Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive789

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

Noticeboard archives


Revert war, block/unblock, and all sorts of mess[edit]

Arts on the Line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has seen a revert war ongoing due to disagreements of whether NFCC applies to the 17 images it currently has/had in a table. There's ongoing discussions taking place on the article talk page. But Slowking4 (talk · contribs) and Werieth (talk · contribs) decide to have a rather large revert war, and the revert war basically short-circuited the discussion (somewhat). Foxj (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked both Slowking4 and Werieth for 60 hours, and Kww (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) immediately granted an unblock, followed by a revert on the article. I am requesting more comments on this issue, as I do not feel that Kww's unblock reasoning is sound (the discussion on the article page, for me, doesn't feel that it's a clear NFCC violation). Thus I'm calling into question as to whether the 3RR exception applies here. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 01:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

both Masem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Black Kite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) clearly noted the violation on the talk page, both of those users have extensive histories with the non-free content policy. Werieth (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

They are clearly WP:NFCC violations, although there are editors on on Talk:Arts on the Line that don't appear to be particularly concerned about that. There's a pretty clear consensus among editors that are not specifically concerned with the article that the images are in violation. The images need to stay out until there is a consensus to include, and this kind of problem is specifically the reason we have that exemption in WP:3RR.—Kww(talk) 02:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I noticed people arguing re: #3, #8, NFLISTS/NFTABLE; I can only see #8 being the valid issue. NFLISTS - this isn't really a list article (and, frankly, we'd fall to bullet point 6 for this). NFTABLE - the current wording of NFCC allows consideration. #3a/b - 19/20 separate pieces of art laying across Boston demonstrates the impossibility of actually reducing it (unless, obviously, a blueprint or something exists). #8 is the only one that I would consider to be the valid challenge (and even then, this can be fixed by writing the appropriate paragraphs). I'm seeing the argument, but relevant bullet clearly indicates that this should have been discussed in other forums prior to the revert war; thus, I still believe Werieth has to shoulder part of the blame. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 02:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
    • NFCC problems clearly favor removal of material, and that's why the exemption is in WP:3RR, so that we will block the person adding the material and not the person removing it. Explaining an arts program doesn't require an illustration of each and every piece of art selected by the program, and "writing a few paragraphs" won't fix the #8 problem.—Kww(talk) 02:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Involved editor here - contributed a couple of the files in question, and responsible for a lot of the talking on the talk page. Regardless of the final decision on this specific article, this should perhaps prompt a fresh look at the wording of the NFCC policy, and particularly at the validity of NFTABLE. Trying to word my arguments on the talk page was very difficult because so much of the disagreement here comes down to the semantics. NFTABLE was also (so far as I understand) written considering lists and tables of a) albums, b) TV episodes, and c) currency. Trying to apply it to a list of artworks has proven both difficult and polarizing - one very quickly either sees Arts on the Line as a giant NFCC violation or a perfectly reasonable application of it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that this looks like a clear violation of WP:NFTABLE. However, instead of engaging in an edit war, I think that it is better to discuss things like this at WP:NFCR or WP:FFD. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • To be clear; the images were a violation of WP:NFC _GUIDELINE_ not WP:NFCC _POLICY_. WP:NFTABLE, a part of WP:NFC, is NOT policy. It is a guideline. This is an important distinction. WP:NOT3RR contains an exemption for blatant violations of NFCC policy, not guideline. The use of the images in the table is a judgment call, not a blatant violation. A blatant violation would be, for example, missing a rationale for the use. All the images had rationales for the use. Whether it violated NFC or not is irrelevant. There is nothing in NFCC POLICY which prohibits the use of non-free images in tables. If there were, we would not have articles displaying non-free images like History of British film certificates, Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America) and South African Navy do in tables. This is a judgment call, one that was heavily disputed on the talk page. The appropriate action was not edit warring, and both User:Werieth and user:Slowking4 were blatantly out of line for the pointless dozens-of-reverts-long edit war conducted over the span of less than an hour. Additionally, administrator User:Kww was out of line for granting the unblock of Werieth and at a minimum should have discussed the issue with administrator User:Foxj before doing so, but this did not happen. Kww's actions effectively condoned User:Werieth, and this is utterly wrong. The edit war was clearly, blatantly disruptive and no exemption in 3RR trumps that. Had it been 4 or 5 times by Werieth, I could maybe..maybe...see it. 18 reverts in less than an hour by Werieth and Kww effectively condones Werieth's actions? Absolutely the wrong call. User:Slowking4 should be unblocked since the article can not be edited by non-admins for the next month, and an RfC should be initiated with Slowking4 as a participant. Kww should be admonished for undoing the block of another administrator in this case, and should be reminded of the importance of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing by editors, and the importance of following Wikipedia:BLOCK#Unblocking in so far as it says that an unblock should be performed when "the administrator was not fully familiar with the circumstances prior to blocking, or there was a clear mistake." That was not the case here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The images violated WP:NFCC#8 as well, not just the guideline. The primary problem is that with a number of admins having commented on the talk (and presumably watching the article), no one moved to block User:Slowking4 earlier.—Kww(talk) 15:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • No, the violation of WP:NFCC #8 or #3a is a judgment call. If it were not, then the articles I noted above would have had their images stripped already. That's why I noted those articles. A certain someone attempted to use the 3RR exemption for this same purpose. Their efforts were soundly rejected by the community. This exemption does NOT trump disruptive editing nor further discussion at an RfC. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • If you can get consensus to change WP:3RR to specifically exclude #8 and #3a from the exemption, I'll behave accordingly in the future.—Kww(talk) 16:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Concur with Hammersoft. The existing 3rr text says: "Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Wikipedia:Non-free content review noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." (emphasis original). It's not clear to me how to improve that. (Adding Kww, this means you, stop acting like a doofus is prohibited per point.) NE Ent 16:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
There was a clear consensus that the quantity of images violated WP:NFCC as the article stands, so the "should be established as a violation first" standard had been met. The images had already been removed by Black Kite, who specifically stated that he felt the removal of the images was subject to the 3RR exemption, which Werieth says that he relied upon. There was considerable discussion about what could be modified to make the article compliant or whether there should be a specific exemption for arts projects, but there was no consensus about what degree of modification would be required or how sweeping of an exemption would be required.—Kww(talk) 16:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
There at no point was any consensus to remove the images. In this diff, Found5dollar established the basic arguments as to why the images are acceptable within the fair use guidelines - and neither Werieth nor Black Kite at any point could name why any of them were wrong. However, it's become very clear that the NFCC patrollers consider their opinions to be more important than any of those who dissent; note this diff where Werieth calls for myself and others to be "enlightened" as though we are children. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
With non-free material there must be consensus for inclusion, without that, removal is necessary until such time as consensus is reached. Werieth (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Diff for that policy? NE Ent 02:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
WP:NFCC it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; ... see burden of proof Werieth (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
That says a fair use rationale must be provided; one is provided here. Whether the rationale is sufficient or not is a matter for consensus discussion. NE Ent 14:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to the concerns about "endorsement" noted above, and have left this message.—Kww(talk) 16:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I appreciate it. I think, given the fact that a concern is raised elsewhere re: this, it can continue elsewhere (unless anyone else have anything else to add?) - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 21:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Can we seriously get this user banned from editing again. It seems all he is doing is trolling the Wikipedia for pages with images and removing them, there seems to be no pattern to the types of pages he is removing images from. I see he was blocked yesterday and then unblocked minutes later and basically back at it again. I see the user has removed all the warnings from his talk page and if I see today has received a warning for 3RR on the article FTSE 100 Index, so he hasn't learnt his lesson at all. All this user is doing is upsetting other users who have worked hard to contribute information to the Wikipedia. I do understand the users edits may be making pages comply to some standard but the amount of removing of images this user is doing is just insane. Bhowden (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The images clearly and unequivocally failed WP:NFCC#3a (overuse) and WP:NFCC#8 (significance), which are policy. Therefore the 3RR exemption clearly applies, and Kww was correct to unblock Werieth. Regardless of whether they are in tabular form or not, 17 images which are purely decorative are a clear fail of our policies. As I pointed out on the talkpage, one or two may be admissible if they were clearly described in the text as representative and/or iconic, but the editors there appeared to believe that our policies did not apply here. They were incorrect. Black Kite (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Having said that, I'bve just seen the history; this all started after I was asleep (I'd removed the images earlier). Yes, that was a rather daft revert-war and Werieth should have stopped and simply reported Slowking to WP:AN3, he was already over 3RR before Werieth was. Ah well. Black Kite (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • How is illustrating the primary subjects of an article "purely decorative"? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • In the same way as discographies don't have album cover images despite being the subjects of the article, or articles about lists of characters from TV shows don't have images of all but the most notable. Though here, the article is about the "Arts on the Line" initiative, not the artworks themselves. That's why I said that a few (at most) representative images may be acceptable. There's also the issue of WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability). Since the table already says (for example) "A large stained glass wall composed of mostly blue glass with the exception of a red band that runs the length of the work.", does that need an image as well for the reader to understand what it is? I'd say it doesn't. Black Kite (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • "Though here, the article is about the "Arts on the Line" initiative, not the artworks themselves." That makes sense, and I'll accept that as a reason for limited fair use in the article to one or two images. But that's the first time that's been said - at no point was that articulated previously. While a simple point, that's critical to this entire debacle. While I think the issue for this article has thus been settled, there needs to be a process for those points to be articulated sooner, as it appears that issues like this have come up previously in the removal of large numbers of non-free images for articles. I'll perhaps make an RFC on the NFCC talk page (I believe the rule is that I should wait for the ANI to be closed first?) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
If a rational argument can be made for inclusion of something, the situation is not so obvious that any admin has the right to take action on the basis that something is "clear and unequivocal". If the community agrees, the material would very soon be removed and we wouldn't need this sort of conflict. (this is not an expression of any view on these particular images.) DGG ( talk ) 01
53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for that very clear, and very rational, statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[edit]

