Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive562

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

My userpage[edit]

Resolved

My userpage(not my user talk page) was recently vandalized by a user name Smartie12. You can see the edit if you go to the edit history of my userpage, since I removed it. This is the edit that was made [1] I would like something done about this, even though I removed it and left a note on the user's talk page, I would like an administrator to do something. Thank you. Abby 82 (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I have blocked that account. Crum375 (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
You can also tag it for CSD if you don't want to leave a blank page, since you didn't have a user page before. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Almost sounds like some kids in the same class/school though, doesn't it? Blocked user doesn't get that this isn't WP:MYSPACE? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I never even heard of this user before. I have no idea who the person is, and I'm in University. I'm an editor for many articles, and The Baby-Sitters Club happens to be one of them. Abby 82 (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, what's CSD? And how do I request it? Abby 82 (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

CSD HalfShadow 17:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Done. Tan | 39 17:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for all of your help. Abby 82 (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo, again[edit]

Extended content

Everyone walk away. Now. lifebaka++ 15:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, no. We have some DICK issues we still need to work out. For one, the MFD issue is still open, and Tanthalas' admin review is coming up. -Stevertigo 15:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Both of you said things. At this point nobody cares who started it. Would it not be better to just drop it and move on? Evil saltine (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes it would. Collapsed again. Everybody go and do something encyclopedic. Rd232 talk 16:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I really hope I don't have to write an explanation. The latter two bullet points put my point across better than any paragraph of wiki-legalese ever could. Sceptre (talk) 10:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see where you have informed the user of this report? --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I closed the MFD and deleted the page. Was there any other admin activity you required? Spartaz Humbug! 13:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
? It doesn't appear to have been deleted yet Spartaz. MickMacNee (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Chris G. MickMacNee (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Restored by Chris G. wtf is going on? MickMacNee (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah ha. MickMacNee (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I fouled the close - too used to the script I use for closing AFDs I guess. Its gone now and I reclosed the MFD. Its still snowing and the page is never going to go into mainspace in the format it was in. Spartaz Humbug! 14:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Now deleted by Spartaz. Isn't this like, wheel warring or something? Seriously guys, get your ducks in line. MickMacNee (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
How can it be wheelwarring. I see two admins who speedied it and then reversed themselves when they saw the original speedy request had been rejected and one admin (me) who closed the MFD under snow and deleted the article under due process. The next stage for anyone who wants to contest this is to open a discussion at DRV. Spartaz Humbug! 14:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

An 'attack page'? Really? About the only thing attacking Obama in that page was the title if you try really hard to assume bad faith, the content was actualy an attack on Conservatives if anything, and could well have been the making of a good article/section. MickMacNee (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone that sees value in that insipid coatrack of an attack article has no business being a Wikipedia editor, to be extremely blunt about it. Haven't heard a peep from Stevertigo since the ArbCom case ended, this is an odd sort of acting out. Tarc (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Bull shit, to be even more blunt. It was called an attack page denigrating Obama, yet it was nothing of the sort. Unless you are of a mind to automatically assume the title was an actual judgement. Have you read the content? It is not an attack on Obama in any sense of the word, unless or until someone proves it gives massive UNDUE weight to the accusations, and thanks to Fox news half the world knows these comparisons have been made over the healthcare bill, that is obviously not the case. MickMacNee (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
You're assuming good faith when there's no good faith to be assumed. Steve's POV-pushing was the reason RFAR/Obama articles was opened. This is just a run-around process and his sanctions to create a coveted "Criticism of..." article. Sceptre (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you should include such details then when filing an ANI report, instead of stating that you don't think you need to say anthing. If anything, why didn't this go to AE if the Obama case is relevant? Infact, I'm unsure even what you were requesting with this posting, deletion of the draft or action against steve or both? MickMacNee (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
And on looking it up, you and Steve recieved identical remedies for whatever you two got up to on Obama's article's, so I think anybody is entitled to assume good faith or bad faith equally on either of you. 14:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Because I think the facts should speak for themselves when I present a user seriously suggesting an article covering comparisons of a person to Hitler. And the ArbCom remedies did not reflect the disruption caused at all. The equality of sanctions is only because, I feel, that AC wanted to look politically neutral when they didn't really need to make the remedies equal at all. Sceptre (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
It should probably have been called Obama and the national socialism analogy to avoid the inevitable kneejerk reactions though. MickMacNee (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
"othercrapexists" isn't exactly a compelling argument, mick. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Who's making an argument, I'm merely saying that might have been a better title to forestall the kneejerk reactions. MickMacNee (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Tempting to just delete it now but, in all honesty, it will save a great deal of otherwise inevitable wikilawyering and general kerfuffle down the line if the MfD is allowed to run its course. CIreland (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

There's someone sensible among you? And you wrote this an hour ago - amazing that noone else here had the sense to find your comments sensible. -Stevertigo 15:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Spartaz[edit]

Resolved: No admin action necessary. Tan | 39 15:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Note: User:Neurolysis is a partisan in the related MFD and thus has no business closing this ANI thread. -SV

Spartaz twice now has early closed an in-progress MFD discussion. His response to my request to reopen and restore the relevant non-BLP, draft, userspace subpage was "no." I'd hate to pull a Sanger here, but if we are going to let 12 year olds be admins, can we at least set some ground rules? Its bad enough we have MFD's where people obviously don't read what they vote to delete. -Stevertigo 14:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I think you got lost on your way to DRV and I'm considerably older then 12. Spartaz Humbug! 14:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Its not a DRV issue at this point. It's about you, your pre-emptive/interrupting/disrupting action, and your non-responsiveness - such that might demonstrate the need for people to be at least.. <this high>.. to be an admin. 14 maybe? -Stevertigo 14:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    • That was the most inappropriate comment I have read in a long time. You should really think before you speak, Steve. — neuro(talk) 14:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, if he hadn't acted out of line, he wouldn't be in tears right now. -Stevertigo 14:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't this just being discussed above? In other words, it wasn't necessarily out of line. I would suggest some striking on the inappropriate comments (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Where is this discussed above? And how is this above discussion somehow a validation of the appropriateness of nullifying another discussion? -Stevertigo 14:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The correct venue to discuss the close of a deletion discussion is DRV. ANI is for drama and since you decided to preemptovely reverse my first close without the courtesy of even telling me on talk page I would suggest that you would do well to look at your own contribution to harmony and promoting good faith. Where are you getting the nonsense about my age from? I',m not crying, I'm not upset and I'm not a teenager. You make yourself look stupid carrying on like this. Spartaz Humbug! 14:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • 1) (Was added to above comment, but preempted by conflict): You can of course redeem yourself by just doing as I requested - what I shouldn't have had to request in the first place. 2) You had early closed the MFD just as I was posting my comment there. I did not need to inform you on your talk page - I noted my reasons in the comment line. 3) "harmony and good faith" - don't premptively close things and you will also be a contributor to these.-Stevertigo 14:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Or, you could have saved us said drama by not creating such a piss-poor article that you knew would never have made its way into mainspace in the first place. I fail to see how your actions today can be described as anything but trolling. Tarc (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "A piss-poor article" it is not. It is a non-BLP, draft, in my userspace. And I fail to see how wanting to make at least one comment on the MFD before it getting deleted is "trolling," or how what your doing now can be anything but. -Stevertigo 14:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
      • You must be kidding me. A partisan in an MfD? Now I've heard it all. — neuro(talk) 14:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Well you did make a comment there did you not? Hence, why pretend to be neutral here, such that would give you standing to close this thread also? -Stevertigo 14:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
All I see is you acting like a total dick, Stevertigo. I'm closing this thread before you do something stupid to get yourself blocked. Tan | 39 15:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
That comment means I just reversed your thread closing, and you got yourself your own ANI section. -Stevertigo 15:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
well, technically he got himself his own subsection. just saying. Syrthiss (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
To throw off a quick reply to Steve, at no point have I pretended to be neutral. You might want to check on your use of the word 'partisan'. — neuro(talk) 15:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Good. Then the point of all of this is: Don't close threads while they are still running, for whatever reason. This is a principle that goes way back to the beginning of talk pages: Don't alter other people's comments, and don't try to derail discussions by being a troll or a process dick. -Stevertigo 15:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Tanthalas39[edit]

