Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive402

Threat by User:SeattleJoe
SeattleJoe has just posted this and this, targeting myself and ErgoSum88 over edits made to the Incest article.

I think these warnings are wholly unacceptable; threatening to 'call the cops' on editors you disagree with is practically a legal threat. I don't appreciate being compared to a child molester, either. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * He states, in a admittedly very melodramatic way "If anyone insists on expressing, or even implying, the "opinion" that sex between adults and children is ever not criminal, that it is not always sexual abuse, in this article, or anywhere else I may become aware of, allow me to hereby notify them to cease and desist. If they do not, I will, literally, call the cops." Well, I trust that the "if anyone description doesn't apply to anyone. Factually, such acts are normally criminal, and abusive. Who'd argue otherwise, that wasn't here to troll or advocate fringe nonsense? Too hypothetical to be a real threat. But he should calm down.--Docg 09:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I initially blocked based on the diffs, but reversed myself and am engaging in dialogue. I read it as a threat of police action; I'll watch his reaction. Hopefully this doesn't open a can. -Jéské  (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 09:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's just a case of getting a little over-passionate about the topic for one reason or another. It's easy to do, and doesn't really warrent a block, and even if a block was place, it shouldn't be a long one. See if calms down first, and see how he interects before thinking about blocks. A caution wouldn't go amiss though.  Lra drama 10:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A little over-passionate is an understatement. A simple look at this editor's contribution history shows he or she is pushing a POV and does not wish to back down. Not only is SeattleJoe trying to own the Incest article, as seen here and here, but this user has clearly issued a legal threat (in addition to attempting to dictate to others how to edit) on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch. I'd say a block, or at least a strong censure, is more than warranted. ~ Homologeo (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was about to report this user myself but see someone beat me to it. SeattleJoe has clearly violated WP policies against making legal threats. He's also openly stated on the talk page at Incest that he will make changes to the article whether anyone likes them or not and pretty much promised that he would edit war if anyone changed it back. He told people to "go fuck themselves", he;s violating WP:SOAP, WP:OWN, etc. WP is not therapy. This person shows no sign of listening to anyone outside of his shrill soapboxing and deserves to be blocked. The Quiet Man (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Further discussion on the user's talk page seems to show that the user is convinced (and quite paranoid) that people are trying to "downplay the seriousness of child abuse". I don't know where he got this from but it's ludicrous, absurd, not based in fact and whatever other fancy terms I can come up with that mean WRONG. And he doesn't show any sign of letting go of it. As noted at the top, I also do not appreciate being compared to a child molestor just because of style disagreements. The Quiet Man (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been watching this thread and I think the user has all the signs of a fixated SPA with who-knows-what in his thoughts. The notion users are trying to "downplay the seriousness of child abuse" is codswallop. The threat to call the police if he sees any text he doesn't like is more or less hollow but will have a chilling effect on any general interest editor's willingness to put up with such disruption in discussions and editing. After some thought, unless he can be reasoned with (which may not be too likely), I would call for a block, for both the legal threat (which could easily turn into some kind of general threat of civil action) and disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That analysis seems dead on, and I too would support a block should the user not readily demonstrate himself to be willing to comport his editing with our conduct policies and practices. Joe 17:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not every "threat" involving the law is a blockable legal threat.
 * "If you post text-X I will sue you" is a clear legal threat, blockable per WP:LEGAL
 * "If you threaten violent-act-Y I will report you to the police" is not a blockable legal threat, indeed it is the recommended course of action according to WP:VIOLENCE.
 * "If you commit crime-Z I will report you to the police" is not a legal threat at all; it is an affirmation of responsible citizenship.
 * "If you post text-X I will report you to the police" is what SeattleJoe actually said. It's somewhere in the middle. If he sees the act of posting the contentious material as being criminal, of course he would feel justified in calling the police. This isn't a matter for blocking, but for discussion. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 18:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The worry would be, it seems likely he'll read something worded in a way he doesn't like and go on about it. Reporting a crime (or advocacy of a crime) to the police is a given, there's no need to specifiy it on a talk page, that's disruption. It's like announcing on a talk page, "If any editor here reveals, or attempts to reveal, any identifying personal information about me, I'll call the police, call their ISP, post it to ANI and have them blocked." Un-needed, unhelpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reblocked SeattleJoe for making the same type of post after I had told him in no uncertain terms not to and for promising to war over it if it were removed. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 18:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; even if it doesn't entail legal problems, even if it isn't intended to produce a chilling effect, it's still tendentious. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 22:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

He's just posted a long screed on his userpage, announcing that he's reported us all to the FBI and warning us to purge the kiddie porn from our hard drives and then discard them to avoid prosecution. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not all of us, he didn't. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice, might it be time to lock down his page and stop feeding him? Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was locked last night, and trimmed of troll-bait just a couple of minutes after Orangemike posted his message here.  --Kralizec! (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The page was protected last night for a different reason - see below. I have full-protected it; he's just blown any chance at returning. -Jéské  (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 23:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This guy has been doing nothing but making nonsense edits on talk pages. Looks like blog comment spam, but without any links.--Sir Anon (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Might this be related to the discussion here? Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Troll. Should be blocked.   Corvus cornix  talk  23:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

TAMLIN HODGKINSON; It made sense to me at the time - it realises satire of the CIA world factbook terminology approach, but apathy rules metal, so you know, apologies...

Incivility and deception by Tedickey
Tedickey repeatedly and summarily reverted valid edits on an article, despite cited supporting comments on the Talk page, and marked the changes as minor.

The initial edit that I encountered was a reversion of two edits that I had made: revision history. The user's edit comment for the change, "reservoirs don't have to hold water," underrepresented the extent of the change and belied the reversion. Simply reverting valid edits without making any effort at modification is in itself is poor form, as described at Help:Reverting. In this case, my edit comments also described basis for changes and referred to comments at the talk page, making summary reversion the more remarkable. The user did not address my comments at the Talk page.

What further caught my attention is that the user disguised their reversions as minor edits, and a check of recent contributions indicates this to be a pattern. Such behavior seems a rather blatant flouting of the guidelines that edits be marked as minor only if changes would not disputed be.

The user's edit comment on the second reversion, "suggest you provide some content, rather than contention," seems ironic, at best, and contributed to my conclusion that engaging them was unlikely to be productive. In combination with the pattern of marking reversions as minor, it seemed appropriate to report the issue here in an effort to address the community concern of an overall pattern in tone and behavior. ENeville (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please follow dispute resolution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Death threat?
On this diff User:Camilo Sanchez has stated "Look, you gotta thank god you can hide behind a computer of else I would have provided you with a beautiful Colombian necktie." Personally, I find this slightly disconcerting. Would another admin please warn or block the user concerned. I am far too involved to do anything. Thanks. Woody (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've left a note. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So between us, we've left a chord. --Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 10:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm...(no blocks). Thoughts on this? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've indefblocked this user. Death threats are not allowed under any circumstances. -- The Anome (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but I doubt the user was serious, and if he retracts/apologies/doesn't do it again, then he should be unblocked. -- Ned Scott 10:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Autism
Are there any admins looking to help and mentor an autistic user like me? Is it wrong to edit Wikipedia if you are autistic? I know some of my articles have not been up to parr but I am trying! Plz. respond. JeanLatore (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Responded at user's talk page. ThuranX (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Jean, some say a lot of editors on wikipedia are autistic, whether they've been diagnosed officially or not.:) I don't think you'll be out of place here.  Welcome to wikipedia and enjoy your time editing. Merkin's   mum  10:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ban
i would like to request a ban for 220.238.94.203 for continually making unneccessary edits to Westfield Doncaster. he has not put references or proved he knows for sure about stats he put on the page. --Thfrang 06:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thfrang (talk • contribs)
 * Technically - you werent very civilised either. Fattyjwoods  ( Push my button  ) 06:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides. Edit warring isnt really going to help is it? Thats what a Talk Page is for - to discuss things. Fattyjwoods  ( Push my button  ) 06:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Leaving a warning like this isn't being very collaborative either. Talk it out and be civil.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 07:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * One last thing - fitness first should not be on the page as it is not listed on the official store list.   Fattyjwoods  ( Push my button  ) 07:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Incivility on List of cabals
I have repeatedly removed a "cabal" listing from List of cabals, but User:Allstarecho continues to add it back, telling me I need to "| grow up", and accusing me of stalking. This user has been uncivil about this and refuses to actually discuss, instead, preferring to |sling insults. This stems out of a MfD that resulted in a template of his being deleted as an attack template, him re-writing it, me submitting the re-write for deletion because I wasn't quite comfortable with the re-write and wanting other opinions, which I got and withdrew my nomination. Because of this, he has resorted to declaring that I am stalking him and placing this indirect attack on this page.