Not anymore. Drmies (talk)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

a new proxy of the multiply banned user, probably nocal, continues his pov edit war.--Severino (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Series of unilateral actions taken by AGK[edit]

An extended discussion; currently consists of:
1 Series of unilateral actions taken by AGK (currently closed)
1.1 Proposal to reduce MZ's block length
1.2 Proposal to restore the Status Que Ex Ante
1.3 Increasing drama
NE Ent 10:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Our article on Jericho needs to be put under Arab-Israeli conflict sanctions[edit]

The beat goes on. Drmies (talk)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should Jericho be under the sanctions for articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict? Given the current edit-warring there I think it should. I'm about to do some RL stuff so could someone add the appropriate template if they agree? Thanks Dougweller (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, a good old-fashioned "who owns this city" edit-war. I'll issue some blocks, warnings, etc. to the edit warriors. Not sure that anything else needs to be done. Per WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction, it is already the case that "all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict falls under 1RR", although I have reservations about whether this apparently community-imposed sanction is enforceable as written.  Sandstein  19:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The same vandal (or socks) is active on Palestinian people; can someone please protect the article and block the vandals,? Huldra (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Can you please protect Palestinian people now. Huldra (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 Done Mark Arsten (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! (I suspect some of the ips that were active there were open proxies--> more trouble?) Huldra (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
If that's the vandal I think it is, then there's always more to come. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
My old fan Grp, then? I am quite used to him..thanks for cleaning up! Huldra (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

....and now 4chan is on my user-page.. could some-one please block/rinse/clean? Thanks Huldra (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC) ......that was quick, thanks Ronhjones! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Worrying stalky SPA[edit]

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

[Link removed since it has now been dealt with]. Formerip (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeffed by Elockid without so much as a howd'ya do - and rightly so. Totally unsuitable username worthy of an instant WP:UAA hammer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Turning Wikipedia into Spamapedia[edit]

Causeandedit has been community banned. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Causeandedit seems to be misusing Wikipedia to promote numerous record labels, artists, and turning articles into link farms with bogus references, consistently ignoring polite requests to follow WP's rules. An occasional good reference is swamped by junk. It creates a huge amount of work for others here to undo; Hoopla Worldwide is just the tip of the iceberg.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes. This user does not appear to be here to help the project; I support a block. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • FWIW, another editor started a discussion on the COI noticeboard, Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Jonathan_Hay_.28publicist.29. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • for what it's worth, they deny having a COI, and that they only write about stuff that happens in their town, but their contributions are laser-focused on two specific non-notable people as well as being unabashedly promotional, so it's kind of hard to take them at their word. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Would it not just be best to await the results of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Causeandedit? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Don't see why. Socking isn't the only issue, or even the primary issue. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • That looks more like meatpuppets than anything else. But this is definitely a concerted and focused PR push. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Notice that User:Causeandedit is vengefully putting up a satisfactory Nat Gertler article for deletion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Not anymore. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, I think it's time some other admin has a look at this. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Some interesting comments have been made at User talk:AGK#Harrasment By User and someone with time to work out what this all about should study the situation because it looks like it will get ugly quite soon. Johnuniq (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I see that in the history Causeandedit's interesting comments from 8:04 12 March are struck and not accessible yet they still appear at User_talk:AGK#Harrasment_By_User. Oversight gone not quite right? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
      • General comment. We are all volunteers. We help in various ways of our own choosing. Some fix typos. Some add content. Others delete content. Some fix grammar. Some add photos. Some settle disputes. The only way different agendas can cooperate is if we try to follow Wikipedia's self-made rules. The result is an incredible source of information, a powerful first for humankind, widely read, and has such a powerful web presence that it is highly tempting to misuse it for promotional purposes. Spam, advertising, and other promotional junk can undermine the entire project, reducing our encyclopedia into one big sales blurb, so the community has decided, wisely, to keep spam out. Most contributors who look into this matter will agree that User:Causeandedit is a prolific spammer who is bombarding "articles" with bogus references. When challenged, Causeandedit complains of harassment or strikes back; for example, a Wikipedian and notable author Nat Gertler voted to delete some of the spam, prompting User:Causeandedit to slap a spurious AfD tag on apparently from spite. In my view, Causeandedit is a nuisance to the community, is not following Wikipedia's rules, is not acting in good faith, is harming the project, and should be blocked, hopefully permanently.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Somebody had indeed tried to suppress that content but not quite did it right. I've fixed the mess. AGK [•] 14:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I've seen that AfD, it's blatantly frivolous and is borderline an attack. The user also went back to edit it after the AfD was closed... Lukeno94 (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I have blocked Causeandedit indefinitely as an advertising-only account that is WP:NOTHERE to establish an encyclopedia. Now I'm going to check the recent AfDs for their merits. De728631 (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I !voted "not sure yet" for Sabrina (pop singer) but I can assure I will shed no tears if you speedy delete it per WP:CSD#G11 right here and now if you so wish. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I've left that one sitting for now but !voted for speedy deletion. De728631 (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm speedying by G11 what I can find, except for some of the musicians , because I lack confidence in that area--I see they are now being taken care of also. It is conceivable that some might be notable, but it would be necessary to start over. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Propose formal ban of Causeandedit and any socks[edit]

Per unanimous consensus of the community, Causeandedit (talk · contribs) is community banned from editing Wikipedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are there any objections to a formal ban of Causeandedit and his socks, if any? It looks at first glance like typical advertising activity but I totally lost any good faith in this user after they were called out on falsely claiming Sabrina had been certified gold in the United Kingdom and then, with all the eloquence of a toddler claiming Darth Vader had raided the cookie jar, they tried to claim that by UK they meant "University of Kentucky". If that isn't silly enough on the surface, the article said "United Kingdom" (not just UK), linked to the BPI site, and gold records are certified by industry groups like the RIAA and IFPI, not by colleges. But that's a once-in-a-lifetime wackiness, right? Wrong. He did it again on the Audio Stepchild AFD. Not acceptable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The assertion of gold status in the UK by Causeandedit for Sabrina (pop singer) appears to be an obvious falsification. Perhaps the editor was hoping to benefit from the confusion with Sabrina Salerno, who does have a Silver certification in the UK and is a much better known performer. Sabrina Salerno has sold 10 million records worldwide. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I have little objection with a community ban or whatever of this user, as they are very blatantly WP:NOTHERE. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd support a formal ban. Amongst so much deception the claim of accidently mistaking "United Kingdom" for "University of Kentucky" show that this editor has no respect for the truth, this project, everyone here. If claims of Mr Hay talking to this editor are to be believed (source redacted for other reasons) then Mr Hay should express issue with how bad CaE is making him look. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Is this a possible sock of User:Causeandedit here? Wondering.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Sockpuppeting and disruption make this a good call. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - He certainly was making no effort to understand the concept of "significant coverage" in my interactions with him. There's either serious promotional, or competence, problems with him. Sergecross73 msg me 00:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Sockpuppetry and disruptive editing. TBrandley (review) 15:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Since when does an IP account erase a deletion discussion? Another sock?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - User is not here to improve wikipedia. (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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