User:Tanthalas39 wrote: "All I see is you acting like a total dick, Stevertigo. I'm closing this thread before you do something stupid to get yourself blocked." - Violates WP:DBAD and maybe also WP:NPA. -Stevertigo 15:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

See meta:Don't be a dick. lifebaka++ 15:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) User:Stevertigo wrote: "if we are going to let 12 year olds be admins, can we at least set some ground rules?" - Violates WP:DBAD and maybe also WP:NPA. — neuro(talk) 15:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Lol. You've got to be fucking kidding me. Tan | 39 15:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
(ec)You mean the "Telling someone “Don't be a dick” is usually a dick-move" part? The key there Steve is that it says "usually"; it doesn't say "always". You're in a hole, bud. Stop digging. Tarc

(talk) 15:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No, telling someone not to violate DBAD is not the same as what Tanthalas said, which was to call me a "total dick." I of course am doing my best to refrain from using similar language. -Stevertigo 15:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Man, just drop it and walk away. DRV the MfD close if you feel like it, but continuing here isn't gonna' make anything good happen for anyone. lifebaka++ 15:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't get your threads confused. This one is about Tanthalas' foul NPA-violating mouth.-Stevertigo 15:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
If this fucking thread is about my fucking mouth, you've been fucking misinformed that Wikipedia is somehow fucking censored. Get over it. Tan | 39 15:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep talking. -Stevertigo 15:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Will somebody please collapse this mess? — neuro(talk) 15:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Why? It's almost an Arbcom case. -Stevertigo 15:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

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

DRV[edit]

As there is no appetite to resolve this here, I've filed a DRV, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 4#User:Stevertigo/Obama and accusations of National Socialism. It might be helpfull if some kind soul does the temporary restore jazz, to help those without magic powers to see for themselves what was and was not on this page and why it needed to be spirited away into the night with such haste and accrimony. MickMacNee (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest against the temp restore, simply due to the number of people already shouting BLP. I am happy to email the code from the last version upon request, however. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

To be honest[edit]

This was intended to be a "This user is doing something really and obviously inappropriate in an area subject to special sanctions for violating BLP" thread that needed no explanation. But obviously BLP doesn't apply to the President of the United States! To be honest, I'm extremely dismayed at people even considering covering these claims. Our legal counsel will be crying himself to sleep again... Sceptre (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit war/COI on WDTW-FM[edit]

User:Joemama993 has repeatedly been adding a list of former airstaff to WDTW-FM, claiming his own experience with the station as a "source." Despite being told several times that such editing is unacceptable, he has continued. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 20:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the first time Joemama993 has edit-warred on articles. He previously continually added broadcast schedules to the pages, in clear violation of WP:NOT#DIR and after being repeatedly told so, until he was blocked. It finally took a stern warning from myself to get through to him on that. Joemama993 obviously, though, has a problem with edit-warring that needs to be addressed. - NeutralHomerTalk • 20:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look at this and I'm rather dismayed at the messages Neutralhomer and TenPoundHammer have left for this guy, nobody has taken the time out to explain, in clear, calm language, what the problem is, Neutralhomer has threatened to start reporting Joemama993 for vandalism if he adds in a list of former presenters, which isn't in keeping with our policies here on vandalism, whereby we don't label editors trying to improve the project as vandals, no matter quite how bad their editing may be. TenPoundHammer is more diplomatic, but goes on about the user potentially pulling usernames out of his ass, which to my mind, isn't helpful either as it's tantamount to accusing the guy of making stuff up and adding it to Wikipedia. The impression I get, when I read the warnings left for this chap, is that someone has come in, messed up and they're getting a telling off, there's no real impression of the guy being given good quality, friendly advice and being welcomed to Wikipedia - the fact he's still making the same errors whilst putting in what looks to be a considerable amount of time, would suggest he doesn't understand what the problem is with his edits (as indeed, does his edit summaries). If there's a reoccurrence of these edits, I would strongly urge someone to leave some friendly advice rather than some more warnings, explaining more fully what the problem is with the unsourced edits. Nick (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Joemama993 had previously gotten several very calm notices from another user, an admin, and disregarded them and continued to add schedules in clear violation of WP:NOT#DIR. My warning was meant to be as stern as I possibly could be as an regular editor and it worked. User:Joemama993 has stopped adding schedules to pages. Sometimes people need a good stern warning (a verbal kick in the ass if you will) to set them straight. - NeutralHomerTalk • 02:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Resolved

AFD closed as keep by Nick. Cheers, I'mperator 00:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Can someone put Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norton Canes services (2nd nomination)‎ out of its misery, or at least keep an eye on it? There's only one way it's going to go, and the discussion is starting to veer over the thin line separating "strong discussion" from "crazy". – iridescent 20:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Closed as keep - just after I finished adding sources to Watford Gap to make sure it's not deleted! --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

An IP Editor[edit]

The return of Mavis789[edit]

Having been previously blocked for the same offence, User:Mavis789 has returned and picked up where she left off [16]. Surely a permanant block is required? Dale 00:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

'Permanent blocks' do not exist, and assuming you are talking about an indef, I would say that that would be a bit over the top at this point in time. I'd rather see more focused attempts to discuss the issue with the user -- perhaps such a thing has already occurred, but if so I am missing it. — neuro(talk) 06:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:CSN was closed for this reason — a tendency to aim for excessively long bans when a shorter one would do. Stifle (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Jim Fitzgerald and copyright violations[edit]

User:Jim Fitzgerald has committed several copyright violations, and refuses to acknowledge any issue with his behavior, much less correct it.

  • In one case, he basically copied an entire paragraph from a news story into two articles, with hardly any change of phrasing, passing it off as his own (not a quote or anything): [17], [18]. Compare to source here.
  • In another issue, he copied a block of text, again, basically verbatim, into a talk page, as his own text - not a quote, without credit - [19], compare to source here. I told him, in our discussion on that talk page, that this is wrong ([20]), but he refused to listen.

I've warned him on his own talk page - [21], but he refuses to acknowledge any wrong-doing on his part. His talk page has another, unrelated, copyright violation warning (I haven't checked it). Please deal with this user. Maybe he'll listen to an administrator.

Thanks, okedem (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm, he doesn't understand image copyright either (not that I'm an expert, but he's uploaded screenshots - which can be used "for critical commentary and discussion of the film and its contents", and then put them in a gallery at Kin-dza-dza! with no attempt to discuss them. I'll also point him to Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Hm "the Israeli Education Ministry's budget for special assistance to students from low socioeconomic backgrounds severely discriminates against Arabs." (my strike) does look rather too long a phrase to include. I'm sure I've read somewhere that six words is often treated as the notional limit on unacknowledged quotations.
Having said that, I'm hopeful that things will resolve themselves. When I raised am issue with Jim previously, he thought about my comments and then undid his original edit. Maybe the fact that you two are involved in a content dispute at the same article makes it more difficult. However, I would suggest explicitly indicating the problem phrases on the talk page.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
It's way worse than that. That entire edit is a particularly poor close paraphrasing of the source (see, for instance, "The Ministry published town-by-town data...", or "..institutionalized budgetary..."). And, of course, the entire paragraph he copied into a talk page, which wasn't even really paraphrased, but without any attribution etc. I saw zero willingness to cooperate, so I'm not hopeful. It would help to have someone discuss this with him, as he simply chose to attack me instead of listening. okedem (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

IP troll harrasing Israeli editors[edit]

86.157.70.95 (talk · contribs) has decided to question User:Ynhockey (an admin) and User:Jaakobou whether any of them took part in Operation Defensive Shield, "carried weapons in that geographical area, or have any family members, or close acquaintances, carried weapons in the area or trained to carry weapons potentially to be used in this area." IP's curiosity is based on, according to him, the potential conflict of interested in editing the article. In case the trollness isn't clear at first glance, IP hasn't asked any of the other editors inline with his POV is they were connected to the area. Suggest blocking for a week. Looks like some banned/blocked editor who found a new IP.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've done exactly what I should do according to the Book of Rules, ask the individuals concerned whether they have a conflict of interest. If there are other editors who may have a conflict of interest, naturally they should be asked too. I am not a banned editor. 86.157.70.95 (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Your first edit was to WP:RSN, the second edit to WP:ANI,...........--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I went to RSN after seeing an entry in talk here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aftonbladet-Israel_controversy#Recent where there would seem to be simple bigotry against an Egyptian newspaper. That led to me to Operation Defensive Shield, where it was obvious that questions needed asking. Brewcrewer told me it was vandalism, I found that the Conflict of Interest policy instructs me to do exactly what I'd done, ie ask the individuals. I used to edit under my real identity until I lost my password - I don't think I'd ever been banned or blocked for anything. If I've done anything wrong, then please tell me how I should do it correctly. 86.157.70.95 (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

