Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive713

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:DÜNGÁNÈ instigating other user against me[edit]

Resolved: No personal attack here; Gun Powder Ma withdraws complaint. No further drama desired. Quigley (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I did not even know User:DÜNGÁNÈ until yesterday, but just saw by chance that he has been instigating at least one other user (User:Aua) against me in a veritable pamphlet. The same he did on List of inventions in medieval Islam, where he suddenly came out of the blue, having to the best of my knowledge never shown an interest in the article in the past. This has clearly had an effect on User:Aua (who is new to me either) who ironically first seemed to regard me as Sinophile, but then promptly swung around to classify me as "equally critical of all non-Western lists. Whatever happened to honest contributing!" (1).

Given how elaborated and unprovoked DÜNGÁNÈ's attack on me has been, I request a disciplinary block. By stirring up resentment against me he is bringing WP down to a low human level and there should be no excuse for that. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: he has also been instigating other users against User:Aua. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Although I seem to be one of the "instigated" in this complaint, Gun Powder Ma did not alert me to this board. On the other hand, he did notify four other users heretofore uninvolved in this matter. The justification for this apparent canvassing is that they are "active at Talk:List of inventions in the medieval Islamic world", but the arbitrary list could just be a few of Gun Powder Ma's wikifriends. I don't think DÜNGÁNÈ's post to me was instigative. It simply alerted me to a series of instigative posts by Aua at Talk:List of Chinese inventions#This article is trash, which lamented the length and details of the entries, accusing contributors and discussants, including me, of being prideful Chinese (not true on both counts). Also, it's not true that you "did not even know DÜNGÁNÈ until yesterday". You have a history of hostility against him dating back at least a year, from accusing him of having a "false Chinese ethnic pride" and a "deep-rooted anti-Western bias" to telling him that he "confirm[s] the stereotype that Wikipedia is only flocked by nerds and singles with no life". This common type of battleground language makes working in China-related articles very stressful and sensitizes users working in this area to ethnic attacks against users perceived to be Chinese. Quigley (talk) 10:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
It should be mentioned that User:Quigley holds a grudge against me and, just as User:DÜNGÁNÈ now does, likes to talk about my person, not my edits. He is the person User:DÜNGÁNÈ has notified about User:Aua. But this is all ancillary to my inquiry here which is how the community views DÜNGÁNÈ's attack on me. I repeat I do not know DÜNGÁNÈ, the one-year old link you have posted is about some user named Дунгане. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a grudge against you, and it's uncivil for you to suggest that. DÜNGÁNÈ, fyi, is Дунгане in the Latin alphabet; he got a username change. To address your complaint, this mountain of a molehill began when Aua confronted you about your blanking at List of inventions in medieval Islam. Aua wrongly perceived from your username that you were ethnic Chinese, and that you were removing entries on that Islam list as a way to bolster Chinese inventions. Aua then made a series of offensive comments at Talk:List of Chinese inventions#This article is trash suggesting that the featured list is a product of "national pride run amok", promising to cut it down, eye-for-an-eye, to hurt (the supposedly prideful Chinese) Gun Powder Ma. DÜNGÁNÈ's message to Aua was not an attack on you, but a demonstration to Aua that your agenda on Wikipedia is clearly not to bolster Chinese achievements, an idea you agree with. Now it seems you've reconciled yourself with Aua, so the sensible solution to this problem is for you to make a similar friendly overture to DÜNGÁNÈ instead of asking for a block. Quigley (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Gun Powder Ma, Дунгане has had several name changes. Дунгане's battlefield mentality seems to originate this time last year; his own behaviour has been less the exemplar.Nev1 (talk) 11:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(ri) I feel like I have to say something since I have the distinct pleasure of being both instigated and instigated against. First, a reply to Quiqley: no, I did NOT come to the Chinese list seeking revenge. If you check my edit history, you will see this [1] before Gun Powder Ma did anything to me and before my reply to him. Timestamps don't lie, although I can understand why you would think that way given my earlier confusion about his contribution pattern. I need to assure you again that my edits to the Chinese list were before I ever encountered Gun Powder Ma or ever heard of him, and my concerns about the length were expressed before and I still stand by them.

Back to the issue here: DÜNGÁNÈ. He is pretty edgy, and on consistent basis too. I don't know about a block, but he definitely needs to be less defensive/offensive when dealing with other contributors. You saw the way he jumped on the IP's suggestion, and then the way he assumed I was a sockpuppet, and how he assumed that me asserting there is lots of national pride was an attack on the contributors.

I didn't deal with the issue perfectly, but you really can't say I was being offensive (save for an ESL remark, which was totally justified. Remember DUNGANE corrected my grammar).

People, just take it easy.

Cheers!

Λuα (Operibus anteire) 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Huh? Is this report a misunderstanding? I think matters started at Talk:List of inventions in the medieval Islamic world#Gun Powder where Aua made a misguided post with erroneous claims of vandalism directed at Gun Powder Ma (GPM). Then Bloodofox gave a polite comment supporting (by implication) the edits made by GPM to the article. I added a more pointy response to Aua noting that use of rollback and claims of vandalism where inappropriate. One of Aua's replies seemed to suggest that the "Chinese list" had some problems, and there may have been a hint that GPM had some preference for deleting items from the "medieval Islamic" list than from the Chinese list. At that point, DÜNGÁNÈ made a comment in reply to Aua, but indented the message as if replying to GPM. My reading is that DÜNGÁNÈ was supporting GPM and refuting Aua's position. Just prior to leaving that comment, DÜNGÁNÈ had left a message at User talk:Aua#Personal attacks which I interpret as providing strong support for GPM. As far as I can see, WP:CIVIL has only been breached by Aua, but it looks like that is behind us now. GPM: What is the problem? Johnuniq (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
    • This is getting confusing. :-) I have actually a simple and straightforward complaint: My report is about a personal attack on me by User:DÜNGÁNÈ and nothing else. I am totally fine with User:Aua and comments by User:Quigley are largely irrelevant and have unfortunately only served to distract from the topic. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I see how you are confused, but the message left by DUNGANE was not in defense of Gun Powder Ma, but rather it was referring to me saying there was lots of national pride on the Chinese list talkpage, which DUNGANE took as a personal insult to himself and other contributors for some reason.
Cheers
Λuα (Operibus anteire) 12:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Gun Powder Ma, even though I've tailored my comments to your complaint, your behavior as the complainant is not above scrutiny on this board. Let me say it more clearly: there was no personal attack by DÜNGÁNÈ in the discussion you point to. DÜNGÁNÈ simply provided diffs to Aua to demonstrate that you were not, as Aua originally thought, a nationalistic Chinese editor. DÜNGÁNÈ did this to save a featured list from what he feared would be retributive blanking by Aua against an article Aua thought you favored. Aua has since clarified that retribution is not his intent, so neither you nor DÜNGÁNÈ have any reason to perpetuate this silly dispute. Quigley (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, DÜNGÁNÈ's post complained of cannot remotely be characterized as a personal attack. Sadly GPM carries his battleground mentality with him wherever he goes. Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Still grinding axes, John? Hmm, but now that you say it I have to kind of agree: on a closer look this seems to be more in line with the usual renrou sousuo, certainly a sign of low moral standards but not a personal attack per se. So let's drop this, enough WP drama for today. :-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Andrzejbanas[edit]

Resolved: User:Andrzejbanas notified of thread; 86.135.7.232 warned. No admin action necessary unless 86.135.7.232 acts in an uncivil way again. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way to get this user banned/blocked for a certain period? He has removed all the song genres from Judas without a proper explanation, and I can see from his talk page that he has already been warned about this. 11:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) User:Andrzejbanas was not properly notified about this on his user talk page. Instead 86.135.7.232 made a threatening remark to Andrzejbanas. Andrzejbanas made a perfectly reasonable explanation for his removal of the material: it wasn't sourced. WP:ANI is not the appropriate venue for this kind of dispute, and suggesting bans or blocks or, indeed, getting the user "indefinitely banned forever" is over the top and is not assuming good faith. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The previous "warning" came in the form of another specious "I will get you banned" comment from an IP on the same ISP as this one. Wasn't you, by any chance? Anyway, Andrzejbanas is perfectly right. The genre field is not a plaything for anonymous music experts to decode: unless the genre is self-evident then it does need a source, and seeing as no two reliable sources seem to be able to agree as to exactly what genre Lady Gaga belongs to removing the text from the infobox for now is the right call. No administrative action required here, at least so long as nobody is edit warring. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello all. I removed the genre as there was no obvious explanation within the article suggesting the genre(s), nor was there citations in the infobox. I'm willing to discuss it on the talk page, but I was a bit too bold perhaps. Hope you still don't want to ban me! ;) Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Admin John: conflict of interest?[edit]

At the Talk page of Vincent van Gogh I recently opened a thread entitled "Editorialism" where I expressed particular concern about these remarks "While most of Vincent's late paintings are somber, they are essentially optimistic and reflect a desire to return to lucid mental health. The paintings completed in the days before his suicide are severely dark." which were uncited and had been left unchallenged for nearly two years, in the meantime being copied by dozens, if not hundreds, of mirror sites. I maintain that no art critic now or ever has made any such comment.

The subsequent debate did not go well for me. I was accused over and over again, especially by users Modernist and TruthKeeper88 of making personal attacks. I eventually withdrew. I have archived most of it that I can retrieve here on my Talk pages. I did this because my remarks were contantly being redacted, "archived" or refactored.

During the debate Modernist contacted administrator John asking him to keep "eyes" on the debate, saying it was insane and that I was edgy and agressive. This administrator then contacted me asking me for the IP addresses I had formerly edited under. I declined to give him these, saying that I could not possibly vouchsafe that information nor did I consider it a proper request. I also made it clear that I did not think Modernist tapping the shoulder of a friendily disposed administrator was a proper dispute resolution process. The discussion is here although a significant part has been redacted by John as well as removed from the edit history.