Non admin close. Editors referred to WP:RSN and WP:3O Blackmane (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I had some discussions with Special:Contributions/ (see his/hers recent contributions). It seems to me that he/she is a combination of WP:LISTEN with WP:COMPETENCE. It seems to me that he/she is a troll who wants to harass editors. He/she produces some preposterous arguments from the fringe of the fringe, like that there would be historical proof for Jesus's resurrection and in general that historians should seek to falsify supernatural causation. Such arguments should not be expected from anyone with a minimal scientific education, this is why I said he/she is a case of lacking editorial competence. I have explained what historians do and that history has a naturalistic methodology because historians of all faiths have consensually agreed upon it, but he/she refuses such arguments, which shows that he/she is a case of failing to get the point. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That was a red herring, it was a distraction from my main point. While I know that you can't prove without a shadow of a doubt that Jesus resurrected, I was just explaining that some people like me believe that and thus "the strong scientific evidence" that is an exception in Wikipedia's FRINGE policy would be satisfied.
All I wanted to do was make some edits to the extremely biased material on the History and the Bible Wikipedia page as it exists right now. (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
As long as we agree that proving miracles isn't, cannot be and will never be part of any empirical science, we can smoke the pipe of peace. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Google gives the definition of empirical as:
  • Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic
I think miracles fit this definition. We can observe things in the present that would have happened if a certain miracle occurred. The Shroud of Turin is a very interesting archaeological discovery that atheists aren't quite sure about.
Obviously we can't "prove" that something happened, supernatural or not.
So no, I disagree with you. While miracles themselves can't be explained by natural laws since some of them are temporarily withheld, the events that follow afterwards are definitely part of empirical science.
And that is still a distraction from my main point of removing the horrendously biased statements that are present on the article now. (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
And now I have a username and have created an account! JasperTech (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Look, I had already admitted that I got irritated by your claim that historians could prove the occurrence of miracles and that I was vitriolic about it. But please don't pour gas on the fire. You definitely have no scientific instruction whatsoever or you have unlearned what you learned in it, otherwise I see no possibility to deviate from the idea that empirical sciences are by definition naturalistic. E.g. name one science (but not a pseudoscience) which studies the supernatural. There is a contradiction between the idea of arbitrary divine intervention and the idea of empirical science. The Age of Enlightenment has taught us what is admissible as fact and what should be relegated to the realm of mere faith. It is a bad idea to push supernaturalist arguments posing as science on Wikipedia, since Wikipedia editors have respect for science and your mockery of the scientific method could irritate them. I hope you do understand that attempting to pass supernatural claims through peer-review is extremely ill-advised for anyone who wants his studies published in a respectable scientific journal. Wikipedia can only take the side of the reviewers, they are the gatekeepers who forbid the entrance of pseudoscience in respectable scientific publications. I don't attack your right to believe in miracles, I just say that by definition sciences could never attest the existence of miracles: physics has naturalistic methodology, chemistry has naturalistic methodology, biology has naturalistic methodology, psychology has naturalistic methodology, sociology has naturalistic methodology, anthropology has naturalistic methodology, history has naturalistic methodology, religious studies have naturalistic methodology and so on. I would advise you to watch the short movie at , wherein Bart D. Ehrman makes it expressly clear that claims that miracles have really happened are not historical claims, but they are theological claims. Any historian worth his salt would agree with Ehrman, except practitioners of pseudoscience, who conflate history with theology. Historical facts should be valid for people regardless of their faith and of their theological persuasion. What you want is eat your cake and still have it. You cannot prove the existence of miracles using the scientific method. As long as you pretend that empirical science could prove miracles, you lack an understanding of what science is, of what science can do, of what is acceptable to peer-reviewers and of what gets published in serious scientific journals. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
OK sure, I won't pour any gas on the fire! I'm definitely hoping to get a consensus that everyone is happy with.
"You definitely have no scientific instruction whatsoever...."
You just finished speaking about not pouring gas on the fire, and then you say that. Very interesting. I'm just a high school student, and if you classify that as "no scientific instruction whatsoever" then, well, OK.
"It is a bad idea to push supernaturalist arguments posing as science on Wikipedia...."
Let's consider the scientific method. It's all about why does this happen? People try to explain things with laws. These laws are mostly consistent, but not always. For example, virtual particles pop in and out of existence without any cause. These are quantum fluctuations and the first law of thermodynamics is temporarily withheld. Are miracles any different?
I watched your recommended video and it is not "expressly clear" to me that a supernatural claim is not historical, but theological. I know it's theological, but how would it not be historical? It depends on what you define as historical, but I think that would be determined according to one's biases. I'll explain. Take the Shroud of Turin. Historians, like with all other archaeological discoveries, are interested in an explanation of how it got there. They want to know if it could have been forged, the person that rested inside the shroud if it wasn't forged, and so on. There is no consensus as to where it came from. Some Christians think that the Resurrection could explain how it came about. That's their hypothesis. It's definitely a theological claim, but since it's explaining archaeological evidence wouldn't it also be a historical one?
You cannot prove the existence of miracles using the scientific method.
You cannot prove the existence of miracles using the scientific method, but a miracle could be set forth as a hypothesis to explain some evidence. Whatever hypothesis best explains the evidence.
On the other hand, a miracle is by definition something that can't be explained by natural laws. But then again, virtual particles are one example of something that can't be explained either. It just "happens." In fact, since laws are immaterial, then you could say everything just "happens." How do we determine a scientific law? From things that consistently "happen." But then we could also define laws as things that we observe to happen, rather than the cause of why things happen. Some Christians argue that God is the basis for the scientific method and for natural laws.
"As long as you pretend that empirical science could prove miracles, you lack an understanding of what science is, of what science can do, of what is acceptable to peer-reviewers and of what gets published in serious scientific journals."
So to sum it up, I know that empirical science can't prove miracles, but a supernatural causation hypothesis could be used to explain some evidence. Obviously this shouldn't be overused like some Christians, but we also shouldn't avoid all the evidence if it points to this conclusion.
As for the "serious scientific journals," I noticed you used the word "serious." I guess that must be because I referenced some theological journals that are considered academic. But your word "serious" excludes these journals. Apparently they aren't "serious" journals. But you only determine that according to your bias, so it doesn't mean anything.
I guess now you might be really ticked off with me, but I was just saying what I think.
Oh, and why are you so against having other (i.e., Christian) opinions expressed on Wikipedia? Why are you so against a neutral point of view? It's not like any of the existing opinions will be removed. JasperTech (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
This user abuses this encyclopedia in order to mock the scientific method, the academia and the system of peer-review through advocating pseudo-scientific (supernatural) explanations for historical events as if they would constitute science. I was inclined to believe that I was my mistake of being so harsh on him and recurring to vitriolic condemnations of pseudoscience, but this user simply refuses to get the point. As he persists in bashing whatever is relevant for the historical articles inside Wikipedia, he is a case of WP:COMPETENCE: he does not understand how history works, yet he pretends to correct bias in articles edited by many competent editors. He has to submit to the idea that history has a naturalistic methodology and that this is not something open for discussion. Even if the issue were open to discussion, Wikipedia would not be the place to discuss it, but such discussion would have to take place in peer-reviewed scientific journals, among the most prominent scholars in historical research. This user simply ignores Occam's razor and with it most of the scientific method. Furthermore, he does not admit that this is his problem, but has accused me of bias and violating WP:NPOV and attempting to silence Christians, and together with me he has accused the many editors of The Bible and history of having an anti-biblical bias. My sincere recommendation to him is to take science classes and come back an edit Wikipedia when he has at least basic understanding of how science works.
Since he is not able to understand abstract ideas, like having a scientific consensus upon methodology, I will give him an example of what historical research could establish in respect to relics. I saw a Discovery Channel show, advertised at . Discovery has gathered a team of scientists who tried to establish if some bones (relics) found in Bulgaria would be the bones of John the Baptist.

The result from the metacarpal hand bone is clearly consistent with someone who lived in the early first century AD," Oxford University professor Tom Higham said of the new study.

"Whether that person is John the Baptist is a question that we cannot yet definitely answer and probably never will.