We've been having some odd behavior on said ODS article. Another IP (209.6.238.201 (talk · contribs)) reintroduced an old article version, which hasn't seen article daylight since 2007, 5 times[22][23][24][25][26] and then asked a second editor (Tiamut) to edit war for them,[27] which the second editor did[28] despite being recently warned for just that type of behavior.[29][30] Tiamut went on to remove long-standing content from the article with a, seemingly, mocking edit-summary.[31] The IP continues, while this issue is being unattended, to revert and remove information about "nine terror attacks between March 2-5".[32]

The original version edit-warred into the article by the IP, btw, was introduced by two banned troublesome editors. The two editors are seemingly mimicked by the two new IPs as both were (a) fighting for the same problematic version, as well as (b) both repeatedly asked "COI" queries in which they suggested I was some type of war criminal. One of them, PalestineRemembered, kept asking these "questions" -- e.g. We never discovered whether Jaakobou took part in the April 2002 killings in Jenin (generally thought to include "war-crimes")[33] -- even after he was admitted under forced mentorship. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC) +++clarify 12:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Could I also ask admins to take a look at the related ANI section on this subject closed earlier by User:Sandstein (and then recently archived for some odd reason)? I feel as though there is an attempt obfuscate the issues here. Some editors are simply reverting text without discussion. Tiamuttalk 14:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Jaak, the two editors that you think are banned are in fact neither banned from Wikipedia or currently under an ARBPIA topic ban. If that is your reason for opposing the edits you need to come up with a better one. nableezy - 15:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Attempted outing?[edit]

This was raised at the fringe board. At User talk:Momusufan Xellas (talk · contribs) is accusing Paul H (talk · contribs) of being a fringe Atlantis researcher named Robert Sarmast. Now I know Paul H and can assure everyone he isn't Robert Sarmast. I know Sarmast's username (he explained who he was to me in an email, and did it in a way that makes me pretty sure he doesn't mind others knowing, but I'm not sure of the etiquette here), and he hasn't edited under that username for quite a while in any case. Xellas has been blocked before for edit warring on Location hypotheses of Atlantis. If I didn't know one of the editors I'd probably have blocked Xellas again for PAs and attempted outing, even though he's all wrong on that. Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention Dougweller. Please be aware that with an incident like this, policy is to not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information, or mention the personal information that was given (only a diff is necessary). This is so we can effectively purge the personal information. I think Xellas was probably unaware of the policy regarding posting personal information, and it was purely speculative, so I'm going to give him just a stern warning if no one objects. What he did is grounds for a block, but I don't think that would help the situation (blocks are preventative, not punitive). Thanks again. Evil saltine (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
That did come out pretty patronizing, didn't it. Sorry about that, I forgot this is an admin board. Evil saltine (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. Xellas has posted this in more than one place, and I don't and didn't think what I wrote would cause a problem for any innocent editors. He needs warning about the PAs as well as the outing issue. Dougweller (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

86.9.139.98[edit]

This account seems to exist only to edit the Lincoln disam page and quarrel with consensus Purplebackpack89 (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

So far the IP has only risen to the level of minor snarkiness, and I've left a "cease and desist" request on the talk page. I don't think any sort of formal warning is called for at this point. Looie496 (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:RPP Backlog[edit]

Resolved

There is a bit of a backlog at WP:RPP, if an admin or two could take a look it would be greatly appreciated. - NeutralHomerTalk • 20:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. It appears to be caught-up for the moment. — Kralizec! (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV Backlog[edit]

Resolved

There is a bit of a backlog at WP:AIV, if an admin or two could take a look it would be greatly appreciated. - NeutralHomerTalk • 21:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Caught up for the moment. — Kralizec! (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

IP troll harrasing Israeli editors[edit]

86.157.70.95 (talk · contribs) has decided to question User:Ynhockey (an admin) and User:Jaakobou whether any of them took part in Operation Defensive Shield, "carried weapons in that geographical area, or have any family members, or close acquaintances, carried weapons in the area or trained to carry weapons potentially to be used in this area." IP's curiosity is based on, according to him, the potential conflict of interested in editing the article. In case the trollness isn't clear at first glance, IP hasn't asked any of the other editors inline with his POV is they were connected to the area. Suggest blocking for a week. Looks like some banned/blocked editor who found a new IP.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've done exactly what I should do according to the Book of Rules, ask the individuals concerned whether they have a conflict of interest. If there are other editors who may have a conflict of interest, naturally they should be asked too. I am not a banned editor. 86.157.70.95 (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Your first edit was to WP:RSN, the second edit to WP:ANI,...........--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I went to RSN after seeing an entry in talk here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aftonbladet-Israel_controversy#Recent where there would seem to be simple bigotry against an Egyptian newspaper. That led to me to Operation Defensive Shield, where it was obvious that questions needed asking. Brewcrewer told me it was vandalism, I found that the Conflict of Interest policy instructs me to do exactly what I'd done, ie ask the individuals. I used to edit under my real identity until I lost my password - I don't think I'd ever been banned or blocked for anything. If I've done anything wrong, then please tell me how I should do it correctly. 86.157.70.95 (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

We've been having some odd behavior on said ODS article. Another IP (209.6.238.201 (talk · contribs)) reintroduced an old article version, which hasn't seen article daylight since 2007, 5 times[34][35][36][37][38] and then asked a second editor (Tiamut) to edit war for them,[39] which the second editor did[40] despite being recently warned for just that type of behavior.[41][42] Tiamut went on to remove long-standing content from the article with a, seemingly, mocking edit-summary.[43] The IP continues, while this issue is being unattended, to revert and remove information about "nine terror attacks between March 2-5".[44]

The original version edit-warred into the article by the IP, btw, was introduced by two banned troublesome editors. The two editors are seemingly mimicked by the two new IPs as both were (a) fighting for the same problematic version, as well as (b) both repeatedly asked "COI" queries in which they suggested I was some type of war criminal. One of them, PalestineRemembered, kept asking these "questions" -- e.g. We never discovered whether Jaakobou took part in the April 2002 killings in Jenin (generally thought to include "war-crimes")[45] -- even after he was admitted under forced mentorship. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC) +++clarify 12:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC) +bb, 24hrs hasn't passed JaakobouChalk Talk 19:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Could I also ask admins to take a look at the related ANI section on this subject closed earlier by User:Sandstein (and then recently archived for some odd reason)? I feel as though there is an attempt obfuscate the issues here. Some editors are simply reverting text without discussion. Tiamuttalk 14:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Jaak, the two editors that you think are banned are in fact neither banned from Wikipedia or currently under an ARBPIA topic ban. If that is your reason for opposing the edits you need to come up with a better one. nableezy - 15:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Persian Empire[edit]

I am echoing what Georgewilliamherbert has said and laying the ground rules. Once the protection for the page ends on September 11, any person that restores the article or replaces the redirect will be blocked at increasing increments as is standard practice for edit warring until such time that a clear consensus has emerged. Any editor who disputes these ground rules please feel free to get the blocking policy changed. If you cannot get the hint after the page being protected three times and cannot come to an agreement and cannot be mature enough to simply leave the article be, then its clear that protection is not helping. Start working together. Thank you.

Seddσn talk 01:13, 5 September 2009}}

This is a blanking of a Top priority and High priority article with a personal attack in it. If you look through the history, a group of five editors, Alefbe, Kurdo777, Dbachmann, Folantin, and Fullstop, have been pushing for a removal of the Persian Empire page in various ways.

The first time this was undone was by Wizardman. This was reverted by Folantin, claiming that there was consensus. The page, before her revert, reveals Dbachmann at 14:05, 15 August 2009 stating that the page should merely be renamed, R'n'B at 09:26, 21 August 2009 saying that "rather, there is a historical succession of different states within the same (or similar) territory and culture that have a clear relationship to each other" and arguing for the page to be met with a better summary style but kept. Then there is BritishWatcher at 14:33, 21 August 2009 saying that the page should not be blanked.