[redacted section]

I have now established that there is a direct connection between [redacted]. If this is challenged I can provide proof by email but any reasonably enterprising enquirer can quickly establish the facts for themselves. In my opinion it would be quite impossible for John not to have known that there was a conflict of interest involved in taking up Modernist's request for "eyes".

I believe this to be unjust and I ask for remedy. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 02:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Being an admin, you'll need videotape proof, and even that will then get him a 1 hour block. :-) North8000 (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Not appropriate lighthearted attempt here, North8000, even though I think I know what you're trying to get at... - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 03:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. North8000 (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

FightingMac, speculation on-wiki concerning the identity of an editor who chooses to edit anonymously is rarely appropriate, and I don't see that this is one of these times. Nor should you disseminate information, whether confirmed or suspected, about an editor's identity, via e-mail or otherwise. If you feel it is essential to pursue this matter, you may send an e-mail to the Arbitration Committee, which has the responsibility for addressing situations involving private information (although recent events have shown that the committee's privacy safeguards are not always impregnible). If the matter does not rise to that level, then it might be best to drop the matter, as I don't see any dispute here sufficiently serious to be worth creating a privacy risk, especially given (among other things) that the editor whom you are seeking to link to an article with a "connected contributor" tag, as best as I can tell, has never edited that article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand the issue. It is the user Modernist who created and edited that article (all of it incidentally with citations which are merely blogs or self-publicised, the subject is arguably not very notable) and it is Modernist who subequently asked for "eyes" from John. FightingMac (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I am annoyed that this issue is treated with such levity and I shall take it the arbitration committee (yet again I now have to spend time to find out how to do this). Of course it a significant matter for an administrator you've never heard of to come bullying their way onto your Talk page and interrogate you about your edit history in connection with a content dispute, and then to discover there is a direct connection with that administrator and the user you are disputing with. That is deeply unfair. Regarding the etiquette of the situation I thought my post sufficiently resepctful of John's privacy. The template {{Connected contributor}} is presumably part of Wikipedia policy and practice. You cannot expect ordinary users to know exactly how to proceed in these cases. I read through the material at the top of the page carefully and it seemed appropiate to post here. FightingMac (talk) 11:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • As far as I can see John raised a genuine concern that FightingMac is using an illegitamite alternative account indeed FightingMac has admitted to have previously editted wikipedia[2] but refuses to disclose the account(s)[3] (IP usernames are accounts and are sanctionable), said disclosure can be done in confidence to a sysop rather than publicly per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. Given that FightingMac's resposne was an attempt to "out" John (a very serious breach of policy) rather than to follow the rules laid down at WP:AGF, WP:SOCK and WP:HARASS, and given the above self-righteous response to Newyorkbrad - why hasn't anybody else blocked FightingMac?--Cailil talk 11:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
    Give over. Someone may well edit legitimately for years on and off as an IP before creating an account. John lilburne (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
@Cailil John never raised any such concern. I am not a sock and I have never had or have an alternative account. I have indeed edited Wikipedia for years and I include many Wikipedians amongst my close friends. It just so happens I have never felt the need to create an account. My editing for the most part was pretty ad hoc, that is to say I would read something and feel moved to contribute. Almost all of my knowledge of Wikipedia's working was gained within this account I have begun. That I was uncertain how to deal with this new issue is proof enough that I am not a seasoned sock-master (whatever). I did not out John. I can finally add that what is at stake here is not my behaviour but John's. I have now emailed arb committee about this issue. Why is my response to Newyorkbrad "self-righteous" and isn't that an uncivil remark to make? FightingMac (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
FightingMac, it's your problem if you aren't getting the hint that your actions here in attempting to do "opposition research" are inappropriate in the extreme. Attempting to post private information on another wikipedian, whether that post is accurate or not, is a very serious kind of harrassment. And BTW John's query to you is precisely what I stated - a concern over the illegitimate use of an alt. account - the avoidance of scrutiny of contribution history is against policy. It is the duty of sysops to investigate issues such as sock-puppetry and if a new account says that they've been editing for years then that account will be looked at whether it turns out to be one or not--Cailil talk 12:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
He wan't concerned that I was a sock-puppet but that I had been editing IP. Here are the commencing exchanges from User_talk:FightingMac#Query my Talk page (note the subtle "presumption of guilt" whereas no charge was laid).
Extended content
What previous user name(s) have you edited under? --John (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
None. FightingMac (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
So what did you mean here when you said you had been editing for years? --John (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
What I meant at Polanski above replying to off2riorob (we're good mates now). All this at Van Gogh begins with this absolutely fantastic flame which I ask you to familiarise yourself with first. Are you an admin? Would you care to comment on that? I put a brief comment on your Talk page but didn't check. Off this afternoon. Might edit further later this evening, otherwise tomorrow morning. Happy to address any valid concerns of yours here but I'm not prepared to spend too much time over them. I am busy and this is just a hobby. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I see, so you have never had a named account and have never been blocked, but have edited for years with an IP address. What is that address please? Yes I am an admin and have been asked to look into your edits by another editor. There is no presumption of guilt at this point and I am just trying to look into your background to see what the next step is towards resolving the situation. --John (talk) 10:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't really understand what your point can be and I have to frankly tell you I that I'm afraid I don't think it worth pursuing the issue with you further. Thank you for your input. FightingMac (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
FightingMac this is dead simple. Your failure to get the point wrt alt. accounts is your problem. You brought yourself to the notice of everyone here in the worst possible way - you don't get to decide who moderates you or how they do it and if you don't like it then that's your problem too.
Not knowing the rules is not an excuse - certainly not in this instance as what you did was try to to undermine John and/or discourage them from moderating you by attempting to use private information (whether accurate or not) against him. That is harrassment as defined by wikipedia, and unless you start recognizing that your actions today have been in violation of WP:BATTLE, WP:AGF and WP:OUT you will continue to have problems because you will have learned nothing from the series of warnings given by admins and arbs--Cailil talk 16:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but I don't have alternative accounts and I don't see why my own privacy is less important than the admin whose conduct I was complaining of i.e. to say why he/she can demand my IP addresses regardless of my own privacy which is extremely important to me and protected carefully. Of course I couldn't provide him/her with my IP addresses. Because you plainly don't get that is why I don't see the point of pursuing this with you. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Whether you were a sock or not is irrelevant. John merely fulfilled his duty by asking you if you had other usernames. In what appears to be an attempt at 'revenge' you decided to attack him with regard to an article neither he nor you have editted, and attempted to use private information as a weapon to intimidate. You are unrepentent of this & have thus far refused to recognize it. That's the problem. And as I said above you don't get to choose who moderates you - further disruption of this project whether to make a point or to haras another editor will be prevented--Cailil talk 17:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
But you said that socking was relevant. That I had alternative accounts. But I don't. Regarding Newyorkbrad (an arb committeee member) on WP:OUT I have replied on my Talk page here. I posted no private information about the user concerned whatsoever. It's nothing to do with revenge but with righting a self-evident injustice in a content dispute which was raised to administrator status in a ridiculous over-reaction and which in itself amounted to harassment as I made clear in my remarks to the administrator involved interrogating me. It would be courteous if you allowed me the final remark here and at any rate do not again repeat yourself. FightingMac (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Right, then. Maybe we should try and find a way forward on the talk page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
No, with respect Casliber, no. I did raise the issue with John on his Talk page as I mentioned in the now redacted comments. I did so in a very neutral fashion, asking him whether indeed he had any professional or personal connection to the subject of the templated article and likewise with Modernist who had created and soley edited that subject's BLP. His response was to redact my query without comment and wipe it freom the edit history and I am now asking the arb committee to judge whether all of that was fair i.e. to say his treatment of me after Modernist asked for eyes and his treatment of my enquiry of him and I do want remedy. Wasn't Modernist's elbow-nudging trouser-rolled-up funny-hand-shaking of a friendly admin something that could fairly be described as "meat-puppetry", whereas I had applied for a third opinion, a legitimate form of dispute resolution? FightingMac (talk) 12:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
A couple of points. First I think the involved parties should have been notified, and clearly John doesn't seem to be the only involved party. Also, I'm very unclear why what essentially was a content dispute that admittedly got out-of-hand, has been brought to AN/I, days after the dust settled. Time to let this all go, in my opinion. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Also to add, since this has been brought here: I'd like to request that this subpage at least be noindexed. Other than the commentary at the top everything is in the Vincent van Gogh talk archives. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Itis no-indexed and has been right from the start as all my subpages are ever since off2riorobquite rightly took me to task for not doing so (I simply didn't understand the implication - see, not such a fantastically experienced wikipedian after all. As for the issue of editing Van Gogh that's of course not what has been brought to ANI here, though I trust some readers at least will care to reflect that fundamentally what is at stake here is Wikipedia's proud boast that "anyone can edit" - not at van Gogh they can't and you must know I'm not the only one to have had a severe run-in there recently. Hell hath no fury like FA editors protecting their own and you do call them your own, don't you Truthkeeper88? FightingMac (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the noindexing. Re the other edits, yes, when sockpuppets are involved: [4], [5]. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't it have been more generous of you rather not to "thank" me for no-indexing but rather to apologise to me for supposing that I hadn't, thus I suppose implying something dreadful to the effect that I was conspiring with Google to broadcast your involvement in the great van Gogh "dark" debate all over the internet: something like "sorry, my paranoia again"? And are you implying that I am the sock-puppeter who has been doing all those dreadful things (changing column widths or something) to "your" Hemingaway articles, an author speaking strictly for myself I was through and done with before I was out of my teens, a more lamentable poseur I can hardly imagine and that also my prejudice about all who admire him I just add in for a halfpence worth worth since we're here and I don't know why. Nothing to do with me. FightingMac (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive AFD nominations by SPA[edit]

Resolved: All closed, and editor final-warned

User:FireTool87, who previously edited as the IP User:184.164.148.90, is upset over the deletion of Wilma Pang and the lack of support for their position in the resulting DRV. The disgruntled editor has been rummaging through the edit histories of the closing admin and other participants in the discussions (myself included) and listing articles they've created on subjects which they believe are less notable than Wilma Pang (a bit POINTy, but not out of bounds despite some significant inaccuracies in their comments), and has now begun creating retaliatory AFDs on articles, without properly creating the individual AFD pages or listing the articles in the daily AFD log. The discussions involved are (so far):

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belle Benchley (created by discussion participant User:MelanieN)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter R. Nickel (created by discussion participant User:MelanieN)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entry clearance (created by closing admin User:Spartaz)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrative removal ‎ (created by closing admin User:Spartaz)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immigration Rules (created by closing admin User:Spartaz)

The IP has also added deletion tags, without creating AFD pages, to other articles, including Harry M. Wegeforth and Stanford Roble Gym.

