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Considering ChildofMidnight has been mentioned below as possibly related to the situation, I'd say it's not only appropriate for COM to comment but expected. --auburnpilot talk 01:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • As Bigtimepeace said below, I was meaning the comment more for CoM's sake; he has enough opinion stacked against him that it would make sense for him to not give people the chance to manufacture more. → ROUX  02:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I would second what Roux said to some degree (just for CoM's sake), though in fairness (and here echoing AuburnPilot) Mathsci's comment to CoM was grossly uncivil. As such I have warned Matschi for that remark. Regardless of anything else going on here, saying "It seems that you are trying your hardest to be the most visible mathematical/theoretical physics troll on wikipedia" in response to a user talk page note simply suggesting that a block be reviewed is most definitely not on. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, here's my take on the situation. Despite working in mathematics I don't really understand the contents of the article. I think that's relevant: I do at least know enough to tell that it's on advanced research mathematics, seems to be important to some areas of mathematics that are different than the ones I work on, and with more effort than I care to spend right now I think I could understand it. One of the people who has helped edit the article is a Fields medalist, so I am confident that it's of some importance and that someone who does understand it has taken it in hand. Anyway, A.K.Nole has been active on the talk page, asking very naive questions at a rate that could easily be annoying to the other people there who are trying to get some editing done. I can see two possible explanations: (1) they (I'm using the singular they because it's just too tedious to keep writing "he or she") are earnest and trying to understand the new article, have not yet been scared away by all the complicated math, do not realize how much they're in over their head, and are asking naive questions in the hope that getting the more expert editors there to answer them will cause the article to be rewritten in a less inaccessible way; or (2) they understand that there is little hope of getting the article to be truly accessible to a general audience and are just asking questions to be annoying. Per WP:AGF I'd lean towards the first explanation; Connolley seems to have taken the second instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec's...) Another article is involved: AKNole added some information from Butcher group to the stub, Minimal subtraction scheme, and Mathsci objected. I am unable to understand either why this would be appropriate or inappropriate, and declined to comment on the content dispute accordingly. At my suggestion, however, AKNole posted requests for help on the talk pages of the math and physics wikiprojects. Wm.M.C. deleted the whole conversation from the article talk page as trolling immediately after blocking Nole. LadyofShalott 01:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I cannot follow the mathematics here either, however a look at the general pattern suggests this primarily a content dispute, with some suggestions from Mathsci that AKN lacks some understanding of the mathematical principles at work. I can't see anything that looks like obvious trolling, nor anything that would obviously warrant a 24 hour block. AKN hasn't made a direct edit to any relevant page since 0649, instead posting to various talk pages. I'm finding this block highly dubious. Exxolon (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Part of the issue here, which was also apparently the case with the recent block of ChildofMidnight, is that Connolley seems to regularly make questionable blocks just before going offline for the evening. When the CoM block was questioned, Connolley twice removed a subsection title of a thread on ANI that included his name [10] [11], chastised the editor who started the subsection in a somewhat patronizing way, and then peaced out (no doubt to bed) for 6 1/2 hours whilst his block of CoM was discussed on ANI (and where it was met with significant objection). These problematic blocks, and just as much WMC's response (or lack thereof) to criticism about them, seem to come up with remarkable frequency. It would be nice if an administrator for whom he has some respect, and I'm guessing that is not me, could bring this issue up with WMC on his talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I will have to go back and thank my father for his random quizzes on obscure mathematical concepts! I'm by no means an expert, but I can at least understand the article and good god, most people would need a graduate degree to follow the lead. Anyways, I can't find any way in which I'd characterize AKN's comments as trolling - both her questions were on point and resulted in improvements; they show a general understanding of the subject which is more than we expect for most topics. Mathsci's objections there seems mostly to stem from the fact that he's being questioned at all and I believe in the second question, he completely misinterpreted the actual point in his hurry to be dismissive. How all this ended up in a block, I can't imagine - is there something here we're missing? Shell babelfish 01:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, you might be missing the relationship between Mathsci and WMC, birds of a feather. "Trolling" is one of the favorite block reasons for admins who have to make up a reason. I see no sign at all that AKN was seeking to inflame or outrage, which is what trolling would be, but, from another point of view, Mathsci was outraged and threatening AKN with being blocked, so doesn't that prove that AKN was doing something wrong? --Abd (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
AKN's contributions here are absolutely trolling. AKN has only the most minimal understanding of this topic and no real interest in it, the only reason he got involved in this is to harass Mathsci following a disagreement at WP:FTN#A.K.Nole disputing fringe science involvement. It's a good block; we mustn't tolerate this sort of harassment. You should be aware that an early stage of the harassment was an attempt by AKN to imply that the user name "Mathsci" is a trademark infringement. He's just going after anything that he believes will annoy. Looie496 (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
That's useful info, and this remark in particular does not speak well for AKN. I'm not sure it rises to a blockable level (maybe it does), and the issue of a lack of a specific block rationale on WMC's part remains. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
And AKNole subsequently edited the Mathsci redirect to buttress his case.[12] Interesting. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC) that sounds as if this was a culmination of AKN hounding Mathsci in various places - wasn't clear by the block notice or log, but if that's the case then the block is reasonable. Shell babelfish 03:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Per the links in his post, he does have a valid point though, doesn't he? MathSci is the name of a published database. LadyofShalott 02:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
And "Lady of Shalott" is the name of a copyrighted song. Having the same name as a database doesn't violate WP:U unless it's being used for promotional or deceptive purposes, and no one has made that suggestion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • To speak in broad terms, trolling is not a desirable block rationale. Others who wish to review a block find it much more useful to encounter specific reasons and diffs that led to the decision to block. Also, the term has a tendency to be inflammatory. As a general practice, stating one's reasons and evidence is more persuasive than a summary conclusion. Durova273 featured contributions 02:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Worrying tendency?[edit]

This might not be directly relevant, but there could to be a pattern of WMC blocking editors for (mis)use of talk pages. Eyes needed to check the history of Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy and WMCs block of User:AncientObserver. Blocking users for editing talk pages, even if the discussion isn't really productive shouldn't be the norm - this has a very chilling effect. Exxolon (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No, we should have more blocking of people for misusing talk pages. I can name any number of articles where there is a constant parade of ranting and raving about the topic with no real focus on improving the article itself. We're too tolerant of that stuff, and the flow of drivel gets in the way of -- what is it we're supposed to be here for? -- oh yes, building a reference work. Please see WP:TALK, especially Wikipedia:Talk#Behavior that is unacceptable which explicitly states Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being blocked or banned from editing Wikipedia. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Boris on this topic. Discussion about content is one thing, and legitimate content discussions can (and do) become heated on occasion, But endless ranting about some obscure POV position goes on far too much. Examine Talk:Scientific_method for one such case. Manning (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we somehow make it clear that an edit such as this is probably the worst possible response to potential trolling? If the evaluation is accurate, the comment fails to make the situation better, and if it is inaccurate, it is extremely rude. I'm comfortable with blocking people for talk page abuse, if necessary, but saying "DNFTT" to someone is truly unproductive, juvenile behavior, which we should do our best to discourage. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I made 93 edits to Butcher group, a long article that was quite hard to write. A.K.Nole's running commentary on the talk page was not about discussing the content added in the main article and was easily identifiable as mathematically ill-informed, hence the abbreviated response. On the talk page, A.K.Nole referred to the lede of renormalization group, which also figures in the article, as incomprehensible. A.K.Nole's editing on WP has mostly been involved with adding tags. He has also edited Mathsci and suggested that my username is a copyright infringement. A more careful analysis might be that this was "truly unproductive, juvenile behavior, which we should do our best to discourage". Mathsci (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't disagree. I'm sure you were (and are) very frustrated with that editor. His behavior may be entirely unproductive and juvenile. However, I'm addressing a different point, which is how to react to a difficult editor without descending to their level. If someone is trolling, that doesn't somehow make it helpful to start calling him "troll". That's a great thing to type, and then not hit "save".

Ultimately, if an editor is particularly troublesome, it becomes even more important to maintain a high standard regarding "comment on the edit, not the editor". Doing otherwise makes the situation messier and harder to resolve, and you end up taking part in long ANI threads. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure in this case. Before you get to the point of calling someone a "troll", get more eyes on the situation, and back away a bit. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I discussed this off-wiki with a very experienced mathematics editor, because of A.K.Nole's persistence on the talk page over a number of days. He agreed that A.K.Nole's edits were highly problematic and it looked as if he was trying to WP:BAIT me, possibly to get me blocked. In other words he was gaming the system. One problem is that he wasn't actually discussing content, probably because, as he freely admitted, he didn't know what a group was. If you spend just a little time looking at his editing patterns, which started as a joint account The Wiki House (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), you will see that he was lurking on the talk page of the article. It is his editing behaviour that is problematic and it extremely difficult to know how to deal with somebody like that. It's quite a rare occurrence, thank goodness! Mathsci (talk) 06:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it's nice to have some time left over for working on articles. It's weird for someone to focus on a specific (and not, I dare say, elementary) group, without knowing the ABC's of group theory. Occasionally though, a non-mathematician editor get a bee in their bonnet about some specific technical mathematics article, and insists that it be made clear and accessible to them, who know nothing of the language or the context. It's kind of bizarre, but I think it leads to some good edits. I'm not saying that's precisely what was happening here - just commenting generally.