It is clear from the talk page that there was no consensus at the time. Afterward, myself and others, including Shoemaker's Holiday, NuclearWarfare, Xashaiar, Warrior4321, Dekimasu, etc (at least 8 in total) stating that the page should not be turned into a disambiguation page or a redirect. There have only been five editors claiming that it should be, and they are constantly edit warring and fighting against consensus. Folantin, Fullstop, and Dbachmann have a very long history of interacting and working together to push the same views on multiple pages as you can see here and on their talk pages. Alefbe has a long history of pushing his POV at various Iranian related sites and Kurdo777 is a Kurdish POV pusher with an anti-Iranian agenda that has been criticized for using sock puppets and violating our policies on content many times before. It seems clear that these users would rather edit war and attack others in order to push their POV than actually deal with consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI is not about content dispute. Alefbe (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Nonetheless, Ottava's claims are clear examples of Ad hominem and should be addressed according to the Wikipedia policy (this is the only part of the dispute which is relevant to the admins). Alefbe (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Ottava is just trolling and should be sanctioned. He has no interest in Iranian history whatsoever. He's just there to disrupt because he has a grudge against me over his failed RfA (this can be documented with evidence). The one feature members of the "cabal" he is alleging have in common is that they have all spent a lot of time contributing to articles on the history of Iran. The same cannot be said about some of Ottava's "supporters". It's time for a ban on OR for his constant violations of WP:POINT.--Folantin (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but did you honestly suggest that you have the right to WP:OWN a page and tag team simply because you work in an area a lot? Furthermore, you edit warred to promote this POV on a lot of pages I am involved in. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
No, Ottava, you have a grudge against me. That's the only reason you are there. Articles are generally best edited by those with some knowledge of the subject. You have demonstrated a woeful grasp of the most basic facts of Iranian history. --Folantin (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:OWN applies to groups of editors just as much as it does individuals -- even people who in your view have a "woeful grasp of the most basic facts of Iranian history" are allowed to edit there by default. Ottava and others have the same right to edit such pages as you. — neuro(talk) 16:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I didn't realise stalking was allowed now. --Folantin (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a page that I have seriously edited for a long time. As can be seen, Folantin came onto the page at 15:45, 21 August 2009 and altered the title away from "Persian Empire" on a link with an edit summary (→1730s: sp. per Wikipedia article. Persia=Iran). It was reverted after Wizardman restored the Persian Empire page back to what it was. She reverted again with an attack on my understanding of 18th century history. As you can see, there is no "stalking" going on. However, Folantin does have a history of going to pages I edit and disrupting. This can be seen at Ludovico Ariosto. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd been editing articles relating to Ariosto long before you turned up, e.g. [46] --Folantin (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Funny how you never showed active interest until after I was expanding the page. Making one little change is far different than attacking someone who was fixing the page. Hell, you never showed any actual active interest on that page besides some of the most minor changes. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I have provided more than enough sources on the talk page verifying my statements there, and if Arbitrators or anyone else in high status would like to query me on my academic background and possible post-graduate classes I may have taken in the area of the topic to verify that it is not just some "random" subject for me or something I don't know about, they can feel free to email me. Most Arbitrators should already know my personal information, but I can forward more information verifying this in particular. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
No you haven't, because there's no way the following statements (a brief sample of your gaffes) can be justified: "The Persian Empire was the series of dynasties following 600 AD." Again: "The "Persian Empire" refers to a series of dynasties between 600 AD until the Ottoman Conquest. No more, no less." And when did the "Ottoman conquest" occur? In 1800 AD apparently: "Furthermore, as I stated above, the Persian Empire was the 30 or so dynasties between 600 AD and 1800 AD." --Folantin (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I provided many sources verifying my claims. But ANI is not about content, it is about actions and edit warring. Please stay on topic instead of trying to derail this like you did with any discussion on the Persian Empire talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Constant page blanking and edit warring is not a content dispute. It is a major policy violation. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

all there is to say about this is that Ottava is trolling the page (and now forum-shopping about it), but is about to hit 3RR, which is why we have 3RR, so the problem is going to take care of itself. Nothing to see here. --dab (𒁳) 17:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Why would redirecting the article Persian Empire to an article on the "first" Persian Empire make sense? And secondly, why was the edit summary "reverting unproductive edit from unproductive editor" used? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Clear evidence of Ottava's trolling. When I pointed out the use of "Persian Empire" in the current version of Encylopaedia Britannica, he stated, "Britannica is not a reliable source. It is a tertiary source. We use secondary sources." [47]. A few days later he started a section discussing how he was going to use the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica as a source. So the up-to-date Britannica and Encyclopaedia Iranica (dismissed by Ottava as "not a reliable source") are irrelevant, but a 100-year-old work is worthy of consideration? Ottava doesn't actually care what he says. He just wants to create drama and get his way no matter how much time he wastes.--Folantin (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  • The 1911 source was used to point out a pre-modern source. There is a major difference from using an old source to show how the term used to be used extended back into history and a modern source in order to claim how the source -only- should be used. Furthermore, why do you keep trying to dodge from the edit warring aspect and the lack of consensus for your version while edit warring to keep it in? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Evidence of OR's grudge against me. Significantly his very first edit to Talk:Persian Empire was to accuse me of "disruption" (even though I've edited at least a dozen articles on Iranian history) and call for me to be banned [48]: "However, that is what happens when you have such people that are here only to cause disruptions. A block should probably allow for people who actually care about Wikipedia to put a page in place". This is clear violation of WP:TALK, yet it is a threat Ottava will repeat many, many other times in the course of the debate. (of course, he's made worse threats during the course of the same debate, some of which have ended up on ANI [49]). --Folantin (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Since when do we not consider the reversion of an Arbitrator in good standing, Wizardman, as disruptive when he makes it clear that there was no justification for a large scale blanking of a page on the talk page? Folantin, it is clear that your behavior was highly inappropriate and no amount of deflections or the rest can hide from that. You edit warred a vandalistic act against an Arbitrator in good standing without even having the decency to try and talk about it first. That is highly inappropriate conduct. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you actually understand Wikipedia? Arbitrators have no more authority over content than anyone else. Wizardman was not there as part of ArbCom, he was there as a private editor. He made no contribution to the discussion on the talk page before he reverted me. I asked him to do so because the article was undergoing an overhaul [50]. I haven't edited the page itself in two weeks so your constant demands to have me "banned for edit-warring" are simply evidence of your harrassment of me. --Folantin (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
The point is this - you can bash me all you want, but you have no grounds to claim that Wizardman was acting inappropriately. As such, you have no argument to justify your actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Ottava -- would you please listen to me if I make a suggestion? -- When you encounter someone who disagrees with you on something, large or small, content-related or policy-related or anything else, would you please strive to treat the editor with whom you disagree with dignity, respect, and decency, in accordance with the Golden Rule and, I believe, our policies? I see you shrilly calling for various people in the last couple weeks to be banned, and in one case you threatened to call someone's school because you'd "discovered the new Essjay" -- please, please, please dial it back before something bad happens? Do you really want other people to treat you that way? Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Antandrus, you are not a neutral party, so please don't pretend to be one. Your characterization as things like "shrilly" do poorly for you, as they don't represent anything close to the truth. And "threatened to call", that is a fine way of completely misrepresenting a situation. What I want is for people like you to stop violating our rules, making false accusations, and making up things simply to defend a friend. It is 100% obvious that the five listed were edit warring in a blanking of a top priority page. Your ignoring of that is telling. You and Folantin and anyone else can try and hide from the issue, but it is blatant to any objective observer. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
What's blatantly obvious is that you are prepared to disrupt Wikipedia in the pursuit of your own grudges. It's obvious it's personal. Here are a selection of your comments about me: "You are a troll and you should have been banned long ago." [51]. "Folantin, I am going to call you a liar" [52]. Bizarre accusations that I am a Georgian show you are desperate to smear me with anything that comes to hand [53] [[54]--Folantin (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
If that is true, are you saying that Wizardman is now under my payroll and that the page was originally created just to spite you, and that his revert was to do the same too? Once again, you are trying to hide from the fact that you are a disrupted user that edit warred on that page and that you have a history of doing that to articles at the fringe noticeboard and elsewhere. If anyone needs proof to see how badly Folantin tries to manipulate things, check the claim that I said that Folantin was a Georgia ("accusations that I am a Georgian") with the link. I never said anything about their ethnicity. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(We will return to The Young and the Relentless after this commercial break)

