Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive625

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

Noticeboard archives



Resolved: WP:DENY N419BH 01:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
applying WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Self confessed sock (see here) continuing to edit war. Suspect first of a line from that farm so if anyone could whack this particular mole it would be appreciated. --Snowded TALK 22:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Was just about to report him for breaking the 3RR at Formula D when I noticed this. Also he may have broken it also at List of mythological places. Bjmullan (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

User has been indef'd. S.G.(GH) ping! 23:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

 Blocked - Tiptoety talk 23:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Last act was deleting this thread. Marked resolved. N419BH 23:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


Well, more like self-admitted sock of the above. Says checkuser is wrong. Here is the confession. N419BH 00:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Gone, and another one popped up. Going to apply WP:DENY. N419BH 01:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Jonas Poole[edit]

Resolved: Jonas Poole (talk · contribs) has been blocked for a week with talk page access revoked for personal attacks. If the behavior continues after the block, feel free to remove the "resolved" tag. MC10 (TCGBL) 05:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Jonas Poole (talk · contribs) has been involved in what can only be described as an edit war across Wikipedia, replacing "Spitzbergen" with "Spitsbergen". I became aware of this due to edits made at Order of battle for Convoy PQ 18. The user's talk page shows evidence of a number of editors disagreeing with the change made, and the history of the above-mentioned article also shows that consensus is that the common spelling has a "z" in the common English name. I dropped JP a warning not to continue the edit war, but discuss the issue on the article's talk page. To which he responded with this. I've therefore blocked JP for 24h, but am opening the block up to review as I'm "involved" in this matter. If any admin feels that the block is unjustified, then I'm OK with it being lifted. I will inform JP of this discussion, and suggest that he posts any reply on his talk page for copying over here. Mjroots (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Jonas Poole informed Mjroots (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • This edit to your comment to negate its sense was wrongheaded, too. Here are some interesting edit summaries to ponder: edit edit edit edit edit. It's worth noting from the last that this editor has engaged in discussion of this point, albeit not very much and in a pretty disdainful manner. Making a discussion contribution in the edit summary of an edit that blanks the entire discussion is not particularly good. I recommend reading the discussion that was blanked, though. Uncle G (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Uncle G, I did read that, and note that the source used is 104 years old, which is plenty of time for language to change. The English language is somewhat fluid, spellings change, and words acquire different meanings. What is also apparent is the continual lack of civility in discussions with other editors. Mjroots (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I agree with you on both points. However … Uncle G (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:Jonas Poole (It's a rather nasty personal attack so I've collapsed it) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC))
    • Tell that asshole all he has to fucking do is look at the fucking Spitsbergen page and Talk:Spitsbergen page to see I'm fucking right. Tbe "z" spelling is by no means the common English spelling! Only one dumbfuck editor disagrees with me, and he knows jackshit about this subject. Oh, and MJ, go fuck yourself. Now I can't edit my Timeline of European exploration. Jonas Poole (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
      • It would seem that there are also ownership issues with this editor. Mjroots (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
        • I would move for an indefinite block. Poole has been having problems with civility for years. Messages like this are completely unacceptable if we are going to maintain a collegial editing environment (imagine if someone tried to pull that in a work place). The content issue it is about as minor as you can get and if Poole can't maintain at least a modicum of civility on such a non controversial issue, I shudder to think of how he would react to an actual controversy. --Leivick (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
        • I'd up his block at least to a week. I understand when a blocked user vents his wrath, but this is way out of line! Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 20:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
          • Agree : that was clearly way out of line and a bad enough personal attack that I feel it should be collapsed here. Disable talk page editing, extend to a week. If behaviour persists, indef. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
      • … Try not to have a lynching when someone who has already proven to be uncivil explodes with abuse on xyr talk page immediately after being blocked. It's been done umpteen times before. They almost never go well. A knee-jerk reaction on your part to a knee-jerk reaction on the blocked editor's part only leads to escalation. Leave things alone for the length of the block, and see what happens then. This is what revoking talk page access is for. Uncle G (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have upped it for a week, feel free to review. S.G.(GH) ping! 20:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

And removed his talk page access for this little gem of hilarity. S.G.(GH) ping! 20:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that one should probably be RevDeleted as RD2. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Aw but I had a nice nonchalant comeback and got WP:THELASTWORD! I'll rev delete it in a sec. S.G.(GH) ping! 20:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, shall we now leave the carcass to decompose? Mjroots (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:ROUGEZORS! S.G.(GH) ping! 20:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Claire Toomey[edit]

Wrong venue. Please move to Talk:Claire Toomey: Please discuss proposed moves or splits on the article's talk page; admin attention not required. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Can administrators split the page 'Claire Toomey' into two separate articles, perhaps with different titles, to cover the two distinct people?

Thanks! (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes to the article for now. We need stronger referencing to be able to support a separate article for the singer/songwriter -- if you can provide some, we can move the articles around so they each have their own title. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with those sources, please bring them back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
'In the news' is a normal news website that has been referred to in several other Wikipedia articles. It's like or other such websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Why is this an admin matter? S.G.(GH) ping! 20:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Probably confusion; since the request was made by an IP, they probably assumed that only admins can split/create articles. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
But only admins can split articles! I've never seen anyone else do it. (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
If you mean create a fork, then anyone who can create pages can create them. Why not get an account too? It will give you some other options too. S.G.(GH) ping! 20:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) To split an article you simply need to separate out the content and create articles with different titles for each one. Registered users may create articles. If it could be controversial, this should only be performed once consensus has been reached on the talk page, however. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC), you may be confusing the merging and splitting processes. Although anyone can split an article, some merges require administrator assistance. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Proven illegal image continuously being used[edit]

This image (File:Endless Love.jpg) has been continuously being used for the article Endless Love (Philippine TV series), even it has been proven that it doesn't follow the proper copyright license. I have recently reverted the edit with the image present. Furthermore, the user who uploaded the image has been proven to be a sockpuppet of a user who has been blocked due to continuous uploading of unproperly sourced images. The license of the image also states that it is for an article named Sana Ay Ikaw Na Nga, when in fact it is being used for Endless Love (Philippine TV series). Please delete the image, thank you.-- (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur with the need for the deletion of that image. Not properly used under the FUR and the FUR isn't existent anyway. - NeutralhomerTalk • 01:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
It might be a fair use violation, but I doubt very much it's an "illegal" image, or the TV show in question couldn't use it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The image of the title screen is hardly illegal, though it doesn't currently comply with Wikipedia's WP:NFCC because it is no longer in use. However, this is not to place to settle disputes over which image to use on the article. I've also restored the plot summary and some of the infobox fields which the above IP deleted twice with no explanation. —Farix (t | c) 02:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Heretical thought here, but if the FUR for an image is wrong in some way, why not fix the FUR, the same way we would fix an article if it was wrong in some way, or a template, or a category? In this case, the logo really isn't needed, since the article has a promo poster (which includes the logo) in the infobox, so there's no harm in deleting it, but the FUR was obviously copied from elsewhere and not tweaked to make it applicable for this image, so any competent editor should be able to fix it. Jumping to deletion is not the best course of action, in general, for fair-use images in which the paperwork hasn't been correctly filled out. (What's that thing about Wikipedia not being a bureaucracy?) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
All it seems to be though is a simple edit conflict over which non-free image to use in the infobox; the title card or the promo poster. Honestly most tv show articles that I have come across us the title card. Tarc (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Mikeymike2001 and reverts[edit]

In the various pages that I have on my watchlist, I've repeatedly seen Mikeymike2001 (talk · contribs) make inappropriate reverts (through the Undo feature) for content which was done in good faith, was beneficial to the article, and was always done by an IP editor. I've contacted him on three different occasions about his inappropriate reverts, but he does not respond and continues to make these reverts. His usual response is blanking his talk page. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You are supposed to make him aware of this thread.I see you've already done that. Would you provide some examples of improper reverts he's done? N419BH 03:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Here are a handful: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12].—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yopie is the undaunted wikistalker[edit]

User:Yopie keeps targetting my edits by following me to articles in which he had obviously no interest beforehand at all. Please note that Yopie and I are no in any dispute over content. I feel harrased by him as it is very cumbrous if I am always forced to participate in edit wars when I just want to edit anything on wikipedia. Also he harrases me by leaving me pestering messages on my talk page. [13] [14] He had already stopped following me around for a 4-month period, however, his actions restarted. Here are some collection of his recent wikihounding and of course I am ready to collect many more proofs from his past if necessary: [15] (Yopie followed me to revert without having edited it before) [16] (Yopie followed me to revert without having edited it before)

[17] [18] [19]

Interesting to note that these reverts were the first three edits of Yopie to the article Anton Bernolák and I have found myself in an pointless and odd edit war here and I do not even know why.