I am aware of the big purple box at the top regarding the intended humor of the topic, and that there are bigger things to worry about. However, when one user is the sole subject of the humor, it ceases to be humor and becomes an attack. If I'm wrong in placing this here, that's fine, but this user has a history of incivility and being blocked for it]. I don't want him blocked, I just want this attack against me to stay removed. Justinm1978 (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This has also been listed at WP:WQA.  Grsz  11  15:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As a side note, Justinm1978 began adding content to the "Gay Cabal" listing on March 16th. His addition is referring to the debate about the userboxes. The following day, Allstarecho added content to the "Boy Scout Cabal" listing in response. Yes, ASE wrote the Boy Scout Cabal section on March 12th. Nothing he wrote could be considered a personal attack, especially since other people have added the same kind of material to cabal listings. Look at the Christian cabal entry. It's harsh compared to what ASE wrote. I just think people need to drop past issues and work on the encyclopedia. Filing this on ANI is a waste of time. WP:LOC is called a humor page for a reason. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Since when is the presence of other stuff a valid reason to keep/remove something? I would prefer that the administrators determine if this is a waste of time or not (as I stated in my original posting), not someone who constantly interjects themselves into every discussion I have on this subject and has a pre-existing bias against me.  Justinm1978 (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have left a reply at Wikiquette alerts. - &#10032; ALLSTAR &#10032; echo 01:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As noted here, this user (who accuses me of stalking, when in fact I watch ASE's talk page and that is how I know of these pointless discussions) is ironically being uncivil on the very same page he started a conversation about ASE being uncivil. This user is beating a dead horse. I'm not sure of what Justin wants in this situation, but I hope he's satisfied with the attention he's received on this page and WP:WQA. Now, Justin please go work on an article and drop it. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain what the point of you putting this here after you | said you were done with this pointless conversation. If it is so pointless, why do you continue to participate?  I'm not sure of what Justin wants in this situation  I said in the beginning, I want this personal attack to stay deleted.  I wouldn't be beating a dead horse if someone wasn't beating the same dead horse just as much.  Please leave this to the administrators and maintain some civility as well.  Justinm1978 (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Justin, if you want to continue this junior-high game of tattle-tell and screaming for attention from an admin (notice, none of them have replied to you here), then do so on my talk page and get it out of your system. Go ahead, please post on my talk page so that this kind of crap will cease on ANI. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, go work on your articles and maintain civility. This is only getting dragged out because you continue to participate.  You do not own ANI.  Justinm1978 (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Subpages
I have attempted to move the Igorburger and East718 thread to their own subpages, and was reverted. This page is 308 kilobytes long. Please if subpages can't be used in these two cases, I don't seem to find another a solution. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The East718 discussion may warrant a subpage, but we're still trying to attract attention at the Igorberger discussion. Please don't move it off the main page. Thank you.Equazcion •✗/C • 22:29, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)
 * Igorberger certainly needs wide consensus. Leave it on the main page, no opinion on East 718. ThuranX (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This page is 407 kilobytes long as restored. Please consider placing them on subpages. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd welcome a proposal at WP:VPR to start a practice like this, but just doing it with absolutely no prior discussion is not helpful. People currently don't know to look at subpages. Having a discussion take place here means people will see it more in their watchlists, because everyone has ANI watchlisted and can see that the discussion is very active, so they may decide to chime in on it. The practice in general might be something to explore further, but one person suddenly deciding to move discussions off this page is really not the way to go. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">Equazcion  •✗/C • 22:46, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)
 * And it particularly disrupted the impetus on the conversation that was taking place (not to mention the mess it made with edit conflicts).-- VS talk 22:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah I was in the middle of commenting when the move occurred. Anyway I hope it gets back on track now that this mess is over. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">Equazcion •✗/C • 22:51, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer subpages be used less often. Often, as said above, creating a subpage disrupts the impetus of the discussion or limits the discussion to an unrepresentative portion of the community, if only inadvertently. --Iamunknown 00:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

My first reaction was that the move helped (as it was meant to), but then I quickly had second thoughts, much like User:Iamunknown's. It broke the thread and because it came without warning, caused a flurry of edit conflicts. It was a long thread but it was ending: Soon after it was restored the incident was resolved and the thread was archived. If a thread gets so long that it's bogging down this page for some, I suggest discussing any move first. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Shgdh (Kay Körner again?)
Looking at the patern of work and insults it appears, the multi-blocked user Kay Körner has returned after a few weeks of peace and quiet. Under the new username User:Shgdh he has recreated the deleted article Dynamo-hall of fame which I have now nominated for speedy deletion (see talk page of the article). If anything, he is now more abusive then ever (see here), language like (excuse me) fuck you bastard! and revert vandalism by drug admin should not be part of wikipedia! He is at his pet articles which envolve around Sportvereinigung (SV) Dynamo again, deleting anything any previous editor wrote and removing all tags and calling other editors liers. A close look at his history makes it pretty clear it is him again, quite the same pattern. For more history, see Administrators' noticeboard/Archive133 under: SV Dynamo and multi-indef-blocked User:Kay Körner. His usuall two IP addresses at the Sachsen State Library are still blocked until 25 April, he is operating from a new one now, IP 141.30.133.98. Maybe an administrator could have a quick look at the case. Thank you,EA210269 (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I can vouch for this. I dealt somewhat with the original situation, and this new user and the IPs are using very similar edit summaries ("rv bast. vandalism", etc.). An indefinite block for Shdgh as a SPA is definitely in order. --clpo13(talk) 02:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The user has been active again, reverting User:Clpo13 edits. I in turn reverted his now. He has recreated the Dynamo-hall of fame article, I put a speedy delition tag on it again. Its a bit like groundhog day, I guess. He is still very abusive, I don't think that you fucking bastard, which is a racist is needet in america was his last comeback on Talk:Dynamo-hall of fame to my speedy deletion tag. If any administrator could look into it, it would be much appreciated. Thanks for your time,EA210269 (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Revision history of CSWS
Please redirect conversation to correct place if this isn't it. Can an experienced administrator please review the above. I'd appreciated someone placing the strictest appropriate warning on the huge number of vandal editors. Nearly every single edit by an IP was vandalism. Also a couple of them bothered to make accounts so if they could be warned as well. I'm 100% willing to accept a warning on my own talkpage if someone decides it is needed for consistency. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, looking here there has been 1 IP vandal in the last two months, who has received a warning for the edit. There are 21 edits to this article over 5 years only 2 IP's were blatant vandalism. No blocks or further action is necessary. <font face="verdana" color=#6633cc>Khu <font face="verdana" color=#CC66FF>kri 12:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hangon, it's the redirect that being hit, Oxymoron83 has put semi-prot in place and am looking through the accounts and most have been blocked as single purpose, will put a semi-prot on the main article as well. The IP's most of them have stopped editing or have been blocked so blocks on the rest would be punitive and not to stop disruption, which is not what they are for. Cheers <font face="verdana" color=#6633cc>Khu <font face="verdana" color=#CC66FF>kri 12:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note I didn't ask for blocks. I asked for the most stringent warning available to be issued by someone who is more experienced (I don't want any accusations against me when I'm trying to help). The history of the page I was speaking of showed it's creation as a redirect and then for some reason the next edit had today's date and the vandalism ensued. Again I wasn't asking for blocks against everyone just for the most appropriate warning to go on the user page so everything could be on record and above board. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat
The ever-problematic Giovanni di Stefano article now features an IP claiming to be the subject's son making a rather dramatic legal threat against User:Avruch. Eyes on it, please, but take care with your actions, as this article has led to trouble in the past. -- Relata refero (disp.) 12:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: as I went to link the diff, I see Fred Bauder has just moved in with a ban under NLT. More people experienced with this sort of thing might want to weigh in to defuse the situation. -- Relata refero (disp.) 12:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The situation is defused, the IP has been blocked for 1 month per WP:LEGAL. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, sans-serif; color:#775ca8;">Rgoodermote  13:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Another instance of a hatchet job by "insiders" on the unsuspecting
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Extended Discussion If you would like to see what sort of hatchet job can be done by Wikipedia "insiders" on unsuspecting "outsiders" who happen to stumble upon bogus articles concerning their field of expertise, have a look at the recent AfD discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Myrzakulov_equations_%282nd_nomination%29
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is a discussion that has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.' ''
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Carefully read, the history of the event should be pretty clear, although this is only the end result as it appears after numerous deletions and other manipulations by User: Cheeser1, involving contributions to the debate that had been provided by well-meaning and well-qualified "outsiders" who had only their expertise in the subject to offer, but no Wikipedia experience, skills or history. The criticism by the shocked Nominator for Deletion of how the debate was proceeding: by bullying, unauthorized deletions of valid comments of experts; false accusations of "sock-puppetry" and every other dishonest manipulative technique in the book were systematically deleted, re-ordered, and scrambled by User: Cheeser1, who seemed well-trained and experienced in these skills. All this was witnessed by, and supported by no less than seven Wikipedia "administrators", despite the nominator's repeated (unheeded) pleas for assistance. The "talk" page for the AfD, in final form, consists mainly of the attacks by User: Cheeser1 on the nominator's integrity, and that of other experts in the field who had volunteered their opinions. Besides this, there was a "behind the scenes" campaign to impugn the nominator's good intentions, and integrity, on the "adminstrator's notice board" that is now so buried in the innards of this site that it is probably unrecoverable. All of this, needless, to say, was going on till the very end, without the Nominator's knowledge, but with the apparent approval of various "administrators" involved in this "back yard" discussion of tactics and process.

In the end, the debate was cut off without the Nominator being given the opportunity to make the summary of his argument for deletion, which had been announced since the very beginning of the discussion. Instead - perhaps more appropriately, given the circus that had been created by User: Cheeser1  - and blamed by him, and others, upon the nominator - the last words were those of the author of the AfD article, who called upon God to support her in her cause, since she had been under attack previously by the "Russians" and had already endured two wars!