Geez...no kidding...I honestly don't even know where to begin here. Help! --Smashvilletalk 19:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
How about blocking Ottava Rima for a short period of time for personal attacks and disruptive editing? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I would support this based on the other events of the last 24 hours, alongside this. Jeni (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Give it a rest, Jeni. Tan | 39 19:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I am perfectly entitled to state my opinion. And I have expressed it in a reasonable and civil manner. Are you trying to censor me? Jeni (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I am not trying to censor you. Perhaps censure you for jumping in to a discussion that you weren't involved in and waving your "I support a ban!" flag about an editor with who you clearly have a grudge. It's possible to be technically civil but ultimately disruptive. Tan | 39 20:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Please don't suggest I have a grudge without providing evidence to back it up. Its only reasonable I notice this discussion, after all, ANI is still on my watchlist from the previous Ottava thread. This just hammers home the need for action. Jeni (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Akhilleus has a long history of tag teaming with Folantin, which can be seen at Talk:Ludovico Ariosto. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
And the smears keep coming. --Folantin (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Are you claiming that he did not edit that page? Are you claiming that you two have not worked on many topics together? That you two haven't spent a lot of time at the fringe noticeboard together? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
How utterly predictable. Indeed, some of Folantin's interests overlap with mine, and we've edited some of the same pages (I bet you could count the number of overlapping _articles_ on your fingers, though). Exactly how does this prevent me from forming an opinion that Ottava Rima is a tendentious editor whose personal attacks are irritating and block-worthy? --Akhilleus (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Some? You sure do have an odd definition of the word. It doesn't take much to see that glancing at most of those pages show a lot of constant backing each other up, answering for the other, etc. You aren't a neutral editor in any kind of capacity but quite the opposite. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Here is definitely a good one to see how neutral you are to the users here. Or this one, another fine meat puppeting. Or this, surprising how so many of the same names keep appearing. Another. I can go on. There are many wonderful ones and this hasn't even touched the noticeboards that have a lot of reinforcement. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I think it's awesome that statements like "you aren't a neutral editor in any kind of capacity but quite the opposite" and unsupported accusations of meatpuppetry aren't covered by WP:NPA. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
"and unsupported accusations" I'm sorry, but those links are clearly visible for everyone to see. That means that you are lying or you failed to see what you were responding to. Either way, your comments are inappropriate and make you look very poor especially when the links show that you have acted highly inappropriately for a very long time. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, and now an accusation that I'm a liar. Thanks for maintaining the elevated tone of discourse around here. Pray tell, what highly inappropriate behavior are those links supposed to show, exactly?
Also, if you're going to accuse me of failing to see what I was responding to, you might want to note that I said "I bet you could count the number of overlapping _articles_ on your fingers". Now, your little "wikistalk" page might show that Folantin and I have more _articles_ in common than I thought, but I don't see how our editing of Athena, Cadmus, Orpheus, and Corinth is problematic. I'm sure you'll come up with something, though!
And I repeat, even if I share editing interests with Folantin and Dbachmann, how does that prevent me from coming to my own independent opinion that you're a tendentious editor who engages in unjustified personal attacks? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The point[edit]

The matter has been ignored: 1. the Persian Empire page is still blanked as a redirect against consensus. 2. this has been edit warred back in against consensus. 3. the page was protected many times because of this edit warring removal of the page. The five users listed above are intent on edit warring to their version no matter what and not discussing how to actually improve the page. The page is a top priority and high priority page, and overwhelming consensus is that an encyclopedia article is needed on the term. WP:VAND makes it clear that blanking is the large removal of content from an article without discussion and going against our policies. This fits and these individuals are edit warring in a vandalistic action. This must be addressed by admin. I would recommend either blocks or probation against people blanking the page under threat of a block if they do. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No the matter is your appalling behaviour once again. Since ANI is the chocolate teapot of Wikipedia noticeboards, I imagine this will end up being marked "resolved" with no action taken against you because you seem to have carte blanche to behave however you like. ("The page is a top priority and high priority page." Um ,it's been marked for clean-up and unverified claims since March. You only saw it as a "priority" once you noticed me editing there). --Folantin (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
So, I made you, Dbachmann, and Alefbe edit war and blank a page against both consensus and our policies? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and undid it, a sourced article of a well known empire shouldn't be redirected. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. (Uninvolved editor who just noticed this) --Rockstone (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
You really should have read the arguments on the talk page before you did that. The whole page is simply a content fork of History of Iran. Far from being "well sourced", it contains multiple errors. --Folantin (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Folantin's claim that this is a content fork or copy of the History of Iran page has been pointed out as 100% wrong, since it covers material from History of Afghanistan and many, many other pages that the History of Iran page does not. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
@Rockstone35: ANI is not the right place for discussing the content of pages. For that, you should go to their talk page and read arguments of others and then elaborate your justification there (before doing any drastic edit in that page). Alefbe (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
It should be noted that Alefbe just edit warred on the page again. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Conflation of two issues[edit]

There are two issues we need to seperate here, because the matter is getting confused...

  1. Should the article "Persian Empire" be redirected to the Acheaminid Empire, or should the old article which discusses all various empires which have occupied the area of modern Iran be there instead.
  2. Has Ottava Rima engaged in personal attacks and incivility

I posit that the main problem here is that, from what I can tell by looking at the talk pages, and most importantly per WP:PRESERVE, there does not appear to be a compelling consensus for replacing the old content with a redirect, and without preserving the old content in another article. If the Persian Empire title SHOULD be a redirect, then something needs to be decided with how to handle the content that was removed in making it a redirect. Thus, the gist of Ottava Rima's objection is compelling; the redirect does appear to be a problem. AND YET, I find that Ottava Rima's behavior here is a major problem; in that this user is clearly engaging in unaccepatable personal attacks in trying to defend their position. Calling other editors names like "POV pusher" is unacceptable. In conclusion, the article should probably not be a redirect, thus I agree with Ottava Rima, and yet I find his behavior to be reprehensible in the way that the issue has been handled. --Jayron32 19:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The content is available elsewhere at History of Iran, Achaemenid Empire etc. etc. --Folantin (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I kinda see that. Let me change my proposal then; the Persian Empire should probably redirect to History of Iran, since THAT article is the one that covers all of the various states that have been known to history as "Persia". I think the major concern, since WP:PRESERVE does not seem to be as big of a problem as I thought, is the singling out of a single Iranian empire to be the target of the "Persian Empire" redirect. Why not just redirect the article which describes ALL empires in the area of Modern Iran, and let the reader figure out which "empire" they want. Now that I see that most of the content WAS redundant, I can see where a redirect would be a good idea, but the target appears to be a problem. --Jayron32 20:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
As pointed out above, the Persian Empire deals with the History of Afghanistan and other pages and cannot be redirected to the History of Iran nor is the content the same. Folantin's claiming of this over and over has been proven as incorrect. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
"n that this user is clearly engaging in unaccepatable personal attacks" NPA says that a personal attack is only one that does not focus on action. POV pushing by definition is an action. POV pushing is -exactly- what happened, as edit warring and blanking of pages based on a POV that is not accepted by consensus is POV pushing. Jayron, please read WP:NPA. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
NPA states clearly to comment on the content, not the person. If you feel that the content that they propose violates WP:NPOV, then state "This content violates NPOV and should not be the way it is". When you call someone a name, then you cross the line, regardless of what that name is. You will stop calling people names, which is a clear violation of WP:NPA. You can raise problems without resorting to name calling. --Jayron32 20:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Jayron, commenting on the person would be calling them ugly or stupid. Saying they are pushing a POV is describing an -action-, not a physical attribute. And calling someone a name? Please, there is no way you can stretch that one, as there is even a major essay about calling something exactly what it is when they are violating a rule. I think you need to refresh on your policy understanding. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Wiki-lawyering and policy wonkery. Your smears (e.g. the ludicrous allegations about my membership of Project:Georgia) are clear evidence you came to that page as part of a personal vendetta. --Folantin (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
(Reply to Ottava). Essays, even popular ones, have no bearing on the application of policy. NPA, which is policy, clearly states "These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." (bolding mine). Saying User:X is a <BLANK> is never acceptable, regardless of what <BLANK> is. Just because you do not want your actions to be personal attacks does not mean they are not. Insofar as refering to other editors as "POV-pushers" will only escalate conflict, and serves no purpose except to disparge the people who hold a different opinion from you, this action is not good. Repeatedly claiming over-and-over that such behavior is perfectly OK does not make it so. --Jayron32 21:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Jayron, did I say essays had weight? I did not. So why would you mention such a thing? It is quite simply that NPA makes it 100% clear that it does not deal with what you claim it does. NPA requires an attack on their -non- Wikipedia self. Characterizing -any- on Wiki action is not a personal attack. To claim otherwise is so absurd that if you honestly believed the above to be true, I would ask you to risk your admin status by putting yourself up for recall and state that you believe the above to be what NPA stands for. You will be opposed so fast and removed from admin status that Wikipedia would probably be better to have one less admin with such a poor grasp of the policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I was getting ready to do it, but looks like Tan got to it first...the page has been protected while we settle this here. --Smashvilletalk 20:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed: Topic ban[edit]