To the best ability of those scientists, it could not be proven that the bones belong to John the Baptist, since we don't have his DNA nor his dental X-Ray. It was not disproved either, since the data could not demonstrate that the relics were a forgery. So, the relics has been relegated to the limbo of neither proven genuine nor proven false. Remember that this does not mean falsifying a miracle, it simply means attempting to establish if some real bones belonged to a real person mentioned by the Bible. That's all history could do. It cannot be used to prove supernatural claims like the resurrection of Jesus and the divinity of Vespasian. I recommend him not to waste our time with such rubbish. He just takes for granted pseudohistory published in fringey fundamentalist magazines and conflates theological arguments with historical research. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
OK I get it. Tgeorgescue is showing that I'm a fraud by letting me post all my "crazy ideas" over here. I know that I'm not supposed to fill the talk pages with debates about something, but about their content. I'm very sorry for getting off topic, but in the original "Bible and history" talk page was where it began. I recommend that any other person who is wondering about me look into that discussion over there and the points I raised about the bias of the article.
From now on I won't go into debates over beliefs in talk pages. But it seemed almost inevitable since Tgeorgescu was discussing the nature of pseudoscience and claiming that supernatural causation fits into that category. I know that many scientists consider supernatural explanations as pseudoscience, but according to WP:FRINGE the weight given to a certain view should be relevant to the number of people who hold it (it's acceptance). Since there is a large number of Christians who do not hold that view, and since the creation/evolution debate is one that is continuing today, I don't think Wikipedia should call miracles "pseudoscience," although it's perfectly fine to explain who believes that they are pseudoscience. I think all opinions should be allowed on Wikipedia (although we have to of course give them their due weight). Christianity seems to have a lot of weight to me.
Anyway, back to my main point. My main point was the bias in the Wikipedia page "The Bible and History." Tgeorgescue seems to think that the bias is perfectly acceptable, but to me it seems like an unambiguous contradiction of Wikipedia's NPOV policy.
And just so all the viewers know, in response to the example provided by Tgeorgescue, I must say I absolutely agree. He seems to have set up a straw man argument against me, because I never said that miracles can be "proven" (actually, nothing can be proven with absolute confidence).
Looking forward to what others think! But I definitely want to comply with Wikipedia standards and I don't want to break the rules of competence. As for his charge that I refuse to get the point, I must ask, what point? The page he referenced talked about accepting the "consensus," although right now I see no consensus with just him arguing against me. There were in fact two other people who took my side who responded in the discussion on "The Bible and History," but that's not very many people. So I don't see how I broke that Wikipedia policy. JasperTech (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Both of you stop. This is not a forum for discussing scientific method versus religion. In fact, Wikipedia is not a forum for this sort of discussion. JasperTech, the first thing you should go do is read a veritable alphabet soup of policy pages. WP:V and WP:RS are the two most important ones. Also, consider WP:SOAP and WP:NOTFORUM. If you are seeking to discuss the merits of this versus that, then WP is not the place for you. We are not here to discuss validating one person's view over another, but to report the views of reliable sources. If you find that something is missing or slanted in the article, find a reliable source that says the contrary and most importantly discuss the source on the talk page not the material in the source. Whether you think Christianity has a lot of weight is irrelevant, since you are not a reliable source. Tgeorgescu, please refrain from dismissing a new editor's misunderstanding of how to edit here as rubbish as it's not civil. Blackmane (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Further comment. JasperTech, please also read WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Blackmane (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Blackmane! I think I remember reading those before, and yes, I do have a secondary source for my proposed change. What I would add would be based off of an Apologetics Press article, but since I'm not sure if those kinds of sources are allowed I would quote the first sources that the Apologetics Press article in turn cites. The paragraph or sentences I proposed adding onto the existing text to express a variety of opinions were cited from an academic journal called The Journal of Near Eastern Studies, and since Tgeorgescue said that it must be academic, I think this journal would qualify. But apparently he still doesn't think that the source qualifies because it's not a "serious" academic journal. But I don't know what that means since it seems to me he defines what a "serious" journal is according to his particular bias.
And yes, I promise I will no longer make Wikipedia into a forum. JasperTech (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that you take it to WP:RS/N the reliable sources noticeboard. A number of more experienced editors will be able to help you there. That noticeboard is a very good way to widen the discussion. On one hand you be editing a very obscure article which is only frequented by 1 or 2 editors with opposing views making consensus difficult, but on the other you might be editing an article which has many editors who are divided in any number of ways. In such cases, WP:RSN or perhaps WP:3O a third opinion is what you are seeking. Another source of help is the Wikiproject that the article is associated with. This can be found towards the top of the talk page. In any case, I believe that this may be closed as no admin action required merely guidance to the appropriate locations for help. Blackmane (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Just for the record, I did not pass judgment on the seriousness of The Journal of Near Eastern Studies, what I said that apologetic articles should be used with utmost caution, since they don't give an objective view of research, e.g. through ignoring evidence to the contrary, giving undue weight and even using cherry-picked quotations which may give a false idea of the claims made in peer-reviewed journals. I said that I do not know if the purported fact got widely accepted by scholars or if it is a fringe/minority view, but there are surely other Wikipedia editors who are more informed about that and could pass a reliable judgment upon the acceptance of such claim by the academic community. Without referring to your personal views but simply evaluating the reliability of sources, any journal which claims there is historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus falls into WP:FRINGE/PS and therefore should be ignored by Wikipedia as pseudohistory. I don't know if the discussed journal published anything like that, that's why I don't dismiss it yet as unreliable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
And on that note I'm going to NAC this as resolved and redirected to the appropriate venues. Unless I'm mistaken, this could have been hammered out on a talk page and sent to WP:RSN rather than drama central and no admin action is really called for. Blackmane (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Reference deletion by User:Herr Gruber[edit]

I think we're done here. We got better things to do--like invent a flying bicycle that drops bunker busters. Herr Gruber is encouraged to be more expansive in edit summaries; Fountains is encouraged to AGF cranky comments and look into the matter to see if there is value to particular edits and reverts. At ease, Drmies (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Herr Gruber deleted references, content, and ELs over a whole series of article with no rational other than the note "Mike Sparks is not a reliable source":


It came to my attention when Herr Gruber deleted a link to an online copy of a 1990 article by an unrelated author diff at Collimator sight. User seems to be claiming anything on a Mike Sparks related webpage is "something he made up"[1]. The writer in question (Mike Sparks) seems to have many published articles in the field and it looks like the material being referenced in the articles was not opinion, but instead was technical information and re-posted old articles/documents. Since the linked article in question used at the Collimator sight article was not even written by Mike Sparks I asked the user to take it to WP:RSN to show the claims of "not a reliable source", "altered or forged", "some crank's website full of his own hideous opinions", "He is a lunatic", "a crank and a liar" was more than the user's opinion[2][3], but the user simply keeps deleting the link diff. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll give you my initial thoughts. From my mile high view, claims it is staffed by experts, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Herr Gruber's opinion on the reliability (or otherwise) on Mike Sparks needs to be documented on WP:RSN and agreed by consensus. More importantly, I see you edit warring with your reverts on Collimator sight here, here and here. Further reverts could have resulted in you being blocked for a short period. As soon as you get into a back-and-forth revert pattern with anyone, you need to step back, take it to talk, and wait for consensus. I know it means the article sits in what you might consider to be a "worse" state, but it probably doesn't matter too much in the long term scheme of things. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughts. "edit warring" is why I brought it here since Herr Gruber shows no signs of wanting to take it to WP:RSN. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • No opinion on cranks and liars yet, but I don't think one can link to this in a Wikipedia article--I suppose I can't do it myself here--since that's probably a copyright violation. No? Drmies (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I have an opinion now, after reading this. Read it for yourself and judge whether this person should be considered an authority on anything--I wouldn't trust him with lunch.

    Anyways, that website,, is bigger than just him, but it appears to be the regular fairly indiscriminate collection of quotes, scans, videos, rants, editorial commentary, libertarian/militaristic opinion, etc etc. The opening sentence speaks volumes: "An elite group composed of military professionals, aircraft and ground vehicle designers and civilians dedicated towards creating an excellent U.S. military capable of defending freedom both at home and abroad that has a moral compass." We can't cite something like that, and while one can post this at RSN it'll be a quick discussion. Linking to its pages for verification of printed material is problematic: I don't see anywhere that the elite group got permission from various journals and magazines to scan and post those articles (see WP:LINKVIO). In other words, for all practical purposes, don't link to it.