I was the Nominator for Deletion of the article, and I know of no "Russians" to have taken any part in the debate, but Iearned a great deal about Wikipedia from the experience. More generally, I learned much about the sinister consequences of anonymity combined with aggressive instincts, and  ignorance. I immediately deleted my user acccount, and have no intention of making further contributions to Wikipedia that would expose me to the machinations and dishonesty of such experienced "insiders", whose skills and aggressions seem to have been honed mainly by playing out fictional battles in video games.24.202.238.172 (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Replies and Comments

 * Previous AN/I discussions have been recovered from the innards for any interested (1, 2) --Onorem♠Dil 13:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (EC) Although you are logged out, you have identified yourself as User:R Physicist. It appears that you are disappointed by the results at Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations (2nd nomination). Much of the chaos there appears to have been caused by your tactics, which had a very disruptive effect. Rather than blaming others, I suggest you look at your own actions, hear the feedback that others have provided, and think about better strategies for the future. No administrative action is required at this time. Jehochman Talk 13:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I see no "attacks" and only see your disruptive editing styles and practices. What administrative action is required here? <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  13:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * After making the above comment I noticed that R Physicist has exercised the right to vanish. That right does not include returning as an IP to take pot shots at content adversaries.  Perhaps we should block this IP for a while to aid the user in vanishing. Jehochman Talk 13:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The IP address is now taking a much needed one-week vacation. <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  13:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wait. I'm confused. If someone exercises the right to vanish, does that mean we block them automatically if they return? I don't see that anywhere here or on meta. -- Relata refero (disp.) 14:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but if they return only to disrupt and accuse other editors of crap, then yes. You can't exercise your right to vanish, then return and abuse the process and try to hide. <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  14:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How does identifying himself as the moderator mean he's trying to hide?
 * Has he made this point elsewhere? If not, how does reporting something at AN/I count as disruption? He's reported it, other people can express their disagreement, we don't have to then block the IP, particularly not saying "much needed vacation." Would you rather he went off to Wikipedia Review? -- Relata refero (disp.) 14:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Inappropriate block - he's not banned, and I don't see what's disruptive about this section. --Random832 (contribs) 15:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Seconded, after an initial statement of 'no admin action required' and without further warning an questionable admin action. It also raises the question if we want to hear feedback ourselves or just give that advice to others.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was just a terrible, terrible, terrible block. Simply shameful. You probably can't begin to imagine how bad that looked to an ordinary user such as a myself. It certainly did far more harm than either simply directing him to the PUMP or genuinely considering his criticism, constructively responding to it, and thanking him for his contributions. My hat is off to the admins who disagreed. Jpmonroe (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it was an appropriate block. Right to Vanish is meant so that individuals can put the past behind them and separate themselves from previous debates. By coming back and starting into the same debate topic, it is an abuse of RtV. -- Kesh (talk) 03:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I watched that AFD and it seemed to me that User: Cheeser1's interference with the communications of User:R Physicist was too uncivil and bitey. User: Cheeser1 subsequently removed a 3RR warning that I placed on the talk page of another inexperienced editor involved in this fracas.  User: Cheeser1 seems to think he can amend the comments of others as he pleases.  This seems disruptive since, if we are unable to communicate, then much confusion and frustration will result.  It seems apparent that User:R Physicist is still boiling with rage about his treatment here and, as he seems to be a senior academic, this seems a poor outcome for this project. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "I think we really need to much more strongly insist on a pleasant work environment and ask people quite firmly not to engage in that kind of sniping and confrontational behavior. We also need to be very careful about the general mindset of "Yeah, he's a jerk but he does good work".  The problem is when people act like that, they cause a lot of extra headache for a lot of people and drive away good people who don't feel like dealing with it.  Those are the unseen consequences that we need to keep in mind." That quote, by Jimbo himself, adequately explains that just because he is a "senior academic," that does not excuse his poor behavior. I'd rather see a lot of diligent, polite editors who may not be as "intelligent" than one "intelligent" editor driving away many or causing disruption. <font color="#CC0000">seicer  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  14:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Both Cheeser1 and R Physicist behaved poorly. The latter should have been extended more courtesy since he is new here - this is the point of WP:BITE.  I suppose that there are technically better ways of dealing with someone who is too prolix, e.g. condensing their comments into a show/hide toggle.  I'm not sure how to do this technically myself.  The technical details of this place require a huge learning curve aand this is especially true of forum-type threads which the software seems to support poorly. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They're not the only ones who behaved poorly - "Ngn" - who appears to have a conflict of interest - really _was_ making implications that the attempt to have it deleted was some kind of russian conspiracy. --Random832 (contribs) 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, CW, your laziness belies your disingenuity. If you'd bothered to look at what ACTUALLY happened here, you'd have realized that instead of doing things that you can oh-so-justly criticise me for (mister has-previous-undisclosed-disputes-with-cheeser), you would have noticed that I was doing EXACTLY WHAT YOU SUGGESTED. Apparently, by doing so, something you suggest but are incapable of doing, I garner harsh criticism from you. Pathetic. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Quite so. That's no reason to drive him away, however. I too watched that AfD, and found it extremely confusing, but with inappropriateness on both sides. We aren't supposed to be pushing experts away, we should go the extra mile to keep them. On the one hand we tolerate enormous rudeness in areas where we believe anti-science editors have to kept in line, and on the other hand this... Not good. Incidentally, who has been driven away by User:R Physicist?
 * I note also my concerns above are still unanswered. -- Relata refero (disp.) 15:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Seicer's comment appears well-intentioned, but more concern with consequence and the darker side of human motivation seems necessary. From my perspective, User: Cheeser1 behavior just gets winks or is at least ignored by otherwise respectable math/science editors.  MIT's current User:Stevenj and MIT's former User:Michael Hardy are good examples of such math/science editors who engage in debates with Cheeser, who never, ever tell Cheeser to stop.  To me, Jonson's and Hardy's silence on User:Cheeser1 amounts to him or her being a teacher's pet sanctioned bully of theirs. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If they have exercised their right to vanish, then return, they have waived the right to vanish, and the User and Talk pages should be restored. <font face="Arial"> Corvus cornix  talk  17:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The new user did a number of things in a way which he apparently did not realise did not fit our practices. People tried to guide him, and he unfortunately thought his ways were better, and ignored the initial guiding. Then a few people came down a lot to hard to stop the incipient disruption, and did so with such a heavy hand as to cause a great deal more disruption. The experienced people here have the responsibility of knowing when to use discretion. I don't think all of them used it, and this turned the simple matter of discussing the article into the much more complex one of how we treat people. Some of our ways do look a little unforgiving under scrutiny by those not accustomed to us. DGG (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What are 'our' practices. It turns out this guy is a prize-winning physicist, has 200 articles to his name, and leads a respected research institute.  The article he wanted deleted was a piece of cruft by a student.  Now some nutcase (Seicer) has blocked him with the words "The IP address is now taking a much needed one-week vacation."  This may turn out interesting.  So what actually are 'our practices'?  The points he made in the AfD were actually quite good and coherent.  A little pointed, and he made some admins look foolish (as indeed they were). The Rationalist (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It does not help to call other users "nutcases."  but as for me, perhaps you didn't notice I was--though more gently--telling the admin involved that he did it wrong? DGG (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It can often help to call people nutcases if that is the case. I agree you were 'gently' telling the admin he was wrong.  Sometimes it helps to say it in a way that is not so gentle.  I don't see him apologising yet.  The Rationalist (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I am quite dismayed at how we have handled and continue to handle this one. I might be somewhat neutral about whether this poorly written article should be kept or not, but I think we were not very welcoming to a newbie. And given that WP:BITE is such a mantra around here, why was it not applied in this case? Wow.--Filll (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to put in my broad agreement with the sentiments of the last few comments. This was a serious loss to article quality, and one made worse by the fact that a valuable person has been sent away thinking that we're a bunch of nutcases. An all-round failure. I'd say an apology on both R Physicist and the IP's talkpage would be a good idea. -- Relata refero (disp.) 15:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I so agree. A little more careful work should have been done on the article (rather than Googling references to the paper), a little more attention to the professor's arguments (which were good) and a little less obsession with the strange process that constitutes 'AfD'.  We should truly be ashamed.  And Seicer should apologise for the remarks made in the block comment.  Unforgiveable.  86.133.181.100 (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all of the people complaining about me here for notifying me! I'm not even going to comment on this absurdity. R physicist DESTROYED that AfD with rants, soapboxing, personal attacks, etc. I tried to clean it up, and got scapegoated for my trouble. Everyone laments, after the fact, that nobody stepped in, fixed it, kept things in line, well that's why - clearly, trying to do so makes you the subject of absurd, frivolous retribution like this from people like R physicist. Weeks after the fact, and now he's back to pick at that same bone one more time. Let's not point out that I took extensive and often unreasonable measures to demonstrate to R physicist that I was attempting to clean up the AfD and keep it streamlined - trying to keep the process rolling, a process that he was trying to use, but failing miserably in letting it run its course. And of course, I did vote delete, so I can't even comprehend what would make him so upset, considering I agreed with him on the only thing he's done on Wikipedia. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say that Cheeser1 went too far, but not far too far, and completely understandably. Several people, including Cheeser1, tried to explain to R Physicist that he wasn't following the conventional form of AfD, and that AfD was in no case the place for fundamental debates on the nature of wikipedia. R Physicist responded to this by doing those things more. The AfD was closed as a train wreck largely because of the disruption of process from R Phycisist, and while being new would excuse any mistakes that happened before he was told they were mistakes, they don't excuse the snotty behaviour on being told that they're mistakes, or continuing to make them. While losing an "expert" might be a bad thing, losing someone who can't listen to the community trying to guide them and help them isn't. SamBC(talk) 10:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So he wasn't following the "conventional" form. So what? The day we block a genuine expert giving us the benefit of his opinion on an issue he feels strongly about in a discussion on how to handle that issue on-WP was a sad day for the project. And I think we need to note that not following the "conventional form" of an process we invented for ourselves is hardly "a mistake". I know that if I came here to try and correct an error that I saw in something I was an expert on, had never edited before, and kept on being told that I was indenting incorrectly or that my general remarks on the misapplication of notability are unwelcome "mistakes", I would hardly appreciate it. And its not just losing an expert that's a bad thing, its pissing him off in the process. -- Relata refero (disp.) 10:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * May I second that: And I think we need to note that not following the "conventional form" of an process we invented for ourselves is hardly "a mistake". . The mistake was to lose a potentially valuable contributor to the project.  Who is going to put their hand up for that?  The Rationalist (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If the secretary general of the UN, the president of the USA, or queen of England came here, they'd be expected to follow community guidance and follow procedures that we've worked out. When a user is told, politely, that they're doing something incorrectly or in the wrong place, their reaction shouldn't be to argue about that as well. If a user hasn't the humility to accept such feedback, I'm really not convinced that they'd be a valuable contributor if they stayed. It's sad, and I wish they could've been a valuable contributor, but a valuable contributor who insists on eveything being done their way is something of a contradiction. The way that AFD was closed indicates why it's good to stick to the process and form we're used to; so that admins can easily discern consensus. It's also a matter of things being on-topic or not. Now, I'd be more than happy to see the wide-ranging issues brought up in that debate debated in a more appropriate venue, some of them are things that probably need a good discussion about them, but that wasn't the place for it, for many reasons. SamBC(talk) 14:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, the bottom line is that a prize-winning physicist has been shown the door from Wikipedia by a 21 year old student, for remarks that weren't particularly impolite and for some contributions that were informed and valuable. His remarks weren't very well understand (lots of point-missing and the like).  That is a bad thing and should perhaps cause us to question how good our process is.  It was after all something put together by amateurs and still has an amateur feel.  You say The way that AFD was closed indicates why it's good to stick to the process - sorry, what is your point here?  And you say If a user hasn't the humility to accept such feedback, I'm really not convinced that they'd be a valuable contributor if they stayed. - perhaps we should have the humility to understand that a 'process' that has had this particular result is deeply flawed, and should be evaluated again.  Also, if the Secretary general or Queen of England did come here I hope someone would have the good sense to show a little tact and diplomacy and make whatever capital could be made out of it.  This particular incident, by contrast, makes us look like idiots.  The Rationalist (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This from someone at my old university. Also noticeable that the major author of the article appears to be a co-author of the original papers proposing these equations, but I guess that's been debated. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments by other Users
I have reviewed the AfD. R Physicist argues politely and cogently throughout, his only "crime" being ignorance of our AfD standard operating procedure. Cheeser1 refers to R Physicists comments as ""wackopedia" essays", "your rants and polemical essays", "A pathetic display", "R Physicist has so throughly disrupted this discussion", "coming from the guy who has no freaking clue how AfDs work, let's just pretend you didn't open your mouth and make yourself look even more foolish." Our response? A pat on the back for Cheeser1, and a block on R Physicist! I am disgusted. Hesperian 01:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more with Hesperian, Rationalist and some of the other recent remarks.  I've been struck with the contrast between how this physicist was treated and another case on this page, where administrators and editors discussed and debated for days whether another newcomer's blatantly anti-Semitic and racist remarks were "uncivil" enough to warrant a block.  I'm beyond disgusted, I'm fed up. Woonpton (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and unblocked the IP based on the apparent consensus here. Now, back to the substance.  What drew my attention to this thread was the inflammatory heading.  We really need to educate newcomers that using excessively strident rhetoric does not go over well with our community.  Hmmm.  We may need to educate some of the regulars as well.  What else needs to be done here? Jehochman Talk 01:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What else needs to be done? Well, instead of blaming the newcomer, it might be more appropriate a few old-timers would educate themselves on WP:BLOCK and WP:BITE. This was just a completely inexcusable farce of a reaction, yet you think the "substance" is that a newbie displayed some emotion? It took 3 days to overturn that block? It's beyond pathetic; it's absurd. But, since I have expressed my opinion "stridently" please feel free to block me for disruption. Jpmonroe (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you even READ the AfD? You see the little box there? You can [show] what he wrote. Read it, then read WP:SOAP. Okay? It wasn't "displaying a little emotion" - it was systematic, repeated disruption of an AfD, based on non-valid AfD rationales, delusions of self-expertise outweighing our guiding principles, and a complete lack of respect for how AfDs are conducted and how consensus is built. And it was done over the explicit objection of several people involved - those who had participated in the AfD tried to stop it, by asking him to stop and by removing comments that were unproductive and/or irrelevant to the AfD. People outside the AfD began to ask "why is this a horrible fucking wreck?" to which the answer is squarely and unequivocally "because R physicist will not let anyone clean it up or make it manageable." Is it my fault that his reaction to standard AfD practice - removing inappropriate comments to the talk page, labeling SPAs, etc - was so terrible? It was his reaction. I'm not responsible for that. WP:BITE doesn't cover "don't do normal things to the newcomers that make them mad." --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hesperian, since you clearly haven't read any of our friends, umm... works of prose, let's drop one right here so none of you have the excuse of "oops I didn't check the history!" How's that? I hate to invoke WP:SPADE, but if his polemical anti-Wikipedia essay, which he dropped in the middle of an ongoing AfD, is titled "Wikipedia or Wackopedia" - can you honestly muster the cajones to bitch at me for using the term "Wackopedia"? Seriously? --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia or Wackopedia?