The nominations clearly qualify for "speedy keep" as disruptive; it's evident both that the nominations are retaliatory and that the deletion rationales are unresearched boilerplate (for example, Belle Benchley, the subject of the first created nomination, proves to have hundreds of GNews hits, was the author of multiple books published by a major trade publisher (Little Brown), described as a "best-selling author" by Life magazine, and is discussed in scores if not hundreds of published books/magazine pieces, per GBooks.) I therefore ask that these discussions be closed as "speedy keep" and that an appropriate warning, if not a stronger sanction, be placed against FireTool87. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

  • All closed per WP:SK#1 and WP:SK#2. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
    • It looks like the AFD pages were never even logged? Perhaps they should just be deleted; I don't see much point in keeping them as records. postdlf (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Who is Wilma Pang???? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
John Galt's half-sister, maybe? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
THis is unfair. I simply came across articles other users had written that were in worse shape than the one I wrote and was trying to point out to them that it was hypocritical for them to think those articles where notable while voting to delete one I created. Since they still thought Wilma Pang was not notable I then agreed that it wasn't and thought they had taught me what should be deleted. I therefore looked up how to start that process and It seems that I messed it all up and I am very confused now because there seems to be conflicting information and a double standard here.FireTool87 (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

A worrying user page[edit]

Resolved: User blocked. causa sui (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see this user page and this edit and this one. If this is the wrong place to bring this up, please delete. Voceditenore (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Editor notified [6] Voceditenore (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
What is this... I... don't even... causa sui (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Someone's sick idea of a joke, no doubt... GiantSnowman 17:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Probably a sock puppet. Aside from the fact that he claims to be a registered sex offender, looking at his contributions,[7] his third edit ever is to nominate an article for deletion, not exactly someone with 2 edits worth of experience would know how to do.[8] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Blocked. We don't need that here. TNXMan 17:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Jerry Meals[edit]

I have semi-protected the Jerry Meals page (which was created earlier tonight); Mr. Meals is a major league baseball umpire who made a controversial call to end the 19 inning Braves/Pirates game tonight. Most of the page history involves personal attacks and worse that violated WP:BLP; I would have deleted the page entirely, but after tonight, he is likely notable.

The reason I post all this here is that I have not been particularly active on Wikipedia recently, but saw a need and acted. I'm not up to speed on the most recent policies of the last year, nor do I currently have the time/energy to keep up with this page and the subsequent protection actions needed for it. I submit this semi-protection for review, and I welcome more active admins to do whatever they will with this page, including deleting the history if that is required. Thanks for all your help, and let me know if there's any more I can do. Eric (EWS23) 06:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I also semi-protected the talk page. Not sure what the policy is on that one, but I felt it prudent given the vandalism. Eric (EWS23) 06:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure he's really that notable. If it's only for a single controversial call...he also has to meet WP:GNG and other sports article guidelines. CycloneGU (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
You could be right, we shall see how much media attention the call gets in the next few days. I suspect it won't be as significant as Jim Joyce's call, but it will be something remembered for quite a while, considering the length of the game and the playoff implications for both teams. Eric (EWS23) 06:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
If the called is overturned (by Pirates filing a protest), then the game has to be replayed from the 20th inning (as the call would make the runner out to end the inning), as well... - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 08:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Such a protest would be denied, as judgment calls are not protestable. Only rules violations are protestable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
True, but then again... - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 08:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Technically, it would have only been the second out of the inning. There's a chance they could have gotten the double play by throwing to first, since the hitter tripped out of the batter's box. Eric (EWS23) 08:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
After re-reading the semi-protection policy, I unprotected the talk page for now so both the article and talk page wouldn't be protected at the same time, and I set up an expiration date for the semi-protection on the article page so it wouldn't be forgotten. Eric (EWS23) 08:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There are articles on many current (and some former) major-league umpires; I had taken it (and I think it's still true) that this is one of those jobs that confers notability on those who hold it. If we are to have such an article, of course, it should avoid undue weight on one incident, and of course must not become a forum for abuse of the subject (this is a problem we've had with articles about sports officials befor, although I am sure Wikipedia is far from the only place at which venting at umpires and the like can be found). I've watchlisted the page and hope a few others will do likewise. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding notability, WP:BASEBALL/N states that anyone who has umpired a Major League Baseball match is notable, so I'm fairly sure that, if the article went to AfD, it would be kept. Jenks24 (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • If the article's not deleted - as it seems it won't be -, there is a good number of old revisions that might need revdeleting... Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Note: the AfD has been closed as "nomination withdrawn". Agree with Salvio that a lot of the history should be revdeleted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
On a point of humour, ClueBot is clueless when the majority of edits to an article are vandalism. Here are two funny diffs from the history, probably among those that need RevDeling. I have to admit I got a huge laugh when I saw them. CycloneGU (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I have now revdeleted much of the article's history. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

  • I honestly can't claim to be a baseball fan; in fact, at best I'm a half-hearted Pirates fan. However, in looking at this, I'd say the Jim Joyce article is perhaps the closest we have to such a thing (see this section). As posted above: this is likely the section that will be quoted most often (number 5). sigh ... first the Superbowl loss ... then the loss of Crosby and Malkin ... now when we might have a shot at the playoffs in the first time since I can't remember when, and we get this (ummm ... searching for allowable "wiki terminology" ... ahhh ...) not optimal. — Ched :  ?  19:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible copyright violations/plagiarism[edit]

Resolved: Noted already dealt with. CycloneGU (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with copyright regulations so I'm reporting suspected copyvios here. See All the King's Men, much of this edit can be found here and here. The end part was already in the WP article. I previously reverted a similar edit by the same user. I don't feel confident enough in copyright policy to try to instruct this user so if it is a copyvio then hopefully someone else can give proper instruction. Bluebonnet460 (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

IP talk page abuse while blocked[edit]

Resolved: Talk page edit access revoked by Elockid, additional article protection by Penwhale. Nothing much to see here, revdel will occur as needed. CycloneGU (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Talk page privileges revoked. Elockid (Talk) 18:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
+ 1 week semi, due to possibility of further misuses. We might need to revdel a few of those things in the history, too... - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 19:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Camelbinky[edit]

This obnoxious personal attack on me by User:Camelbinky has just been posted at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts [11]

"...you have an unhealthy obsession with race/religion discussions and always seem to be against any mentioning of minorities for the reason that white's arent mentioned in their articles".