    As for Herr Gruber's style of communication, I think it's a bit rough around the edges, but he gave reasons for his reversals, brief as they are, and actually used a talk page; that's nice, considering those don't seem to be his favorite places on Wikipedia. I have no opinion on the edit warring: if my analysis of the website does not suffice, it should be taken up on the RSN and decided there. If edit-warring continues after that, this elite group of dedicated administrators, armed with the latest technology and with unwavering dedication to the principles of free knowledge, capitalism, and benign oligarchy will bring some kind of hammer down. Yes, I ended a sentence with a preposition: see if ArbCom cares. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  • A brief look at indicates that, whatever one may think about the merits of its contents or contributors, it is pretty obviously a WP:SPS and thereore should not be cited as a source under most circumstances. Herr Gruber was therefore right to remove such references. If anything, he should also have removed the content sourced to that site. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and removing obviously unreliable sources does not need the rubber-stamp of approval by any noticeboard.  Sandstein  20:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify, my rationale for documenting on RSN isn't so much rubber stamping as providing a reference to future editors. If I find a source I'm unsure about (which frequently happens when reviewing new stuff at AfC), an RSN search is my first port of call as a search. If even a one line entry containing "Not reliable in the slightest. Get rid." had existed, we might not have needed to come here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Somebody needs to add that "not reliable in the slightest. get rid" then. I can't stress this enough. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

As I noted, there is no pressing need to link to an online copy of a source if the full citation to the original work is given; there's plenty of FA-grade articles that link to journals, periodicals and other works that aren't stored online. What concerns me with using combatreform as a source is the site has a reputation as being the work of a crank (in particular his attempts to claim the M113 is called the "Gavin" are very well known on military forums), which makes it a dubious source for proof of the original content of a document. It's like linking to a pie chart on immigration that's hosted on Stormfront. Herr Gruber (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed; CombatReform's positions on military matters start at "dubious" and go downhill from there. Basically: keep far away from that site if you value your brain cells, although I will link this as an example of the sort of stuff we're dealing with here (although the one Drimes found above pretty much says it all!). Unfortunatly, the video Sparky put on Youtube for his straight-faced proposal for a flying M113 capable of shooting down MiGs was pulled due to using copyrighted music. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the WP:LINKVIO link. I was looking for the rational NOT to link an online copy of RS on a potential non-RS site per WP and that seems to be the crux of it, much more helpful than repeating "He is a lunatic" 10 or 20 times. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I really don't think misrepresenting what I said is going to help anyone. Herr Gruber (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
No fighting in the war room please, gentlemen. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Comment on Jimbo's talkpage[edit]

Alright then. Next time, R and I, and maybe drop someone a line for the B. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[4]. Is this a threat or just a personal attack?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The thing to do with trolls is make sure as many people as possible see what offensive thing they have written.Dan Murphy (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
What happened to "Don't Feed the Troll"? Was it seriously necessary to post this here Amadscientist? Lololond (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
If this is not considered a threat and is just a troll needing to be starved off. I do not object to this being hatted or removed. It appears that Materialscientist has blocked the editor involved.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Even if it could be classified as a "threat", it is so obviously not going to happen, so what was the outcome you were hoping for if the user has been indef blocked for trolling/disruptive editing anyway? Lololond (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I mean you hardly thought his family were in any danger, and since he could be indefinitely blocked for personal attack anyway; why did you feel the need to post it here and ask about whether it was a threat? Seems like just attention seeking to me. Lololond (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Odd for someone who created an account almost immediatly to comment here accusing another of seeking attention.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I would say "for the purpose of commenting here", based on the logs. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Agree, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The same applies with the original comment. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually I made this before, or simultaneously as the user was being blocked. That works for me.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The remarks have been scrubbed. I call that
no matter how you look at it.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


That was actually a couple of days ago, so, in my opinion, it doesn't qualify as 'current'. Myself and some other users have reached a solution that will work for right now on the talk page. The only user who has not engaged in the discussion is user:Badgirlsclub1. He/she has refused to listen to anybody else's opinions and will not even participate in the talk page discussions. Thanks--Junebea1 (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Long-term disruptive editing is the issue, and that is current. By not allowing (edit conflict merging) my uncontroversial edit just now on Bad Girls All-Star Battle it may appear like an ongoing WP:OWN issue. Widefox; talk 01:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
While I have had some problems with Junebea1 in regards to their edits to Bad Girls Club seasons' articles, there has been massive amounts of vandalism that has resulted in most of them being protected. I have brought up my past issues with Junebea1 and they have been working on them. The edit war over the color in a season infobox has stopped for now since I removed the color and stated a discussion on the talk page in hopes of gaining a consensus. Junebea1 has responded there while the other editor has not responded but has not added back a color to the infobox.
This entire section is unwarranted since Widefox first warned Junebea1 against edit warring with a template for something that has not happened for three days and is in the middle of a discussion. Then Widefox left a more personal section on Junebea1's talk page six minutes before starting this discussion, leaving Junebea1 no time to respond to the criticism that could have averted this being brought here. Aspects (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm increasingly less concerned. Both of us having to make the same edit indicates a problem. Would be good that this ownership and edit summary are made clear as a minimum. Widefox; talk 02:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I have come across this editor before. Junebea1 is a problematic SPA editor who exhibits the worst WP:OWN behaviour on a very small number of articles and does not listen to advice or warnings from any editor. I think Widefox is fully justified in bringing the issue to this forum's attention. I would add that in my opinion we are most likely dealing with a juvenile who does not have the maturity to behave as we expected Wikipedians to do. We would be far better off without this editor. --Bob Re-born (talk) 08:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Please don't insult me. I find that extremely rude and unprofessional. We can have a mature conversation without insulting each other. Junebea1 (talk) 11:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes I agree with Junebea1, personal attacks are not acceptable.
but, as I came here completely independently from a noticeboard, no previous interaction, I'm fully confident that if we can just get across the WP:OWN issue with this WP:SPA editor, this will be a step in the right direction. As I feel my efforts to point out this are not yet being heard by Junebea1, I will now remove myself from this. Widefox; talk 11:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

WA 2000 personal attacks[edit]

You are accused of being a sock, and it's not a matter for here. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have been attempting to make some small edits on the page devoted to the WA 2000 rifle. A user ROG5728 has been accusing me of being a SOCK. I dont pretend to be an expert on Wikipedia as I mainly just read articles and seldom edit them. The accusations on that page are defamatory and serve no purpose other than to ridicule. English is also not my first language so I apologize for any confusion. Anyone who has supported my position, including me, has been accused of being a SOCK. I don't pretend to understand fully how these things work but I am a college student and I do most of my posting from the campus library so his threats about tracking me down by my IP seem quite ridiculous, petty, and threatening. I think this matter should be looked at objectively by an outside party. In the past he has called in Admins that he has collaborated with in the past. I would appreciate a neutral party, who is not involved in the Wikipedia weapons project, investigate this.

Below is the link to the talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbrad2001 (talkcontribs) 02:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, there is currently a sockpuppet investigation open against you. No one said anything about "tracking down" or threatening you. I explained to you that socking (and/or edit warring on said sock accounts) could likely earn you a block from editing Wikipedia. ROG5728 (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate NAC?[edit]