I think that, in a situation like the one under discussion, it might be helpful to bring up the situation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. As you know, there's a fairly stable population there of regulars who, at the very least, know about definitions. On Wikipedia, you really don't have to win arguments against other people. If two of us disagree, we can just stop arguing with each other and seek outside opinions. Even in a case that seems to be clear trolling or baiting, if new people arrive and call him out, that helps you. It helps you more, the more you've stayed away from accusations yourself, although the best kind of input from outsiders is focused on content, and not on people's motivations.

More succinctly, we've got your back. Don't hesitate to call for outside eyes before the heat gets too high. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

^ Wisdom. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not worried about WMC's blocks for trolling. Above Durova says that "trolling" isn't a desirable block reason--she is right, in a sense. The community, for a number of reasons, worries quite a lot about the block button being used to stop people from rousting up trouble absent a clear sign of malfeasance. I don't. I think that warnings and blocks can and should be used to stop people from misusing talk pages. Protonk (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • If trolling actually occurs (and of course sometimes it does), then the best course of action is to document samples of problem behavior and state one's reasoning. Reasonable observers will also conclude that it's trolling and the t-word need never be said. Durova273 featured contributions 03:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • It's not a dirty word. It's a facet of online discourse and we have two responses, DFTT (much prefered, obviously) and RBI (much less preferred). The assumption that folks are acting in good faith doesn't prevent discovery that they are in fact, acting in bad faith. Protonk (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't think the suggestion is that it's dirty, simply that it's unhelpful. It introduces a whole new dimension to the discourse that is best avoided, because it does not admit of clear proofs, and it distracts from the work of encyclopedia-building.

          I have yet to see a case where accusing an editor of trolling has improved any situation, in terms of resolving the dispute to the advantage of the project. If such successes occurred, then we would encourage the calling of "troll", but in practice, doing so mucks everything up. That's why it's a bad idea.

          You cite a choice between DFTT and RBI; and you're clearly right that DFTT is much preferable. The question is, what does "feeding a troll" look like? In my experience, calling them out as trolls feeds them.

          That still doesn't begin to address the issue of false positives, which are of course wonderful and fun. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

          • Both good points. There happen to be a few words which, although not necessarily vulgar, tend to be hot button and mean different things to different people. If a word consistently lowers and inflames discourse, then it's better to use it sparingly. The underlying issues can be addressed much more productively in other ways. Durova273 featured contributions 14:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Exxolon. I don't feel that my blocking was justified. WMC and Dab were making disparaging insinuations about me in response to me agreeing with the suggestion of a sock (who I had no way of knowing was a sock). Dab's comment in particular had an especially flamebaiting nature to it. I did bite and a mini-flame war ensued which WMC deleted but for some reason left Dab's comment on the page. I complained about this and issued another response to him for which I was warned on my talk page. I asked what I had done wrong and simply rephrased my question and was then blocked. I don't feel that WMC is an objective Admin. He has been condescending to all the editors who want this particular page unlocked and has continually tolerated the disruptive behavior of Dab while people like myself get punished. I would like to request a more neutral Admin look over the page. AncientObserver (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Minimal subtraction scheme[edit]

In fact the problem started with ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) here [13], who claimed he was patrolling new articles. A.K.Nole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been attempting to edit the article Butcher group without any knowledge of either Hopf algebras or renormalization, the main topics of the article, which is at a graduate level in pure mathematics, theoretical physics and computer science. His mathematically off-key remarks, of which LadyofShalott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was perfectly aware because of messages left on her talk page, came to a head with these two absurd edits [14], [15], where A.K.Nole attempted to copy-paste material written by me in Butcher group into another article, where it made no sense. This was because A.K.Nole did not understand in any way the mathematics or theoretical physics so was unaware that by copy-pasting content like that of out of context, he was essentially vandalizing the other article. This is not a content dispute: it is about disruptive editing by a clueless editor. He appears to have no idea about theoretical physics and made no attempt to find sources (there is a classic book by Collins on renormalization). This is not a content dispute in any way. Other experienced editors have been editing the main article Butcher group usefully, while A.K.Nole has continued making mathematically uninformed comments on the talk page. I've never seen behaviour like that before on wikipedia and I have edited mainspace mathematics/mathematical physics articles quite a bit. LadyofShalott was perfectly aware of the edits to Minimal subtraction scheme when she needlessly started dramamongering here, without mentioning these edits. I have no idea why she has done this. Mathsci (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Why do a few uninformed comments on the talk page merit a block, can someone show the diffs that allow us to overcome any assumption of good faith. P.S. If someone invited me to comment on the talk page of that article, I'd mention that the article as written is inaccessable to all but the experts and that a synopsis that would allow us mere mortals (morons, perhaps) at least know basically what the subject of the article is would be a welcome addition. I hope that such a comment wouldn't get me blocked. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The block happened I suppose because of the two edits mentioned above, which were vandalism, repeated after a warning. P.S. I'm sure that the same criticism would apply to almost any other graduate-level mathematics WP article, e.g. Hopf algebra. Mathsci (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that comments above have made the situation clear enough. This is complex maths, and most people have wisely noticed that they don't understand it well enough to even tell whether AKN is contributing usefully or not. The few with enough knowledge have realised that he isn't. I noticed too, and warned him to stay away (which is why Why do a few uninformed comments on the talk page merit a block etc shows an insufficient reading of the situation). He chose to ignore that warning, so I blocked him. AKN should keep away from maths stuff he doesn't understand William M. Connolley (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not completely clear on the specific rationale for the block, which I think is the main issue. Regardless of how complex the subject matter, the reason for the block should be intelligible to most any other admin. "Trolling" does not cut it (ever really, but certainly in an ambiguous case like this); and in a situation where there are back and forth talk page comments between two editors, you should clearly explain why the one you blocked got blocked. The reason this matters is because we have had a lengthy ANI thread about it which perhaps could have been avoided had you provided a specific rationale with diffs and the like. You might chime in that this all could have been avoided if people would have trusted the blocking admin and not stuck their noses in tricky maths, but I would not buy that. If you're going to make a possibly controversial block before you go offline for the night, it would be helpful if, at the least, you could make sure that anyone who fields an unblock request (which are not uncommon, obviously) understands why you did what you did. Obviously that did not happen in this case, and I think that's just sloppy. Indeed I still don't know if AKN was blocked for editing somewhere he should not, for ignoring a warning of yours, for trying to wind up another editor, or some combination of those.
I think the one inescapable conclusion is that, for whatever reason, the block ultimately created more disruption than doing nothing would have, and in that sense it failed. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The editor mentioned by David Eppstein and I agreed that over a prolonged period A.K.Nole was commenting on material that he did not understand in a way that was not useful for the editing of the namespace article. Please can we leave it at that? Mathsci (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
In addition, and this I find somewhat upsetting, LadyofShalott (talk · contribs) received a WP email from me on June 26, disclosing my real life identity. With that information LadyofShalott could easily identify me as an established pure mathematician. This is not apparent in any of her contributions here. Mathsci (talk) 09:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
(inserting this out-of sequence) I did get an email with a name other than your username. I was unaware, though, that your status as a professional mathematician was in question. LadyofShalott 13:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Ahh right, I forget - being knowledgeable about the subject area is a get-out-of-jail free card. The question I want to ask - where is the trolling? It seems to be being used as a catch-all block reason to get someone annoying out of peoples hair, which isn't really acceptable. Ironholds (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Please look at the 2 diffs cited above. A.K.Node's cut-and-paste edits - out of context - are gobbledegook. Mathsci (talk) 09:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The first part of your argument stemmed from the idea that he doesn't understand the maths. If we work on that basis, why assume his edits there are an attempt to get a rise out of you and troll and not simply a bad good faith edit? Ironholds (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Isn't there a clue in the edit summary? [16] This insertion was unsourced vandalism. Mathsci (talk) 09:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Not really seeing it. I note that Nole edited without issues up until now, so assuming after 700 edits or so that he's magically turned into a troll requires something more than "he said I wrote nice stuff". Again, I'm not contesting the idea that his edits were inappropriate, just that the description of him as a "troll", both here and in the block log, are inappropriate. Ironholds (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Ahem, what you've just written is incorrect. Please look at the rest of the thread more carefully. Shell Kinney above said that he appears to be hounding me. WMC is the blocking administrator, not me. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
WP's mathematical articles may well be the highest-quality articles (and the least often vandalised), simply because the subject matter is often so daunting that few non-experts will venture to edit them (as opposed to most other subjects, where there is no shortage of the uninformed who feel at liberty to jump in and edit.) I have no opinion on the block under discussion, I merely wish to note how "lucky" WP's mathematicians are (and yes, I am envious :-) ).--Goodmorningworld (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Try editing law articles, heh. I got an article to FA without any other content contributions minus c/e and no talkpage discussion. Ironholds (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I just got a DYK on a subject matter that was realllly outside of my Wikipedia interest (Canadian Military History) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Very few mathematics articles get to FA. I think Emmy Noether is one of the few, largely because of User:WillowW's amazing writing skills. Mathsci (talk) 10:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Outdent: wow, that's an impressive article. I assume (I'm not the best mathematician in the world) that the problem with getting higher mathematics articles up to a "good" or "featured" quality is twofold: one, you have to make them understandable to lay folk like myself and two, nobody understands the bloody things other than you so they won't get reviewed :P. Ironholds (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. Another example is group which has beautiful images. Mathsci (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I think my favorite is 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · ·. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow. I may have fixed grammar or formatting, or added a comma here or there on Math and Science articles, but my additions will never get them to these places. Of course, the concepts in WP:EXPERT may sometimes apply :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Attempting to identify a contribution from an established editor as "vandalism".... (A) Will generate more static than it's worth. (B) Is unprovable. (C) Distracts from the important questions involved. (D) Leads to threads like this one. (E) Doesn't help anything.