The page is protected again. I propose a topic ban for the editors involved in the edit-warring and most contentious elements of the discussion, for a period of one month, enforced by block if necessary. These editors are Folantin, Ottava Rima, Alefbe and Dbachmann. The pages effected are Persian Empire and Talk:Persian Empire. Unfortunately, there has been little if any progress during this extended dispute. It has been personalized to an extent that resolution is unlikely to occur with the current cast of involved editors. Nathan T 20:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Check the history again. There is a clear difference between my reverts and the constant tag teaming destruction of those. Furthermore, I had the vast majority of consensus behind me, and WP:VAND includes a nice section on -blanking- which says that reducing the page is vandalism. Check the Edit war page to see that reverting vandalism is not edit warring. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
By the way, Nathan, my revert is the same as yours, as you said: "(Reverted to revision 310386236 by John Kenney; This version has the most support; please don't remove 90% of the text of an article without advance consensus. (TW))" So, if you want to lump me in with a topic ban, you would have to lump yourself in. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have presented arguments based on my knowledge of Iranian history on the talk page with sources. I have made major contributions to most of the articles on the Safavid shahs of Iran. I have not edited the article for two weeks. Why shouldn't I be allowed to contribute to the encyclopaedia on a topic I know about and on which Ottava has demonstrated his complete incompetence? Alefbe and Dbachmann have also edited many Iranian pages. I find your suggestion a ridiculous application of the fallacy of middle ground and I don't regard you as a neutral party to this case since you have been in e-mail contact with Ottava. --Folantin (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

@Nathan: You and Dbachman have both reverted that page once. The difference is that Dbachman has been previously invloved in Iran-related pages and you haven't. Also, Dbachman has elaborated his proposal in the the talk page and has justified it (but you hadn't elaborated your justification before reverting that page). So, how do you justify your proposal? Alefbe (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've received one e-mail from both sides of the debate, and sent one short e-mail in response (not to Ottava). I have participated in the discussion, if not (in my opinion) as a party to the dispute. I don't propose the topic ban merely to prevent edit-warring - that can be accomplished by protection. The purpose of the topic ban is to separate the people for whom discussion has consistently been heated and personalized. I'm not arguing that all parties are equally culpable, making a claim on personal knowledge of the subject or determining whose expertise in this area is superior. The idea is to allow the article to be discussed and improved without inflamed and personal debate, not to punish any editor for any specific infraction. Nathan T 20:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
If you are talking about personal attacks, they should be addressed according to the Wikipedia policy and those who have committed that should be warned or blocked for that. Your topic ban proposal doesn't solve anything in that regard. The thing is that by looking at your proposal, it's obvious that you have listed those who have participated extensively in its talk page and you have forgotten that among those who participate in edit war, those who have elaborated their reasoning are more justified. So, among Dbachman, you, Durova, Rockstone35 and others who ahve participated in reverting the page, drastic edits of someone like Dbachman is much more justified than edits like [55] [56] and [57]. Alefbe (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
The "personalisation" began with Ottava Rima, as has been clearly demonstrated. That, coupled with his extreme incompetence in Iranian history, should have been enough of a clue to admins. But, as we saw with the lack of action regarding the John Kenney incident arising from the same page, Ottava has carte blanche' to behave as he likes round here. --Folantin (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Such a topic ban is moot anyway, as the page is fully protected for a week, if these issues continue beyond that week, then perhaps its a better time to look at it. Jeni (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not moot, as the proposal extends to the talk page, which isn't protected (and is putatively the primary way of resolving the conflict). Tan | 39 20:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, considering the context of the discussion and the history of the debate, banning Nathan himself (from that topic) is much more justified than banning Dbachman. Alefbe (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
In which case the protection is a better option than the topic ban, as it allows these users to try to discuss the way forward! Jeni (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you there. I was merely saying that proposed topic ban isn't "moot", as it would make a significant difference in the situation. Tan | 39 20:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the history so people can see who did what, when, and what fell under our policies as appropriate or not:

  • 16:43, 20 August 2009 Alefbe Deletes page.
  • 16:02, 21 August 2009 Wizardman Restores page.
  • 16:03, 21 August 2009 Folantin Deletes page.
  • 20:17, 21 August 2009 Ottava Rima Restores page.
  • 20:52, 21 August 2009 Alefbe Deletes page.
  • 13:42, 23 August 2009 Ottava Rima Restores page after getting consensus against the removal of text.
  • 15:29, 23 August 2009 Fullstop Deletes page.
  • 16:06, 23 August 2009 NuclearWarfare Restores page as no consensus for deleting.
  • 17:37, 23 August 2009 Alefbe Deletes page.
  • 23:04, 23 August 2009 Ottava Rima Restores page as no consensus for deleting.
  • 23:12, 23 August 2009 King of Hearts Protects page.
  • 07:53, 27 August 2009 Alefbe Deletes page when it comes out of protection saying "The old crappy version is so full of misinformation that cannot be useful in any sense"
  • 15:36, 27 August 2009 Ottava Rima Restores page saying "subjectivity is not a justification to commit vandalism by blanking the page"
  • 18:37, 27 August 2009 Kurdo777 Deletes page and claims "cleaning up a poorly written page, is not vandalism"
  • 19:22, 27 August 2009 Nathan Restores page as no consensus for deleting.
  • 19:25, 27 August 2009 Alefbe Deletes page.
  • 19:44, 27 August 2009 Durova Restores page as no consensus for deleting.
  • 21:06, 27 August 2009 NuclearWarfare Protects page.
  • 14:40, 4 September 2009 Alefbe Deletes page as it comes out of protection.
  • 14:43, 4 September 2009 Ottava Rima Restores page as no consensus for deleting.
  • 15:32, 4 September 2009 Dbachmann Deletes page with a personal attack as reason.
  • 19:55, 4 September 2009 Rockstone35 Restores page as no consensus for deleting.
  • 19:59, 4 September 2009 Alefbe Deletes page claiming that uninvolved users have no right to restore the page.