Obviously, there is no point having any discussion with him as his errand is to keep custody over my wiki-contributions in a queer fashion and this has been going on for more than a year.--Nmate (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Continued attacks during RFC/U[edit]

Last month, I blocked Mk5384 (talk · contribs) for two weeks for continuing personal attacks. I was convinced to lift the block shortly after I imposed it, in favor of attempting to deal with the situation through a Request for Comment, which OberRanks (talk · contribs) filed. However, Mk5384's behavior throughout has been combative, and much of his response (on the RFC's talk page) has consisted of further personal attacks. I would like an uninvolved admin to review the RFC and see if Mk5384 shows any sign of understanding what the issues are with his conduct, and whether he needs to be blocked for the continuing attacks. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I have informed Mk5384 of this thread. Basket of Puppies 21:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, BoP. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I am uninvolved in the RfC, but have concurrently been involved with the user here and here, and I would say that Mk5384 does not appear to understand the conduct issues. No opinion on the attacks; I wouldn't block except in the most egregious instance due to my involvement, even though it isn't with the RfC. If it's so egregious, someone else will be able to take care of it without the controversial claim of admin abuse that would inevitably result.  Frank  |  talk  21:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, first of all, someone told me on my talk page that my unblock was unlikely to last. I responded that I knew it wouldn't, "As people like you won't be happy until I am railroaded out of here". For that quote, Sarek blocked me for "vandalism". Now since picking up his admin tools again, Sarek has shown an uncanny infatuation with the block button. That block, however, was simply absurd. Furthermore, in the interest of full disclosure, Sarek should have noted that I said from the beginning that I had no interest in the RfC, that I wolud not participate in it, and if he wanted to reblock me in light of that, then he should go right ahead.Mk5384 (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of MKs responses can be found on the RFC Talk Page. I've asked for a Motion to Close, so that this editor can perhaps walk away in one piece since, as Sarek has said, most if not all of MKs posts on that RFC thread have been vindictive personal attacks (I have lost count of how many times MK has called me a liar). An attack which I felt was extremely uncalled for was a snide remark about my participation on the Alex Haley article, mainly: "OberRanks, who, far as I can tell, wouldn't know Alex Haley from Haley Joel Osment" [20]. My response to that can be found here [21] where I point out that not only do I know members of Haley's family, but have actively participated in helping bestow honors on this famous author. MKs comment about that was completely uncalled for and, had it not been in the midst of a heated RfC, I would have asked for administrative action due to what I saw as a severe personal attack. Beside that, though, I think MK needs to accept this Motion-to-Close before its too late and avoid making any more inflammatory comments like this one [22]. -OberRanks (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the RfC should be closed: it is an abject failure, thanks to MK's inability or unwillingness to accept any part of the responsibility for his problem; according to him, it's all someone else's fault. It's OberRanks', or it's Sarek's or it's Malik's or whoever, but never his. This person clearly has no understanding of what "collegiality" means, and has difficulty maintaining civility. I thought once that he was redeemable through mentoring, but I no longer believe that - at this point, with his current frame of mind, he's a net drag on the project. Someone can indef him now, and get it over with, or we can wait until the next timne and the next time and the next time, but sooner or later he'll be indeffed -- and that may be the only thing that can save him at this point. Someone gets indeffed, they either walk away, they sock or they change. I don't have a clue which option MK would take, but I'm fairly sure that only the shock of an indef has the chance of getting him to look at his own behavior and changing it. He's got to want to come back and be willing to change to do it. In the meantime, he's just a ticking bomb. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Ken is absolutely correct in what he says. I also think a very stern, unrevoked block, on the order of one to six months might be what is needed here. When it was suggested that this would escalate to Arbitration if MK did not change his ways, MK practically laughed in the face of that idea and stated he would like nothing better [23]. Given the fact that MK is clearly acting inappropriately and used the RfC for no other means than to spread personal attacks, bringing him to ArbCom at this point would most certainly led to a spectacle with more of what we have seen on the RfC. I think a lengthy block might be the "splash of cold water" that MK needs and I would encourage administrators to act on this. If things don't change, it is not a question of if MK will be indef blocked, only a question of when. -OberRanks (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I strongly encourage that this matter be brought before Arbcom.Mk5384 (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The thing is, Mk, the next step isn't Arbcom -- it's somebody proposing a community ban here, and the odds are that nobody is going to look at that RFC and speak up in your defense. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm just going by what was said. If someone would like to propose a community ban, by all means do.Mk5384 (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
OK. ++Lar: t/c 18:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Gentler comments having failed to have any effect, I have placed a topic/interaction ban on OberRanks for the remainder of the RFC/Community ban discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Community Ban[edit]

Mk5384 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Applicable RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mk5384