I consider the suggestion that I am a pro-white racist abhorrent - as anyone familiar with my editing history will be aware, I have consistently opposed racism in any form. I call on Camelbinky to either provide evidence to the contrary (which he/she will not of course be able to do), or to apologise unreservedly, refrain from making any further attacks on me, and agree to observe WP:NPOV in regard to articles regarding race, religion and ethnicity. Failing that, I ask for a substantial block to be enacted. Such malicious and unfounded attacks have no place on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Weeeelll, it's a bit rude but I think "obnoxious personal attack" is a bit of an overstatement. ╟─TreasuryTagClerk of the Parliaments─╢ 19:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, let's see, I brought Andy to this forum about a week ago and he received a FINAL WARNING regarding insulting other users and since then Andy insulted User:Busstop and then took Busstop to the WQA to intimidate him, where user's told Andy there was not only no actionable issue by Bus but ALSO that Andy had been insulting and needed to cool it during that discussion. I pointed out that Andy had a FINAL WARNING and should get a block. Andy decided to bring me here. I would like to see Andy get a 24 hour block with the warning that a 3 day is next if this continues with his insulting manner. As for my words–I apologize for stating my personal opinion. But will NEVER back down to bullies who insult, degrade, and push around other user's to push their own point of view. Busstop has valid concerns and should not be insulted whereever he goes. And he is not the only one that Andy pushes. This ends now or I'll continue to point out every single time he bullies.Camelbinky (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Do you want WP:CIVIL issues to be a blockable concern or not? I myself wish they were. You both have certainly got away with breaking that "policy" quite a few times. I don't see anything here that should be at a forum other than the toothless WQA. Sorry for the derail, but WP:CIVIL needs to be downgraded to a guideline. It's not enforced as a policy, and hasn't been for years. This is not a civil complaint, but it's not an issue for AN/I. --OnoremDil 19:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Andy, I don't see any implication that you are a pro-white racist. If anything, it accuses you of advocating for a policy of deliberate colorblindness on Wikipedia. Given your long history of telling the community that Wikipedia has no business reporting that a Jewish person (for example) is Jewish, I don't think this is an entirely unreasonable description of your views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
In response I'd point out this previous comment by Camelbinky: "Your unhealthy obsession with Jews and any discussion regarding race, religion, etc and having to declare that things have to be "fair" for whites and "no special treatment for other groups" is getting annoying" [12]. That doesn't read to me as anything other than an accusation of racism. I'd also ask you not to misrepresent my views. I have stated that I consider the use of categories, lists etc to label people by ethnicity/religion etc is misguided, and that such issues should only be discussed in articles where it is of relevance to the notability of the person concerned - the latter of which is entirely in accord with current Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Looking at that in context, it actually looks like you're being accused of not being a racist. At least the latter half of the comment is, the only part that's a bit dodgy is saying that you have an "unhealthy obsession with Jews". I would say that "fair" and "no special treatment" is the same thing, so you're accused of wanting to be fair to whites and everyone else. Why that should annoy Camelbinky is beyond my understanding. -- Atama 21:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
He/she also suggests that I'm a "conservative", while lacking "deference to those who've been here longer"! [13]. Evidently, logic and consistency aren't Camelbinky's strong points (incidentally, I only consider the 'conservative' part of this to be a personal attack ;-). ) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Observation Having seen several posts and threads lately where both Camelblinkey and Andy have been involved, it appears that the tone and language has continued to rise to a rather strident and combative level. I'd suggest (strongly in fact) that the two of you might benefit from an extended break from one another. If the language continues at this rate, it's likely to result in difficulties for both editors. Please back away, and regain some composure before that happens. — Ched :  ?  19:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The fish market is open... Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I think there is hinting involved here...you'd like some seafood, Alan? ...what? (Yes, I know. =P) CycloneGU (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I'd concur with Ched here. I think the best solution is a voluntary, bilateral, self-imposed interaction ban by the two of you. That is, what would be best for all is if you two each agree to just stop interacting with each other. The other solution is to force you both to do that. I'd like to avoid having to get to that point. --Jayron32 20:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment  diff It seems that Camelbinky considers the defying of WP:NPA to be a Wikitactic.  The tactic is disruptive.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Let me see if I get this right- Andy consistently insults other users, is given a FINAL WARNING, and then CONTINUES to do so and not only does no one see this as a problem, they then say I should simply not interact with him. Instead of realizing the reason I'm getting more and more testy and upset in regards to Andy is his continued insistence on being a bully towards Busstop and others. Are we in high school? This charge was attempted to be leveled at me at Noleander's ArbCom case and it was completely dismissed as childish there and eventually the same vindication will come my way with this user too. I am not in the wrong in my analysis of the manner in which Andy is "editing" and if admins at AN/I wont do it eventually ArbCom will.Camelbinky (talk) 06:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
If you provide the diffs in which you say Andy recently insulted and bullied Busstop, that might help the responders here. Cla68 (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Can I add here that I consider Camelbinky's repeated comparisons between Noleander and myself to be further evidence of his/her 'guilt by (imagined) association' tactics - totally unsupported by evidence, as usual. See for example here [14] (where incidentally, I note that Camelbinky has never retracted an entirely unsupported allegation of antisemitism on my part), or here [15] where Camelbinky also makes insinuations about other contributors - commenting on the Noleander ArbCom case he/she notes that "Some names here seem awfully familar btw, gee wonder why". So much for WP:AGF there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Cb's gratuitous misuse of apostrophes is certainly an abuse of English grammar William M. Connolley (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I dont have much time today to deal with this and find the particular diff on Andy's latest Busstop insult, but more information on it can be found at the WQA that he himself brought against Busstop, where incidentially they decided Andy had no case or legitimate complaint. And yes I have compared him to Noleander and I will because no one listened to me the multiple times I complained about what Noleander was doing, and in the end I was right and it took ArbCom to do it. Why do we allow those that are anti-whoever complains, to come to AN/I and trash the complainer? (something that wasnt allowed at ArbCom's Noleander case) Unscitilating is still upset that I called him/her out for intentionally removing a wikiproject's banner and then after I am the one that reverted and brought it back, Unsc removed it again and replaced it with a generic look alike then claimed to have put the original banner back on his own "out of good faith since people complained", and then WhatAmIdoing called him out on the fact that it wasnt the correct banner and he changed it. I pointed out to everyone what Unsc did since he/she was claiming to have done something that is not what he/she did. Sorry I have to defend myself on such a thing, back to Andy. As for Andy claiming that calling him a conservative is an insult–isn't that in itself an insult on our conservative and Conservative users, to claim being called one is an insult? Perhaps because I have a degree in political science I know the difference between Conservative and conservative in a way I did not realize Andy did not. Small-c conservative does not mean anything about the political party. In regards to editing Wikipedia it refer's to the literal interpretation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and the viewpoint of believing they must be applied strictly as they are written. Due to Andy's comments at multiple places in my opinion he IS a Wikipedia conservative. As for his Jewish/racial editing, he does in fact go around trying to make Wikipedia color blind, what is his motive? I dont know, but color blind editing is not always the work of those who have the best interests of minorities in mind, Andy needs to realize that if he wants to concentrate so strongly and forcefully on such editing and continue to tell Jewish editors they are wrong about their religion and continue in discussions with them confusing the difference of the religion from the culture and ethnic group (and in at least one case say there was no Jewish ethnic group); then yes, minority editors will not only get offended but will consider Andy's motives to be the same as Noleander's to not let Jews or minorities to be mentioned in Wikipedia in any way. If your end goal is the same as someone who gets a topic ban, even if your motives may be different, others from past experience may not realize your motives are different. Especially if you are rude, "grumpy" (they are quotations, not apostrophes btw), and insulting. I would be willing to back off if Andy apologizes (even though he did already last week and supposedly learned his lesson, but already unlearned it) and agrees that if he insults again he will not fight against a 3 day block, and Andy agrees to lay off Jewish/racial editing. I'm willing to compromise on the last part, but not on the part where if he insults again there are not SEVERE consequences. All he's learning from this is "I can insult and be grumpy and rude all I want, because whoever complains about me has skeletons in their own closet. I can just turn it on them".Camelbinky (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
So once again I am subject to be subject to insinuations of antisemitism, entirely unsupported by evidence. Camelbinky, either provide such evidence, or retract your malicious and unjustified attacks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: would just like to say that I find the above diatribe against Andy to be unjustified, this debate is raging all over the place with a lot of the usual suspects continually reiterating positions that fall foul of WP:BLPCAT, in the discussions I have seen so far Andy is just trying to point out what BLPCAT says, as can be seen here at the BLPN. Okay so sometimes he's rude and probably oversteps WP:CIVIL but then again, having to deal with the same editors over and over, who jump all over the place and start the same conversations on AN/I, BLPN and numerous TPs, and who ignore all attempts to reason with them about WP's take on ethnicity and religion and it's inclusion as relevant or not to someone's BLP is debilitating. Oh, and also, trying to defend one's interpretations of WP guidelines/policies and avoiding WP becoming an ethnic database, only to be called racist, conservative or anti-semite is rather a kick in the teeth, methinks. CaptainScreebo Parley! 17:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment It is true that there is a certain blurring of the difference, though I am sure it is only in a minority of cases? I tried to differentiate between ethnic and religious on an atheist persons article and I received a veiled accusation of anti-semitism "I even checked your recent edits to see if you were an anti-semite".
I wanted the sentence to read "ethnic Jew" rather than "non-observant Jew" as non-observant is a religious reference, akin to non-practising Catholic/Protestant. In fact, as Catholics and Protestants do not see themselves as an ethnicity per se it would not even arise as a problem.
It is distasteful that these sort of accusations go on around an encyclopaedia. I have no problem with saying someone is of Jewish, or Chinese or Martian descent, but this refusal to allow non-Jewish editors to clarify between ethnicity and religion has, on occasion, been taken a little too far. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
It might be best to avoid bringing in the broader questions into this debate. Unless it was Camelbinky who made that particular comment (and I've no reason to assume it was), it isn't really an issue for this AN/I discussion. What is an issue is that Camelbinky persists in making insinuations about the motivations of those that disagree with him/her, and then not providing any evidence whatsoever to back it up. I'll not deny that on occasion I've let my temper get the better of me, but I think most people can tell the difference between a short-term lack of judgement/civility and a persistent pattern of unsubstantiated weasel-worded insinuations. Camelbinky basically needs to understand that (a) Wikipedia has, by necessity to use words like 'religion', 'ethnicity' etc in their general sense, even if this isn't in accord with his/her understanding of how his/her ethnic/religious/cultural group would like them used, and (b) that disagreeing with someone who happens to be Jewish, even over issues concerning the usage of such terms in relation to 'Jewish' issues, doesn't necessarily constitute antisemitism. If an argument is valid, its validity doesn't depend on who is doing the arguing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
In my experience with Camelbinky, Camelbinky's participation in the encyclopedia goes beyond incivility to disruption.  (Please see comments at here in the section "Essay wikiproject" for a diff reference that includes personal attacks against me by Camelbinky.)  (1) I see that Camelbinky reverted me once, but I am not aware of any other preceding interactions between myself and Camelbinky.  (2) Camelbinky asserts that the trigger for his/her subsequent comments are the words "not an essay" in an edit comment (ref).  (3) Camelbinky asserts that he/she lacks choice, "No choice but to bring it up" (ref).  (4) An example of the sphere of Camelbinky's influence are the associated comments at WT:5 of another editor on the contributor, not the content:  one diff.  (5) When two other editors intervened at WT:5, I do not feel that Camelbinky responded as a constructive member of the community.  Replies to one editor: "is simply a jerky jackass comment", "caustic unhelpful comments", "topic banned".  Replies to another editor: "you obviously havent been following", "I'm surprised you didnt know", "Apparently you", "I dont have to answer to you".  (6) dmcq writes at WT:5 about Camelbinky, and IMO constructively, "even if you were correct you cause Wikipedia to be a nasty place to edit in with that sort of name calling and so are acting against the interest of Wikipedia.  (7) The discussion at WT:5 has been shut down, which I believe to be evidence of disruption.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Unscintillating is not saying that User:WhatamIdoing is under my "influence" and I some how control that user's comments... In fact of matter my views on the 5P and most other broad ideas regarding how policy should be implemented were formed over the many years of learning from users such as WhatamIdoing and Blueboar and other long time users who knew more than me when I started as an IP over 5 years ago and went on to make this name 4 years ago. So I highly doubt that WhatamIdoing says ANYTHING because of MY influence, as What is more highly regarded and has a better known reputation than I. I find Unscintillating's insult towards What and myself disruptive. The discussion Unsc speaks of fizzled because as I pointed out and can be seen from the history of the talk page that my description of what happened is factual. Unsc got caught by What and I doing something, once it was fixed the discussion did not need to go further and there was no "shut down" of it, there was simply nothing else to discuss. It was not about the status of the 5P as an essay, if it was it wouldnt have even lasted that long because that is a perennial discussion that has been found a compromise consensus of basically "it's not anything at all" as codified in the "FAQ" section header. Unsc is new, but did bring up that question prior to his removal of the tag and was informed by What, me, Dmcq, and many others regarding why the 5P is not labeled as policy and is not. I am sorry if newbies have to question everything because they werent a party to the earlier discussions, but that's what archives and asking older editors come in to play. Yes, deference to your elders would do some good. I learned from What, Daniel Case, Blueboar, Kim Bruning, and many others alot. I never claimed to know the Truth better than they just because I can read the literal word of a policy. Andy in particular in his disruptive grumpiness makes "proclamations" regarding what MUST be done.Camelbinky (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Since when has 'reputation' been relevant in Wikipedia discussions? What happened to 'comment on the edit, not the editor'? So no, I'm not going to start showing "deference to [my] elders" if their argument comes down to "I've been here longer than you, so I'm right". I note too that Camelbinky's voluminous screed (on a debate I wasn't part of, I'm glad to say) is long on assertions, and devoid of evidence for anything. No change there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Hilarious! "comment on the edit, not the editor" and yet all you and Unsc have done here is comment on me and insult me "is long on assertions and devoid of evidence for anything. No change there." Insult me some more. You'll end up here EACH TIME you insult ANYONE, ANYWHERE. Keep trying to attack me. I dont have to provide "evidence" it is clear what you do, you smear and take diffs out of context. I provide background of what you are doing, if someone wants diffs they can look them up themselves. Stay away from any of my comments or activities PLEASE, a voluntary ban on contact is best I agree with those above who recommended that. So I'll be looking forward to NOT seeing you at places. Back away thanks. Any interaction on commenting on where I comment and in particular ON my comment or ON me I will consider an intentional wiki-stalking and harrassment. Best to just not come around me. Thank you in advance, and Ill give you AGF that you'll not be around me.Camelbinky (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I dont have to provide "evidence": Yes you do. Except you don't, because there isn't any. Regarding 'Wikistalking', I'll point out that it was you who seem to have the stalking agenda. You didn't have to go crying to Jimbo when I didn't get blocked for swearing, you didn't have to comment in the Wikquette alerts thread, and you didn't need to bring up your usual nonsense about Noleander and ArbCom. But you did. You even seem to bring me into debates where I've had no involvement at all: "You've been here only one year, obviously have not gone through the archives of different policy pages and learned WHY things are the way things are (obvious to me from your comments at the 5P page and elsewhere)" [16]. I've never edited either the Five Pillars article, nor contributed to the talk page discussion. [17],[18] It will be rather difficult to avoid 'interacting' with you if this involves not playing an entirely imaginary part in debates. Since you have provided no evidence whatsoever to justify anything you have said or done, I am going to carry on taking part in whatever discussions I choose, with the intention of seeing that Wikipedia policy is respected, and that those who wish to transform Wikipedia into an ethno-religious database against policy are prevented from doing so. I will clearly have to learn to control my temper, and be more civil on occasion, but otherwise, I see no reason to change my behaviour. If you insist on butting into a discussion on the appropriateness of a 'religion' field in infoboxes with a statement that starts off "Andy, what is your obsession with the Jewish people and your inability to understand that being a Jew and Jews identifying others as Jews has NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION.." (so what has it got to do with the 'religion' field in the infobox then?), and then launch into a long personal attack on me, based on nothing other than your fevered imagination, you can expect me to 'interact' - here. Any more snide insinuations of racism, or off-topic garbage about Noleander and ArbCom, again entirely unsupported by evidence, will no doubt be treated with the contempt they deserve, so I'd suggest you think before you give vent again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Policies are respected you say? Oh, ok so next time you quote a policy in which I personally helped shape I'll remember to let you know, with diffs!, what exactly we meant and why you are interpreting it wrongly by taking it by the literal word. That is your problem, you come here with no information other than quoting policies. Respecting policy means knowing how it is USED, not what it SAYS. You cant proclaim to people "Policy says X, you have to do it, and you're wrong I'm right. No discussion. No compromise". Policy is nothing more than the description of past consensuses on how we have done things in the past and a guide to shaping future consensuses on similar problems. It is not proscriptive of what must be done for all time. And before you argue, this is a disagreement settled over 2 years ago at WP:Policies and guidelines, but I understand anything that happens before you were around and you werent a party too is irrelevant in your mind. Others have come and gone like you thinking policies are laws and must be strictly adhered to. Dont know where you get the idea seeing as how we've taken out anything that possibly gave that impression.Camelbinky (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Since that is not only entirely unsupported by evidence, but totally irrelevant to this discussion, which is about your repeated personal attacks on me, I have to ask why you bothered to post it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hoping that feedback is useful, what I propose is that the subject of this ANI discussion ("the subject") be warned for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks.  Further, that going forward there will be a zero-tolerance policy in effect for new personal attacks by the subject, where the subject will be indef topic blocked on each Discussion/Project page on which it occurs.  Further, that the subject is not to use the words "you" or "your" in talk page discussion, as to do so will be automatic grounds for a new topic block.  Further, the subject is warned to provide evidence and avoid hyperbole.  Further, that the subject be blocked for one minute to post this warning.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Another comment I must say that the attitude "I've been here longer than you, so there (i.e. just shut it!)" is completely untenable on a collaborative project such as Wikipedia. Whether you have a gazillion barnstars or have been editing since the Big Bang, you are only human and to err is human, we can all get it wrong (policy, pov and so on) whether we have been on WP for 5 weeks or 5 years. So seniority on WP is not some sort of magic shield against being wrong, misinterpreting policy or suchlike.
From the same diff that Andy objects to about being jew-obsessed, [19], I quote:
  • "You should really have some deference to those who've been here longer and have actually participated in many more discussions and know what was actually intended by the wording in specific policies and which policies are not used in the specific way in which they are written. There is a large amount of "oral law" in Wikipedia."
Well that's fine and dandy, but apart from lording it over (perceived) newbies, this is also plain daft - if a policy doesn't say what it's meant to say then it should be rewritten, what's all this crap about 'oral law'? "Well, yes the policy says that, but we decided this x years ago". Good way to encourage learner WP editors and kill rumours of cabals, methinks. Also, something decided two years ago, as mentioned above, is way out of date as opinions and povs change and policy and guidelines evolve (hopefully) to accommodate these changes.
Oh and there's a huge difference between 'you're a dick' (personal attack) and 'you're being a dick' (current behaviour/attitude), so for example 'your comments are meaningless or irrelevant or unsubstantiated' is not a personal attack but a comment on the comments.
Wikipedia:BITE, Wikipedia:NPA, Wikipedia:AGF CaptainScreebo Parley! 12:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
This is from Wikipedia:Blocking policy:
A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. A block for disruption may be necessary in response to:
...
Unscintillating (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:Civility is a policy that states:

...
We do block for major incivility. When incivility rises to the level of disruption, personal attacks, harassment or outing, blocks may be employed, as explained in those policies.

Unscintillating (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the subject of this discussion correct that there is an anti-newbie "oral" tradition...such that cb's contributions did a good job in defending WP:5 from newbie improvements, and providing cover for a second editor to contribute a WP:NPA; that the contribution of a manic response with a claim of loss of self-control in response to the words "not an essay" was appropriate given the source of who said "not an essay"; that calling the compromise approach an "outright lie" was a good contribution since it instantly shut up the newbie?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think at this point it might be best to assume that this particular quadruped is no longer in the race, regardless of whether its metabolism is still functioning, and that we should only return to flogging it if it actually shows signs of life. I doubt that any action is going to be taken against Camelbinky for now, and I'm sure that we have quite enough evidence to respond to him/her appropriately should the pattern of behaviour recur. Let sleeping dromedaries lie.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparent block evasion by User talk:71.56.23.123[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Apparently nobody cares about this, so we might as well mark this for the archives. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

History: 71.56.23.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) made a disputed edit on Virtual Console ([20]) and had it reverted per BRD, then insisted on redoing the edit without proper discussion ([21], [22], [23]). This eventually got his edits labeled as vandalism, with appropriate warnings sent to his user page ([24], [25]).

Since then, the user has argued non-stop with myself and at least one other editor over the definition of proper English and the level of knowledge and competence of WP administrators. The discussion went quiet for a little while, then without further warning Alison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked the IP for one year, using the {{blocked proxy}} and the message "used abusively". I've asked Alison for an explanation on the block - the IP user made a few more edits to different articles that appear to have been at least marginally constructive, so I don't think a block was justified at that point.

However, this reply is clearly from the same person on a different IP address, and only continues the argument. I informed the user that I believed this qualified as block evasion (regardless of the justification for the original block) and would be asking for an uninvolved admin to review it. I will post a link to this thread on both IP talk pages. Please review, thanks. I am an admin myself, but since I've been personally involved in the argument, I don't feel it's appropriate for me to take disciplinary action. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment: I'm one of the other users who's been attempting to deal with the anon IP 71.56.23.123. After a number of good-faith attempts, I posted a final warning regarding the edits at Virtual Console. The user appears to have either heeded the warning or found something else to do, so I've had no further dealings with the IP. However, I did notice Alison's one-year block of it (along with removing the IP's ability to edit its talk page), and I agree with Kiefer that there didn't appear to be a need for that long of a block, so I'm hoping Alison can provide further information as to the rationale for the length of it. I also agree that it appears the user has switched IPs and is at it again, taking up the argument on the original talk page. There seems to be more to the story, but I concur with Kiefer on the main point and the purpose for this ANI listing ... this is pure and simple block evasion. --McDoobAU93 22:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

...Bueller? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

They've been blocked, what else are you looking for? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe they're looking for either an explanation to show why the IP address qualified for a 1 year block (something that took several trips to AIV with one problem editor to get a 6 month block for one case I've been working with) or to have the block reduced in length. Sometimes it's not sanctions editors are wanting. I know, what a concept Hasteur (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm also looking for someone to review the fact that this user is EVADING this block via a different IP. How can I make the nature of my request more clear so there isn't confusion next time? :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Ahh, because sock puppets (even only semi-clear WP:DUCK) are thataway... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so I presume nobody's going to evaluate the validity of the original block, then? I might as well not have even bothered saying anything, for all the good it did here. :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Legal threats[edit]