- Ottava Rima (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

None of this even exceeds 3RR. None of this addresses the problems with the content/duplication of content discussed at length on the talk page. --Folantin (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring is not three RR. Per the page: "Edit warring is the confrontational, combative, non-productive use of editing and reverting to try to win, manipulate, or stall a discussion, or coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches." Consensus was for keeping the page and not blanking it. The actions in destroying the consensus determine version over and over was edit warring and an act of vandalism per WP:VAND. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
The problem with the article is that the editors have formed "grudges" agaisnt each other. Even when a editor makes a valid suggestion, it will be shunned down one way or another by them, because they want only their suggestion to win. Warrior4321 21:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • A useful alternative to a topic ban might be a voluntary editing and discussion moratorium from the same editors; eliminates the element that seems punitive, but accomplishes the same goal of allowing the content discussion to continue unimpeded with personal disputes. An agreement like that could conclude this thread and provide some respite for these editors, if nothing else. Nathan T 21:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Or how about we impose normal consensus based restrictions in which people don't remove wholesale content from a page after 9 people have said that such actions would be inappropriate? In any normal situation, Alefbe would have been blocked multiple times along with Folantin for even daring to blank the page in such a manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Nathan, would you stop trying to make these "it's six of one and half a dozen of the other" proposals? I don't trust your judgement. ANI could have stopped this problem by cracking down on Ottava Rima after the disgraceful John Kenney incident. It chose to do nothing about him. Again. The debate was over before I and others even had a chance to take part in it [58]. --Folantin (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I've proposed two methods that both have a chance at solving the dispute over the article; neither allow one side to "win" the dispute, because that isn't the point. If you believe that there is a superior alternative, then post it with your evidence and rationale. I think you'll agree that its unlikely that anything will be resolved through talkpage discussion if the participants stay the same, so unless you prefer that state of events some change is necessary. Nathan T 22:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Because there was nothing even though you keep trying to claim their is. It is just one more event in a pattern of things you've been making up. You do realize that it is against the rules to do such, right? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin - I see a bunch of bad behavior, on all sides. None of you have anything to be proud of here. If this is not otherwise resolved and the edit warring on the article continues next week when the current full protection expires, I for one will willingly disruption, edit war, or personal attack block any or all of you as required to end it. None of you are currently showing the type of collaborative attitude required to actually work on a consensus solution moving forwards.

I Support the proposed one-month topic ban. At this point, if you cannot participate constructively, don't participate at all. Find another topic for the next month if you can't be civil and collaborative. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

One month topic ban against whom? and based on what? Alefbe (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Please see this subsection's first paragraph. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I've seen that. Please see my comments after that. In particular, if you are talking about edit war, how do you justify a ban against Dbachman (while his involvement in edit war is not more than Nathan himself or users who have not elaborated their justification for their revert, such as Durova and Rockstone35). Also, if you are talking about personal attacks, how do you justify a ban against me? Alefbe (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not asserting that each of you has committed all of those offenses. I am, however, asserting that all of you are behaving unconstructively, and I support the proposed topic ban. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
You support banning me from participating in that discussion. You should present a justification for that. You haven't presented any example of personal attacks or disruptive behavior on my part. Other than personal attacks and disruptive behaviour in talk page, what can justify banning a user from participating in a discussion? Alefbe (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this proposal is justified. The involved editors are not equally at fault, so this proposal is not equitable for them; nor is it going to result in the best outcome for the article its readers. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I thought we were supposed to be encyclopaedia. Punishing editors with long histories of working on Iranian history topics for, er, editing an article on Iranian history really sends out a good message. --Folantin (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Laying the ground rules[edit]

I am echoing what Georgewilliamherbert has said and laying the ground rules. Once the protection for the page ends on September 11, any person that restores the article or replaces the redirect will be blocked at increasing increments as is standard practice for edit warring until such time that a clear consensus has emerged. Any editor who disputes these ground rules please feel free to get the blocking policy changed. If you cannot get the hint after the page being protected three times and cannot come to an agreement and cannot be mature enough to simply leave the article be, then its clear that protection is not helping. Start working together. Thank you.

Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 01:13, 5 September 2009


I don't agree with this unilateral statement. Presumably, the proposal above was a proposal--something that we're supposed to discuss, and come to some sort of consensus about. I don't think the discussion has come to a consensus yet. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I dont think month long topic bans are going to work here if three weeks of protection doesnt. Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 01:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The way we have for preventing changes is page protection. In this case it is not a general content dispute, but a dispute over one particular change--the redirect. Saying that after pp ends that someone will be blocked for changing back to the other version edit--the only edit in question--is extending the protection indefinitely. I can understand people get frustrated over this, but Seddon's proposal goes beyond what an admin should do. This discussion does highlight the major gap in Wikipedia procedure--our lack of a good binding way of resolving conflict disputes. Nor do I agree with the attempt to foreclose an agreed settlement by archiving the page. The discussion is not over, and I have removed the archive tags.I think placing them was premature. If anyone wants to claim otherwise, we can have a discussion on that, but I think the lack of resolution is remarkably obvious. DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC) .
This is not permanent - Seddon put it as until such time that a clear consensus has emerged which I support. If all the parties involved can agree on a mutually acceptable compromise way forwards then the issue is done and over with. If they cannot, the communities patience for this reaching ANI over and over again is reaching or at the limits of "nice doggie" and the stick is coming out... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll respect the reversion of the close and ask for one other non-involved admins opinion. I would point out that my close statement with regards to the blocking was only enforceable until a clear consensus is formed. I do not believe ANI is the best place to form a consensus on content(for countless reasons) and the recent poll (as part of an rfc) started at the talk page should be the method to resolve this. I do not see this discussion here resolving anything at this time. We should allow the parties to use the 6 days to get somewhere.
I also agre completely with your statement that This discussion does highlight the major gap in Wikipedia procedure--our lack of a good binding way of resolving conflict disputes. This is a clear weakness in our dispute resolution process and "enforcing" consensus which is subject to change is difficult. That is something that we need to address.
Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 02:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus take 2[edit]

Even though there was a clear consensus of 9 people saying not to turn the page into a redirect or a disambiguated page and only 5 people saying to turn it into one, this has been ignored by all of the administrators above. Seddon, DGG, and Georgewilliamherbert, for example, do not acknowledge this. As such, I have started it all over again. If admin are willing to ignore the clear consensus that comes out of this Straw Poll (as they seemed to want to ignore the one that came out of the before polling along with a connected RfC), then I have no other recourse than to scream and pull out my hair (or really cuss a lot and send angry emails). Ottava Rima (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