Either Mk5384 is wrong, or just about everyone else he's ever encountered is wrong. Mk either needs to change his behavior now, on pain of being blocked permanently, or he needs to find other pursuits. So, therefore, I propose a conditional community ban, to be lifted when Mk agrees to carefully review the RfC, and discontinue the behaviors found problematic, with the understanding that resumption of those behaviors will result in a reban without further discussion. ++Lar: t/c 18:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Support: I agree with Lars and reaffirm what I stated above that a one to six month block probably would do some good here. At the end of that block, if MK returns willing to work with others, I would imagine there should be no further problems. -OberRanks (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. His behaviour has been very poor; however, I don't think he's even close to anything that would justify a community ban. I'd support a longish block (even up to three months — even conditional, if we think it would help), but certainly not a community ban... Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 21:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
    "Community ban" is essentially a community-imposed block, so since you support a longish conditional block, I'm not sure why you're opposing here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
    Because bans are a way of saying: you're no longer a member of this community and your edits are no longer welcome. It's maybe just silly formalism on my part, but I think he is not being disruptive enough to show him the door, but he is being disruptive enough to keep him on ice... Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 21:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Mk5384 seems to have been doing some self-reflection [24], and as such I don't think a community ban is in order at this time. A bi-directional interaction ban with OberRanks (they clearly don't get on well together), and some kind of civility probation would allow Mk5384 to continue with his constructive contributions while addressing the NPA/CIV concerns. –xenotalk 21:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • (ec) Support. Shit, despite what others may think of my habit of dropping the banhammer on certain individuals, I don't like banning people. However, after reading the relevant RfC, I cannot come to any other conclusion than that Mk5384 has failed to behave in a collegial manner towards other editors. Look at MK's responses to Montanabw & Curtis Clark: they approached MK in a reconciliatory tone but MK failed to respond in anything close to in kind. If an editor can't, at some point, simply stop thinking of others with whom she/he has a disagreement & walk away from a disagreement, then she/he can't help but be a problem for every other editor. -- llywrch (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Seeing how both Montanabw & Curtis Clark have withdrawn their support for this because MK has constructively engaged them & they are moving on, & despite the fact this proposal is moot, I'm withdrawing my support for it. I'm always for giving someone another chance, as long as she/he is willing to learn from mistakes & help resolve the issue; leaving my support for this proposal may give the erroneous idea that I still want to sanction MK, or influence someone to act unreasonably towards her/him. (On the other hand, if this whole thing goes to Hades there will be ample evidence to decide on a proper sanction without the presence of my onetime opinion.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • (ec) Oppose, conditionally - I certainly hope I don't come to regret this, but given MK's comment as linked by xeno, I oppose the community ban at this time, but agree with xeno's suggestion of a two-way interaction ban with OberRanks and, importantly, a civility probation. If that is not possible, for whatever reason (i.e. MK does not agree to it, or the consensus does not support it), then I would have to say that a conditional community ban as outlined by Lar is the next best choice, and this should then be counted as a support !vote. I have never doubted MK's potential value as a contributor, which is why I proposed mentoring on the RfC, it's been his behaviorial issues that have been problematic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: Tentative Support -- Wait and see: Block or community ban, I think something is in order, whatever label is put on it. While the Rfc was underway, he went on to engage in more of the same behavior with a previously uninvolved user on a completely different article: User_talk:Mk5384#Robert_Byrd_and_WP:3RR and User_talk:Mk5384#Robert_Byrd_and_WP:3RR. I also suspect that I am about to become the next person who will come under attack and I find that prospect a bit concerning as Mk seems to clearly fail to understand the issue was not a content discussion but rather the way he approached the content discussion. Montanabw(talk) 21:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Let it go Montanabw(talk) 07:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I announced my intention to begrudgingly apologise to you. I don't know what would give you the idea that you are "about to come under attack".Mk5384 (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I acknowledge that Mk has placed a sincere apology for his use of bad language on my talk page. is the apology in full and my reply, which I hope illustrates how a person can acknowledge their own contributions to a misunderstanding. I will let its content -- by both of us -- stand on its own terms and soften my support to a tentative pending further evidence. Montanabw(talk) 23:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Follow up: Per additional appropriate behavior from Mk and evidence of civility, I'll withdraw my support for a community ban as long as the new and improved version persists. Montanabw(talk) 07:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: Per Lar and Montanabw mostly. Terrible behavior. Preferably an indefinite ban. Oh and you adding yourself as a vote to oppose doesn't help either. --Bender176 Talk to me 22:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
This is not a star chamber or kangaroo court, I see nothing wrong with MK registering his opinion, especially when it's done in such a dispassionate manner. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I'm unsure of the rules here. If I'm not permitted to !vote, feel free to remove it. I'd like to state, that the message I left for Guy came before this discussion began, or if it didn't, I was, at the time, unaware of it. I announced my intentions to him because that is what I felt is right. Not because of anything happening here, or anywhere else.Mk5384 (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd also like to state, as far as the conditions proposed, that a two way interaction ban is exactly what I have sought for some time. As far as civility probation, I have no issue with that.Mk5384 (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. I think a civility probation, and not a ban or block, is the appropriate way to deal with Mk5384's behavior. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support ANI needs to be more serious about civility issues. Since this is a chronic problem, a civility probation will just drag this thing out. LK (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support a block until Mk5384 presents clear evidence of a different viewpoint on his/her behavior. The post cited by Xeno does not reassure me; it suggests that Mk5384 is so far away from WP:AGF that the light from AGF takes a thousand years to reach him/her. I think in all cases like this, one has to look at the net value to the project, and I think currently Mk5384 is in the red. I'd be happy to see that change, but I don't hold out a lot of hope.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
    • This is progress beyond the post that Xeno cited. I'm striking my support for now, in hopes this will continue.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • oppose. I'm concerned that the whole process that led up to this was thoroughly unconstructive and has made matters considerably worse. What we need here first of all is for this person to be left alone for a few days and for the civility police to back off. Fut.Perf. 07:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No ban, but this is a pretty quick escalation to trouble. How about a little fresh-start, clearly understood as demarcated by this issue, understanding that additional problem will be treated less sympathetically. An aside, I'm a little concerned that the concerns with this editor seem to be already understood by everyone commenting above; in other words, not enough diffs for people to actually prove their claims so others can evaluate them, and so outside editors have to dig through contrib summaries to understand what's going on. Shadowjams (talk) 07:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
    • The diffs are in the RFC referenced above.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose It appears that Mk is finally taking on board the issues that were raised, as shown by his recent apologies, so no need to ban at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Call for a close of this request, as initiator. There is no consensus for a community ban at this time. Reading the comments above, both support and oppose, what I DO see consensus for is the notion that Mk needs to change his approach, or sooner or later there will be consensus for a ban. Happily, there is evidence that Mk is taking on board the issues raised and that maybe a change in approach is in the offing. So, with the note that this ought to be taken as a very serious warning to Mk (rather than a victory for him or a vindication of his previous unsatisfactory approach) I think we've done what we can here, unless someone wants to take up imposing a civility parole/probation (mentioned by a few commenters) and get consensus for that. ++Lar: t/c 13:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed there's no consensus for a community ban at this time, but unlike Lar, I see no evidence that Mk is taking on board the issues raised, particularly in the RfC/U. The "begrudging apology" (his words) to Montana and an apology to Lar where he tells Lar that "Your comments on my talk page were some of the most offencive I have heard in my time here" simply reinforce the original complaints. Having taken the time to read the RfC/U, there are five desired outcomes which any editor should be able to subscribe to. That Mk has not taken the opportunity to do so speaks volumes. --RexxS (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The thing is, though, he acknowledges that while he was offended, not everyone might, and that his offense was no excuse for his behavior. I think this is a Good Thing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Note he's already agreed to a two-way interaction ban and civility restriction above. Can we get these implemented formally? N419BH 14:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that would be a good idea. Could someone who knows how these things should be phrased make a formal proposal? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Well I have no idea how it should be phrased, but I'd be happy to propose it. I have long felt that a two-way interaction ban is an ideal solution that will be of benefit, both to me, and another user. I was pleased to see an administrator make that proposal, and was pleased to see that this solution was supported by others. As for civility probation, I have stated that I have no objection. I have no intention of being uncivil to anyone, and if I am, then shame on me. The only thing that I would ask in this case, is that the terms of it be spelled out clearly to me in advance.Mk5384 (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Mk5384 has apologized for his actions, and an indefinite ban is too harsh. Give him another chance, please. MC10 (TCGBL) 05:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Civility restriction and interaction ban[edit]

Resolved: Restrictions enacted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal - That the following community-imposed editing restrictions shall be put in place:

Civility restriction: If Mk5384 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) makes any comment that is deemed by an administrator to have been uncivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, or if Mk5384 otherwise behaves in a uncollegial manner, broadly construed, he may be blocked for up to a week.

After four upheld blocks due to violation of this restriction or other issues, Mk5384 will be indefinitely blocked.

Interaction ban: Mk5384 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and OberRanks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are indefinitely banned from interacting with one another, indirectly or directly, except to participate in any future discussion that reviews this restriction.

This editing restriction shall include a complete prohibition from comments on the respective user talk pages, filing reports on admin noticeboards, reverting edits on articles, commenting in other venues about the other party, or directly responding to each other's comments on article talk pages. This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as the editors stay away from each other. The restriction is to be interpreted broadly.

If either of the parties feel that the other party has violated this ban or other Wikipedia policy, and no uninvolved administrator responds to the violation within a reasonable amount of time, they may notify 1 uninvolved administrator of the incident on that administrators' talk page 12 hours after the original perceived infraction, and if that first administrator does not respond by at least acknowledging seeing the report within 24 hours they may notify a second uninvolved administrator in the same mannerm but in no case more than 2 notifications on-wiki. Repeated spurious reports to administrators using this mechanism shall be grounds for blocking for disruption.

Violations of the interaction restrictions may result in a block for any time limit up to a week. After four upheld blocks due to violation of this restriction or other issues, the violating editor will be indefinitely blocked.

  • Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm making no view on the merits of this, but on a procedural note, bans cannot be permanent (I suspect you meant indefinite). I have adjusted the wording accordingly, along with a few other tweaks for clarity. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I might suggest changing it so that reports from parties about violations should be emailed, rather than posted on-wiki. –xenotalk 13:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
        • With a few minor exceptions, I cut-and-pasted this from stuff on file at WP:Editing restrictions, so I really have no problem with the kind of tweaks Xeno and Ncmvocalist have suggested or implemented. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
          • I put in the e-mail suggestion, but then took it out again when I realized the potential for abuse in off-wiki notifications. Better to have it happen on-wiki and be monitored. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm prepared to support this completely. I would just ask Beyond My Ken to specify how long this civility probation is to be in place. I'm largely unconcerned with the length of time; whatever is considered to be reasonable will be fine with me. I just don't think that this should be an indefinite condition. I have no objection to the interaction ban being indefinite, as far as my half of the ban goes.Mk5384 (talk) 08:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Permanent restrictions aren't possible as it would mean that review isn't possible (and review is always possible, even if it's for the last resort); I don't think the proposer wanted a null/void restriction, so he probably meant that this restriction is for an indefinite period of time - in other words, the restriction would be in force for as long as it needs to be inforce. As for when you may ask for it to be reviewed, in the absence of any other specifications in the restriction on this point, 6 to 12 months is usually what is suggested. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
That would be fine.Mk5384 (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, providing I'm permitted to do so here. If not, feel free to strike or remove.Mk5384 (talk) 09:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • A civility parole is just a notice that you're on zero tolerance for personalising disputes. I think that is reasonable in this case. Mk5384 has got himself into a bad place from which it's difficult to extract himself, but it's not impossible and accepting such a restriction, as he apparently does, demonstrate an intent to accept the feedback he's getting from a lot of sources right now. How long? A couple of months maybe. I don't think it will take long to work out whether it's working or not. At the same time it would probably help if OberRanks were to leave him alone. I believe a mentor would also help, if a suitable one can be found. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Ncmvocalist says above, that it would be reasonable to request a review after 6 to 12 months, and that is fine with me. And thank you for concurring that things would be better if another user and I were forbidden to interact. As far as a mentor, I'm still not especially keen on that idea. I have made a habit of asking Xeno for advice and instruction, and have now taken to seeking your counsel, as well. If, it should happen, that I find myself in violation of this civility probation (I certainly have no intention of doing that, but would be remiss if I didn't acknoweledge the possibility), perhaps I would be willing to rethink that. For now, I'd prefer to go forward with the stated conditions, and see how it goes. I think that it's clear that I have rethought a lot of things, and have attempted to make certain changes. And as Lar said, with which I agreed, there is still room for potential improvement. I think that my committment to improvement, coupled with the interaction ban's removal of potentially incendiary situations will serve as a catalyst for good things to come.Mk5384 (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Sounds fine. Would that more people had these, to be honest. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: seems reasonable. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, I think it's the least onerous restriction able to help to solve this issue. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 11:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support as written. Regarding the below #Statement from OberRanks, I should point out that if this interaction ban carries it will be in effect regardless of whether either party explicitly accepts it, and (on its own) will certainly not be taken as any kind of "vindication" nor "condemnation" of either party: it is simply a recognition of the fact that these two editors do not get on well together and should be segregated. –xenotalk 13:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I have no doubt it will pass. I do still stress my concern about point #1 in my statement. Beyond that, of course I will accept whatever measures the community agrees upon without any dispute. -OberRanks (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I concur with Xeno: the interaction ban needs to be both ways to be effective, but does not imply any specific judgment regarding the causes of the problem, it merely acknowledges its existence and tries to separate the parts of the system. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support civility restriction and interaction ban, noting xeno and BMK's comments above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Moderate SupportI think the one week block limit in the last paragraph is un-necessary. The time limit should be left open, so that the block's chilling effect can match the particular disruption. Otherwise a fine proposal.--Adam in MO Talk 18:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support I also support the Statement from OberRanks and encourage Mk5384 to consider apologizing to him before the interaction ban becomes effective. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Both the RfC and this ban discussion should probably be closed out. There seems to be overwhealming consensus and not really much more to say. -OberRanks (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The consensus for the civility restriction and the interaction ban are clear. As the proposer, I shouldn't close it out, and since admins will have to enforce it, it would be best for an uninvolved admin to do so, and to log it at WP:Editing restrictions. I'll post something on AN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
May I request, that once that has been done, the conditions officially decided upon be posted on my talk page, so that I may refer to them as needed?Mk5384 (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The restriction(s) will not be in force until the subjects have been notified on their talk pages. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support – A much better idea than an indefinite ban, and will probably iron out the problems while still keeping possibly constructive editors. MC10 (TCGBL) 05:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Restrictions are now enacted based on unanimous and clear community consensus. If either party wants to question the validity of this enactment, they may request any uninvolved administrator (within 24 hours of their next edit) to confirm. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement from OberRanks[edit]

  • I support the civility restrictions on MK but provisionally oppose the interaction ban for the following reasons:
  1. My deepest concern with an interaction ban is that MK stated at least three times (probably more) during the RfC that "If it can be proved that OberRanks lied during the RfC he must accept an Interaction Ban"[25] or words to that affect. I strongly feel that if this Interaction Ban passes it will be a green light for MK to basically disregard the entire RfC under the belief that he proved it was maliciously filed and a lie.
  2. MK and I have had a grand total of contact on three articles: John J. Pershing, Alex Haley, and Frank Buckles and on the Buckles article we merely "passed in the night" having no contact with each other. A formal interaction ban is unnecessary since I have no plans to communicate with MK and neither does he with me. In addition, I have never at any time sought out MK or purposefully interjected into an article because he was editing there. I think an agreement to stay out of each others way is all that is needed here.
  3. This was the first RfC I had ever attempted and was unaware of many of the procedures. For instance, I thought that the person who opened it had to be the same person to close it. My continued presence at the RfC was also nothing but civil. I at no time attacked MK, offered reconciliation gestures several times, and other editors commented several times as to how restrained I was [26]. A lot of people were annoyed with me on that page nonetheless, but every time someone suggested I back off, that is exactly what I did without hesitation or debate. The return to the page at the end was for the sole purpose of closing it and my edits were strictly administrative or to answer direct questions.
  4. I feel that this Interaction Ban will somehow justify that I am "part of problem" - that I behaved improperly or committed the same manner of attacks on Mk as he committed against me. And, let us not forget, that Mk did beyond any shadow of a doubt commit very serious personal attacks against me to include comments about my character, my service in the United States military, as well as calling me a liar so many times that I have lost count[27] [. I feel many are seeing this Interaction Ban as a type of punishment, yet the only thing I did was have the courage to stand up to MK and call him to account with an RfC.

With all that said, I would be potentially willing to accept the Interaction Ban if:

  1. MK admits that the RfC was not a lie
  2. MK makes a simple apology about comments that I was a liar and comments about degrading my military service.

I will even start the process and state to MK that I am sorry for all these bad things and bad feelings on Wikpedia. I am 35 year old man with a family, full time job, and military career. I do not come on Wikipedia to harass people or cause problems, but to help better this project. I hope you see that and see that I am not your enemy. Thank you. -OberRanks (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

  • An interaction ban is not a declaration of fault, it's a recognition that the two of you don't get along and if Mk is going to get himself out of the fix he's in then it' going to require space, specifically a separation from you. Guy (Help!) 19:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Morrow321 and Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination[edit]

On the talk page of John F. Kennedy assassination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Morrow321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) continues to insert a lengthy tl;dr diatribe accusing a man by the name of Billie Sol Estes of orchestrating the murder along with Lyndon Johnson. Original addition, my initial reversion, subsequent addition. This is just the latest in a lengthy string of JFK-centric lunacy from this particular account, which (aside from this lovely addition to Chelsea Clinton's biography three years ago) seems to be a JFK-centric single-purpose-account. I reported this to the BLP Noticeboard, but that just gave him another venue to copy-paste his spiel, and rather than get sucked down into an earnestly tedious discussion over whether edits like "Lyndon B. Johnson [is] a STONE COLD KILLER" (insert your favorite Steve Austin joke here) are in keeping with site policies or not, as Jojhutton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) seems to be in favor of, I figured it'd be best to get some eyes from here. Badger Drink (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it's already on the BLP noticeboard. Toddst1 (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
At the risk of repeating myself, I'll repeat myself: "I reported this to the BLP Noticeboard, but that just gave him another venue to copy-paste his spiel, and rather than get sucked down into an earnestly tedious discussion over whether edits like "Lyndon B. Johnson [is] a STONE COLD KILLER" (insert your favorite Steve Austin joke here) are in keeping with site policies or not, as Jojhutton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) seems to be in favor of, I figured it'd be best to get some eyes from here." Badger Drink (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The Billie Sol Estes article is not BLP compliant in any case - it has one good reference, several broken or low-quality links, and a whole crapload of novel synthesis. The Time story establishes notability beyond a shadow of a doubt, but that article needs serious trimming. Gavia immer (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Why not just direct him here to this article:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories...Modernist (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Because unsourced potential BLP violations on the conspiracy theory page are still unsourced potential BLP violations? Look through his contribs, particularly those to Chelsea Clinton. AGF is not a suicide pact - some people just don't have anything positive and/or productive to offer. Mickey Mantle was a great baseball player, but he wouldn't serve much purpose on a soccer team. Badger Drink (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Badger, you can have any opinion that you want about the JFK assassination and that is fine, but Wikipedia needs to stick to the facts and reliable sources pertaining to it. And that is the crux of the problem, Wikipedia features on its JFK Assassination page the discredited Warren Report and the report of the discredited HSCA as if those were reliable sources for info when in fact they are NOT. What is particularly disturbing is the listing of Lee Harvey Oswald as a "belligerent" when there is not a SHRED of proof that he was. Most of the serious JFK assassination researchers that I know that that it was either Lyndon Johnson or the CIA who murdered John Kennedy for a variety of reasons, both personal and ideological. I can list many authors and credible researchers who think this - the best ones on the country. However you would not know that looking at the mainpage of Wikipedia, which continues to push the discredited Warren Report and the HSCA as well. Here is an example of the kind of info that Wiki readers need to be exposed to - it is a LOT more accurate than Warren Report disinfo, lies, propaganda.