If an editor is making incredibly stupid edits to an article they don't understand, then they should be stopped. Calling their edits "vandalism" makes it harder to stop them, not easier. Let's remember that "comment on the edit, not the editor" puts you in a position of serious power. Take advantage of that opportunity, and save yourself many headaches. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The first edit of this account was May 2 with 389 namespace edits. There are no substantial content additions to articles, just a lot of tagging, etc. Mathsci (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor with some mathematical knowledge, I agree with the comments by David Eppstein [17] and MangoJuice [18]. The issue seems to be how much good faith to show before blocking someone. I can offer some advice on how to communicate more effectively in these situations, if A.K.Nole is interested. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand the supposed connection between blocking and "good faith". I've blocked a lot of accounts, and I was assuming good faith the whole time. People are blocked to prevent disruption, and whether the disruption was intentional or not has nothing to do with it. Good-faith edits that are disruptive... are disruptive. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I want to comment on Mathsci's posting at the beginning of this section, which I regret to state is seriously inaccurate.
  • "attempting to edit the article Butcher group" - not correct. I made three concrete suggestions on the talk page. The only edit I made to the article itself was a trivial spelling correction. Mathsci actually accepted all three suggestions and added them to the article, although he doesn't care to admit that. Why would he do that if they were all "clueless"?
  • "mathematically off-key remarks of which LadyofShalott was perfectly aware" - comments made at another article entirely of which Mathsci had complained to Lady's talk page in a series of posting complaining about me and again inaccurately.
Comment: Mathsci was actually incorrect, in that the two models of a diagonal cubic surface are not equivalent over a field of characteristic three.
  • "two absurd edits where Mathsci attempted to copy-paste material". The first was a selection of a couple of sentences, with the technical formulae copied for accuracy, and where I added interpretation such as the reference to principal part of a Laurent series. The second was a summary and not in any way a copy-paste job.
I think this is enough to establish that Mathsci is giving an inaccurate account of this whole affair. I frankly think that he believes that my wording must be nonsense because it was I who added it and for no other reason. He is then backing up his belief with bluster, personal remarks, repetitiveness and accusations against any editors who do not entirely support his personal line. I have asked him to go to dispute resolution twice and he has rejected [19] my suggestions. A.K.Nole (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
This related diff [20] of A.K.Nole confirms what almost all senior mathematical editors have said, notably Charles Matthews, David Eppstein and CBM: A.K.Nole has a very poor grasp of rather elementary mathematics. Here a simple elimination of one variable that most people can do mentally seems problematic. Mathsci (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Mathsci is giving arguments that, while a bit extreme, are common with editors who are expert in a topic. However, Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, and articles that are so specialized that they intrinsically can't be explained to a general audience quite possibly don't belong here, except as a stub or redirect, which would be true of any subject, not only in the sciences. My opinion is that if the topic isn't explained with sufficient clarity such that editors with reasonably common background can't understand it, the article writing is poor and needs work, or the subject is so abstruse that, truly, only experts can understand it, which then might mean that it's too narrow for article-level status on Wikipedia. I wouldn't give up on explaining the topic properly, however. I'll point out that for an article to be comprehensible to the ordinary reader, it should even more be comprehensible to an ordinary editor who spends some serious time with it trying to understand it and who then makes edits to make it more accessible; the likelihood of this editor making mistakes with the science or math is high, but mistakes can be corrected, and out of the interchange, the result can be a much better article. For an example, see recent edits to Oppenheimer-Phillips process, where a quite ignorant editor rather badly mangled the article, I tried to fix it, but I'm not a physicist -- though I have background which makes the field reasonably accessible to me -- and ScienceApologist, working with me, corrected my mistakes -- which mostly were not mistakes, but simply explanations he thought inadequate, he wanted to cross the t's and dot the i's. The result was that, apparently, the original editor now understood the topic better. The project won. Ownership of articles by experts is very dangerous to the quality of our content. Respect for experts is very important. Often, experts are blocked or banned for behavior like that of Mathsci, see the recent ban of User:NewYorkScholar. And where an article or editor is highly defended by an administrator, we can see ordinary editors blocked for attempting to make articles clearer or more comprehensive. --Abd (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The addition of those bits from Butcher group to the other article are out of place in the renormalisation calculation articles. It is an understatement to say that the edit lowered the quality of the article. I hesitate to ramble too much here (but have done so on my talk page in response to Exxolon's request), as I have only been briefly acquainted with most of the general sphere relating to Hopf algebras. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The block[edit]

So I think I understand the situation well enough to comment on the block. AKN was making comments on the talk page in good faith, but with such a low level of understanding of the subject that it was irritating. From my reading of things, this goes beyond the point where AKN could reasonably believe he was close to an understanding and qualified to get involved in technical issues: he clearly falls far short, yet he persisted in making edits along those lines. (Even my own humble level of mathematics background makes me realize that someone who implies they don't know what a group is is way over their head in this article.) Where does this leave us? I do think that if this pattern continues it can be viewed as trolling: AKN has to realize that with topics this advanced his comments and edits are pretty unlikely to be of any use. He has been told so. And then he continues to edit in the same way, basically ignoring the warning. I'm not sure I would consider this trolling yet, since he may in good faith have thought the warning was limited in scope to Butcher group (as he says) but it's certainly heading in that direction. If you aren't being helpful and you're getting a negative response, and people tell you why you're getting a negative response, and you ignore that and keep doing the same thing, the only conclusion is that you are looking for the negative response. Or, possibly, AKN is trying to learn about these topics from the more expert editors. Either way it's inappropriate: Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, the project is to build articles, it's not a classroom. I think the block at this time is harsh, but it's a 24 hour block and it's within the bounds of reason. Mangojuicetalk 13:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Mango - thanks for giving such a lucid assessment.
It is a core part of Wikipedia philosophy that "All editors are equal". This is true, but it does not mean that "all editors are equally good at all things".
I agree that AKN is probably not being "maliciously disruptive", but it does appear that he/she to be "fighting above their weight class" and should probably walk away. With my own limited understanding of the topics, the disputes are not about "finer points of interpretation", but actually involve a fundamental misunderstanding of the core material. I'm hesitant to call this "trolling" per se but am quite happy to label it as "disruptive", albeit well-intentioned.
While I firmly believe that certain mathematics articles (eg. Fermat's Last Theorem, and associated Wiles articles) require a "layman's component" due to their popular appeal beyond the mathematical community, the more advanced topics should be free of this requirement. Wikipedia is fortunate to have a significant number of erudite articles on highly advanced topics, and there is simply no way to make these accessible to an audience which lacks the requisite background. (From my minimal grasp of group theory, I know that the article on Group homomorphism is already as accessible as it is ever likely to be). The reason we have this collection of quality articles is due to the work of some highly trained editors. As administrators - especially administrators who are otherwise unable to contribute - it falls to us to ensure that such skilled people are allowed to be productive.
  • In summary, the block was mildly harsher than how I personally would have handled it, but it a fully defensible action and there is no overwhelming case for over-ruling the admin's decision.Manning (talk) 13:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Did anyone notice that A.K.Nole is "Elonka" spelled backwards? This user's first edits were to Simutronics, the company Elonka works for. And, what's with the self-admitted account sharing on the userpage? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Wow. User:A.K.Nole says I was previously at User:The Wiki House, and following on to User:The Wiki House one sees We have started our Wikipedia projects. along with three usernames. The page history for User:The Wiki House is quite interesting. As my old boss used to say, "What the hell is going on here?" Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
        • This has already been addressed - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/The_Wiki_House/Archive - short version - 3 people in same house decide to start editing Wikipedia and as they are on the same connection use the same account (hence the name). When it was pointed out this was against policy they all created individual accounts and for transparency have indicated this by linking back to their former shared account from their new individual accounts and have not used the shared one since. Nothing sinister here. Exxolon (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
          • The bit that Nishkid64 identified – the (obvious-in-hindsight) choice of a deliberately trolling account name and first edit – hasn't been addressed. Kind of makes WMC's block look rather prescient, actually.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, xyr first edit was to University of Gloucestershire, here. Uncle G (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Responding to Mango Juice's post above, I think that the case of Chuck Marean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is relevant here. (I think how his interpretation of the Bernard Madoff case is bizarre, novel & disruptive, is understandable to more people than questionable edits to a graduate-level mathematics article.) Neither editor are trolling, but neither are truly showing the needed skill to contribute positively to Wikipedia in their chosen areas. -- llywrch (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Bah, admins are supposed to help get the encyclopedia written, that includes blocking people who get in the middle of getting complicated articles written, like A.K.Nole was doing. If someone with no expertise in the matter is making wrong edits, ignoring warnings from experts in the matter that he is completely wrong, and, apparently, doing all of it to troll other user, then it's normal that an admin blocks. That being said, maybe WMC was too fast in the blocking and should have given a warning first to the editor, and block only if/when he kept insisting in the same behaviour. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Moved my comments to the bottom of the report.Livewireo (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci and William M. Connolley and Wiki-Meetups[edit]