Resolved: User blocked indefinitely by Bwilkins for WP:NLT violation. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

User Fatimiya, fresh off a block for personal attacks [26] is now making legal threats.[27] Edward321 (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No threat has been made. A formal complaint has been filed today by the Fatimiya Sufi Order with a body who investigates claims of religious discrimination and religious persecution regarding the activities of the Bahai Internet Agency and its taskforce (i.e. Edward321, Jeff3000 et al) on wikipedia. Archives regarding present outstanding issues and ones former where the aforementioned editors were involved have been forwarded to the body for its investigation --Fatimiya (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Fatimiya is right off a 12-hour block that I issued for personal attacks on Jeff3000, who had nominated two of Fatimya's articles for deletion. While this is not a legal threat exactly, the clear intention is to intimidate editors into leaving Fatimiya's edits alone. He's been filing retaliatory sockpuppet investigations against any who oppose him [28] [29] [30] and there appears to be a considerable amount of meatpuppetry going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatimiya Sufi Order. Acroterion (talk) 14:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Blocked for 31 hours, sound good or am I too nice? (Nuking SPIs fyi) -- DQ (t) (e) 14:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I was apparently too nice with the 12-hour block; I had some hopes they'd learn to argue on the merits of the sources rather than on the basis of a perceived grudge. Acroterion (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Just looked things over, ya it's more disruption that I thought when I did 31 hrs, upped to 1 week now. After this I recommend the scale hits the months if we don't see the stop. -- DQ (t) (e) 14:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
(ec) As point of background, it appears that the extant dispute centers on Fatimiya Sufi Order (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and the associated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatimiya Sufi Order. The editor Fatimiya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a staunch defender of the article. The article topic appears to be a relatively new and relatively minor religious sect.
I gather that the intent of Fatimiya's comments (on this page and as linked above by Edward321) is to imply that some manner of formal complaint has been filed with a quasi-judicial body with some sort of statutory powers and authority (eg some type of human rights commission). The fact that Fatimiya is consistently and deliberately vague in identifying the body involved is rather...unhelpful.
As I see it, one of two possible things are going on here. First, Fatimiya may have filed a complaint with a bona fide human rights commission or other quasi-judicial body. (I make no judgement of the merit of such a complaint.) If that's so, then WP:NLT explicitly instructs him to avoid editing Wikipedia until the conclusion of his case; if he does not do so voluntarily, we are compelled to enforce that by block.
In the alternative, a complaint hasn't actually been filed, or a complaint has been filed with a body that is lacking in statutory authority, lacking in jurisdiction, or is otherwise irrelevant. In this second case, the purpose of Fatimiya's comment would be to chill and discourage comments by his opponents with the implication of a legal threat. In that case, Fatimiya should be blocked under WP:NLT until he explicitly withdraws any threats of legal action and/or fully describes to the administrators here precisely what it is that he is threatening, so that the applicability of WP:NLT to his complaint can be reviewed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I have read Fatimiya's comments similar to TenOfAllTrade's statements above - I have upped the block to INDEF. Should they strike/revoke all NLT claims, someone can reset back to the original 1-week for NPA. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

User:PeterHarlington[edit]

Thanks, WMF notified and looking into it Jalexander--WMF 01:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

PeterHarlington (talk · contribs) is a "new" user whose account was created yesterday, is issuing threats in edit summaries against anybody else changing their edits, and is making a list of "crimes" committed by other Users on their User page. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'm going to e-mail the emergency e-mail about this one. This edit summary is a threat of violence. I'm not one to judge the seriousness (I'm sure it's just bluster), but better safe than sorry. CycloneGU (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Rollback of edit to Dane Rauschenberg[edit]

This edit reverted the immediate damage to the Dane Rauschenberg article, which has been the repeated target of an individual (or small group of people) who have persistently sought to cast him in a negative light. While the editor User:Danecheatsawholelot who made the edit has already been blocked, the edit should be rolled back to remove both the unsupported allegation in the reverted edit and the allegation implied by the Danecheatsawholelot user name. Alansohn (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean rev-deleted? It can't be rolled back when it's already been reverted. 28bytes (talk) 02:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
As I was typing I had reverted stuck in my mind, when I meant rev-deleted. Alansohn (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 Done. I believe this qualifies under R2 since the username itself is a BLP violation, but I have requested oversight review of this via e-mail in case I am mistaken. 28bytes (talk) 04:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Camelbinky[edit]

This obnoxious personal attack on me by User:Camelbinky has just been posted at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts [31]

"...you have an unhealthy obsession with race/religion discussions and always seem to be against any mentioning of minorities for the reason that white's arent mentioned in their articles".