From Defrauding America, Rodney Stich, 3rd edition 1998 p. 638-639]:

“The Role of deep-cover CIA officer, Trenton Parker, has been described in earlier pages, and his function in the CIA's counter-intelligence unit, Pegasus. Parker had stated to me earlier that a CIA faction was responsible for the murder of JFK … During an August 21, 1993, conversation, in response to my questions, Parker said that his Pegasus group had tape recordings of plans to assassinate Kennedy. I asked him, "What group were these tapes identifying?" Parker replied: "Rockefeller, Allen Dulles, JOHNSON of Texas, GEORGE BUSH, and J. Edgar Hoover." I asked, "What was the nature of the conversation on these tapes?"

I don't have the tapes now, because all the tape recordings were turned over to [Congressman] Larry McDonald. But I listened to the tape recordings and there were conversations between Rockefeller, [J. Edgar] Hoover, where [Nelson] Rockefeller asks, "Are we going to have any problems?" And he said, "No, we aren't going to have any problems. I checked with Dulles. If they do their job we'll do our job." There are a whole bunch of tapes, because Hoover didn't realize that his phone has been tapped." Defrauding America, Rodney Stich, p. 638-639]: Morrow321 (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, can I request that some competent administrator read the above and WP:BLP and Siegenthaler incident and just go right to the indefinite block? Pretty please? We can still have a bunch of drama and bloviation if anyone wants to, but we shouldn't be allowing this editor to edit if the above is their sole reason for doing so. Gavia immer (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Since it's clear Morrow321 is not here to build an encyclopedia, but to push his theories on how JFK was killed, I have blocked him indefinitely. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
"Reliable sources on Wikipedia include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." Stich's Defrauding America is published by Diablo Western Press, which doesn't even have a website, and exists as little more than a PO box. I can't even find anything else published by them. It appears to be self-published, which means it's not a reliable source. Stich later changed the name to Silverpeak publishing, which only publishes stuff by him and appears to be little more than a smokescreen to try and make himself look different from the sort of fellow lives in his mother's basement and works a part time job to pay for "publishing" his communist newsletter at Kinko's. Of course Stich is not looking to play off of people's desire to be part of an adventure for the money at all, he just wants to get the truth known. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Billie Sol Estes was best known (or maybe only known) for his role in a fertilizer scandal of some kind, during his time in the LBJ administration. And since he's still alive, BLP dictates we shouldn't be publishing crazy stories about him and the JFK assassination. Billie Sol is pretty much forgotten today, which I expect is just fine with him, but he was big news at the time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
He took almost every cent, from the U.S. Government, and spent it on fertilizer which was silly. PhGustaf (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I was "that close" to adding that Allan Sherman item to my comment. Jolly good. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Quite. I don't have any problem with covering his troubles in the 1960s, but he is still a living person, and his article was as bad as Siegenthaler's. That I don't find acceptable. Gavia immer (talk) 02:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Ahem! The Biographies of Living Persons policy applies to this noticeboard, and to Rodney Stich just as much as to M. Estes and M. Clinton. Thank you. Uncle G (talk) 03:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Your concern is noted. --Calton | Talk 10:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Look, the guy is obviously rubber room crazy and so are all his posts. If that's not worth a ban, nothing is. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)



Could an administrator please take a quick look at the situation here. Not in an administrative capacity, but just to provide a bit of advice:

[28] [29] [30] [31]

Edit: I initially posted the third link twice. I have now corrected this. WFC (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I accept that my talk page comment could at a push be perceived as snidy, but otherwise I believe I have acted properly, and given the IP's edit summary after explaining my reversion I'm finding it difficult to assume good faith. Please also note that I have not informed the user directly. I know that it is normally the done thing, but looking at the interaction I have had thus far with the user, I do not believe that it would be constructive, and therefore request that the first person that reads this does so on my behalf. Regards, WFC (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not format this at all well. Here is the initial edit that started it all: [32] WFC (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
User notified. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 13:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
My opinion, however, is that this doesn't belong on ANI; it's just a content dispute, that should be resolved on the talk page or through dispute resolution. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 13:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I accept that the content issue is for dispute resolution, and will take it there. However, what I'm worried about (as expressed here) is the possibility of being drawn into a dilemma of whether or not I am violating WP:3RR. Clearly this user has a good awareness of policy, and in all probability it is a registered user. I want to know what would happen if two more edits were made effectively attacking me (civilly or otherwise), and I considered whether to revert the second one. As demonstrated above, I have expressed my willingness to let the edit stand if a neutral edit summary is provided. Regards, WFC (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, in my opinion, it's not vandalism; so it wouldn't justify breaking 3-rr. But that's only my opinion. If it's ok by you, I'm going to reinsert it with a neutral edit summary, if inappropriate edit summaries your only worry. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 14:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm happy enough with that. Regards, WFC (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Glad to help. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 14:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

─────────────────────────This is why people are leaving Wikipedia in their droves, and will continue to do so. All I have done is revert an edit with a thinly veiled snipe in the summary, revert an edit with a very clear personal attack in the summary, seek external help here, and then at the administrator's request WP:THIRD, and in my irritation and haste edit straight away, rather than taking a minute to read (which is uncharacteristic). And what do I get for my troubles? The previously helpful admin who had committed to reversing the edit neutrally taking sides, and [ this, from someone supposedly used to diffusing these types of situations]. Is it really so difficult to seek external opinions from editors in good standing? WFC (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Rather than getting into an edit war, the best thing is to bring up the topic on the article's talk page and see what the consensus - especially when more than one editor reverts you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
That's precicely what I did do (and am still requesting that more people get involved in that discussion). My gripe is that the administrator that promised to intervene neutrally pending that discussion, did the precise opposite, explicitly taking "sides". If s/he wished to do that, s/he should not have gotten involved as a third party, but instead have done the edit directly. Having let that slide, and taken the aforementioned administrator's advice to go to WP:THIRD, I am then attacked by an editor supposedly adept at dealing with aggrieved editors who are otherwise in good standing. WFC (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Side note: I'm not an admin and I didn't think the way I phrased the reversion would cause trouble: there's no offence to you and it's just my opinion... However, I'm really sorry WP:3O was not the place to go... Quite frankly, I'd have made that very mistake. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 16:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
My apologies, both for the tone of my post, and for not realising that you weren't an admin. I'm just annoyed that (although by my own admission clearly irritated) I otherwise feel that I have acted in good faith, with unfortunate results. WFC (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Reverting an edit because you don't like the edit summary, is not appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
But antagonising someone who has attempted to do the right thing, whilst admitting fault, is clearly entirely appropriate. Regards, WFC (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
One risk is that the debate over that article could end up in that article. That would be the ultimate non-achievement. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


Moved to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 July 12: AzaToth 01:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Elockid's judgment displays bias (but doesn't allege vandalism)[edit]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Below is the evidence in a case judged by Elockid a few minutes ago.

Evidence submitted by Jc3s5h (talk)

The editor is again editing Talk:Julian calendar; The edit summary contains a personal attack against User:Chris Bennett and me; we have both been active in this SPI. The IP is located in London. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

So saying about an editor "all pretence of reason is cast aside, to reveal the pitiful, naked troll beneath", describing her as a "hydra - headed Intercalary Fool" and unjustly accusing her (in an SPI) of lying about the date of adoption of the Eastern European calendar in the Soviet Union is not a personal attack meriting a block while an unspecified alleged personal attack is? Pull the other one, please. (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

User notified; next time you discuss someone on ANI, please leave {{subst:ANI-notice}} on their talk page. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 14:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Since the OP has helpfully drawn attention to their block evasion, I've blocked them for 55 hours. TNXMan 14:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

(1) I notified the parties before Salvio giuliano posted here.

(2) An experienced contributor, User:4twenty42o says it is legitimate to operate two accounts, but a third is a sock puppet. There is nothing in the guidance about that at all.

(3) This is where I asked Elockid for a few details so we could find out where (s)he is coming from. We're still waiting for them.