Mathsci (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)
William M. Connolley (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

When some arbitration on a heated subject was submitted, an arbitrator who met one of involved parties via Wiki Meetup recused himself from the case for neutrality. That kind of integrity is also required to admins and practiced too. I was wondering why WMC who said dislikes ANI and barely comes here suddenly blocked CoM and A.K.Nole in too much favor for Mathsci. People pointed out Mathsci's incivility, but his blocks are "one-sided". The answer to the puzzle turns out to be too simple. They've met "twice" this year via Wikipedia Meetup. An image of them together can be found too on the pages. They seems to be also involved in some ArbCom case (cold fusion or fringe theory etc) according to Mathsci's user page.

Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 2 February 28, 2009
Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 3 April 28, 2009

WMC should've not get involved in blocking Mathsci's opponents given the offline interaction. I think this that could be construed as COI and warrant ArbCom on William M. Connolley's questionable administrative actions in a row.--Caspian blue 15:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, I'm not sure what your point is here. Regardless of the two having an offline interaction or not, this case should be assessed on the evidence of what transpired on-wiki and nothing else. Thus far it has been reviewed by several uninvolved admins who have assessed WMC's actions as possibly a bit harsh, but still acceptable. I also didn't see any evidence of a personal agenda between Mathsci and AKN that would warrant the use of the term "Mathsci's enemies". There is no discernable COI issue either as a result of them meeting IRL. Based on your COI reasoning, all Wiki-conferences would result in the wholesale disempowering of all of the admins who attend. Manning (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you are saying that the mentioned arbitrator for comparison is exceptionally ethical among admins, I do not think so. Arbitrators recuse themselves even if they are slightly involved in commenting on cases or contacting with involved editors in the past. The blocking reason is lame to many editors, so I will leave other administrator to interpret this finding.--15:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec)That's a nice conspiracy theory you've cooked up there...tinfoil and all...but simply being acquainted with someone via a Wikimeetup is no cause for a conflict of interest. I'd wonder about a chilling effect this could have on future meets, will they have to second-guess who they're talking to or if they should even go at all? An/I has seen silly proposals in the past, but this is a new height. Tarc (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Tarc, how typical. Read my first sentence again. Ir is rather obvious that you have a grudge for my warning to your inappropriate behavior to CoM. I want you to retract your absurd accusation, and disengage from the matter. --Caspian blue 15:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
You have no position of authority to issue warnings, so we will classify what you're referring to as "advice". And as I do not put much stock in the source, given your own closeness to CoM, your "advice" was rejected out of hand. Are we clear on that issue? Good.
As for this, I will weigh in as I see fit. While there may be issues with how Connolley is handling blocks, this idea of meeting a person IRL is grounds to demand a recusal is just patently absurd. That someone in the past did so is being a bit over-reactive IMO, and does not obligate others to follow such a decision. Tarc (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Tarc, if you wish to continue "your conspiracy theory" to make yourself "mature", I just will let you indulge in cooking up that. Good luck with that.--Caspian blue 16:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggesting that an admin might favor a particular editor is hardly a "conspiracy theory." However, I'm also leery of jumping to conclusions based on off-wiki activities. I'll be at the conference in New York next month. Will this mean that if I meet an arbitrator there, that arbitrator would have to recuse? I hope not! I'd better hurry and file that RfAr! But maybe it doesn't matter. Patience, Caspian blue. It will all come out in the wash. --Abd (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course admins favor certain editors...that goes on here a lot more than people think. I'm not objecting to the concept, I'm objecting to the "evidence" that being at the same Wikimeet is proof of such. I'm curious as to how Caspian even got onto that trail. Tarc (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I must agree that just having met at meet-ups is not evidence of wrongdoing on anyone's part. sorry, forgot to sign before -LadyofShalott 16:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
To LadyofShalott. WMC's favors for Mathsic are obvious in the case. The one lame block by WMC that sides Mathsic's stance is just a thing that I can ignore, but the second consecutive block by WMC for the lame reason is questionable. --Caspian blue 16:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Abd, you're right, it is just a matter of time.--Caspian blue 16:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Yes I have twice been to Cambridge wiki meetups. I usually am here in Aix-en-Provence where I sometimes edit WP on the corner of rue d'Italie and rue Roux Alpheran next to the Musée Granet. When Bruno Ely, the conservateur of the Musée goes past, he often gives me an ironic smile of recognition, because he is fully aware that I have plagiarised his French text for Chateau of Vauvenargues.

WMC arrived late to the first meeting and I left early because I was booked to play organ music in Christ's College chapel. Somebody who'd been at Trinity Hall, Cambridge kindly bought me a caffe latte. The second time at lunchtime I arrived late because of the late running of the number 4 Citibus in Cambridge and WMC had to leave early. I bought Charles Matthews a tomato juice: he had eaten an interesting and delicious looking salad. I couldn't stay long, because I had to be back to see a student at 2pm. All present were mathematicians, including one graduate student who had an office 2 doors away from mine between 2006 and 2008. The main discussion was between Charles and me, because at different times we'd been in the same department and the same college: the BLP of Alexander Todd was the main thing discussed, because both of us had been told in person what he thought of mathematicians. Lord Todd did not mince his words. At none of these meetings have I chatted at any length with WMC. Where will conspiracy theory end I wonder? Yawn. Mathsci (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody asked your whereabouts and your trivial description on your meeting (yawning). You have created "unbelievable stories" that people has harassed you when they copy-edit to improve articles in good faith, but nobody believe so except WMC. I'm just curious as to why you're behaving like that. In my eye, you're pushing yourself close to a block. In terms of WMC's definition on trolling, I wonder why you're not blocked yet by WMC for your inappropriate behaviors that other admins gave you warnings. I asked WMC, but he did not answer it at all.--Caspian blue 16:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I think merely knowing each other off wiki does not require that level of response. It's one thing on ArbCom where there's a high workload and plenty of other arbitrators to handle any given case. It's another thing in a case like this. WMC should just be cautious that he doesn't end up blocking people merely to make Mathsci's life easier, and should ask for input from other admins where appropriate. Mangojuicetalk 16:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to comment. The article is highly technical, current research mathematics. There has been some quibbling on the Talk page. I was reminded of a comment from Frank Adams about how "anyone who knows enough to ask that question knows enough to answer it". User:A.K.Nole does seem to be being unnecessarily provocative about matters of exposition. Not as provocative as the first remark on the page. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Charles. It was kind of you to comment. Mathsci (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


Much of the discussion of my contributions is based on notion that I have no expertise in mathematics. The logic appears to run in the circle "he is not an expert so his statements must be nonsense" and "his statements are nonsense so he can't be an expert". I should prefer to be judged purely on the content of my contributions but that appears to have become impossible in the present climate, in which my lack of expertise appears to be taken for granted following an astonishing campaign of reiteration and misquotation. Charles Matthews presents the interesting variation that I'm so non-expert that I must actually be an expert. Astonishingly no-one has yet taken the elementary step of simply asking me what my qualifications are! I have a first-class degree in a mathematical subject from an established British university. That is all I propose to say on that matter.