 * Absurdity upon absurdity. Self appointed pundits who have no scientific competence whatsoever casting aspersions upon precise and pertinent remarks by experts in the field; then insulting them with their contemptible derision and even imperiously commanding them to desist from expressing themselves! Other pundits called "administrators" with no other visible qualifications than the fact that they have made thousands of edits to Wikipedia, and have attained to certain "special powers" through God knows what absurd and arbitrary scrutiny process within this self-referential club. These latter, or at least some of them, apparently feel entitled to register totally unfounded, intimidating remarks like "...a new account. Possibly suspicious." that would be worthy of thought police, to redefine the English language so as to comply with their notions of "Wikipedia usage" and "good practice", to overtly and explicitly express their hostility and contempt for anything that might be viewed as "expert knowledge", and to cast aspersions on the integrity of highly respected, well-known scientists, who have no other motive than to set the record straight regarding scientific content.


 * Is this science fiction, fantasy, an "other-world" nightmare or reality.? What is Wikipedia all about? The tyranny of the ignorant? I am very curious what all these threatening remarks, gratuitous insults and assaults by the uneducated upon the integrity of the knowledgeable leads up to. Is this a serious process, or one in which a number of Wikipedia "insiders" impertinently act out their fantasies of power and importance, while those who, in the real world, are highly qualified scientists and professionals devoted to advancing our actual state knowledge, are silenced by impudent administrators who believe that "expertise" is irrelevant, and only Wikipedia experience and status has any importance?


 * I have a feeling the outcome of this debate will have more significance for Wikipedia than merely whether this poor article is kept or deleted. If the ignorant and the arbitrarily empowered class of "admistrators" and "arbitrators" turn out to be the real decision makers, because they wield, in this "closed shop" the power to overrule all those who actually know the subject, then it will be Wikpedia itself that is on trial in the long run. What, really, is its validity or value as a repository of knowledge or vehicle of its communication? Has it any integrity or reliability, or is it an arbitrary, monstrous mixture of fact and fiction, self-advertising and ignorance, inseparably intertwined? There is after all, a "real world" out there as well, which is not determined by Wikipedia rules, in which little of any value can be achieved through contempt for expertise, and arbitrary, bullying gestures by seasoned, but empty-headed "insiders" and self-appointed "thought police".