Everything seems now to have been cleared up. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Why did Hahc21 close the contentious discussion linked? As far as I am aware he is already under restrictions due to incompetence: [5]. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Hahc21 is ΛΧΣ21. The discussion he closed is here IRWolfie- (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I've been informed elsewhere that the restrictions were lifted. Isn't the close pretty much similar to the original issue though? It's a premature close of a discussion; it was NACed after 1 day, before any non-involved editors could comment (and is probably partially why the issue spilled over here). IRWolfie- (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Indeed, the restrictions were lifted here. I had actually blocked on the basis of this final warning because I had not seen the lifting. I apologise to Hahc21 for the block. However I do feel the NAC was unwarranted and it's possible that a topic ban on this editor performing NACs might be in order. They just generate too much hoo-hah. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I just want to add to that. Nobody in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive245#Request_to_lift_restriction appears to have noticed the final warning, and the comments are written without addressing it. Hahc1 also didn't mention it in his request either. Bwilkins, Kudpung and newyorkbrad didn't take part in the ANI discussion; possibly because they didn't know about it. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that we are going to hold this "final warning", where he closed a withdrawn RfA (extremely contentious and definitely requiring a judgement call), against Hahc. I also can't imagine that the extreme unimportance of that "final warning" wasn't a factor in no one mentioning it. But, you know, to each their own. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 12:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • *sigh* Make someone an ArbCom clerk and hand them a couple of other trophies for their shelf, and they lose sight of what their authority and common sense really is. I do recall warning both Hahc to be careful, and also the community of what could happen, and was lambasted by his minions for suggesting that Hahc could possibly slip up. I feel slightly vindicated now, but I hate it ... and I do mean hate it when I have to say "I told you so" - especially after WP:AGFing all the way to the edge of the trees. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Your condescension towards Hahc (and his "minions", not sure what that's supposed to mean) is ... interesting to see, Bwilkins. Moving to the topic at hand, which you essentially didn't address in your comment, while it certainly wasn't an ideal close, it's far from a bad close—unless you really want to argue that consensus was going to swing in favor of blacklisting the site. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
What the hell are you talking about Ed ... what "condescension" are you making up? I'm utterly and excrutiatingly flabbergasted and saddended at Hahc's decision to have closed something that was so controvertial. The controvertial nature of it does make it a bad close - but was most certainly not one that Hahc could make. And WTF is your "minions" comment about? I'm sure you've read the attacks on my talkpage about a comment where his friends horfifically misunderstood a comment I made to Hahc and attacked me for a couple of days? I'm also certain you have followed my contributions today and have read all about minions? You're an intelligent and respected person ... I'm sure you did your homework before making the above comment? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
It was a discussion which was closed after one day, I think it's hard to tell where it would have gone, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
    • BWilkins, are you an uninvolved party with respect to Hahc? Tony (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I'd consider myself not involved - others who have misread in the past would not agree :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • To be fair to Hahc21, the "hoo-hah" in this case comes from both sides of the ridiculous drama that has been and is with outing, WO, ArbCom, blocking, unblocking, blacklist et al. Let's not crucify Hahc21 for others, a lot of very experienced editors, acting like idiots. -- KTC (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Hahc21 shouldn't have closed that discussion. NAC closures are generally expected to be less controversial topics. WP:BOLD NACs are done with the understanding that you will explain it in full detail, and you understand you are sticking your neck out and someone might take a chop at at it. That means you do so at some risk, which means sometimes there are negative consequences. Is it block-worthy? No, but it was ill-advised and poorly executed. This is partially why many in the community wanted to restrict Hahc from NAC'ing anything to begin with, and did topic ban him for a time (and may end up leading to another topic ban discussion, unfortunately). I strongly suggest you simply refrain from closing complicated discussions because the drama the closing causes is problematic. As I would tell any editor, Thank you for closing the simple stuff, but leave the contentious discussions for admin to close. This is what we do and what the community expect, and they hand pick who they want to close the contentious stuff, via RfA. If someone wants to start a topic ban discussion, I would suggest doing it at WP:AN, not here. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 14:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Besides, we get paid to close this stuff.--v/r - TP 14:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Yep, paid less than everyone else when you count our expenses... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I apologize for what I did. I am not in favour or against the inclusion of the website, and my explanation of that action is now rendered as useless. I was blocked, which was the last thing I wanted to happen in my career. I would revert myself, but I don't really have the desire to press the save button again. — ΛΧΣ21 15:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Per your desire to revert yourself, I've just re-opened it. And don't feel bad about being blocked, most of our best users have been at one time or another. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I'd mention one of, if not, the absolute best, but he has too many enemies... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes, I'd go so far as to say very few of the best have a clean block log. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
          • Hear that Dennis, you're a minority.--v/r - TP 15:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) I agree with The ed17 that there is no need to be so condescending or patronising while criticising a bad call—we're fellow editors, not his teachers. wctaiwan (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The NAC close was a poor judgment, the block was a mistake due to not knowing the restrictions had been lifted, everyone has apologised, the unblock in the log clearly states that the block was a mistake - I move that we should be abundant with our forgiveness all round, and close this and let an excellent contributor carry on with all the good stuff he does for the project. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Seconded. No admin action called for or necessary here. I'd close myself but prefer not to close threads I've been involved in. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 17:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

In the future I encourage editors to both log restrictions at editing restrictions and remove them when restrictions are over turned. NE Ent 20:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

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


Blackgaia02 and C0sm0 (alternate account) indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blackgaia02 (talk · contribs · count)

Well I'm not involved in the issues at all (User:Ryulong is his target), but I have this user on my watch list for some edit warring I blocked them for over a year ago. Not really important. What is important is that I think this user is having issues editing Wikipedia lately. They've been a bit uncommunicative, gets a little mad, doesn't want the rules to apply to him, some more hate for the rules, some shouting in the edit summary, more edit summary silliness, more shutups, and a new one 'sourcefags'. All in all, the guy isn't really that disruptive on a blockable scale. But per WP:CIR, I think he needs to find a new hobby. Read the bottom of his talk page and tell me if I'm being silly. I haven't discussed this with him because User:Bbb23 has already tried to discuss it with him.--v/r - TP 13:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok my reply to this is quite simple, I just don't like how much people were reverting all of my edits. Fine I do understand those but I just hate being told by many people who to do in this site or what should I add or not. This is like taking away my own freedom to edit any articles as I wish. As I knows, it was on the Dokidoki! PreCure I got seriously mad because they keep on removing my edits, and I'm only just adding vital info that is shown on their names. So what, I just hated people telling me that "You cannot edit as you please. Sources and Rules allowed" again and again. It pisses me off.--Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) 14:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
They're telling you that because you have no 'freedom' to edit 'as you wish.' Editing here is a privilege that requires you to obey Wikipedia policies. You've been reverted for not following those policies several times and then yelled in frustration. If you cannot edit in a collaborative environment, by the policies the community has set, without getting angry then you should find another hobby.--v/r - TP 14:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
That's not fair at all. You're telling me to leave forever because you guys never like how I edit? Fine.--Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) 14:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Clearly this user is not here to edit an encyclopedia. Yes, anyone can edit - but there are rules and guidelines for promoting an academic and collaborative environment, which Blackgaia is obviously not willing to follow (in fact, on this ANI thread alone, he is already in contravention of one guideline). Any objections to an indef?--WaltCip (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm at work so I can't delve deep enough to comment on any block, but this account should be included in any result. Tiderolls 15:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Look I get it! I'll work with everyone here if anyone won't eventually annoy me on what to do.--Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) 15:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
You also need to include links to your user page and talk page in your signature, please. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't understand Blackgaia's problems, whether they are attitudinal or medical or something else, or a combination of more than one problem. However, from a Wikipedia perspective, he wants to edit in his own bubble, which is not possible. Otherwise, he is going to have these periodic outbursts. He should be indeffed. If he corrects the problem in the future and can edit collaboratively without tantrums, then he can always come back and request an unblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Done. User has been here for seven years and still can't behave like an adult. We are not here to guide young people through life, and temper tantrums call for a naughty chair. If user can promise to behave, they might could be let back in, but I see nothing but a net negative here (note also the long list of notifications on the talk page: typically such lists are evidence that the editor simply doesn't know what we are and what we do). Drmies (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Administrator Dougweller's Apparent Misrepresenations[edit]

No administrative action is required. The AfD is the correct venue for (reasonable) discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  1. Dougweller has put much time and attention into getting a page deleted (Covenant Reformed Baptist Church).
  2. I noted (copied below) that Dougweller stated a notability tag had been on the article for 2 months when, in fact, he had put it up only 5 days previous.
  3. I ascertained that The Caswell Messenger is owned by Womack Publishing Company ( while the Danville Register and Bee is owned by World Media Enterprises, a division of Berkshire Hathaway (
  4. Why, then, did Dougweller state that The Caswell Messenger and The Danville Register and Bee were owned by the same company? (copied below)

This appears to be two misrepresentations of fact: (1) about the duration of the notability tag and (2) about the ownership of the two newspapers.

copy of my order of events March 14 with assertion of fact following:

  1. a notability tag was put on the article on January 23 and removed that same day because the organization, having two separate sources for published articles, seemed to meet the standard stated on the tag.
  2. another notability tag was placed on the article on March 9 by Dougweller, writing, "I've restored the notability tag which was removed without discussion...".
  3. To that, Rjensen responded defending the article's notability on the "talk" page, including: "the editor of a local newspaper can be considered a RS on institutions in that county."
  4. On March 13, I wrote, "The notability tag wasn't removed without discussion. The reasons for this page meeting the notability requirements were given briefly and are still above."
  5. Only 5 days after placing the notability tag on it, Dougweller nominated the article for deletion, saying "A notability tag has been on this article for almost 2 months" (above).
  6. A new source has been added: "Covenant marks first anniversary," Danville Register & Bee, March 8, 2009. This is the newspaper serving Danville, Virginia.