It's noon British Summer Time on Friday, 2nd July, 2010. Having made a post to ANI I called up the user page of the person mentioned to notify them as per rules, only to discover that Elockid had blocked me from editing one minute before. Administrators should allow users to give the required notices before blocking. They should also only block after discussion (e.g. on ANI or SPI). There are outstanding discussions on ANI and SPI but in neither case has Elockid posted his/her reason for blocking. The block notice states "Block evasion - see SPI" which seems to me deliberately vague. As a minimum the notice should state the date of the block, expiry date and account, with an explanation of why it is considered that this block is being evaded. Meletian (talk) 11:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
That previous post was from (talk · contribs), now blocked for block evasion. Toddst1 (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Approval required[edit]

Hi there. Just wondered if someone could look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rehab (album). Its a deletion nomination for The Rehab (album) made by myself. It's proven a contentious issue with one user clearly disputing the small consensus to delete. However I brought up the suggestion to perhaps the article could be sent to the WP:INCUBATOR instead. It was supported by the main opposing editor as well as by one of the other editors who voted to delete the album. Could someone see if that is an appropriate action for the AfD and take the appropriate steps to incubute the article if that's the case? Regards --Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you leave it for the closing admin to decide? As far as I can see, you haven't got a confirmed release date or track listing yet, so it could still be justifiable to delete --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


Resolved: Smk42 (talk · contribs) and IllaZilla (talk · contribs) both blocked 24h GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I am having major problems with Smk42 (talk · contribs) at the moment. He is editing List of emo artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) from a completely POV standpoint, removing any artist that he does not agree with (even though they are all referenced to reliable sources describing them as emo), and adding numerous artists of his own without citing a single source. I have given him multiple warnings for engaging in original research and failing to cite any sources, and his response has been to call me "Hitler" and declare that "All you need are eyes and ears here, and not all lists need a reference", "I'm getting the crap:quality ratio closer to 1:1", and saying that refernces are "irrelevant ... no one should even care about or need to see. People that know just know". He has made it quite clear here that he seeks to push his own opinion on what bands are "emo" and which ones aren't, regardless of what any sources say. A lot of discussion and consensus-building has gone into making sure that each entry in List of emo artists is supported by at least 1 reliable source, and the article has even been semi-protected for an entire year specifically to prevent this type of POV edit-warring. Smk42 basically flips the bird to all that, declaring himself the arbiter of what is "true" emo and what is not, removing sources to published books and stating that even Rolling Stone is wrong, while he himself cites absolutely no sources for any of the artists he is adding. As he has already received a final warning, I belive administrative action is in order. This blatant POV-pushing, name-calling, and flippant disregard for sourcing is unacceptable from someone who has been editing here for 2½ years. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I would apologize to any Admin. even having to read this as there's nothing to see here but a guy being a Nazi over a topic he has such limited knowledge about, yet thinks he controls everything typed for it. He reverts edits without first discussing them in the Talk page, where I clearly made several remarks about why I removed/added what I did. But he chose to delete rather than reply to many of them. He removed a reference I added for just his sake as I'm sure no one else cares for the band Envy. You can find many lists of bands here that don't contain a reference as it's just not necessary. You either belong or you don't. He seems to think he knows what a reliable source is, yet he writes the main Emo article practically referencing the same one source (a book by some guy with questionable knowledge and factually incorrect statements) about 60 times or something ridiculous like that. And he thinks if he can find one so-called credible source on the internet that says something, then it must be true. No matter if for every one source that says that, you can find 1000 that make no such declaration. He's presenting falsehoods, misleading readers, maintaining a slanted article that lacks tons of real history and information, and he basically is controlling the flow (or essentially stopping) of any new information from ever entering his precious articles. I see him list a band like AFI as being emo, and his excuse is this "credible" reference that was written by The Globe's Nick Parker. Now unfortunately The Globe isn't something like The Boston Globe. Oh no, this "credible" reference is The Globe: The Weekly News of Salt Lake Community College ( Just what we need, a community college student's article determining a consensus definiton of what kind of music a band plays. Look at the comments in that article. The people are trashing the guy that wrote that about AFI. And I know that's not the last of the shady references this user cites as being credible sources. He is making a mockery of these articles by only letting his wrong information remain intact. And who cares if he's been editing here for 2.5 years? I have edits going back to December 2007 and no one's ever gave me a hard time like this Wiki-emo-nazi. I'm not interested in my point of views. I haven't done any original research. I'm interested in getting the facts and right information out there. This user only wants the article to read the way he wrote it, because apparently he is Andy Greenwald or he's being paid something to pimp out Greenwald's book with a ton of references. I've never seen a Wikipedia article reference the same source so many different times as this one. It's just not good writing to rely on one book that is not 100% correct. Let someone else that knows what they're talking about fix this. (Edit: I counted out of curiosity, and he references Greenwald's book 75 times, out of 126 total references used, in the Emo article; that's abusrd. Is this a general article or a re-telling of Greenwald's book?) Smk42 (talk) 10:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
User was blocked for 24 h by SarekOfVulcan. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 10:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Smk42 blocked 24 hours for personal attacks, Illazilla blocked 24 hours for edit warring. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

User bastene, Transformers & self outing.[edit]

bastene (talk · contribs) has only been around for a week, and made half a dozen edits, however all of them have been to remove cited info from Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and Transformers (film) and replace it with what appears to be his own name and those of his friends.

For example - he inserted the Bumblebee character as being played by "Bastene A. Reboldila" - googling that name brings up a facebook entry for same, where the user profile happens to be Bumblebee from Transformers.

Is this self-outing? Is it wise behaviour? His userpage ([33]) contains nothing but warnings about his Transformers edits. And the alert that I've raised this issue.

Diffs: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]

I would have just left a message on his talkpage, but I've actually already done that, (as have many others,) and nothing seemed to happen.

And yes, I'm aware of the irony of possibly outing the guy by bringing it up here as well. Life is full of such merriment. a_man_alone (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It's his own responsibility to protect his own privacy, and since it doesn't seem to be anything explicit anyway, I don't think this is an WP:OUTING. It sounds like disruptive editing however, and the page full of warnings means perhaps a short block will be required. I haven't looked at the diffs or the user's talk page yet however, so I will do so now. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Really this is vandalism, and he's received a level 3 warning. If it persists, issue a level 4 (final) warning and report it to AIV if it keeps going after that. He'll likely be blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account if it persists. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
He hasn't vandalised after Milhanna's level 3 warning. If he restarts, I'd say a block is in order, without having to issue a level 4 warning beforehand. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 13:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Nineteen Nightmares, Recurrence of Personal Attacks and Incivility[edit]

Resolved: User indef blocked by Sarah (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) until he agrees to play by the rules. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Nineteen Nightmares (talk · contribs) had been referred to WQA and then to AN/I. This occurred on June 19, 2010. Following a discussion in which a community block of two to three weeks was discussed, Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs) offered to mentor Nineteen Nightmares, and the AN/I was closed, with a comment that if 19N started such conduct again, to refer it back to an AN/I. These previous attacks typically involved allegations involving our being socks of Dmartinaus (talk · contribs).

Please note that Dmartinaus has been found to be not just a sock, but several pairs of them, with at least five accounts traced to his IP. He was able to keep a BLP about himself alive when notability was clearly lacking by using his socks to vote "keep." This is the content of his character and I would suggest any uninvolved editor actually look at the edits from me as well as Mr. Martin before passing any judgment based on false accusation and innuendo. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Since the AN/I closed, he has done the following:

Note that Dmartinaus served a two-week block for being a puppetmaster, which involved a check-user. SPI is here. Following his block being released, he apparently continued to edit on Austin based articles, but I haven't seen anything with a possible COI that would prompt the above attacks.

Also note that on a separate issue, both myself and Minor4th went through a separate SPI, also involving a check-user. That SPI is here. In that SPI, both Minor4th and I were cleared of the sockpuppet allegations.

I was notified of the attacks by Dmartinaus. I will, immediately after I post this, notify 19N and users that were involved in the initial AN/I.