 * Having saId this, I will look forward to the barrage of overt attacks, threats, intimidating remarks, citations for violations of rules, and aspersions cast on my character, integrity, competence, etc. that will surely follow from those seasoned "insiders" who feel insulted or threatened by these self-evident remarks. Are there also those who believe in the value of Wikipedia and hold another view? Are there enough of those who do have an adequate respect for knowledge, qualifications, real-word competence and, simply, the truth, who have a say in how Wikipedia is run and decisions are made to tilt the balance?  I am curious to see who actually holds sway in this strange "alternative world" that claims to represent "the masses" and knowledge simultaneously.]] R_Physicist (talk) 08:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not think that screed was helpful in the AfD discussion. Perhaps this editor has such strong feelings about the subject matter that an online collaborative project is not the right hobby for them. Jehochman Talk 02:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't say that! You will chase a way an EXPERT! God knows, if anybody should be disrupting Wikipeidia, it's expert physicists with nothing but contempt for Wikipeidia! Or wait, according to Hesperian, I got a pat on the back. Hesperian, please point out where my pat on the back was, because between ANI complaints against me, insults, and condescending, do-nothing criticism from people who ought to have stepped in, I must have missed the pat on the back. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought the rant was pretty good value, and it comes at a point when RP's patience had clearly been exhausted. His point from the beginning was that the article was a piece of cruft that was not notable. Everyone else ignored this, because they didn't understand the mathematics, nor the surrounding subject.

Before this, he made some very cogent points. For example, some people objected that a Google search showed the equations had been mentioned. RP correctly replied ''A great deal gets published in this field, and not all of it is of the first calibre. The fact that an author has published some papers in respectable journals is certainly not an adequate reason to have a wikipaedia article devoted to them, or to identfy them by the author's name as though this were common usage, and as if the equations had some established importance. and Work of genuine notability is, sooner or later, recognized within the expert community on its own merits, and not by such primitive self-promotional devices as enshrining them in a wikipaedia article that consists of little more than a listing of obscure equations to which the author has attached his own name and a number.''

This is a good point. Previously we have allowed articles as long as they appear to have some scholarly content, and can be referenced in the literature. As RP cogently points out, any notability criterion has to reflect whether the scientific community thinks it notable.

It did not help that Cheeser accuses him of ranting. Which he was generally not. Ranting is going on in some tendentious and repetitive and generally incoherent way. RP's comments were 95% cogent and helpful. He has raised some very good points like the one above (how do we recognise the notability of academic work, how do we prevent self-promotion of academic's own works in Wikipedia, and so on. The Rationalist (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to the above by "R Physicist"
First of all, I would like to acknowledge the supportive response expressed by a large majority of those who posted their opinions above and the indignation at the abuse of administrators' powers by Seicer and Jehochman. (I only wish that that those expressing these opinions had also been there to express their views while the AfD discussion was going on. And most importantly, that just ONE administrator at least had stepped in to halt the abuses that were being perpetrated throughout the process by our friend User: Cheeser1, who has here returned to try once again to justify his conduct. Perhaps User: Cheeser1 thought that it would be safe to do so, and to sow some further confusion, because he could not be contradicted once again, now that I was  "banned" from expressing myself within this forum.)


 * It is painful to return to the "scene of the crime" - and I had no desire or intention to do so. (A decision made easy by the additional fact of having been blocked from saying anything further within this forum). But, in fairness, I think that the above version of my "rant" (using our above friend's typically offensive terminology), which was extracted out of context, and displayed as though it had been the final version of what appears in the record, should be compared with what actually appears, which was modified after some of the anger that had been engendered by User: Cheeser1's abusive remarks (not to me, but to another highly qualified contributor to the debate) had subsided.

A serious critique by the nominator for deletion - and a challenge to participants in the Wikipedia community


 * Absurdity upon absurdity. Self appointed pundits who have no scientific competence whatsoever casting aspersions upon precise and pertinent remarks by experts in the field; then insulting them with their derisory remarks and even imperiously commanding them to desist from expressing themselves! "Administrators" with no other visible qualifications than the fact that they have made thousands of edits to Wikipedia, and have attained to certain special powers through a questionable process of scrutiny within this self-referential setting. The latter, or at least some of them, apparently feel entitled to register totally unfounded, intimidating and derisory remarks like "...a new account. Possibly suspicious." that would be worthy of thought police, to redefine the English language so as to comply with their notions of "Wikipedia usage" and "good practice", and to overtly express their hostility to anything that might be viewed as "expert knowledge". Users hiding behind anonymous pseudonyms casting aspersions on the integrity of highly respected, well-known scientists, who have no other motive than to set the record straight regarding scientific content. The same users reorganizing the material in arbitrary tendentious ways, to suit their tastes, deleting legitimate contributions, hiding them in boxes, transferring them to other pages, and reordering so as to lose all logic or sense in the sequence of contributions and edits; in short, creating an anarchic circus, all within view of these "Administrators", who do nothing to intervene.


 * Is this science fiction, fantasy, an "other-world" nightmare or reality.? What is Wikipedia all about? The tyranny of the ignorant? I am very curious what all the threatening remarks, gratuitous insults and assaults by the uneducated upon the integrity of the knowledgeable leads up to. Is this a serious process, or one in which a small number of Wikipedia "insiders" act out fantasies of power and importance, while those who, in the real world, are highly qualified scientists and professionals devoted to advancing our actual state knowledge, are silenced by threats, intimidation,  and manipulative tactics, while administrators who believe that "expertise" is irrelevant, do nothing to intervene? Is it that only Wikipedia experience and status has any importance in this environment?


 * I have a feeling the outcome of this debate will have more significance for Wikipedia than merely whether this poor article is kept or deleted. If the questionably empowered class of "Administrators" turns out to be the only real decision makers,  wielding the power to overrule all others, then all depends on them.  If they choose to ignore the advice of those who are best placed to provide expert opinion on the substance of the article in question,  and decide simply according to their own notions, even though they have  no knowledge, but prefer to heed the "all-inclusive" principle,  or the views of other users who are equally ignorant of the subject, the outcome is meaningless, and the implication for the reliability of Wikipedia as a source of knowledge is clear.


 * Having said this, I expect to receive a barrage of attacks, threats, intimidating remarks, citations for violations of rules, aspersions cast on my character, integrity, competence, etc. from those seasoned "insiders" who feel insulted or threatened by these self-evident remarks. But are there also those who believe in the value of Wikipedia and hold another view? Are there enough of those who do have an adequate respect for knowledge, qualifications, real-word  competence and, simply, the truth, who have a say in how Wikipedia is run and decisions are made to tilt the balance?  I am curious to see who actually holds sway in this strange setting, that claims to represent "the masses" and knowledge simultaneously. R_Physicist (talk) 08:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Now, admittedly, this was still a pretty angry statement, but to make clear what had provoked this degree of anger, let me fill in the immediately preceding remarks by our above friend User: Cheeser1. A very pertinent exchange took place between the author of the article under consideration for deletion and a physicist with considerable expertise in the field, who had identified himself under the user name "Proscience", and provided information on his user page that he was a researcher at a major U.S. Laboratory. It was carefully pointed out by him why the equations that formed the basis of the article did not merit the recognition that had been given by the author of the article. These two discussants, who were addressing the core of the issue, were then subjected to the following insulting sequence of remarks by User: Cheeser1, made more sinister by the interposed remark of "administrator" <font color="black" face="tahoma">Scar <font color="black" face="tahoma">ian Call me Pat. These attacks were enough to make User: Proscience decide to withdraw completely from the debate. Shortly thereafter, he closed his "user" account.


 * "This is a fairly rude response that doesn't even have much to do with the matter at hand. This is a deletion discussion. Please confine your contributions here (which are, indeed, your only contributions) to the matter at hand. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin - User:Proscience is a new account. Possibly suspicious. <font color="black" face="tahoma">Scar <font color="black" face="tahoma">ian Call me Pat  21:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This and others duly noted on talk page. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC) "

Then, after a further brief scientific exchange between the same pair of discussants (who at least knew the subject they were talking about), there came the following:


 * "Stop it now. Both of you. You've made your points in this AfD. Cut the side-commentary/bickering. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)"

I don't know what standards of courtesy and civility are required in the "Wikipedia rulebook" for good behaviour. But by the standards of civility in normal society, the above would be regarded as plentiful reason for outrage. Who is speaking here, in this rude and arrogant and peremptory way, referring to the remarks of an accomplished researcher in physics as "your only contributions", ordering the author of the article under discussion and this highly qualified expert to cease their discussion, while hiding behind this absurd masque of anonymity?

It is no use rehearsing the other insults and abuses that had been thus far, and were subsequently, hurled against the Nominator and others who shared his views within this debate, and a waste of time to do so, since those so inclined are unlikely to change their ways. (It is certainly not all evident from the much manipulated, and partly repaired record of the debate that is now available for viewing; but no-one would like to reconstruct the unseemly details from the fragments.) It should be mentioned however that, prior to this, and subsequent to the introductory rationale for deletion, the above exchange had been the ONLY detailed discussion of the topic at hand that had yet occurred between two people who knew what the issue was actually about. The rest mainly consisted of: 1) accusations of "bad faith" against the Nominator (myself) by "administrator" User: Jerry - purely on the grounds that he didn't agree with the rationale for making the deletion nomination, followed by a remark that he was the administrator who had closed a previous AfD about this article (presumably, so we could all fully appreciate his importance); 2) A detailed listing of the edit history and origins of the article, in reply to a request by administrator User: Michael Hardy for evidence of COI; 3) A gratuitous "in principal" attack on the very idea that "expert opinion" was of any use to Wikipedia, again by administrator User: Jerry (in which I took no part, but learned a great deal). Notable quote:

"Experts should go off somewhere and be experts, and common, normal, ordinary, non-special, everyday, average wikipedians should build wikipedia."

and 4) a "head count" of those in favor of "delete" or "keep", with opinions registered mainly by those who openly admitted to not having read the article, or being able to comprehend its contents.