Yeoberry (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Owned by the same company as the Caswell Messenger. Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Yeoberry (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The tag was added here dated 2013-01-23T15:27:37. You removed it here, half an hour later. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's noted above. Dougweller's statement was that a notability tag had been up two months. It had not been. He used that statement to move toward the deletion of the article.Yeoberry (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what admin action is necessary here. Ks0stm (TCGE) 18:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

What do we do when multiple misrepresentations are used as the basis to delete an article? Yeoberry (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You've already responded, multiple times, to the alleged misrepresentations on the AfD, so anyone going there to comment will see your claims, and will !vote with full knowledge of them. What more do you want? No one is going to take down the AfD on the basis of your claim of misrepresntation, the AfD is just going to run its course. There's really nothing for an admin to do here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Edits and discussions unproductive and disruptive editing User:Jfeise[edit]

Jfeise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) continues to block efforts to improve and add information to International Technological University. I am operating under undisclosed COI as a representative for the university in the entry. Regardless of how my approach is with Jfeise, he persists in keeping any additions from being made. It is an uphill battle for any additions, and he always labels everything I propose as advertising. Jfeise continues to rely on the fact that I am operating under undisclosed COI as his argument knowing that it is a gray area, however, I am doing my best to be be neutral, and receptive. His responses are never productive, and he always goes back to the same points of "sockpuppetry" (which I'm contacting the admin that passed judgement to explain the situation, and will be happy to address if necessary), or advertising. Most recently, ITU received accreditation, and therefore, we would like to add the fact and expand upon our wikipedia entry to reflect that information. In accordance to wikipedia best practices, I post the proposed content onto the talk page, however, Jfeise is always quick to tear it down rather than suggest improvements. He is quick to label it as advertising, revert the changes without discussion, and carry on in a non-productive manner. I try to have a reasonable discussion with him, but he adds nothing new and keeps going on about unrelated incidents: Removing content without warning; another example is he reverted a change after only 5 min. . For the second example, the content was posted taking into consideration Jfeise's concerns of the neutrality, but still he continued his comments about sockpuppetry and advertising with no positive contribution. I hope that some administrators can help take notice, and offer some assistance. Ituhubert (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, Ituhubert misrepresents the issues. I am reverting his advertising on that page, but there are lots of constructive additions and changes that I have no problems with, so Ituhubert's assertion that I "persist in keeping any additions from being made" is simply untrue. Again, the reverts I have made on that article had to do with advertisements. jfeise (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, the the user Ituhubert has previously operated a sock, which had harassed me: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ituhubert/Archive. Recently, the same style of harassment was posted on my talk page from an IP (Special:Contributions/,) and the same IP also removed content from the article in question, which was reverted first by me, and then by another editor. Yet, Ituhubert only attacks me, which looks like yet another harassment in the previous style. jfeise (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
If you view the talkpage [6], you'll see that the dialogue almost always goes to Jfeise referring to my operating under undisclosed COI, or to the sockpuppetry investigation, he seems to completely ignore any assumptions of good faith, and constantly labels the content as advertising. It's like talking to a broken record pretty much, and makes progress a tiresome and frustrating experience. I understand that statements should be backed and referenced, but constantly having to respond to allegations without any forward movement seems pointless. Regarding the sockpuppetry, as I have mentioned, there was someone from the same university that was found committing the violations - this person was asked immediately to cease and desist. I cannot control the actions of those that are around me, and even less so online.
I have never harassed or attacked Jfeise, nor have I asked anyone else harass him in any way. The sockpuppetry investigation is inaccurate. Instead I've put all of my efforts into discussing things and working towards a mutual conclusion. Regarding his reverts, he does not discuss it on talkpage, and when he does it always goes back to the same two points: Undisclosed COI and Sockpuppetry. I could understand if the long discussions led to more progress, however, it's always the same song. Ituhubert (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The sockpuppetry was real. It was found by Wikipedia administrators to be sockpuppetry, and the sock accounts got blocked indef. You obviously did not consider the findings inaccurate at that time. And you need to learn that advertising has no place on Wikipedia. Please put your advertising elsewhere. And stop harassing people who clean up advertising. Thank you. jfeise (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Of course, even Jimbo has said that those with COI should not be directly editing the articles that they have COI on - merely suggesting changes on the article talkpage to obtain consensus ... declaring COI does not absolve you from it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Which is of course what I have told Ituhubert several times, as the talk page shows. He just has chosen to ignore that, and instead accuses me of disruptive editing, when in reality it is he who does the disruptive edits. jfeise (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I have suggested changes on the article many times, however, the dialogue is always overshadowed with Jfeise's comments. I understand the gray area of COI, but Wikipedia policies do not specify that editors with a COI are not allowed, only advised not to: [7]. Now that I am more familiar with Wikipedia policies, I am sure to post my content on the talk page before just blatantly making it public. However, every time I propose content, this is the type of responses that Jfeise offers:
If the purpose of having other editors comment on the talk page is to discuss improvements, then I don't see how this comment and other comments like...
... are in any way progress towards building a consensus rather Jfeise's method of derailing the conversation, and going off-topic. Ituhubert (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Interesting that you copy from a conversation from July 2012, which was around the time when your sockpuppet OrientalSoul attacked me. It is obviously you who is trying to derail the conversation and going off-topic. It is obviously you who is doing disruptive edits. I have told you lots of times to keep advertising and promotional material off the page. Yet you continue to post advertising and promotional material in blatant disregard of the COI policies. When that gets pointed out to you, you attack me, and post a bogus ANI complaint. jfeise (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, Jfeise, we're only replaying what is already on our talkpage here. I have never attacked you, nor have I asked anyone else to attack you. I had often hoped that rather than you telling me my content is advertising and promotional that you would offer a rewrite or suggest a rewrite of your own. Every time my expectations were shot as soon as the mention of "sock puppetry" came about in your reply. I do appreciate comments like:
Though there is some good points, I took those, and responded.. then the next comment:
We go back to the same cycle, plus your example was false after my own research, WASC accredited two other universities for their doctoral degrees. It just seems like you're reaching to make points on a whim and just to spite my suggested content. Ituhubert (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
And then you posted your advertising without getting consensus. Again, against COI policies. And instead, you were posting this bogus ANI complaint. jfeise (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and selectively quoting from the talk page is counterproductive to begin with. I am sure the admins know how to get to the talk page, and they can read the whole context there. The bottom line is that your recent proposed change was not noteworthy, not sourced, and promotional material. That's why I opposed it. The modified change was only marginally better, but it still was promotional material. That's why I reverted it. You have since made some changes that were not promotional, and I am happy with that. You need to understand that promotional material does not belong on Wikipedia, and you need to understand that you can't threaten and harass people who revert promotional material. ANd this whole discussion doesn't belong on ANI, anyway. Discuss this on the article's talk page. jfeise (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines[edit]

DS warned by User:Kim Dent-Brown, who also wisely advised both parties to chill. Nothing more to do here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I was editing an article in my own Wikipedia user space when User:Darkness Shines issued a message on my talk page that struck me as Wikipedia:Harassment,[8] and so soon after he had been warned about his behavior in an AN/I that's not even a week old. I did not answer this (thereby going against your advice above to talk it out first), but the reason is that this would, in my previous experience, only yield another negative reaction. Crtew (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You don't like DS, and he doesn't like you. Does that mean that anytime the two of you interact you're going to bring it to ANI? Why don't you work on the article that he promises to nominate for deletion? Surely we all have better things to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
User Space should mean something. And why is he watching whatever I do? There are rules against that, and it's policy. See above. Also see past warnings against him in these archives. Crtew (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, all pages on Wikipedia belong to the Foundation ... even userpages. For example, userpages are subject to copyright, BLP and can be MFD'd and speedy deleted ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
(Edit Conflict) Also I would hardly call this "interacting". That makes it sounds so innocent, as if I were actually on mainspace and editing an article and another user wanted to talk about something I was doing. This is someone watching my own development space, uninvited, and then intimidating me with warning messages. Yes, this is a statement of intimidation: He's saying when it's in mainspace, it will be nominated for deletion. If you look at past interactions, there is a pattern. Furthermore, since the closure of the last AN/I, I have gone out of my way not to "interact" with him in mainspace. You can look at my edit history to verify that.Crtew (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Then he should propose a speedy delete and see where that will get him.Crtew (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Here you go, if you think it can be speedy deleted: User:Crtew/Press intimidation in — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crtew (talkcontribs) of 22:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)As long as he doesn't edit your userspace pages, I think he's allowed to read them and comment on them. Although his message wasn't very friendly, I don't think it is strictly against the rules. If he posts on your talk page again, you're free to revert him. Just make sure the page you are working on is notable and you don't have anything to fear from him. I suppose you could request an interaction ban, but I don't know if there are grounds for that or not. It would have to be based on more than this situation. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Just so we're all reading the same policy here I quote: "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases.

The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions."