I would request that an admin look at this and that the proposal for a block be re-opened. The mentorship has apparently not worked - he has continued his pattern less than a month after the ANI. GregJackP Boomer! 20:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have already notified Salvio giuliano, I would like to hear his views on whether the mentorship "failed" before we make any major judgements. S.G.(GH) ping! 20:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I've been mentoring Nineteen Nightmares for few weeks, I don't know what results could be expected in so short a time; however, I think that it is positive that this user was willing to remove an inappropriate edit on my suggestion, because it shows that he is willing to heed advice and change his attitude. As far as the other diffs go, I've read them and, sincerely, I don't see any personal attacks there. He is firm, I grant you that, but he is referring to policy (in my opinion, correctly, by the way) and he is not even incivil. I don't think he needs to be chastised, unless there's something I've missed. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 20:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Salvio, he is accusing us of being socks for Dmartinaus, again per his statement: "If they were not working on your behalf somehow (or more socks?), they would not have made it such a crusade and then had no interest in Wikipedia at all when the dust settled". This is what brought it to AN/I in the first place, and there have been two SPI's that have cleared us of being socks for Martin. GregJackP Boomer! 21:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, that's inappropriate, since you were cleared (however, please, don't get me wrong, but if I recall correctly, your SPI investigation was a little complex, even though, I reiterate, you were cleared), but I don't think that warrants a block. I'll have again a word with 19N, to avoid:
  1. this entire unfortunate matter &
  2. accusing people of socking.
Clearly, I welcome uninvolved input. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 21:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I also welcome uninvolved input - and you might tell him to stay away from making determinations as to who has an interest in Wikipedia or not - I have plenty of contributions that came before the Don Martin article, and have several since, that I'll stack up against any other editor. GregJackP Boomer! 21:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment from involved editor -- I have personally had no interaction with NN since he got a mentor, and I don't intend to have any because he is so unpleasant and does not appear to be capable of controlling his animosity and accusations and venom. I noted that he immediately went to Don Martin's talk page and started in on the attacks and has also continued to make accusations about me and Greg (although he did strike one of them at his mentor's suggestion.) He appears to be wikihounding Dmartinaus right after his two week block. I would recommend an agreed no-contact parole between NineteenNightmares and Dmartinaus. I would also hope that his mentor can successfully counsel him to knock off the accusations about me and Greg. Minor4th • talk 21:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll certainly try; however, if I may, he is so unpleasant and does not appear to be capable of controlling his animosity and accusations and venom are not very kind words... Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 21:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
They may not be kind, but Minor4th was accurate in his description.GregJackP Boomer! 21:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
No, they're not very kind words, but soft pedaling is not really helpful here. I have found it necessary to avoid interaction with him, and the context of that decision is relevant to this discussion. It's not like I'm alone in this view, and his behavior is not just offensive to me. There are many he has offended repeatedly, and it apparently continues to this day. I thank you for the work you are doing with him and hope that it is ultimately helpful to him. I do believe that he has difficulty controlling his anger and impulses to act out against people he takes issue with. Minor4th • talk 21:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
My point was that it is a little inconsistent to come here complaining about someone else's personal attacks, throwing in personal attacks against them; however, if you're keeping an eye on Nineteen Nightmares' talk page, you'll have seen that I've asked him to keep away from everything even remotely related to this entire unfortunate affair, hoping this will help. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 22:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm on no-drama week, but a note on my talk page specifically brought me here, so I'll suspend my no-drama pledge for long enough to say: The diffs above are not enough to show that Salvio's mentorship of Nineteen Nightmares has failed. In fact, I can see some early evidence that the mentorship may be beginning to succeed. Give it time.—S Marshall T/C 23:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this report, I'm inclined to simply bash the heads of both Dmartinaus and Nineteen Nightmares together. Neither of them have done anything actionable, but Dmartinus is just as guilty of trying to aggravate Nineteen Nightmares [39]. They both need to leave each other alone. --Deskana (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Amen to that! I've posted this almost at the same time... Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 00:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I also agree with Deskana. I really wish these editors would just go their own separate ways and stop commenting to or about each other and stop monitoring what each are doing. I am busy with chapter work and not editing much at present but from a cursory check, I think 19Nightmares has been responding to Salvio's mentorship and the mentorship should be continued if Salvio is happy to do so and feels 19Nightmares has been making progress. As I have told Dmartinaus a number of times, I have concerns about what he's doing here and I was particularly concerned with the "clean-up" mission he was on for days after his block expired, but it's obvious that no productive or constructive discussions will ever come out of this group of editors engaging with each other, so they really need to go their own ways and focus on their own editing without monitoring each other and commenting to/about each other. This whole thing has become too disruptive and too much of a time-sink and if they can't come to an understanding on their own to let each party edit in peace and find their own corners of this very, very large project to work in, the community will just have to take it out of their hands and enforce interaction bans. Sarah 02:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I see I am rowing against the tide trying to do the right thing here, so I will respectfully bow out of keeping a needful eye on Mr. Martin. Someone needs to do it, though, as I've raised some valid concerns and continually been brought to ANI for it. Pretty laughable, but most reasonable people have seen the truth and I think I've made my point. For any concerned admin, I should like to point out that I will follow the advice and wisdom of my Wikipals Salvio or Sarah, both of whom have suggested separation between me and Mr. Martin. They are much, much more Wikisavvy than me, and I love them both for it, so I just gotta defer...Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

All I am requesting is that he stop the personal attacks on me. I have made a point to stay away from him and did not know of this until it was brought to my attention. I just want him to leave me alone, along with any editors or admins that he is associated with. GregJackP Boomer! 07:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Please at least recognize that I didn't start ANY of this. I responded (inartfully) to a series of very, very personal attacks. Nevertheless, as an effort to Assume Good Faith in the other editors here, to take their advice, and to show Civility toward 19N, I am reverting all of my comments about this person on all other pages (mine and his)and striking out the quotations below. And I am moving on to making actual edits to articles again, and not add to this discussion. I have no problem with the suggestion above that he and I not communicate to each other in the future. GregJackP wants the same thing. DmartinausTalk 04:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying you did start it. What I am saying is that if you ask 19Nightmares to stop posting on your page and you don't post on his page or make comments about him elsewhere, and he keeps coming back and posting on your page anyway, one of us would likely block him. But when you have two users taking shots at each other, we are more likely to either block both or neither and 'knock their heads together'. Sarah 06:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Understood. I'm learning not to respond but it's hard. Note: Previous quotes posted here from NN have been removed by me to help promote WP:CIV civility. Comments have also been removed from all other pages as well. DmartinausTalk 11:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Spamfilter his emails and you won't have to read them. I do understand why you want to portray yourself into the victim role here, Dmartinaus, and I don't think you're succeeding.—S Marshall T/C 00:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Just because the respected editors who had the decency to cut him slack the first two times around. It needs to stop. Minor4th • talk 00:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

@ Dmartinaus -- ignore him and don't respond as I counseled you on your talk page. You have offended plenty of people as well, and now it's time to make good on your second chance by being productive and avoiding these unpleasantries. It takes two to keep the drama going. Minor4th • talk 00:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Excellent advice that I should have taken 100% at the beginning. I had actually written point-by-point responses but decided not to send them and thus prolong the fight. It is just so infuriating to be characterized as the money-grubbing bad guy businessman. From now on I am blanking his emails and not responding. So on to more productive activities and edits. DmartinausTalk 01:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh geez -- I had not ventured over to NN's talk page to see the commentary you left for him. Don, you make it really hard to stick up for you when you're treated badly because you give as well as you get and even up the ante. I am not your mentor, of course, but like Salvio advised NN, I am asking you to stay away from everything related to NineteenNightmares. Please do not comment on his talk page, and consider reverting yourself on those edits on his talk page because Salvio was right, you are taunting him. Minor4th • talk 02:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Done. DmartinausTalk 04:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • As I just noted above, I just want 19N to leave me out of his comments. It was not appropriate for 19N to leave a diatribe on Dmartinaus' talk page, nor to make the comments that he made about his recent block. While I note that Dmartinaus did not start this, he should not have gone over to 19Ns talk page either. I don't really care what either one of them do, so long as I am left out of it. GregJackP Boomer! 07:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd eco the above. To everyone who's bashing me for responding, please keep in mind that I didn't start ANY of this. I only responded (yes, in anger) after three days of repeated accusatory and rambing messages from him. Surely many of you would have responded as well if you were being attacked in such volume. Next time I will have learned this lesson and ignore him completely (which is easy for you all to say but very hard to do when you are being personally attacked). Honestly I'd be perfectly happy to never post another word about him. Or as suggested above, perhaps a mutual pact not to ever post about each other. Meanwhile out of a desire to show and promote civility WP:CIV and in respect of the comments from many editors here about how I should not have responded, I have removed all of my remarks about him on all pages. And as you can see from my log I have gone back to making constructive edits as well. DmartinausTalk 11:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Why not just put a communication ban in place? Or something like that? That way the drama of 19, Greg, and Dmartinaus ends. Caden cool 14:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
What's involved? I haven't been communicating with him or having any interactions, so it wouldn't be an issue on my part. GregJackP Boomer! 14:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Greg I don't know. Maybe Sarah or Deskanna can figure something out? I'm just saying that a ban of some kind could be good. Sort of like the way topic bans are set up? I know it worked for me when the community topic banned me. Caden cool 15:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Sarah's an involved party, having made similar statements in the past. I don't have a problem with another admin figuring it out, but I do have an issue with her being involved in the solution. GregJackP Boomer! 18:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I've followed the actions of NN for a time, and agree with Caden that an interaction ban between NN and Dmartinaus would be a good idea. RadManCF open frequency 20:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Greg -- why don't you modify your opening post and include a specific proposal to this effect and whatever kind of sanction to keep NN from making any more accusations about you, and propose a duration, etc. so that folks can see that there's something to vote on support or oppose. Minor4th • talk 21:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Greg and Dmartinaus have both agreed on my talk page to sort of a gentlemen's agreement, by which all editors are to keep away from each other's talk page and not to interact with one another (not reverting each other's edits and not talking to one another), except to report someone to ANI, should this agreement fail.
So far, Nineteen Nightmares hasn't commented, but that's due to the fact that he hasn't edited since yesterday afternoon. If he were to willingly abide by that agreement, then a formal discussion could be superfluous, in my opinion. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 21:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • One proposal: I have stated to Salvio that I would be completely willing to simply give my personal word that I won't make any edits relating to 19 or his work, or to post any comments on his page or elsewhere in return for the same. I'm sure Greg would agree likewise. I would hope we can all be trusted with our word (and I am sure many editors are monitoring for such anyway) without an elaborate technical scheme. Salvio appears to like the plan, too, but says it is just a matter of getting in touch with 19 to see if he would accept it as well. Personally I would not place a duration on it. I'd let it run forever. As to sanctions I leave that to whatever the other editors here decide. DmartinausTalk 21:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I would prefer to wait and see if 19N is agreeable, per Salvio's comments above, plus he has a right to be heard before the community decides something unilaterally. If that fails, then we can move forward with community sanctions, etc. GregJackP Boomer! 22:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 22:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Trying to move on[edit]