The quality of my suggested specific contributions to Butcher group can be judged from the simple fact that they were all accepted and incorporated in the article by Mathsci (and I challenge him to deny that here). In detail:

1. That the definition of the Butcher group itself (as it stood at that time) was incomplete [21]. Mathsci accepted this and added the missing material [22], acknowledging my assistance ("your question was useful") [23].
2. That the opening sentence was misleading as it identified the group with the associated formalism [24]. Mathsci argued quite strongly that this was absurd, then made the suggested change ("slight rewording of lede") [25].
3. That the phrase minimal subtraction scheme should be wikilinked to the article of the same name if that was indeed appropriate [26]. Mathsci again angrily rejected this as absurd and then made the suggested link [27]

Mathsci has worked assiduously to promote the notion that I must be an ignoramus. His descriptions (almost always presented without diffs) are seriously misleading.

  • I made the comment "To those of us who barely know what a group is, the initial sentence as it stands is confusing" [28] which "us" clearly refers to the whole community of non-experts in the context of a discussion on how to make the opening sentence both mathematically correct and intelligible to the non-experts. Mathsci has chosen to quote, or rather, misquote that as "as he freely admitted, he didn't know what a group was." [29] This misquotation is hard to understand as anything but a deliberate distortion.
  • I referred to the introductory paragraph of renormalisation group as "somewhat incomprehensible" [30], again in the context of discussion of opening sentences for non-experts. I think that is an accurate assessment of it if it is intended to to be an introduction for the non-expert. Mathsci again drops the context and presents it as if it were an admission of personal incompetence [31]. This is again misleading. A.K.Nole (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Well this should be relatively simple to resolve: are you, or are you not, a qualified mathematical expert? Some--many even--articles on Wikipedia may quite easily be completely written by non-experts. Pure math, physics, chemistry? Not so much. They require extensive formal training in order to even understand the concepts involved, let alone explain them. So do you or do you not have such expertise? → ROUX  22:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
On the basis of his edits and those as a member of User:The Wiki House, A.K.Nole seems to have attended the University of Gloucestershire in Cheltenham established in 2001. It has no undergraduate degree in mathematics. Editing using a Cheltenham IP, he made this edit [32], implying that he did not in fact himself know the definition of a group. In England this is standard first year material in university undergraduate courses in mathematics. Is there some way A.K.Nole can confirm his statement about having an undergraduate degree in mathematics from an established univeristy with an arbitrator or an administrator? My own qualifications are known to Charles Matthews, so are not in doubt. As far as I am aware I don't make errors editing mathematics articles (apart possibly from niggling constants and signs). His cut-and-paste edit [33] to Minimal subtraction scheme has a homomorphism with undefined domain, a rather serious and unhelpful error. Any reasonably bright mathematics undergraduate would have seen there was a problem. What is most puzzling with A.K.Nole is that, apart from the edits on AfDs started by me or articles started by me or articles which share my username, he has made no substantial content edits to wikipedia. Most of his edits are quick fly-by tagging. Usually people edit about what they know about. Mathsci (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Re A.K.Nole: I believe that what David Eppstein, Charles Matthews, and I have each said is that your comments on Talk:Butcher group reflect so poorly that it makes one wonder if you might be writing in an intentionally naive way. There are certainly more productive ways to communicate, and they are not hard to acquire. There are many non-experts who edit math articles, so I do not think this is simply a matter of credentials. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This edit [34] by ChildofMidnight is also highly problematic. Mathsci (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I would let it go, and try to put this incident in the past. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
One remaining, and possibly troubling, issue is the whole A.K. Nole = User:Elonka backwards thing. AKN addressed that here, I think quite inadequately. Either the username's resemblance to another user name is entirely coincidental, or it is not. If the latter, I think some explanation is in order. Elonka seems to be on a break right now, but she might also be able to shed some light on the matter, so I'll likely post a note on her talk page if questions remain about this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I want to comment here to thank Mathsci for the excellent work, and to ask that admins do what they can to allow editors like Mathsci to continue without the totally unwarranted and misguided attention that I see on the talk page of Butcher group. I have never encountered the editors mentioned here (I noticed this at WT:WikiProject_Mathematics#Help), but I have sufficient mathematical background to form the opinion that Mathsci needs to be protected from misguided onlookers. It's tricky because we're all equal and we assume good faith, and the article content is so technical that it's hard to tell the difference between a good and a bad edit. However, I understand some of the concepts mentioned in the lead and my opinion is that it is not possible (or desirable) to make articles like this more accessible to general readers, and the repeated back-and-forth on the talk page is misguided. I think Mathsci gave replies that were more than reasonable at first; it was only when the barrage persisted that Mathsci started to show some understandable irritation. The issue of AKN's expertise and motivation are no longer relevant; it is the behavior that is the problem – please stop. Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

About the anagram thing. I am not User:Elonka, I have no connection with her. My username is not intended to cause her or anyone else any kind of difficulty or embarassment. If there are any problems please let me know and I will gladly change it. A.K.Nole (talk[) 06:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Nobody has suggested that you are User:Elonka, because she is based in St Louis, Missouri, not Cheltenham, is an admin and knows how to edit properly. You haven't explained how you came to edit Simutronics nor why your username is Elonka backwards. You have made no comment as to whether your university is the University of Gloucestershire, as your Cheltenhame IP and this edit[35] seem to confirm. I am sorry that you did not like the BLP of Dame Janet Trotter that I wrote and the fact that my local MP was Sir Neville Trotter when I lived on Tyneside. The sooner you learn how to add substantial sourced content to wikipedia articles the better. Mathsci (talk) 06:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
(this and previous comment out of sequence to the one below) Mathsci it might be better for you leave off commenting on this for now. I'm pursuing the Elonka issue with AKN on their talk page so no worries there. Whether or not that editor is affiliated with the University of Gloucestershire is quite immaterial, and they certainly have a right to not have their personal details revealed here. You really need to let that aspect of this go. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Ahem, that would be the case if this user had not first claimed to have a first class degree in a mathematical subject from an established UK university. This is not reflected in their on-wiki editing skills as administrators from WikiProject Mathematics have confirmed. Mathsci (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
That categorically does not matter. You're going after specific aspects of an editor's real life identity and should absolutely not be doing that, even if it proves your point about his or mathematical bona fides, or lack thereof. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Mathsci. I assume that you accept the assessment of my edits and your misquotations, since you choose to quibble only about the wording "I am told". Do you really believe that my self-deprecating usage (and yes, that was me on the IP of course) constitutes justification for your statement "as he freely admitted, he didn't know what a group was"? I think not.
I said that I have a mathematical degree from one British university and of course it is not the University of Gloucestershire since as you point out that university does not offer any such degrees. If you do not believe me then that's too bad. I am not going to discuss my CV or my current affiliation or my place of work or residence, or any other personal information, here and I regard it as a serious form of harassment that you should continue to badger me to do so. A.K.Nole (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Your mathematical edits have been identified by other senior mathematcal editors as very poor/naive. I cannot disagree. I teach some of the brightest students in the country in Part III in Cambridge. Each time you try to write about mathematics you make howling errors (e.g. describing a projective surface as a "three-hold"). You'll have to confirm the statement about the degree/university with an arbitrator or an administrator. Please also read Essjay controversy. Mathsci (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, I don't think Mathsci has been handling this in the best way in human terms, but neither do I think you have been handling this in the best way in technical terms. I picked up on your comment at Talk:Clebsch surface, as either ill-considered or faux naif - I guess it is the former, since a mathematics graduate ought to be able to see those equations as equivalent at a glance. The insertion of an example into a quantum field theory page by copy-and-paste without proper referencing and contextualisation is just annoying to everyone concerned. Homomorphisms being unital is a typical convention assumed in ring theory, usually just to avoid tedious explanations. The username thing concerns me. But let's all just move on now. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've spent a bit of time looking at AKN's edits, and there is some weird stuff going on in terms of connections to User:Elonka (I certainly don't think they're the same person). I was going to post some info here but decide to save it off-wiki instead in order let AKN reply to some queries of mine on that editor's talk page (there could be legitimate explanations, but it looks rather odd). I'll wait and see but we might need to explore this issue further, though it's tangential to the Mathsci/WMC/A.K. Nole issue. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Deliberate harassment by User:Mathsci[edit]