I consider the suggestion that I am a pro-white racist abhorrent - as anyone familiar with my editing history will be aware, I have consistently opposed racism in any form. I call on Camelbinky to either provide evidence to the contrary (which he/she will not of course be able to do), or to apologise unreservedly, refrain from making any further attacks on me, and agree to observe WP:NPOV in regard to articles regarding race, religion and ethnicity. Failing that, I ask for a substantial block to be enacted. Such malicious and unfounded attacks have no place on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Weeeelll, it's a bit rude but I think "obnoxious personal attack" is a bit of an overstatement. ╟─TreasuryTagClerk of the Parliaments─╢ 19:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, let's see, I brought Andy to this forum about a week ago and he received a FINAL WARNING regarding insulting other users and since then Andy insulted User:Busstop and then took Busstop to the WQA to intimidate him, where user's told Andy there was not only no actionable issue by Bus but ALSO that Andy had been insulting and needed to cool it during that discussion. I pointed out that Andy had a FINAL WARNING and should get a block. Andy decided to bring me here. I would like to see Andy get a 24 hour block with the warning that a 3 day is next if this continues with his insulting manner. As for my words–I apologize for stating my personal opinion. But will NEVER back down to bullies who insult, degrade, and push around other user's to push their own point of view. Busstop has valid concerns and should not be insulted whereever he goes. And he is not the only one that Andy pushes. This ends now or I'll continue to point out every single time he bullies.Camelbinky (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Do you want WP:CIVIL issues to be a blockable concern or not? I myself wish they were. You both have certainly got away with breaking that "policy" quite a few times. I don't see anything here that should be at a forum other than the toothless WQA. Sorry for the derail, but WP:CIVIL needs to be downgraded to a guideline. It's not enforced as a policy, and hasn't been for years. This is not a civil complaint, but it's not an issue for AN/I. --OnoremDil 19:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Andy, I don't see any implication that you are a pro-white racist. If anything, it accuses you of advocating for a policy of deliberate colorblindness on Wikipedia. Given your long history of telling the community that Wikipedia has no business reporting that a Jewish person (for example) is Jewish, I don't think this is an entirely unreasonable description of your views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
In response I'd point out this previous comment by Camelbinky: "Your unhealthy obsession with Jews and any discussion regarding race, religion, etc and having to declare that things have to be "fair" for whites and "no special treatment for other groups" is getting annoying" [32]. That doesn't read to me as anything other than an accusation of racism. I'd also ask you not to misrepresent my views. I have stated that I consider the use of categories, lists etc to label people by ethnicity/religion etc is misguided, and that such issues should only be discussed in articles where it is of relevance to the notability of the person concerned - the latter of which is entirely in accord with current Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Looking at that in context, it actually looks like you're being accused of not being a racist. At least the latter half of the comment is, the only part that's a bit dodgy is saying that you have an "unhealthy obsession with Jews". I would say that "fair" and "no special treatment" is the same thing, so you're accused of wanting to be fair to whites and everyone else. Why that should annoy Camelbinky is beyond my understanding. -- Atama 21:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
He/she also suggests that I'm a "conservative", while lacking "deference to those who've been here longer"! [33]. Evidently, logic and consistency aren't Camelbinky's strong points (incidentally, I only consider the 'conservative' part of this to be a personal attack ;-). ) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Observation Having seen several posts and threads lately where both Camelblinkey and Andy have been involved, it appears that the tone and language has continued to rise to a rather strident and combative level. I'd suggest (strongly in fact) that the two of you might benefit from an extended break from one another. If the language continues at this rate, it's likely to result in difficulties for both editors. Please back away, and regain some composure before that happens. — Ched :  ?  19:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The fish market is open... Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I think there is hinting involved here...you'd like some seafood, Alan? ...what? (Yes, I know. =P) CycloneGU (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I'd concur with Ched here. I think the best solution is a voluntary, bilateral, self-imposed interaction ban by the two of you. That is, what would be best for all is if you two each agree to just stop interacting with each other. The other solution is to force you both to do that. I'd like to avoid having to get to that point. --Jayron32 20:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment  diff It seems that Camelbinky considers the defying of WP:NPA to be a Wikitactic.  The tactic is disruptive.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Let me see if I get this right- Andy consistently insults other users, is given a FINAL WARNING, and then CONTINUES to do so and not only does no one see this as a problem, they then say I should simply not interact with him. Instead of realizing the reason I'm getting more and more testy and upset in regards to Andy is his continued insistence on being a bully towards Busstop and others. Are we in high school? This charge was attempted to be leveled at me at Noleander's ArbCom case and it was completely dismissed as childish there and eventually the same vindication will come my way with this user too. I am not in the wrong in my analysis of the manner in which Andy is "editing" and if admins at AN/I wont do it eventually ArbCom will.Camelbinky (talk) 06:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
If you provide the diffs in which you say Andy recently insulted and bullied Busstop, that might help the responders here. Cla68 (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Can I add here that I consider Camelbinky's repeated comparisons between Noleander and myself to be further evidence of his/her 'guilt by (imagined) association' tactics - totally unsupported by evidence, as usual. See for example here [34] (where incidentally, I note that Camelbinky has never retracted an entirely unsupported allegation of antisemitism on my part), or here [35] where Camelbinky also makes insinuations about other contributors - commenting on the Noleander ArbCom case he/she notes that "Some names here seem awfully familar btw, gee wonder why". So much for WP:AGF there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Cb's gratuitous misuse of apostrophes is certainly an abuse of English grammar William M. Connolley (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I dont have much time today to deal with this and find the particular diff on Andy's latest Busstop insult, but more information on it can be found at the WQA that he himself brought against Busstop, where incidentially they decided Andy had no case or legitimate complaint. And yes I have compared him to Noleander and I will because no one listened to me the multiple times I complained about what Noleander was doing, and in the end I was right and it took ArbCom to do it. Why do we allow those that are anti-whoever complains, to come to AN/I and trash the complainer? (something that wasnt allowed at ArbCom's Noleander case) Unscitilating is still upset that I called him/her out for intentionally removing a wikiproject's banner and then after I am the one that reverted and brought it back, Unsc removed it again and replaced it with a generic look alike then claimed to have put the original banner back on his own "out of good faith since people complained", and then WhatAmIdoing called him out on the fact that it wasnt the correct banner and he changed it. I pointed out to everyone what Unsc did since he/she was claiming to have done something that is not what he/she did. Sorry I have to defend myself on such a thing, back to Andy. As for Andy claiming that calling him a conservative is an insult–isn't that in itself an insult on our conservative and Conservative users, to claim being called one is an insult? Perhaps because I have a degree in political science I know the difference between Conservative and conservative in a way I did not realize Andy did not. Small-c conservative does not mean anything about the political party. In regards to editing Wikipedia it refer's to the literal interpretation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and the viewpoint of believing they must be applied strictly as they are written. Due to Andy's comments at multiple places in my opinion he IS a Wikipedia conservative. As for his Jewish/racial editing, he does in fact go around trying to make Wikipedia color blind, what is his motive? I dont know, but color blind editing is not always the work of those who have the best interests of minorities in mind, Andy needs to realize that if he wants to concentrate so strongly and forcefully on such editing and continue to tell Jewish editors they are wrong about their religion and continue in discussions with them confusing the difference of the religion from the culture and ethnic group (and in at least one case say there was no Jewish ethnic group); then yes, minority editors will not only get offended but will consider Andy's motives to be the same as Noleander's to not let Jews or minorities to be mentioned in Wikipedia in any way. If your end goal is the same as someone who gets a topic ban, even if your motives may be different, others from past experience may not realize your motives are different. Especially if you are rude, "grumpy" (they are quotations, not apostrophes btw), and insulting. I would be willing to back off if Andy apologizes (even though he did already last week and supposedly learned his lesson, but already unlearned it) and agrees that if he insults again he will not fight against a 3 day block, and Andy agrees to lay off Jewish/racial editing. I'm willing to compromise on the last part, but not on the part where if he insults again there are not SEVERE consequences. All he's learning from this is "I can insult and be grumpy and rude all I want, because whoever complains about me has skeletons in their own closet. I can just turn it on them".Camelbinky (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
So once again I am subject to be subject to insinuations of antisemitism, entirely unsupported by evidence. Camelbinky, either provide such evidence, or retract your malicious and unjustified attacks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: would just like to say that I find the above diatribe against Andy to be unjustified, this debate is raging all over the place with a lot of the usual suspects continually reiterating positions that fall foul of WP:BLPCAT, in the discussions I have seen so far Andy is just trying to point out what BLPCAT says, as can be seen here at the BLPN. Okay so sometimes he's rude and probably oversteps WP:CIVIL but then again, having to deal with the same editors over and over, who jump all over the place and start the same conversations on AN/I, BLPN and numerous TPs, and who ignore all attempts to reason with them about WP's take on ethnicity and religion and it's inclusion as relevant or not to someone's BLP is debilitating. Oh, and also, trying to defend one's interpretations of WP guidelines/policies and avoiding WP becoming an ethnic database, only to be called racist, conservative or anti-semite is rather a kick in the teeth, methinks. CaptainScreebo Parley! 17:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment It is true that there is a certain blurring of the difference, though I am sure it is only in a minority of cases? I tried to differentiate between ethnic and religious on an atheist persons article and I received a veiled accusation of anti-semitism "I even checked your recent edits to see if you were an anti-semite".
I wanted the sentence to read "ethnic Jew" rather than "non-observant Jew" as non-observant is a religious reference, akin to non-practising Catholic/Protestant. In fact, as Catholics and Protestants do not see themselves as an ethnicity per se it would not even arise as a problem.
It is distasteful that these sort of accusations go on around an encyclopaedia. I have no problem with saying someone is of Jewish, or Chinese or Martian descent, but this refusal to allow non-Jewish editors to clarify between ethnicity and religion has, on occasion, been taken a little too far. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
It might be best to avoid bringing in the broader questions into this debate. Unless it was Camelbinky who made that particular comment (and I've no reason to assume it was), it isn't really an issue for this AN/I discussion. What is an issue is that Camelbinky persists in making insinuations about the motivations of those that disagree with him/her, and then not providing any evidence whatsoever to back it up. I'll not deny that on occasion I've let my temper get the better of me, but I think most people can tell the difference between a short-term lack of judgement/civility and a persistent pattern of unsubstantiated weasel-worded insinuations. Camelbinky basically needs to understand that (a) Wikipedia has, by necessity to use words like 'religion', 'ethnicity' etc in their general sense, even if this isn't in accord with his/her understanding of how his/her ethnic/religious/cultural group would like them used, and (b) that disagreeing with someone who happens to be Jewish, even over issues concerning the usage of such terms in relation to 'Jewish' issues, doesn't necessarily constitute antisemitism. If an argument is valid, its validity doesn't depend on who is doing the arguing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
In my experience with Camelbinky, Camelbinky's participation in the encyclopedia goes beyond incivility to disruption.  (Please see comments at here in the section "Essay wikiproject" for a diff reference that includes personal attacks against me by Camelbinky.)  (1) I see that Camelbinky reverted me once, but I am not aware of any other preceding interactions between myself and Camelbinky.  (2) Camelbinky asserts that the trigger for his/her subsequent comments are the words "not an essay" in an edit comment (ref).  (3) Camelbinky asserts that he/she lacks choice, "No choice but to bring it up" (ref).  (4) An example of the sphere of Camelbinky's influence are the associated comments at WT:5 of another editor on the contributor, not the content:  one diff.  (5) When two other editors intervened at WT:5, I do not feel that Camelbinky responded as a constructive member of the community.  Replies to one editor: "is simply a jerky jackass comment", "caustic unhelpful comments", "topic banned".  Replies to another editor: "you obviously havent been following", "I'm surprised you didnt know", "Apparently you", "I dont have to answer to you".  (6) dmcq writes at WT:5 about Camelbinky, and IMO constructively, "even if you were correct you cause Wikipedia to be a nasty place to edit in with that sort of name calling and so are acting against the interest of Wikipedia.  (7) The discussion at WT:5 has been shut down, which I believe to be evidence of disruption.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Unscintillating is not saying that User:WhatamIdoing is under my "influence" and I some how control that user's comments... In fact of matter my views on the 5P and most other broad ideas regarding how policy should be implemented were formed over the many years of learning from users such as WhatamIdoing and Blueboar and other long time users who knew more than me when I started as an IP over 5 years ago and went on to make this name 4 years ago. So I highly doubt that WhatamIdoing says ANYTHING because of MY influence, as What is more highly regarded and has a better known reputation than I. I find Unscintillating's insult towards What and myself disruptive. The discussion Unsc speaks of fizzled because as I pointed out and can be seen from the history of the talk page that my description of what happened is factual. Unsc got caught by What and I doing something, once it was fixed the discussion did not need to go further and there was no "shut down" of it, there was simply nothing else to discuss. It was not about the status of the 5P as an essay, if it was it wouldnt have even lasted that long because that is a perennial discussion that has been found a compromise consensus of basically "it's not anything at all" as codified in the "FAQ" section header. Unsc is new, but did bring up that question prior to his removal of the tag and was informed by What, me, Dmcq, and many others regarding why the 5P is not labeled as policy and is not. I am sorry if newbies have to question everything because they werent a party to the earlier discussions, but that's what archives and asking older editors come in to play. Yes, deference to your elders would do some good. I learned from What, Daniel Case, Blueboar, Kim Bruning, and many others alot. I never claimed to know the Truth better than they just because I can read the literal word of a policy. Andy in particular in his disruptive grumpiness makes "proclamations" regarding what MUST be done.Camelbinky (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Since when has 'reputation' been relevant in Wikipedia discussions? What happened to 'comment on the edit, not the editor'? So no, I'm not going to start showing "deference to [my] elders" if their argument comes down to "I've been here longer than you, so I'm right". I note too that Camelbinky's voluminous screed (on a debate I wasn't part of, I'm glad to say) is long on assertions, and devoid of evidence for anything. No change there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Hilarious! "comment on the edit, not the editor" and yet all you and Unsc have done here is comment on me and insult me "is long on assertions and devoid of evidence for anything. No change there." Insult me some more. You'll end up here EACH TIME you insult ANYONE, ANYWHERE. Keep trying to attack me. I dont have to provide "evidence" it is clear what you do, you smear and take diffs out of context. I provide background of what you are doing, if someone wants diffs they can look them up themselves. Stay away from any of my comments or activities PLEASE, a voluntary ban on contact is best I agree with those above who recommended that. So I'll be looking forward to NOT seeing you at places. Back away thanks. Any interaction on commenting on where I comment and in particular ON my comment or ON me I will consider an intentional wiki-stalking and harrassment. Best to just not come around me. Thank you in advance, and Ill give you AGF that you'll not be around me.Camelbinky (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I dont have to provide "evidence": Yes you do. Except you don't, because there isn't any. Regarding 'Wikistalking', I'll point out that it was you who seem to have the stalking agenda. You didn't have to go crying to Jimbo when I didn't get blocked for swearing, you didn't have to comment in the Wikquette alerts thread, and you didn't need to bring up your usual nonsense about Noleander and ArbCom. But you did. You even seem to bring me into debates where I've had no involvement at all: "You've been here only one year, obviously have not gone through the archives of different policy pages and learned WHY things are the way things are (obvious to me from your comments at the 5P page and elsewhere)" [36]. I've never edited either the Five Pillars article, nor contributed to the talk page discussion. [37],[38] It will be rather difficult to avoid 'interacting' with you if this involves not playing an entirely imaginary part in debates. Since you have provided no evidence whatsoever to justify anything you have said or done, I am going to carry on taking part in whatever discussions I choose, with the intention of seeing that Wikipedia policy is respected, and that those who wish to transform Wikipedia into an ethno-religious database against policy are prevented from doing so. I will clearly have to learn to control my temper, and be more civil on occasion, but otherwise, I see no reason to change my behaviour. If you insist on butting into a discussion on the appropriateness of a 'religion' field in infoboxes with a statement that starts off "Andy, what is your obsession with the Jewish people and your inability to understand that being a Jew and Jews identifying others as Jews has NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION.." (so what has it got to do with the 'religion' field in the infobox then?), and then launch into a long personal attack on me, based on nothing other than your fevered imagination, you can expect me to 'interact' - here. Any more snide insinuations of racism, or off-topic garbage about Noleander and ArbCom, again entirely unsupported by evidence, will no doubt be treated with the contempt they deserve, so I'd suggest you think before you give vent again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Policies are respected you say? Oh, ok so next time you quote a policy in which I personally helped shape I'll remember to let you know, with diffs!, what exactly we meant and why you are interpreting it wrongly by taking it by the literal word. That is your problem, you come here with no information other than quoting policies. Respecting policy means knowing how it is USED, not what it SAYS. You cant proclaim to people "Policy says X, you have to do it, and you're wrong I'm right. No discussion. No compromise". Policy is nothing more than the description of past consensuses on how we have done things in the past and a guide to shaping future consensuses on similar problems. It is not proscriptive of what must be done for all time. And before you argue, this is a disagreement settled over 2 years ago at WP:Policies and guidelines, but I understand anything that happens before you were around and you werent a party too is irrelevant in your mind. Others have come and gone like you thinking policies are laws and must be strictly adhered to. Dont know where you get the idea seeing as how we've taken out anything that possibly gave that impression.Camelbinky (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Since that is not only entirely unsupported by evidence, but totally irrelevant to this discussion, which is about your repeated personal attacks on me, I have to ask why you bothered to post it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hoping that feedback is useful, what I propose is that the subject of this ANI discussion ("the subject") be warned for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks.  Further, that going forward there will be a zero-tolerance policy in effect for new personal attacks by the subject, where the subject will be indef topic blocked on each Discussion/Project page on which it occurs.  Further, that the subject is not to use the words "you" or "your" in talk page discussion, as to do so will be automatic grounds for a new topic block.  Further, the subject is warned to provide evidence and avoid hyperbole.  Further, that the subject be blocked for one minute to post this warning.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Another comment I must say that the attitude "I've been here longer than you, so there (i.e. just shut it!)" is completely untenable on a collaborative project such as Wikipedia. Whether you have a gazillion barnstars or have been editing since the Big Bang, you are only human and to err is human, we can all get it wrong (policy, pov and so on) whether we have been on WP for 5 weeks or 5 years. So seniority on WP is not some sort of magic shield against being wrong, misinterpreting policy or suchlike.
From the same diff that Andy objects to about being jew-obsessed, [39], I quote:
  • "You should really have some deference to those who've been here longer and have actually participated in many more discussions and know what was actually intended by the wording in specific policies and which policies are not used in the specific way in which they are written. There is a large amount of "oral law" in Wikipedia."
Well that's fine and dandy, but apart from lording it over (perceived) newbies, this is also plain daft - if a policy doesn't say what it's meant to say then it should be rewritten, what's all this crap about 'oral law'? "Well, yes the policy says that, but we decided this x years ago". Good way to encourage learner WP editors and kill rumours of cabals, methinks. Also, something decided two years ago, as mentioned above, is way out of date as opinions and povs change and policy and guidelines evolve (hopefully) to accommodate these changes.
Oh and there's a huge difference between 'you're a dick' (personal attack) and 'you're being a dick' (current behaviour/attitude), so for example 'your comments are meaningless or irrelevant or unsubstantiated' is not a personal attack but a comment on the comments.
Wikipedia:BITE, Wikipedia:NPA, Wikipedia:AGF CaptainScreebo Parley! 12:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
This is from Wikipedia:Blocking policy:
A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. A block for disruption may be necessary in response to:
...
Unscintillating (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:Civility is a policy that states:

...
We do block for major incivility. When incivility rises to the level of disruption, personal attacks, harassment or outing, blocks may be employed, as explained in those policies.

Unscintillating (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the subject of this discussion correct that there is an anti-newbie "oral" tradition...such that cb's contributions did a good job in defending WP:5 from newbie improvements, and providing cover for a second editor to contribute a WP:NPA; that the contribution of a manic response with a claim of loss of self-control in response to the words "not an essay" was appropriate given the source of who said "not an essay"; that calling the compromise approach an "outright lie" was a good contribution since it instantly shut up the newbie?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think at this point it might be best to assume that this particular quadruped is no longer in the race, regardless of whether its metabolism is still functioning, and that we should only return to flogging it if it actually shows signs of life. I doubt that any action is going to be taken against Camelbinky for now, and I'm sure that we have quite enough evidence to respond to him/her appropriately should the pattern of behaviour recur. Let sleeping dromedaries lie.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparent block evasion by User talk:71.56.23.123[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Apparently nobody cares about this, so we might as well mark this for the archives. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

History: 71.56.23.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) made a disputed edit on Virtual Console ([40]) and had it reverted per BRD, then insisted on redoing the edit without proper discussion ([41], [42], [43]). This eventually got his edits labeled as vandalism, with appropriate warnings sent to his user page ([44], [45]).

Since then, the user has argued non-stop with myself and at least one other editor over the definition of proper English and the level of knowledge and competence of WP administrators. The discussion went quiet for a little while, then without further warning Alison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked the IP for one year, using the {{blocked proxy}} and the message "used abusively". I've asked Alison for an explanation on the block - the IP user made a few more edits to different articles that appear to have been at least marginally constructive, so I don't think a block was justified at that point.

However, this reply is clearly from the same person on a different IP address, and only continues the argument. I informed the user that I believed this qualified as block evasion (regardless of the justification for the original block) and would be asking for an uninvolved admin to review it. I will post a link to this thread on both IP talk pages. Please review, thanks. I am an admin myself, but since I've been personally involved in the argument, I don't feel it's appropriate for me to take disciplinary action. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment: I'm one of the other users who's been attempting to deal with the anon IP 71.56.23.123. After a number of good-faith attempts, I posted a final warning regarding the edits at Virtual Console. The user appears to have either heeded the warning or found something else to do, so I've had no further dealings with the IP. However, I did notice Alison's one-year block of it (along with removing the IP's ability to edit its talk page), and I agree with Kiefer that there didn't appear to be a need for that long of a block, so I'm hoping Alison can provide further information as to the rationale for the length of it. I also agree that it appears the user has switched IPs and is at it again, taking up the argument on the original talk page. There seems to be more to the story, but I concur with Kiefer on the main point and the purpose for this ANI listing ... this is pure and simple block evasion. --McDoobAU93 22:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

...Bueller? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

They've been blocked, what else are you looking for? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe they're looking for either an explanation to show why the IP address qualified for a 1 year block (something that took several trips to AIV with one problem editor to get a 6 month block for one case I've been working with) or to have the block reduced in length. Sometimes it's not sanctions editors are wanting. I know, what a concept Hasteur (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm also looking for someone to review the fact that this user is EVADING this block via a different IP. How can I make the nature of my request more clear so there isn't confusion next time? :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Ahh, because sock puppets (even only semi-clear WP:DUCK) are thataway... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so I presume nobody's going to evaluate the validity of the original block, then? I might as well not have even bothered saying anything, for all the good it did here. :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Legal threats[edit]

Resolved: User blocked indefinitely by Bwilkins for WP:NLT violation. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

User Fatimiya, fresh off a block for personal attacks [46] is now making legal threats.[47] Edward321 (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No threat has been made. A formal complaint has been filed today by the Fatimiya Sufi Order with a body who investigates claims of religious discrimination and religious persecution regarding the activities of the Bahai Internet Agency and its taskforce (i.e. Edward321, Jeff3000 et al) on wikipedia. Archives regarding present outstanding issues and ones former where the aforementioned editors were involved have been forwarded to the body for its investigation --Fatimiya (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Fatimiya is right off a 12-hour block that I issued for personal attacks on Jeff3000, who had nominated two of Fatimya's articles for deletion. While this is not a legal threat exactly, the clear intention is to intimidate editors into leaving Fatimiya's edits alone. He's been filing retaliatory sockpuppet investigations against any who oppose him [48] [49] [50] and there appears to be a considerable amount of meatpuppetry going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatimiya Sufi Order. Acroterion (talk) 14:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Blocked for 31 hours, sound good or am I too nice? (Nuking SPIs fyi) -- DQ (t) (e) 14:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I was apparently too nice with the 12-hour block; I had some hopes they'd learn to argue on the merits of the sources rather than on the basis of a perceived grudge. Acroterion (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Just looked things over, ya it's more disruption that I thought when I did 31 hrs, upped to 1 week now. After this I recommend the scale hits the months if we don't see the stop. -- DQ (t) (e) 14:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
(ec) As point of background, it appears that the extant dispute centers on Fatimiya Sufi Order (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and the associated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatimiya Sufi Order. The editor Fatimiya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a staunch defender of the article. The article topic appears to be a relatively new and relatively minor religious sect.
I gather that the intent of Fatimiya's comments (on this page and as linked above by Edward321) is to imply that some manner of formal complaint has been filed with a quasi-judicial body with some sort of statutory powers and authority (eg some type of human rights commission). The fact that Fatimiya is consistently and deliberately vague in identifying the body involved is rather...unhelpful.
As I see it, one of two possible things are going on here. First, Fatimiya may have filed a complaint with a bona fide human rights commission or other quasi-judicial body. (I make no judgement of the merit of such a complaint.) If that's so, then