User:Cheeser1 spent most of the remainder of the debate alternately erasing, hiding, altering and displacing my contributions, as well as those of User: Proscience while simultaneously trying to undermine the legitimacy of votes for delete by unsubstantiated accusations of "sockpuppetry", Russian conspiracies, etc. in an effort to throw into question all remarks by people who were actually qualified to comment on the scientific merits of the case. He finally had the "satisfaction" of discovering that, in fact, two of these experts, both highly trained physicists with pertinent knowledge of the subject, "Proscience" and  User: Antignom were in fact husband and wife, and hence necessarily held the same opinions on scientific matters, and could be dismissed as forming a dishonest conspiracy.

The icing on the cake was the closing administrator's discussion, in which User:Cheeser1 was included, without the Nominator ever being informed. User:Sambc concluded that User:Cheeser1's action's which included: removing, collapsing, displacing and re-ordering both the Nominator's and other participants input at least eight times, while hurling countless insulting epithets at the Nominator and at other well-qualified participants, were "perfectly reasonable", while the Nominator, in labelling this conduct "vandalism"  and restoring these and other unauthorized deletions and machinations to their original locations was "behaving unreasonably". User:Sambc also opined that the Nominator was guilty of having made a "very uncivil and inappropriate original submission to AfD". Administrator User:Hersfold (mis)counted the 12 votes for delete as 10, and dismissed 5 of these purely on the grounds of User: Cheeser1's verifiably false accusations, and also miscounted the 11 keep votes as 9, while ruling them all valid. Two of the most strongly tendentious participants in the debate User:Cheeser1 and User:benjiboi (neither one an administrator) were included in the closing debate as though they had been there as neutral commentators. All present decided that the debate had been derailed, apparently accepting User: Cheeser1, User:benjiboi and User:Sambc's assertion that this was largely due to the Nominator's disruptive conduct, and agreed that it be closed as "Trainwreck/inconclusive"". The closing administrator User: TravisTX concurred, and cut it off with the author's appeal to the Almighty to intervene on her behalf, without giving the Nominator a chance to give the summary that had been promised since the first day of the discussion.

Two weeks after the drama had a chance to subside, I thought: "Perhaps this was just a statistical aberration.  After all, only about thirty "users" (including some ten "administrators") plus three  or four "outsiders" had taken part. Maybe I should make a final posting at the "Administrator's Notice Board / Incidents" to call other Wikipedia "regulars'" attention to what had occurred, and see the reaction." Within 29 mins. of doing so, I was blocked by administrators User:Seicer and User: Jehochman from further expression at Wikipedia, and treated to a couple of gratuitous taunting remarks in parting.

Conclusions
The case is now over. The evidence is in, the closing arguments have been made, and the judgment is clear.

The modern notion of Encyclopaedia was a product of the Enlightenment and intended as an educational vehicle to raise the level of the masses. The Encyclopaedists included some of the greatest thinkers of their time. They valued, above all: knowledge, understanding, truth. The "scientific method" was based upon the same foundations: empirical knowledge, verifiability and careful reasoning. These were the ideals of the Enlightenment, together with a belief in justice in society.

Wikipedia seems at present to be an embodiment of the opposite. There is an underlying attitude that amounts to systematic contempt for learning, intellectual standards and expert knowledge. It is, for many, a diversionary hobby to which they are prepared to devote a great portion of their time, as others do to computer based video games. Unfortunately, it has led also, as a "virtual environment", to an inner cult, shrouded in anonymity, with structures and processes of self-regulation that are woefully inadequate. Many of these tools and procedures are reminiscent, in parody, of those of the Inquisition: secret courts, curtailing, as punishment, of rights and priviledges, banishment, an inner "elite" arbitrarily empowered to censor and exclude those  perceived as a threat to the adopted conventions of the cult; denunciations, character assassination, excommunication. An arbitrarily concocted "rulebook" and language rife with self-referential sanctimoniousness give a superficial illusion of order and good sense, but no such thing exists in practice.

In its inner functioning it appears, more than anything else, a (virtual) "Tyranny of the Ignorant".

24.202.238.172 (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC) (alias "R Physicist")


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.' ''
 * }
 * }

Comments on the above

 * You have pretty much been the only commentator. I gave up trying to follow along your long-winded soapboxing pieces, where you have deliberately kept the thread alive for far longer than it needs to be, so that it's not archived. Perhaps if you can condense your posts and get to the point, others would have voiced in their opinions eons ago. <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  21:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact there were, to date, over twenty (20) commentators, most of them making multiple postings, and mainly to protest, with indignation, your actions, which were a clear abuse of administrator's privileges. You were well advised to disappear, as you did, for some time, but ill-advised to return to the discussion if you were incapable of learning something from the comments made, and incapable of making more pertinent or intelligent remarks than these. I understand that you have difficulties understanding the arguments and the issues raised, but perhaps if you try carefully to read through the main points, you may eventually be able to understand better. You might start by reconsidering your own abusive action, and apologizing for it. 24.202.238.172 (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC) (alias "R Physicist")


 * Well Seicer, you could simply have offered your regrets for escalating the situation with a bad block. But, you chose to offer that gratuituous parting tweak instead. I can see that quite a few people have voiced their opinions, and not one has endorsed your lousy judgement or cowboy actions. R Physicist is not the problem here; no one is forced to read this thread archived or not. However, there is a problem around here &mdash; admins making bad blocks (just recently mongo, giano, r physicist) and then getting defensive and snarky instead of gracefully admitting their own error. That said, r physicist should just let it go. I learned long ago that Wikipedia is not a place that values or respects expert contributions, so experts should simply steer clear of their subjects or expect incredible aggravation. User:Raymond arritt/Hobbyist has it about right, and this farce is yet another perfect example of the wikipedia worship of form over actual substance. Jpmonroe (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:OR, WP:AGF, WP:V, WP:NPoV, WP:N, WP:COI, WP:CIVIL, WP:SMITE. Only kidding. There are notions here we might heed and think about. Thanks for sharing your thoughts so straightforwardly. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * These are the constructive contributions to the AfD that I oh-so-tyrranically collapsed in a collapse box. God forbid these essays get hidden so that someone could try to read an AfD without getting 7/8 of the page covered in essays about the elite administrators lording over the Wiki with their Dark Age ideals. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is an example of how bonkers/tendentious RP has let things get. That or his newest gigantic essay above. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Will you stop already? You're making yourself look more foolish than someone who has posted a long rant on this page. Imagine how much effort that takes.
 * As for the rant itself, I find it both amusing and interesting, and may put it up on my userpage on days when I am inundated by the ignorant adding nationalist sources published in 1922 to support some absurd irredentist claim. -- Relata refero (disp.) 19:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Since I'm on my way out of the Wiki, I might as well just be frank. Shut up. Just shut up. This is obviously something you don't care enough to actually consider, and you've clearly already got your agenda about this one decided. You're perfectly happy to chime in and criticise, but you know what, if you came across an AfD as fucked as that one, you probably don't have the brains or courtesy to try to clean it up. I'm sure it makes you really good to advocate for science and experts and all of that, and I'm glad you found such deep philosophical meaning in RP's rants, but ANTI-WIKIPEDIA RANTS DO NOT HAVE AND NEVER HAD ANY PLACE ON AN AFD. WP:SOAP isn't vague - ranting about elite Wikipedia administrators using Dark-Age reasoning to dismiss one's expert opinion and destroy science is absolutely not appriate. Fucking up an AfD repeatedly, when people step in and try to fix it, accusing them of being a part of some vast conspiracy to undermine your good name... that's how we work on a collaborative, community-built encyclopedia? I'm glad you've found your bandwagon, but none of that changes the fact that this is simply a SPA, expert or not, who's using the AfD process (and now the ANI) as a forum for unchecked anti-Wikipedia rants, and an opportunity to lash out at people that he imagines are attacking his character or destroying science. I will also point out that, for the record, several of the people chiming in on this ANI have had previous undisclosed disputes with me, one of whom (Colonel Warden) actually suggested that I should have done exactly what I did (collapsing RP's long rants to make the AfD manageable), instead of some other horrible thing he has fabricated that I might have done. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, I look at that AfD, and I don't start seeing the rants until after random accusations of CoI and collapsing of discussion...
 * Anyway, how hard is it anyway to say "sure, perhaps I over-reacted"? Presumably harder than to type that last little -er- rant. -- Relata refero (disp.) 21:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Because no one has said I over-reacted. No, I have been accused of destroying science, besmirching someone's reputation, driving away experts, etc. The moment you downgrade your baseless do-nothing accusations against the only person with the presence of mind to try to salvage that AfD to "over-reaction" and I will be happy to apologize and let RP go be an expert in his fancy physics research, while the rest of you can get back to collaborative, cooperative Wikipedia-building, without interruption by ranting anti-Wikipedia "experts" with persecution complexes. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, you over-reacted, you posted a longer piece of senseless drivel than R Physicist, including a large amount of foaming in the mouth swearing, and still stayed on your high horse... /shrug I only see one person losing face here and desperatly, oh so desperatly trying to save it. Its easy to slight someone, its VERY hard to say "Sorry" 195.216.82.210 (talk) 06:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Etc.