Mathsci asserts that I live in a certain town in the UK [36] after I had specifically stated that "I am not going to discuss my CV or my current affiliation or my place of work or residence, or any other personal information, here and I regard it as a serious form of harassment that you should continue to badger me to do so." [37] That is deliberate and conscious WP:OUTING ("Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Wikipedia themselves.") Fortunately we are already in the right place for me to ask for suitable action. Perhaps Mathsci needs some time off to read Wikipedia:Harassment. I call on an uninvolved admin to consider how to respond to this deliberate flouting of Wikipedia policy. A.K.Nole (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest simply ignoring him, and both of you moving on to other things. This thread on ANI has dragged on long enough, and neither his continued involvement nor yours is likely to improve anything. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
My advice to AKN is similar. However, if harassment continues, that's another story. However, I have seen Mathsci harass at least one other editor, so there is a cause for concern here. Because it would be duplicating a pending RfAr, I'm not going to present evidence of that here, but this report might be useful to gather information along that line, since it has been opened, and, given all that was discussed above, it's possible that Mathsci might be formally warned. AKN, I recommend you leave it alone. Beyond this, I plan to. --Abd (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
A.K., hi. The advice CBM and Abd are giving you here is good. This is a situation that you will be far happier walking away from than attempting to obtain some kind of satisfaction. Don't go down the road where I've seen so many good editors come to grief: Wikipedia is not a system of justice, and those who attempt to obtain justice here end up disappointed on multiple levels. Accusations of "deliberate flouting of Wikipedia policy" precede great sadness for the accuser. Seriously, for your own sanity, just walk away. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
↑ what he said ↑ — Ched :  ?  18:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Walking away could be a good way for you, A.K.Nole. However, it is understandable that A.K.Nole is very angry with Mathsci's repeated inappropriate attempts to smear A.K.Nole's image. (OUTing is a serious violation that warrants "immediate blocks" if he really did) Since Mathsci has been officially warned several times by admins for his incivility and other inappropriate behaviors (like harassment as Abd pointed out) to not only you but also the other editor, if he continues the same problematic behavior again, then make a new ANI report, and see the consequence. He could not evade from sanctions forever. Or you can seek a justice with RFC/U or RFAR against Mathsci if you must feel obliged to file so, but that takes a lot of time and energy. Currently many editors/admins are watching on Mathsci and WMC's behavior for a while, so let's others handle it. --Caspian blue 18:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I find this entire matter unsettling. User:Mathsci's behavior has been nothing but uncivil, firing off warnings of blocks right off the bat instead of trying to civily work things out. Here, from CoM's talk page[38], and from AKNoles talk page [39], [40],[41], and AKNole attempted a dispute resolution, which was blanked and summaried as "rv edit by disruptive troll." [42]. Being an expert on a very technical subject is not carte blanche to act so uncivily to other editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Livewireo (talkcontribs) 19:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I think I understand your concern, Livewireo. Mathsci has certainly been uncivil, and we don't want to coddle or enable that kind of behavior. I make a distinction, however, between addressing Mathsci's behavior, and A.K.Nole trying to obtain redress for wrongs against him. The former might be worth doing, but that should be separated from the latter.

It's not that there's anything wrong with trying to obtain some kind of justice, it's just that Wikipedia is very bad at that. As Elton John sings, "it's like trying to drink whiskey from a bottle of wine." That's nothing against whiskey or wine, you just won't get that there. You won't find justice here. I can say I'm sorry, if it helps. I'm sorry.

If Mathsci's behavior is going to be addressed, it will have to be in the larger context of his contributions to the project. An RFC would be an entirely appropriate way to do that, assuming there are two or three people who feel like putting together evidence of trying other DR measures, etc., etc. If the RFC is simply an extension of this single issue though, it won't go well. I may be wrong - this whole approach I'm taking may be wrong - but it's what I believe I've observed. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"If Mathsci's behavior is going to be addressed, it will have to be in the larger context of his contributions to the project" - that part of your post is wrong at least. Unless you count the fact that arbcom generally do take the time to thank usefull contributors for their sterling article efforts, as they hand down a block or ban for repeated and unchanging behavioural issues. So, I urge anyone who does value Mathsci's contributions, to start doing more to change his behaviour when they recognise it as problematic. In my view of this thread and the last, looking at his various actions, the feedback from multiple observers is not being taken on board. MickMacNee (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't necessarily saying that his problematic behavior has to be weighed against his positive contributions, although those also exist. I can see how you would quite naturally read it that way, but I was actually just thinking that it can't be addressed as a single episode. In the vast majority of cases where an established editor is under scrutiny, one act of incivility, even one act of extreme incivility, even one short spate of extreme incivility, will not be enough to merit more than perhaps a short block to stop a storm in progress. However, a pattern of incivility is an issue that the community can address with our full range of remedies, and that's when something like an RFC becomes appropriate. RFC/U's should not be for isolated incidents, though.

Your pointing out that this editor seems not to take criticism on board is a good example of the context I'm saying we need. It has to be about Mathsci's editing patterns, and not about this one time when he blew up at A. K. Nole and ChildofMidnight.

We seem to be largely in agreement, modulo my failure to express myself with complete clarity. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, CoM was blocked for his edit to the talk page. Please look at how the two namespace articles were edited and then compare them with the talk pages before making statements like this. Presumably, given your mathematical background, you know the difficulty of material such as Hopf algebras or renormalization. A.K.Nole's edits have been full of mathematical errors, which other editors have spotted. You seem to be stigmatizing me for being an expert and spotting these errors. I have no idea why. Mathsci (talk) 03:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
GTBacchus seems to be suggesting that there are problems with my namepsace edits. Please could he say here what these problems are? Have I made too many edits? Are the articles too technical? I made 600 edits to Differential geometry of surfaces. Was that too many? Mathsci (talk) 03:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

User:[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This edit from Cheltenham [43] is clearly A.K.Nole. We have seen senior mathematics editors indicating that most that of the material being discussed is beyond the expertise of most wikipedia editors. Senior mathematics administrators have already commented and deemed A.K.Nole's mathematical edits poor. GTBacchus does not fall in this category and his edits his edits are disruptive and ill-informed. Wikipedia does not exist on WP:AN/I. It exists in namespace. There A.K.Nole's edits amount to fly-by tagging whereas I produce articles which are meticulously researched in the arts and sciences. I will reveal exactly who I am if people continue harassing me in this way. In the past two weeks I have created new articles on art (Picasso at Chateau of Vauvenargues), mathematical physics (Butcher group) and music (Handel organ concertos Op.4). I also created a BLP (Janet Trotter). Senior mathematics admins told me to stay away from this page. Yet other editors with no knowledge of graduate mathematics are making absurd statements here. This is a sad reflection on how wikpedia values experts. In view of the diff above, I am actually saying A.K.Nole is a liar. The other edits by this IP clearly identify the editor as A.K.Nole. His continued disruption here might warrant another block, possibly indefinite. Mathsci (talk) 01:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Generally I'm supportive of your view, and agree that on complex articles experts are essential, and modification by non-experts can be damaging. However, the above seems pointless and disruptive to me - it seems irrelevant where A K Nole lives, and trying to figure it out looks a lot like outing to me. On top of that, it is also largely irrelevant as to whether or not A K Nole has expertise in the subject - all that matters, and I accept that this has been demonstrated, was that the editor's contributions to the article were disruptive and problematic. Whether that person has a degree or not, or where they live, is not a concern. I can understand your frustration, but I don't feel that this path is the best one to take, and I'm worried that it will only extend the problems. - Bilby (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be ignoring the statements of senior administrators in WikiProject Mathematics, who disagree with you. That seems ill-judged. CBM, Charles Matthews and David Eppstein have commented. Please read what they have written. How am I outing somebody by identifying their IP? Please tone down your language. I am afraid it's 4.30 in the morning in France. Bonne nuit Mathsci (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
My apologies if the tone was a tad harsh - I didn't mean to be, but it does seem to read that way. That aside, I'm not questioning CBM, Charles Matthews and David Eppstein - their points are fine and valid. But I still find them largely irrelevant. The issue comes down to "Was A K Noll disruptive", not where the editor lives or whether or not the editor has a degree in mathematics. And personally, I accept that the A K Noll was being disruptive on the articles, based on what I've seen of their edits and discussion here. Thus I have no problem with WMC's block. My concern with outing is the "This edit from Cheltenham" in combination with earlier comments. - Bilby (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Just for information, CBM kindly but firmly "warned" him to walk away and stop doing this but Mathsci dared to ignore it and then returned to creat another allegations such as "A.K.Nole liar". And Charles Mathews certainly did not approve of Mathsci's poor behavior.--Caspian blue 02:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec) @Bilby. You are misreading/misquoting their remarks. They have indicated that the edits to the talk were not helpful to the editing of the article, which was highly technical, interdisciplinary and complex. They also suggested that he was either incompetent or faux naif. On the degree thing: (a) it's A.K.Nole that is making the claims about mathematics-related degrees (b) how can anybody edit advanced science articles, possibly graduate level, without training? This editor is making howling errors that indicate very little knowledge of even quite elemntary mathematics. I have no idea why a person like that, with no other science edits, is suddenly out-of-the-blue editing mathematics articles. Shell Kinney and other admins have already said above that he's just hounding me. Why are you now suggesting otherwise?
@ Caspian blue: if the nasty bit in this thread aimed at blocking a long term established content editor did not exist, then CBM's advice on my talk page was fine. I'm sure he didn't anticipate contributions like yours, which seem entirely disruptive and possibly could lead to a block. Are you not in fact trying to WP:BAIT me by writing immoderately? BTW the contributions of the IP speak for themselves. There's very little I can do about that. Mathsci (talk) 03:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Clearly I'm not helping, so I'll step back. But to explain: I agree A K Noll was problematic. I also agree that the block was fine, and that edits made by people who don't fully understand the material can be damaging. So I'm not disagreeing with you or them. All I'm saying is that it doesn't matter where A K Noll lives, or went to university, or whether or not they have a postgrad, undergrad, or, indeed, no degree. The edits were disruptive, as a number of people have argued, and continuing to make disruptive edits warrants a block. (Indeed, if those edits were made by someone who understands the maths, then it would be more, not less, troubling). Disruption is a sufficient condition - lack of knowledge may at best explain the disruption, but doesn't change the outcome. So I don't see what is to be gained by pursing the matter further, given that it seems the intent is to show lack of expertise on A K Noll's part. But then, I'm also generally at a loss as to what you're trying to achieve by pursing this, and maybe you have a reason which I don't see. - Bilby (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I completely agree with you on all your points. The best is that we all get back to editing. Mathsci (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Mathsci, who can compare your inappropriate behaviors and "extreme incivility" and "baiting" motivated by bad faith with others in the whole fiasco? You still can not content the two blocks that you caused by whining and harassing the two editors. The blocks are "coincidentally related to the same admin, William M. Connolley who met you via offline twice. Block against "consensus", block against "justification" in a row. That's why many people claim "Requests for comments against your user conduct" or WMC and "Filing an ArbCom case against you and WMC" could be a right solution for this dispute. However, I don't think you do not learn anything from your disruptive behavior. Still you're still seeking another block against A.K.Nole in the tread by making personal attacks like "liar" and outing. As I said, I will watch when your luck come to end. You think you're okay for making nasty accusations and personal attacks and then requesting for blocks against editors who suffer your such behaviors just because you're an expert? That is preposterous and should be stopped by a rightful saction.--Caspian blue 03:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The "...who met you via offline twice" allegation you made earlier was dismissed by all as being pretty ludicrous. Continue this beef if you will, but stop making yourself look ridiculous by bringing up that extremely silly and debunked accusation. Tarc (talk) 03:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Tarc, the only reason you've bothered yourself appearing here is not to make yourself "mature" I guess. I'm bemused at your "failed attempt" with your cooked-up "conspiracy theory". Alas, that fun entertainment was totally "dismissed" by all and unlike mine was not since some admins said WMC should've been careful when blocking and seeking "input first". Tarc, thank you for letting me know more of you. :p--Caspian blue 04:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree with Caspian blue's analysis and still have no idea why either of these editors chose such an abstruse, advanced and technically difficult article to edit. Quite unlike anything they've edited before. Mathsci (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
You don't still get it. People have advised/warned you "let it go", but you are not letting the matter go. What good would you get from being here.--Caspian blue 04:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
You could probably ask that question of yourself. As could I, of course. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe, so do you. (I've told you many times not to do that, haven't I?) :)--Caspian blue 04:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for block of Mathsci[edit]

Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

  • Support, per I am actually saying A.K.Nole is a liar and his edits are disruptive and ill-informed[44] from just the above new thread that Mathsci added regardless of warnings. Enough of this. Why do we have to put up with this guy's disruption parade - repeated sockpuppetry accusation without evidences, OUTing, trolling, harassing, soaxboxing, forum shopping - even though he has many chances to get out of sanctions compared to what he has done so for. A block would be to prevent Mathsci's further disruptions instead of "generosity" that he has bee enough received by the community. Being an expert does not excuse his repeated poor behavior. He has been heard "warning/advice" to drop[45][46] and walk away from his accusations against A.K.Nole (talk · contribs)[47][48], but he does not take the suggestion at heart all all given the removal from his talk page.[49] According to his insistence, only experts are allowed to edit Math articles, then why he has been editing classical music and other articles that he has no relation in work, but need "experts' in-depth knowledge"? --Caspian blue 01:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry allegations???? Where did you get that absurd idea from????? Stop inventing things, Caspian blue!!!!
With a Fields medallist backing me in the mathemtical edits, you don't have a snowball's chance in hell. Please stop being so disruptive. Your behaviour is shameful. Mathsci (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Did I miss the time Fields medallists were given special decision-making powers on Wikipedia? Algebraist 02:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there more than one? Mathsci (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Mathsci, since you're making another personal attack in the thread, you do not realise that your behaviors here are totally unacceptable to the community. It does not matter even if you're a king. In Wikipedia, you're an editor that has to abide by the rules just like everyone else do. That is you who has heard "stop being disruptive" repeatedly from the serial ANI threads regarding you. So let's see how things go to the end. --Caspian blue 02:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Why not leave Mathsci alone and let him edit math articles in peace? This thread keeps the conflict with A.K.Nole alive causing more anger, provoking more angry responses by Mathsci. Count Iblis (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Count Iblis, would you read the right above thread? The problem is Mathsic does not let A.K.Nole alone and the community but has caused disruptions over and over by adding provocative and insulting messages.--Caspian blue 02:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec) There are no diffs for your statements about sockpuppetry. This is extremely disruptive behaviour, Caspian blue. I have no idea what you're up to. Mathsci (talk) 02:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Mathsci, you're insinuating sockpuppetry as mentioning the IP, A.K.Nole's affiliation and location info, and comparing Elonka and Essjay controversy. Moreover, the allegations that need for a "rightful block" against you are NOT my opinion, but a collection of others' including admins, two victims by your "horrendous behaviors", and other established editors in neutral position. Since you're pushing yourself with disruption, I will watch how far you're going to do.--Caspian blue 02:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Uh, come again? He just forgot to log in like this. You do seem to be WP:BAITing me at the moment. Please stop these endless conspiracy theories and get back to editing the encyclopedia. (talk) 04:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who are you, Mathsci? If so, since you seem to be editing same articles like Phèdre[50] or French/Classical music related articles, I have to worry about any possible danger that you would cause for the future given your disruptive behaviors and ownership over articles that you've edited. I just hate "injustice" in the Wikipedia, that's all. :)--Caspian blue 04:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Would someone please give this horse a decent burial?[edit]

This seems to have generated into some sort of pissing match between Mathsci and Caspian Blue, and is going nowhere good. Anyone uninvolved feel like closing up this 98K (!) snoozefest? → ROUX  04:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Help with SPA[edit]

1durphul (talk · contribs) has been edit-warring on Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence to insert some rather innocuous but perhaps pointy trivial information about one of the group's tax numbers and trademarking information. The group itself is largely disliked by some conservative Catholic groups for obvious reasons; and rather beloved by LGBT communities likely for similar reasons. In all the sources I've every seen while trying to add references to the article nothing really talks about them being involved in financial scandal or even known for much regarding financing except they help raise funds for charities and do so quite often. This editor however is edit-warring and arguing as well as accusing myself and an anon editor of COI which I refuse to get baited into. However since I am likely the main editor there and involved in this I see little good of me warning them about 3rr, nor do I think they would take anythinng from me as anythning but in bad faith. I spelled out my reasons for the removal in the edit summaries as well as on the talkpage when they started there. If someone would be kind enough to look at this situation I will step away as I really don't need the drama. They've made less than a dozen edits altogether, all on ths same article so I feel SPA tag is accurate. I've left a note on their talkpage that this thread is in process. And yes they've again inserted the same information again. -- Banjeboi 02:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