Taken with his past history (see his history for what I'm talking about and his long list of complaints here in AN/I), this is tendentious and disruptive.Crtew (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The two of you have a history, and I'm not going to dig up all the diffs to compare the childlike behavior to see who "wins". I've seen enough of it. As an aside, he didn't say he'd tag it for speedy deletion; he said he'd nominate it for deletion. As Mark said, you can revert him; it's your talk page. You can also tell him not to post on your talk page again (better to do that on his talk page rather than in an edit summary). This topic should be closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I've already told him never to post on my page again and several times, both on my page and on his page. That's not going to work.Crtew (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Diffs for that would be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I've viewed Crtw's talk page and the requests for DS to stay away are still there. I've warned DS not to post to Crtew's talk again. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, the speedy delete point was about what bwilkins says, not what DS said. There's no way in a million years that what I have even it a half finished form as it is would be a speedy delete. The point here is that there is no need for him to be poking his nose around in my user space and then to be issuing me disruptive comments.Crtew (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

As for diffs it's all Mizabotted. Right after he put me on his fake warning list (where he was posing as administrator and issuing me warnings about my behavior -- for copying editing an article) I wrote this on his talk page:

You have absolutely no right to put me on any kind of noticeboard list. You must stop this immediately, take me off the list and leave me alone. Crtew (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
If you are going to stalk me to a highly contentious article it is only right that I inform you that it is under arbitration enforcement. I inform quite a few people, it is no bigge. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
NO it is a very big deal. You need to leave me alone. This is a backlash. Do not address me or contact me or put me on any kind of listing. Why do you think my editing on this site is about YOU? Are you that egocentric? Get over yourself. I was there to explore a connection between Bergman and the article and I have every right to do that. You have crossed a line Buddy/ I feel intimidated by your actions and no longer safe in this environment. And I will not tolerate this. You need to cease and desist. Crtew (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
For goodness sake Crtew, ease off. You brought a complaint, DS has been warned. Don't pour fuel on the fire by continuing to post here. There is no further admin action likely or necessary. The pair of you are heading for an interaction ban if either of you pursues this quarrel any further. DS, lay off as well. There is nothing to be gained and everything to be lost by extending this. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

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

The Scottywong, the Wikipediocracy, and the blacklist[edit]

If further discussion on related-but-different subjects is needed, please open a new section below. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Context for this section. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think we all have expressed ourselves adequately Spartaz Humbug! 10:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not quite the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, but anyways... just when you think the eDrama was dying down, we have the recent kerfuffle over the Wikipediocracy brought about two separate blacklist discussions; one at talk:Spam-blacklist, the other at the Village Pump, both of which garnered rather tepid responses from the WIkipedia community. AGK unilaterally added the URL to the black list the other day, then self-reverted in the face of opposition. Scottywong has now taken it upon himself to ignore the community and wrong-headedly invoke WP:IAR to overrule by decree.

Admin attention is necessary to revert this edit and to caution Scottywong against thumbing his nose at the Wikipedia community. Tarc (talk) 02:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we please just stop it with all the STUPID that's seems to be going around like a virus lately? Scotty, just undo what you did, then let's close it quick and everyone relax.Volunteer Marek 03:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm not going to say that Tarc was wrong to bring this here, but perhaps we should try to determine consensus on whether or not the site that shall not be named should be blacklisted. AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 03:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I think that was partially the point of the VP discussions, so I don't think bringing it up again (at AN/I) is the best venue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Just for the record. I am the one who closed the discussion as rejected. Clearly, some people here has been overreacting as of late. First, the damage is already done; Russavia is outed, and blocking users for posting a link (i) will do more harm than good, (ii) won't change the status of Russavia's personal information, and (iii) won't prevent more users to see the private information. Wikipedia and its users are not the only way that people can get to that website, and punishing our users won't change anything. Also, seems like adding the website to the blacklist is a way to climb up the drama-hill again. — ΛΧΣ21 03:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The edit summary seems to suggest that editors are being blocked for linking to this site. If so, who? It seems like admin time would be better spent unblocking those editors, surely. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll explain my reasoning here, and then let whatever happens happen:

  • Multiple editors (including admins) have recently been blocked for posting a link to Wikipediocracy. It has been demonstrated that anyone recently posting a link to Wikipediocracy will get blocked. Therefore, we can either allow people to continue posting links and getting blocked, or we can not allow it and prevent those blocks. Perhaps it will prevent the blocking of someone who is unaware of this new de facto rule. This helps improve the encyclopedia by preventing the unnecessary blocking of editors.
  • People are getting blocked because Wikipediocracy is currently hosting an article that publishes the identity and personal details of a Wikipedia editor. If this article goes away, then I would agree that Wikipediocracy should be removed from the blacklist.
  • The above-mentioned discussions on VP and the blacklist talk page were contributed to primarily by WO regulars, since the discussions were advertised on their forum. I don't consider either of these discussions to represent the unbiased consensus of Wikipedia editors, therefore I don't consider my action to be against consensus, nor is it my intention to "thumb my nose at the Wikipedia community".
  • The primary purpose of Wikipedia is to write encyclopedia articles. If we continue to lose editors due to something as stupid as posting a link to a site with questionable content, then we are not serving our own best interests. We can't write articles without editors. We can write articles without linking to a site that will immediately get you blocked. This is my rationale for invoking IAR with regard to this action. If you can't link to a site without getting blocked, then there is no reason to give editors enough rope to hang themselves.
  • Further discussion on the subject can be found on my talk page.
  • If my action is to be reverted, I would prefer that it is done either after a consensus discussion that is not dominated by WO regulars, or by an admin who has no connection to Wikipediocracy. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 03:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, I'm off for the night. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 03:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Easy solution: Stop blocking people for linking to a Wikipedia critic forum site (it's petty and stupid), then the above arguments for blacklisting it (against the will of community discussion) won't hold water. (Keeping my essay up to date is getting to be a full-time job these days.) *Dan T.* (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Symbol wtf vote.svg --MZMcBride (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
WTF? This debate is like Michael Myers, no matter how many times people try to kill it the damn thing never seems to die. What Scotty fails to disclose here is that he actually participated in the VPP discussion to express support for such a listing making him WP:INVOLVED and the fact that several editors with no apparent connection to WO have opposed the measure in that same discussion.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not a regular contributor to these particular discussions, and I've never edited at WO or its predecessor, so perhaps Scottywong will accept me as neutral. There has already been the sufficient discussion he asks for, and the consensus has been found. Not only is there no consensus for blacklisting the site; there is consistent good consensus against it. And rightly so, in my opinion: trying to hide the mention of one's critics is wholly against the spirit of WP, and the letter of policy. As an analogy, removing links to criticism is the sort of thing we routinely find from paid and other COI editors, and which has cast such editing into disrepute. I think the discussion is over here, and I would regard trying to restart it as disruptive. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point of why it's proposed. They out people on their front page, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
And exactly who is a Wikipediocracy regular? I don't post there. Look, this a turning into an attempt to overturn the old attack sites ARBCOM case by admin fiat. The purpose of all of this is to drum up a lot of counterproductive drama. If everyone would quit pointing at then and crying about how awful they are, the problem would blow over. I do not want a precedent by which admins are essentially authorized to delete links because they don't like the Wikipedia criticism at the other end. Mangoe (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Here's what Scottywong and others have asked now. For all of you (Tarc, Hex, Kevin, etc.) who were involved on WO in the past weeks to stop trying to turn consensus your way (and by the way, I have proof that there has been canvassing on WO for these discussions). Leave it to the uninvolved, i.e. never posted on WO, community to decide this instead of bringing all of WO here and not letting anyone else who isn't on WO discuss it. Thanks. gwickwiretalkediting 03:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
This is the kind of foolishness that led to your block in the first place, and is providing ample reason that it may have been too hasty to grant you a reprieve. No one is, or even can, "turn consensus"; to my knowledge, no one around here is a psychic, a confidence man, or a shyster. Many editors, regardless of what external websites they may or may not also be a member of, have presented their opinions on the matter. It is quite a simple fact that more editors simply do not wish to resort to blacklisting and other such vilification tactics, and that opposition comes from many editors who have nothing to do at all with any such website. For you to whip out that broad brush is the height of intellectual dishonesty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talkcontribs) 04:35, 15 March 2013‎ (UTC)

Scottywong, I guess you missed the fact that AGK (who is not just a fellow admin but also a very important member of the shrinking ArbCom) unblocked MZMcBride, who he had earlier blocked for linking to the site in question. AGK's unblock edit summary was "community consensus has held that linking to pages that out another editor is a legitimate thing for contributors to do, so this block cannot stand for much longer". Now, I think AGK may not have chosen his words carefully when he wrote that, but he seems to think that there is no consensus to add the site to the blacklist or to block people for linking to it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Are we still talking about this site? Is there really nothing better to do? Is it really that important of a website? Mark Arsten (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • It's done quite a bit to promote that site, hasn't it? They're probably hoping there are some more blocks/bans/desysoppings/blacklistings over it; it's the best marketing they can get. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I posted this at Wikipediocracy, but if you look at the Alexa stats, in the past month alone the ranking dropped (improved) by 31,073 (compared to a 3 month total of 47,788), number of pageviews was up 53%, pageviews per user up 50%, time on site up 115%.Volunteer Marek 04:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • IMO, Scottywong's reasoning and rationale is irrelevant; we've had this discussion twice now, and these people can't be allowed to just keep flinging their junk at the wall hoping that sooner or later it will stick. I am off for the night as well now; I hope tonight someone steps up and revert