Nineteen Nightmares has agreed to stay away from Mr. Martin. Now, I'm not too keen on wikilawyering, so I'll keep it simple. All involved parties have agreed to avoid each other, this means they'll not talk or refer to one another or post to or edit each other's main page, talk page, archive, articles being edited, or any other ceaeted page involving the other person (except to report each other, if admin intervention is required — but, please, try to do that only when absolutely necessary) and will not revert, undo or otherwise tweak each other's edits. If nobody objects to my summary, I think we could mark this resolved and move on to something a tad more constructive. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 11:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fine as regards to Martin, but I haven't seen that he has agreed to the same as regards to myself or Minor4th, and would prefer that 19N state that he agrees to the same for us, especially since it was his comments on me that brought us back here. GregJackP Boomer! 13:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Salvio, I am happy with that overall language. I added another line or two to yours (in bold ital) for consideration to include, for clarity. Do you want to add a short sentence too re sanctions? I strongly think this needs to be a "signed" agreement and not simply an unsigned agreement to your summary. There are a few minor details that also need to be added or clarified. I'll take a stab at proposing something, but there is no pride of authorship. Anyone should feel free to edit it. DmartinausTalk 17:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I am offering draft Proposed Agreement language subject subject to edits and discussion by others. But let's not prolong it for too long, and lets get this OVER WITH. DmartinausTalk 17:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
By Mutual Agreement: Nineteen Nightmares and Dmartinaus (or their successor name changes if any) hereby agree to completely avoid each other. This means they'll not talk or refer to one another, or post to or edit each others main page, talk page, archive, articles being edited, or any other current or future created pages involving the other person, or ask other editors to act in their behalf re the same (except to report each other, if admin intervention is required — but, please, try to do that only when absolutely necessary) and will not revert, undo or otherwise tweak each others edits. Furthermore, Nineteen Nightmares and GregJackP and Minor4th) agree to the same terms above as respect to Nineteen Nightmares.and either of them. It is anticipated that other editors will monitor this action from time to time and if such editors find that any party has violated the agreement they shall be subject to an immediate minimum three month block, which they may appeal for good reason. This agreement shall be posted on each parties archive page for future reference.
Agreed, by Dmartin Austin 9 July 2010 DmartinausTalk 17:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed by GregJackP Boomer! 21:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC) as modified as of the date/time of signing. .
Agreed by .
Agreed by .</>

  • Unnecessarily detailed. The original was fine, so long as all agree to it. Any sanctions if needed later can be determined at the time. All I need is 19N to say that he'll leave me alone and I'll AGF that he'll abide by it. GregJackP Boomer! 18:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
    I posted without noticing your edit; in short, I agree. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 18:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree about leaving out sanctions. DmartinausTalk 19:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I really just want to be left out of it. I don't need an agreement from NN about me because I don't really care what he says about me. I find it easy enough to avoid him and ignore what he says, and he has not approached me or tried to initiate any interaction. Minor4th • talk 18:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have some qualms about "articles being edited": as long as you don't tweak each other's edits, it should be fine (for instance, you edit a section of an article, while Nineteen Nightmares edits another). And the "or any other created page involving the other person" part, sincerely, leaves me puzzled. But I'm not the one who has to agree to anything.
I also think that three month blocks are an overkill. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 18:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. Please just edit as necessary. I do think it needs to be "formalized" however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I ws on the phone and forgot to log in. DmartinausTalk 19:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Salvio - re the "articles created involving the other person" is like if GregJackP does another future article on the lawsuit, on the retrial, for example.... None of us need NN jumping into that all over again. DmartinausTalk 19:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Further edits made above.DmartinausTalk 19:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Struck posting on user's talk page archive - it will be archived here automatically. GregJackP Boomer! 21:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, so here's the current redacted version, I think. Comments? Edits? DmartinausTalk 21:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Nineteen Nightmares and Dmartinaus agree to completely avoid each other. This means they'll not talk or refer to one another, or post to or edit each others main page, talk page, archive, or any other current or future created pages involving the other person, or ask other editors to act in their behalf re the same and will not revert, undo or otherwise tweak each others edits. Furthermore, Nineteen Nightmares and GregJackP agree to the same terms above as respect to Nineteen Nightmares and GregJackP.
Agreed by DmartinausTalk 17:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed by GregJackP Boomer! 21:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC) as modified as of the date/time of signing. .
Agreed by .

  • Comment I should think the opposition would like that agreement because it basically solves the problem of Martin and Co. doing whatever it wants, whenever it wants, without oversight. The only problem this agreement solves is Martin's own, in effect giving him free reign to continue his behaviors, which it has been proven, are not in agreement with site policies. The guy was found to be a sock, had a very short ban, and now is back adding autobiographical material to other articles, when his own was deleted for lack of notability in the first place. If his development is near, but not in the City of Round Rock, why is it mentioned at all in an article about the city? It also is listed as the number two commercial development in the area. What about number one? And, why would we add there is a commercial development near a town when in fact we do not do this with articles on New York City or any other? These are legitimate questions based on Wikipedia policy, but each time it is pointed out, he responds with some kind of ANI. His contributions have been wholly self serving, even to the degree he snowed over an AfD on his own BLP by creating at least five fake accounts and voting 'keep' with each one as the discussion continued. Only when the sockputtetry was discovered (because I was screaming about it and was referred to ANI by the same people), was the article deleted as any non-notable article would here at Wiki.
I'd also like to point out that almost every claim about my behavior has been false, misleading or simply made up, as in the case of Mr. Martin claiming I was harrassing him for three days. I simply asked him to stop re-adding the deleted material and he opened an ANI for incivility almost instantaneously, though there was no personal attack whatsoever contained in the message on his talk page. My own mentor, Salvio, stated as much saying he didn't see any personal attack, because there wasn't one. This is a lot of wishful thinking on Mr. Martin's part and a further attempt to silence the opposition.
Furthermore, I have not personally attacked anyone. I'd like to see some actual proof when these accusations are laid because honestly I have not had the time to try and correct all the incorrect assumptions and accusations that have been thrown around by a very vocal group of biased Wikipedians. And I won't. I have better things to do and I just don't have time for kindergarten shenanigans.
May I also add that anything I have said pales in comparison to the legitimate personal attacks that this group (including Minor4th, GregJackP and Martin himself) have laid here and elsewhere against me. Additionally, any time I bring up an apparent discrepancy in an article, any one of the group will skip off to ANI. How about answering the concerns? How about discussion? Nope. Instant ANI. Instant waste of time. This discussion is now showing at 40kb based on me asking Martin to stop adding his no