 * It's amazing how R Physicist can accuse me of taking his stand-alone rants out of context, but snipping things out of conversations/exchanges is perfectly fine. I called Proscience rude when he threw WP:SKILL out the window. Taking a cheap-shot at someone for speaking English well, but apparently not well enough (in an already tendentious AfD) is not appropriate. I told Proscience and Ngn to stop bickering when it got to the point that Proscience was threatening to expose "this situation" (the AfD) to "the media" - a threat to "expose" Ngn (IRL) as some sort of bad scientist. That's not appropriate either. I won't comment on the rest of RP's above, except to say that the SSP case was right and my suspicions were confirmed, and only then did the two come forward and mention that they're married (SPAs in an AfD who are married? classic meatpuppetry) and in addition to the SPA status, they both seemed to expect that their opinions be counted twice and with special weight because they are "experts." --Everyone's favorite scapegoat, Cheeser1 (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a shame that you've run into some of the odder -harder to use- bits of wikipedia so quickly. Although people bold comments an Article for Deletion discussions they are not voting.  The tally of votes shouldn't really sway the closing admin editor's mind - just the numbers of people making reference to WP policy.   Dan Beale-Cocks  14:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, I'm not an admin, never claimed to be one... and I recall that I was pretty even-handed in my appeal to this noticeboard in not singling anyone out (or rather, singling out several and not saying anyone was to blame). SamBC(talk) 14:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * One thing I will say now, with hindsight and looking back on things with calm consideration, is that the nominator seemed unsatisfied with the idea that the article be considered in terms of wikipedia's established criteria (such as notability and verifiability), but the criteria that the nominator felt we ought to be using. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with such a suggested change in criteria; there may or may not be, I've not considered them deeply. It's just if we've got our ways of determining what merits an article, we shouldn't bait-and-switch just because an expert says so. SamBC(talk) 14:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * One may be an expert in one's field, but not an expert in collaborative, volunteer development of an open encyclopedia using wiki software. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly why we should not bite newcomers, as was done so dramatically here. No one starts as an expert in wikiminutiae. Jpmonroe (talk) 03:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's see what I told R physicist, shall we? . The response to this was a section "Desist from vandalism and bullying" even though I explicitly and deliberately made it clear to him that I was making every effort to AGF while keeping the comments that don't belong in the AfD off the AfD. For this, he launched into numerous tirades (including this ANI thread) because he has decided that I am a usurper, a vandal, an evil upstart bent on destroying his scientific credibility and besmirching his name. So who did what? WP:BITE? I think not. More like WP:AGF on a non-BITE. --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheeser1, I'm not talking about you. The big issue here is not a quarrel over an AFD, whatever the merits of the specific case. The big issue is the apalling way administrators here chose to respond to criticism, with the banhammer. AFD disputes come and go, but if we cannot make constructive use of criticism, if we habitually drive away knowledgeable people so pointlessly (3 established physicists in this case alone), then this pretence to be an 'encyclopedia' instead of a tome on pop culture is pointless. You're just some random editor; you can't do much harm. Admins can, and in this case have. Jpmonroe (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

this whole mess has shades of the drama of ScienceApologist to it, only this time, years of effort were pre-empted and we went right to the ban of someone whose skill and expert knowledge ina subject frightened some editors into killing that which they didn't understand right away. I'm sorry, but R Physicist should be unbanned post-haste, and this stupid self-promotional article resubmitted to AfD. I know how I'll vote. ThuranX (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This comment is not helpful at all. R_physicist can be excused for making mistakes like this, where shortly after being unblocked by Jehochman he accuses him of having blocked him. That's exactly the kind of confrontational behaviour based on mere conjectures that caused the original situation in the first place. (I am not trying to say that the other side was any better.) But someone with your Wikipedia experienced should know better than to confuse a very ill-considered and undiscussed block by a single admin, already undone by Jehochman based on consensus, with a ban.
 * As to the article. Normally I would have voted for deletion. I didn't vote at all, because R_physicist, with some help by Cheeser1 and me, had ensured that the AfD was a complete mess. One of the reasons it was such a mess was excessive repetition of personalised arguments such as the article being "self-promotional" (note I am not saying it isn't). In such a situation there are always strong non-personal arguments that you can use instead. And if it's a particularly egregious case, normally you won't be shot for a single sentence in which you make it clear how much you have constrained yourself. The same holds for expert authority. If you demonstrate it by showing insight into the matters that nobody else has, then you will be taken seriously. It's a bit less efficient to say "as a physicist working in the field it is my professional opinion that", but that would still work. But trying to win the discussion by shouting louder than all the others and repeating your opinion each time someone else has expressed the opposite view will never work; if it did, the Pokemon crowd would have taken over the science articles by now. This strategy won't work for R_physicist, and it won't work for Cheeser1, either. It's counterproductive. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The preceding remarks are the views of a person who ought to have better judgment, but who is incapable of distinguishing between the actions of a bully and manipulator and those of the ones trying to defend themselves against such attacks. 24.202.238.172 (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC) (alias "R Physicist")
 * In an online community it is much more important than in real life to take cognitive biases into account, because some of the correctives that we have in real life are missing. If we don't do this, and don't follow some of the other correctives that have been established here instead, then we cause a lot of unnecessary drama: Two people who can't stop "defending" themselves against each other. Do you think that when Cheeser1 goes to bed he thinks: "Today was a successful day. I have defended a worthless article against a distinguished physicist, and I have shown him his place."? Nobody thinks of themselves in such terms, but everybody is ready to act as if others did. This is called actor-observer bias, and it's a universal fact about human nature.
 * As far as I can tell Cheeser1 saw that you were messing up an AfD, against your own interest, and he tried to help. When he saw your reaction he attributed it to your character more than to the specific circumstances under which you acted. That made him behave as he did. It became a problem when it was clear the strategy wasn't going to work and he continued anyway. He did not continue because he liked doing it, but because he felt that someone had to do it.
 * It was the symmetrical situation for you. You saw Cheeser1's actions, and you attributed them to his character rather than to the fact that he found himself in a very unusual situation. I guess that normally your word carries a lot of authority in interactions not only with other scientists, but also with ordinary people. At least that's how you come across here. The problem with this kind of authority is that it does not carry over to Wikipedia because once it is filtered through the wiki it is not sufficiently distinguishable from the behaviour of those half-educated bullies who we don't want to give control of the wiki. So you get the treatment that is intended for them. You are writing long rants about how Wikipedia has to change in order to solve the bully problem. What you don't understand is that Wikipedia already has rather good strategies to deal with the problem and that that is exactly what you have tripped over.
 * If better judgement means not seeing both sides of the coin, then I don't want it. Of course I could have shown better judgement by being quiet altogether. All I seem to have achieved is that both you and Cheeser1 are angry at me. But I am used to this kind of situation. In my experience here, when one side of a conflict thinks I am right it's a good indication that I am wrong. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Since my actions are being discussed on a public forum, I find it necessary to clarify a few points. This is a singular contribution to Wikipedia, as I have no intention to reverse my decision to inactivate my account. I am making these comments ``sine ira et studio", for the sake of accuracy.


 * First, on the issue of (what I consider to be a very offensive terminology) ``meatpuppetry": as mentioned above, my spouse and I are both scientists, with established credentials and a common interest in promoting scientific truth. We share the same opinion on some issues, and disagree on others ... for instance, she does not approve of my returning to this discussion. From what I have seen on this board, people in our situation are automatically suspected of collusion and dishonesty when casting a vote. It was said above that we ``did not come forward" to disclose the fact that we share the same IP but after we were ``discovered". What is the point of this statement? Each of us could have used a different IP from work (as I do now, mind my full disclosure of this fact). It is precisely because we saw no issue at all with expressing our views from the same IP, that we did not bother to broadcast a warning! If you are innocent, you take no steps to ``defend" yourself pre-emptively. At any rate, based on the reaction of User:Cheeser1, we would have been suspected regardless of such actions. As a novice contributor, leaving in the real world, I have to say that this point of policy is extremely offensive: there is no presumption of innocence - which makes you feel that Wikipedia is (in that sense) like a typical oppressive society.