what you have, rather, is the opportunity to try to prepare a sound and irrefutable argument. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
It was sound and irrefutable. The case should have been open and closed with blocks against the five listed for constantly blanking a page against consensus. It seems that the admin corps really dropped the ball. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The case has been reviewed. If I were to actively intervene and treat everyone with a content-blind behavior-centric response, you'd be blocked along with them. You are pushing too hard and behaving too disruptively Ottava. Please stop doing so. You are not innocent of wrongdoing in this. We're giving everyone a breather on the topic and article by full protecting, and an extended one by taking those of you most combative in the incident out of it for another month with the article ban (maybe). The alternative is behavioral blocks which you would find yourself on the receiving end, among others.
Wikipedia uses consensus and not majority vote because we do not want situations like this where a majority feel empowered to break rules and abuse the situation because there are more of you. Consensus is getting along with the people who disagree with you - and entirely the opposite of your behavior here. Consensus, civility, not making personal attacks, and not disrupting things when you don't immediately get your way are important.
ANI is not a hammer to beat down your opponents. If you begin to try to use it like a hammer, the things it hits will not be the ones you point at, necessarily. We are assuming that the full protection and proposed topic ban will get the message across to everyone and that an outbreak of reasonableness and civil discourse will ensue. If that is not what happens, the hammer will probably come down. Your thumb is currently under the hammer, along with others'. If you feel like squashing yourself, continue the way you have been going.
Community patience nearing end. Caution. Do not proceed further. Work it out. Assume good faith and move forwards, not backwards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
There is -never- a push too hard against clear vandalism. There -was- clear consensus and it is obvious that they -don't- want to discuss it. Did you bother to actual read the discussion and see how every time there was a chance to correct the aspects of the page they instantly reverted back to edit warring and pushing for a redirect? Those are some of the oldest ploys around. ANI is a hammer to stop edit warring, vandalism, and the destruction of this encyclopedia. When Wizardman first reverted Alefbe, it should -never- have been reverted back by Folantin. None of the edit warring should have happened, and Wizardman or any of the other administrators should have handed out blocks from the very beginning against anyone even thinking about blanking that page. I am quite confident that if this went to ArbCom, there would be clear evidence that I had consensus for my actions and that the five listed above went out of their way to troll and vandalise the page simply because they could not stand that they did not "win". That is a severe abuse of our policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again, ANI fails. A clear case of stalking and nothing is done about it. Ottava's comments (e.g. "The 'Persian Empire' refers to a series of dynasties between 600 AD until the Ottoman Conquest. No more, no less") show he has no knowledge of even the most basic facts of the subject but is just there to troll. This isn't an encyclopaedia any more, it's a social networking site. --Folantin (talk) 07:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Folantin - Please see my comments to Ottava. These apply equally much to you. Either stop doing anything near each other, or work within the policy and community standards to cooperate, get along and treat each other with respect, etc. Continuing to fire salvos back and forth on ANI is not appropriate at this time unless you are seeking to be blocked for the weekend.
The combined lot of you have about exhausted my patience and I believe I speak for the community here (though others can refute and comment, of course). I am at this point fully prepared to end the sniping with blocks if the collective "you all" cannot act in an adult, responsible, constructive, and respectful manner. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I've tried avoiding this guy since his RFA in April. I've presented clear evidence of his stalking. This place is a joke. --Folantin (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Many, if not all, uninvolved administrators are now acutely and painfully aware of what everyone involved is doing. You have stated that you feel he's stalking. You do not need to say that again. You do not need to call him a troll, period, and should not have in the first place. Insulting Wikipedia as a whole ("This isn't an encyclopaedia any more, it's a social networking site.") and the administrator community ("This place is a joke.") in the process of continuing to push Ottava's buttons and visa versa is not a good long term Wikipedia survival strategy, either.
If you believe that any of your behavior here was a good thing, I suggest to you that your judgement is impaired by the stress of the situation, and that you may want to walk away for a bit and come back when you are feeling better about it and can work more constructively to avoid unnecessary conflict.
As I said several times above - this uninvolved administrator has seen about as many buttons pushed in this series of incidents as he is willing to tolerate without starting to block people. If you stand up and start pushing buttons after several explicit warnings along those lines - what exactly do you expect to happen next, and why are you doing that?
Perhaps this needs more uninvolved admin mediation on specific talk pages or some such. But what it does not need is any more disruptive incivility, personal attacks, insults, and assumptions of bad faith. Stop it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
If you want to end the conversation here then the correct procedure is to mark this as "Resolved", not to threaten all and sundry with blocks on no rationale but your own patience. I suggest you do this. (ANI is not the "administrator community" as a whole. Most of the decent admins I know are disgusted at its ineffectiveness. With good reaon. Plus, I can say what I like about Wikipedia. I've been here long enough to know this place has been going down the sink over the past year or so. Wikipedia should be an encyclopaedia based on accurate content. Clearly, it isn't). Now you can mark this as "Resolved". --Folantin (talk) 09:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Update: Whatever the case, I'm done here. I will be taking no further part in this ANI thread. (The failure of admins here to do anything about the attacks on the completely uninvolved User:Akhilleus is duly noted). --Folantin (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
A 9/5 ratio is much too marginal to be used as a consensus for a controversial decision. And ottava rima doesn't seem to have read up on WP:VANDAL: "edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW".·Maunus·ƛ· 13:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
64% support of the original page is not enough to keep it from becoming a redirect? Maunus, there is no possible way to make such a claim as that. You are either wrong, and you will strike, or you are just making things up. And blanking a page from 60k to a redirect is -not- a content dispute. It is a bulk removal of information. WP:VAND has a section on "blanking" which you need to read. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Redirecting is not blanking - and 64% is barely a majority, and by no means a consensus. I have participated in enough redirect discussions to know that even 10 to 2 is not necessarily a consensus. Consensus is based on arguments not numbers.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Blanking is the wholesale removal of text. To claim that redirecting a 60k page is not blanking is so absurd that words cannot describe it. To claim that 64% is a "bare majority", when people pass RfA with consensus on that is so unbelievably absurd that it takes all of AGF to assume that your comments above are not intended to be purely disruptive. There is -no- possible way for someone to make such claims honestly. There was no argument that could override the community's opinion there that the page had to stay. There is no way to claim there was. The fact that you would even attempt to suggest that there was and rationalize such inappropriate blanking is so awful that I will be sure to list you as a named party when this goes to RfAr just so ArbCom can analyze how absurd your comments are and hopefully keep you from ever having the power to enforce them. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I would like to note how my single comment above has prompted Ottava to hound me on my talk page and threaten to have me desysopped, merely for disagreeing with him, this clearly doesn't speak in his favour. I would second a topic ban in his case, if not a complete ban for disruption.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Disagreement? No, it is because you have stated comments that are 100% against our wikipedia policies and completely dangerous. You claim that we did not try to include them. Did you even read the talk page? There is no way to change their mind when they keep edit warring in a deletion of the page. That is 100% pure vandalism. Your lack of recognizing that would suggest that you are either unfit to be an admin or your account is compromised. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Lets make one thing clear - Jimbo Wales started this whole system in order to make an encyclopedia. It is our job as participants here to do whatever it takes to build and maintain an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not some whore that we can use, abuse, and toss to the side. It is unacceptable for any member who is honestly here to build the encyclopedia to allow for a top priority page that deals with a notable term that has appeared in hundreds of thousands of sources and documents to simply just vanish because a tiny minority of people simply do not like the content of the page. Not only would such a thing violate just about every single one of our policies, it turns Wikipedia into an utter laughing stock. Admin at Wikipedia are obligated to stand up for Wikipedia's policies, and any admin not fighting to protect this encyclopedia does not deserve the term or the title. Any user who does not want to protect the content at Wikipedia is at the wrong place. As one of the most prolific content editors, I have put thousands of hours, thousands of my own dollars, and incredible effort into building this encyclopedia. There are many people just like me that want to make this something worth while. We accept Jimbo's desire to make Wikipedia great. We do our damnedest to ensure that these peoples are excellent. It is a shameful to see so many people just passively allow any tiny group of people free reign to destroy this place. This is not some obscure topic. This is not some tiny store, some obscure faculty member, some song no one heard of, or anything even close. This is one of the most important historic terms. I am sure that every single person here would probably have some page that if they saw an IP address turn it into a redirect because they claim "it sucks", they would revert it on the spot as vandalism. And yet no one, not one person, has had the guts to defend this Wikipedia by blocking five vandals that are dead set on destroying this place and making it known that Wikipedia is not a place for games, not a place to push some wacko POV, not some whore to be treated like shit. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Please take off the Spider-Man costume. Thank you. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Agree! Singularity42 (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Polite suggestion[edit]

"It's not what you do. It's the way you do it." - Mae West

Take it from someone who's seen a lot of arbitration cases; this dispute is currently inching toward RFAR. If it goes there that will not be fun. To both sides of the current dispute: even if you're 100% right about the content issue (which of course you are), that won't weigh at arbitration. It'll be the slow edit warring and sniping that the case would examine. The case will waste weeks or months of your life, guaranteed, and you may end up sanctioned as a result of it. There are better ways to resolve the matter.

  1. Find a mediator, dig up sources, and pretend that the absolute euphemism on the other side of the dispute is a reasonable person. If you're right and they're really expletives deleted then they will show their colors and your own graceful reasonableness will reflect well on you. If they aren't quite so bad then maybe you'll actually reach agreement.
  2. Walk away from the dispute. Let the article be wrong for a while. Most of the public does realize that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Weeks or months from now, once tempers have settled down, it'll be easier to resolve things then. This is far less burdensome than squandering the same weeks or months on arbitration.

Sincerely, Durova311 23:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Axmann8 returns[edit]

User:Jspearmint[edit]

I have blocked User:Jspearmintfor creating at least three hoax articles which I have nommed for deletion, Letchworth Corset Riot, Garden City (album) and Sebastian Openshaw, and inserting text in other articles which I am still rooting out (I just got done with Spirella Building. This seems to be a sophisticated series of hoaxes that may require action from admins at Commons as well. However, as a first step, could someone check my work and either endorse my block or no? I fear that since I have made the noms, it could be argued I should not also have blocked. I feel, though, a block without warning was needed to avoid further subtle damage to the project.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Not unreasonable. If he requests unblock I would offer a {{2nd chance}}. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't; I've already caught another of his usernames, User:Deliciouscakes, that had done the same thing earlier. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
A bit concerned that we didn't unblock him, if he is really super cool like he says. Perhaps we should reduce it from indef to 200 years? And insist only that he serve as much of it as he can.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The indef block seems especially well-deserved. When WP starts to fill up with fake information, our days are numbered. His deleted contributions show that he has been contributing hoax material since 2005. He seems to consider this amusing. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
What's the real shame here is that if's working alone, that's he a really good writer and it's a shame he's wasting our time and his with this nonsense. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I told him that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

User:D climacus Rollback rights[edit]