edit warring? You removed something from the article, I undid your edit for good reason. The information belongs in the article. SPI is a trademarked name by a 501(c)(3) in San Francisco. Your original removal was because it was in table form, and not in prose. It's numbers banjeboi, and numbers are best in table form. If you don't like the information in the table, that's too bad, it is accurate, in the right article, and is information others (aside from you) might find useful. 1durphul (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think a two-day old account can properly be called an SPA -- most people don't cover a very wide range that soon. However, an account whose very first action is to revert an edit that occurred three months earlier, and then edit-wars about it, perhaps raises other questions. The tone of the previous response does too. Looie496 (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I just never created an account before two days ago. I've been using and editing articles for years. Regardless of the length of time I've had an account, this is a discussion about whether or not something belongs in the article. Banjeboi removed something 3 months ago that had been in the article for over a year. This article isn't exactly a hot read so I'm sure few noticed the change. The length of time between his removal, and my undoing should have no bearing on this discussion either. This is a discussion on whether or not the information should be included in the article. 1durphul (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe calm down and figure out if IRS filing forms are acceptable sources... that seems like what the actual dispute is here. I'd lean towards no, as we tend to want secondary sources for information, not unpublished primary sources. --Chiliad22 (talk) 02:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Chiliad22. As I understand it you're saying the preference would be for an article on what the tax forms say rather than the actual tax forms? These forms must be signed under penalty of perjury by the organization. It is as close as one can get to to a primary source of truth. I'm not sure I understand the rational of wanting a layer of obfuscation between the pure source and the article though. 1durphul (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Because no one knows who you are, or who I am, or whether any of us has the necessary expertise to offer an authoritative interpretation of those primary documents. Please read the policies on reliable sources and original research. Primary documents are permitted in a limited way when they are used to flesh out non-controversial details about a topic. When you say these documents are a "primary source of truth" you are asking us to rely on your interpretation of them. Can you be sure that there are no branches or affiliates anywhere else in the US that are incorporated with the same or similar name? (In fact, there appear to be five.) Can you be sure that those particular form 990s are the sum total of all the Sisters of Indulgence, or only the SF branch? Can you be sure that the relationship between US and foreign affiliates is exactly as you described? Frankly, you can't. And even if you think you can, we can't be sure that you can because you (like most of us) are an anonymous nobody. You might have been someone different yesterday, and might be someone different tomorrow. On the other hand, if a reporter for a reliable source-type newspaper, wire service, TV station, etc. writes a story about the sisters, Wikipedia policy allows us to cite the story as a reliable source, because we presume that there is some process to check facts and correct wrong facts either before or after the report. Plus, it gives us a source to point to and say, "The SF Chronicle says so" rather than "Some anonymous guy on July 1 2009 said it was so." That's why Wikipedia requires secondary sources, and carefully proscribes the use of primary sources. Read the policies. Thatcher 04:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification Thatcher. May I assume that Banjeboi received the same admonishment for his violation of the 3RR that I received?1durphul (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
He made 3 reverts, not 5. But he would be subject to the same blocks if it gets that far. Thatcher 10:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Originally added [51][52][53] on April 22, 2008, by (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), presumably to prove a point of some kind (most likely this: [54]) about this particular branch, since it's only USA and that organization appears to have many branches. SPI means something different on wikipedia, of course. 0:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think there is some kind of soapboxing going on here. Thatcher 10:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Another editor, who's been watching the article since 2006, tried to put it back. Either coincidence or fishy, I'm not sure at this point. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I think they were reverting an unexplained deletion. In any case the edit-warring and personal jabs have subsided; problematic content has been removed; the salient content issues have been stated from univolved parties and I think it's been heard. Hopefully this is resolved. Thank you all for your time and assistance! -- Banjeboi 03:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


Codecrimson (talk · contribs) is a vandalism-only account who continues to vandalize after a final warning, I've listed them at WP:AIV, but in the meantime, there's a death threat on their User page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

User indef-blocked, user page deleted. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 02:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

John Baird (Canadian politician) BLP issue[edit]

Several days ago, there was a discussion about whether to include dubiously-sourced allegations of homosexuality in John Baird (Canadian politician). That discussion is now archived here. In that discussion, there was clear consensus i. not to include the allegations, and ii. to archive the discussion on its conclusion. Nfitz (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly de-archiving the conversation against consensus in an effort to continue pushing the view (which he's the only one to hold) that the allegations should be included. I would appreciate the eyes of an uninvolved admin or two in case a block becomes necessary. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Watchlisted. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • User:SteveSmith is grossly misrepresenting the situation. He has been selectively archiving the discussion, without including all the comments; at first I thought this was in error, but after I pointed it out, he didn't acknowledge or apologise. In addition I have absolutely no idea why only a portion of the discussion is being archived. I'm quite disturbed taht there seems to be an attempt to hide the discussion. User:SteveSmith is also misrepresenting the dubiousness of the sources reporting sexual preference. There have been two major publications thave have made reference to his sexual preference. Surely an open discussion about these sources should not be hidden any more than the discussion of whether he is a vegetarian or not! Nfitz (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Bwuh? "After I pointed it out, he didn't acknowledge or apologise"? Would that be this non-apology/non-acknowledgement, in which I said "And you're correct, I did inadvertantly exclude a small comment of yours ("Sorry to restore this ... but someone objected to me adding the comment in the archive, so I've had to restore the discussion. Though archiving a discussion that's still active isn't right. Particularly when discussions that have been here for years are untouched."). I apologize for that and I'm not sure how I managed it."? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
???? You wrote that after I posted here! Nfitz (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Huh - actually, you're right (one minute after, to be precise). More apologies - I was comparing the time of my post in my timezone (which placed it on June 30) with the UTC time of yours. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Like it or not (and as a gay man I distinctly do not like it), revelation of a non-heteronormative sexual orientation in a public person (or indeed private figure; see gaybashing) can be detrimental to their public image and/or career. Ergo we must only include such statements when they can be reliably sourced. The two publications you mention are 1) NOW, a free Toronto weekly newspaper that is, I'll be charitable, not exactly known for their balanced nature (it is significantly leftist in the Canadian sense) or the depth and insight of their investigative reporting, 2) Frank, which is a satire/gossip/scandal magazine. Not exactly the pinnacle of reliable and responsible journalism, either of them. as a Torontonian I read NOW weekly (though I must have glossed over this article; I stick mainly to Savage Love, restaurant reviews, movies, etc, as NOW's political coverage often leaves much to be desired), and I would certainly not use them (or indeed Eye) as a reliable source for much more than confirming concert dates. So there's that for the sources.
As for the issue itself, with potential BLP violations we must hold to an even more rigorous level of sourcing than for any other facts, due to the very real consequences to the subjects in question. Archiving the discussion seems to be an excellent way to move on and get this information out of the eyes of the general public unless and until--this is the important part--it can be reliably sourced to the horse's mouth. → ROUX  03:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
My primary objection is that the discussion is being archived while it is still active; often within minutes of the last contribution. As such the archiving was done to stop the discussion. There's a difference between archiving a completed discussion, and using it as a tool to stop the discussion. Nfitz (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
In the case of a potentially libellous accusation with no serious sourcing, archiving the discussion is proper. The fact that you are the only one still attempting to continue the debate shows consensus that the addition is not proper, and re-opening the discussion repeatedly is disruptive. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

He's done it again, saying that the discussion wasn't completed (ignoring that he's the only one with any interest in continuing it). As an involved admin, I'd recommend a block. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  • A block? What for? I was merely following the instructions on the archive page, and continuing the discussion on the talk page; responding to the previous person who commented on my earlier post, and correcting errors he made. I had tried earlier to comment on the Archive page, so as not to return the discussion to the Talk page, but Steve Smith blanked that; forcing the idiocy of having to restore the discussion everytime one needs to respond to something. Steve Smith has violated WP:NPA by commenting on the contributor rather than the contribution. I'm not aware of having violated any Wikipedia policy. If any user is to be blocked it is Steve Smith; not that I am advocating that - but I find the suggestion that I should be blocked for simply following policy as quite distasteful - and possibly even an example of WP:ADMINISTRATORABUSE. I have no intention of dearchiving the discussion again - however I find the concept of censoring (Steve Smith's words BTW) an ongoing discussion highly distasteful. Nfitz (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, if Nifitz has decided to stop de-archiving against consensus, I'd say we're done here. Marking resolved. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've removed the tag marking this resolved. Steve Smith has violated WP:NPA, refused to apologise, admitted to censorship, and now, while it's quite clear that the situation hasn't been resolved, has marke this as resolved. Archiving an active discussion is wrong. Threatening users who are only following Wikipedia policy is wrong. Censorship is wrong. Nfitz (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh,'s my "admission of censorship", from User talk:Nfitz#Baird: "So if by "censorship" you mean "moving information that could be construed as violating a subject's policy to a less visible location", then you're damned right we engage in censorship, and I don't think we owe anybody any apologies for it." If anybody other than Nfitz has issues they'd like me to address, please drop me a line on my talk page, and I'll be happy to address them. Otherwise, I'm going to stop following this. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Where is this alleged personal attack? Next, you don't seem to understand censorship, so you should probably start here and refamiliarise yourself with what it actually means. He is the user following Wikipedia policy, viz. the policy on biographies of living persons which in essence says "don't talk smack about living people unless you can back it up." That means not stating things that can be detrimental or defamatory (as, alas, revelations of sexual orientation can be), unless backed up by reliable sources (which neither Frank nor NOW are), and specifically in the case of sexual orientation, the reliable source pretty much needs to be a quote straight from the horse's mouth. What part of the living persons policy is unclear to you? → ROUX  01:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
One more question: is there in fact anyone other than you trying to keep the discussion open? → ROUX  01:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • On my talk page ... he wrote that "your groundless accusations of anti-gay bigotry have grown tiresome", despite that fact I'd only made a single comment about anti-gay bigotry on the project. He tried to make it out that I had a pattern of making accusations about anti-gay bigotry at Wikipedia, when I'd a) never mentioned it before, and b) not actually made an observation, just expressed concern that what had happened had an appearance of this. He's trying to paint a picture that just isn't supported by the facts; the same as his posts here, where he's making out I'm the only person who has continued the debate; I only reopened the discussion yesterday in resposne to the comments by someone else; so clearly I'm not the only one still discussing. I have now idea how the simple discussion of the validity of certain sources can be detrimental or defamatory ... the mere suggest of that implies that there is something wrong with being gay. It's hard to imagine in this day and age that people are working so hard to even hide such a discussion! I'd think that his vegetanarism would be a far more controversial subject, as that is a choice, rather than simply biology ..