 * Second, on the issue of my ``exchange" with the author of the article nominated for deletion, which led to the intervention by User:Cheeser1. For those who participated to this debate and are not trained scientists (it is clear that several of the contributors fall under this description), I will make the following analogy: experienced Wikipedia editors are proud to follow policy and rules which apparently rule this enterprise. They criticize, rebuke, and collaborate with other editors in accordance with said policy, and reject ``other rules" from outside Wikipedia, in case of a conflict. We, scientists, have a similar code of rules that we adhere to, which takes precedence over any alternative. For example, we are supposed to use only proven facts, invoke scientific methods, use logic, reasoning, and make arguments within clear boundaries. Without these rules, there can be no consensus and no progress. Moreover, it is a duty for any scientist to ensure that she knows what she is talking about before arguing - or else indicate her ignorance and ask for instruction. I pointed out to User:Ngn, assuming her to be a fellow scientist, that her argument was illogical, and that is much more relevant than her less-than-perfect command of written English. In fact, I never considered her lack of linguistic abilities a negative factor throughout these debates: her knowledge of English is completely irrelevant at this stage. Her lack of logic when responding to my argument, her attempt to present to the general public those equations as part of established scientific literature, her claim that criticism aroused by the article is due to a conspiracy with specific national overtones, these are important issues, and - as a scientist - she should be held accountable for it following the established rules of communicating science. Just as you, editors experienced in points of Wikipedia policy, criticize and hold accountable other editors for violating policy. However, rules of science take precedence over rules of Wikipedia at this point, because (however far-reaching and wonderful the influence of Wikipedia over the general public), the importance of scientific truth is much more fundamental for all of us. Billions of dollars in grants, millions of jobs, entire industries and military entities, all rely of scientific truth. Of all people, we scientists have a duty to point out fallacies, inadvertences, fraud and self-promotion - wherever they might occur. This is the point of my exchange with User:Ngn. If she is (as I assumed with no prejudice) a scientist, she will respond to my constructive criticism (lack of logic is something any scientist should very worried about, and thankful for being warned about). If she is not a scientist, then she should, by all means, write about any notable subject, in Wikipedia, or any other non-scientific (i.e. not peer-reviewed) medium. However, at that point I (and others) have a duty to warn my fellow scientists about such claims. It is not personal. I care not about what User:Ngn stands to lose or gain from this. What I care about is setting the scientific record straight. Every month, I am invited to peer-review 3-4 articles submitted to scientific journals, I do it (sine ira et studio), to set the record straight. In that sense, the debate has never belonged exclusively to Wikipedia, and my warning of ``exposing" incorrect practices to the scientific community was not a threat, not an attempt to intimidation, just a fact. As you must surely realize from the caliber of other scientists involved in this history (myself not included), the scientific morality aspect of the discussion has already crossed into the academic world.

(Retired user Proscience). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.165.96.184 (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

New AFD
Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations (3rd nomination). The purpose of the restrictions is that the fact that we allow an unspecified degree of threaded discussion, repeated comments, etc, on an AFD normally has led to strife in this instance because of people disagreeing on where the line is drawn. This is not an attempt to suppress discussion, it can still carry on without interference on the talk page. --Random832 (contribs) 17:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I must question the imposition of a gag rule in the project page of this AFD which says "absolutely no comments other than a single delete or keep [with reasoning explained] (or a comment from a user who has made neither) will be permitted below - anything else will be moved to the talk page." When someone makes a misstatement of fact (such as claiming references exist which do not) or a misstatement of Wikipedia policies or guidelines, or make a "Keep" or "Delete" argument based on reason not generally valued ("I like it," "Seems notable enough," "Lots of other crappy articles exist" etc), the place for a comment in response is immediately following the offending "Keep" or "Delete" argument, not segregated on a talk page where they cannot be related readily to the offending argument. Only clear soapboxing rants or other comments violating established policies or guidelines should ever be removed, collapsed or banned from being placed as comments. The gag rule, as stated, is inappropriate and unjustified. Allowing an arbitrary gag rule to be imposed on this one AFD sets up a precedent for arbitrary gag rules to be imposed on any other AFD, wherein inappropriate "Keep" or "Delete" arguments could stand with their shortcomings unexposed. It is too reminiscent of the recent establishment of "Free speech zones" in the U.S., which place political opponents of a President in a fenced enclosure out of site and hearing of the locus where he is to speak or to appear in a parade. Just as all of a country should be a "free speech zone," all of an AFD should be a suitable zone for any comments which properly address the issues at hand. It may be inconvenient to have the tallying of "Keep" and "Delete" arguments slowed by the interspersed comments, but this inconvenience is counterbalanced by the need to allow response to ill-formed Keep/Delete arguments immediately following their appearance, even if the commentor has already !voted. Edison (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's already common practice to move comments to the talk page when they are excessive in some unspecified way - this is simply an effect to apply a consistent rule rather than a case-by-case judgement, since that's led to disagreement, hurt feelings, etc, in the 2nd AFD. Why can't you respond to those ill-formed arguments on the talk page? --Random832 (contribs) 14:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like the AfD is going smoothly this time. I don't see it as a "gag rule" at all. On the project page, editors are sharing their thoughts and discussion on the talk page is helpful and ongoing. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said above, responses on the talk page are not readily associated with the !vote they refer to. Also the "one comment" rule could leave a comment shining on the main page which deserves a response which would be buried on the talk page. Exile of comments to the talk page is only appropriate for comments which do not belong on the main page. I dispute the right of a nominator (or other editor) to set his own policy which prevents other editors from placing apropriate comments on the main page of an AFD. The identificatioin of single purpose accounts should certainly be done where the !votes appear on the main page of the AFD, as has been done in thousands of prior AFDs. Was there a consensus somewhere that the gag rule should be imposed on this AFD? Here or at Arbcom or at deletion review? Edison (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of Right to Vanish?
Right to vanish is supposed to be a system that provides editors an "escape" from their previous history. It allows them a fresh start, so as to edit Wikipedia without the baggage of their prior edits or comments.

By coming here after invoking RtV, then openly self-identifying, has R Physicist abused this right? If so, what should the community response be? -- Kesh (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh please. R Physicist doesn't even know what "Right to vanish" is. He hasn't invoked it. He hasn't claimed any of its privileges. All he has done is abandon his account, abandoned any intention of editing articles, but retained involvement in this dispute via his IP. Hesperian 03:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Although your track record for doing so is.. poor, you could at least try to get the facts straight. RP had, for example, his userpage/talkpage deleted as a part of RtV. He was not blocked or otherwise censured for his inappropriate anti-Wikipedia soapboxing because he was exercising his RtV. His vanishing is what lead to a huge amount of criticism lumped on people (mostly me) for "driving away experts" and yet here he is, still doing the only thing he's ever done - lashing out at constructive, long-term Wikipedians and Wikipedia itself. Secier correctly assessed the situation, and while a block was perhaps not necessary (that is debatable), he un-vanished for the sole purpose of creating a long-after-the-fact ANI report about me and this ludicrous situation for which he is squarely and unequivocally responsible. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe in your insular Wikipedia-centric universe, everyone is intimately familiar with every convention in this place, and anyone who has their user page deleted can be assumed to be implicitly invoking the benefits and obligations of RTV. But in reality, some people are new around here, and wouldn't know RTV from a bar of soap, and have no idea that having your page deleted implies to some of us an invocation of RTV, and have no idea that RTV is a contract that places certain obligations upon the invoker.
 * Apparently it isn't enough that we bit this newbie for not knowing our AfD norms; no, we also have to punish him for not knowing how to leave properly. Give him a good kick up the arse on his way out the door, huh? Pathetic. Hesperian 05:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And oh the irony! You want to censure this guy even further, for hanging around after claiming he has quit, but lo and behold! you yourself have had a "retired" template on your user page for four days! And you're still here stirring the pot. RickK said it best: "Pot. Kettle. Black.". Hesperian 05:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong, mister smartiepants. I haven't exercised my right to vanish, I've simply retired, and I'm only at this ANI to defend myself from ignorant fools like you who'd rather let a self-important, disruptive "expert" chase off good contributors (in the name of WP:BITE no less). Why don't you pull yourself out from under the irony bus before pointing any fingers at me, huh? I've spent years contributing to the Wiki, and it's idiots like you who step in and throw me under the bus for trying to salvage the mess RP made of that AfD that have lost Wikipedia an actual contributor. And ignorance of policy is not an excuse for heeding it once you are told. If a policy is here to prevent disruption, one cannot be deliberately and single-purposely disruptive (returning from RtV to simply disrupt some more) and then plead ignorance. --24.59.252.11 (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Although your track record for doing so is.. poor, you could at least try to get the facts straight. RP had, for example, his userpage/talkpage deleted as a part of RtV. Where does it say that? He tagged his talk page with retired, he never requested deletion or used the word "vanish". As for his user page, (diff) 20:07, 25 March 2008 . . R physicist (Talk | contribs | block) (29 bytes) (moved User:R physicist to User:Lost cause: Change of emphasis) - that could just as easily be an attempt to change username as to delete. --Random832 (contribs) 14:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Put simply, no evidence has been provided that R physicist ever attempted to invoke RightToVanish. --Random832 (contribs) 14:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. In that case, what's the point in editing from an IP rather than his (still active) account? -- Kesh (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * His user talk page was deleted per RtV. Once again, let's all try not to talk about things we don't know about. How utterly crass and foolish. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, if you check, he even asked here that his user talk page be salted. Not only did he request RtV, he requested more than what would ever be allowed under RtV. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * holy crap, are people not allowed to change their mind? Calling it "abuse" and blocking the IP address was the worst possible response. --Random832 (contribs) 18:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But anyway, it's still not clear that he understood what "right to vanish" meant (it was suggested to him by another user), and it was never explained to him that it was poor form to return. And in any case, he's not banned and trying to misconstrue "right to vanish" as including an obligation not to return is flatly ridiculous. --Random832 (contribs) 18:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If the right to vanish can be "abused" at all, such abuse would be in using it repeatedly to cover your tracks, not in using it once, then after some time to cool down deciding to come back and see if just maybe his bad experience was a fluke. And, don't forget, he had been accused of being part of a russian conspiracy - you weren't the one making those accusations and he never said you were, so I don't know WHERE you get off saying he came back to make an ANI report against you. --Random832 (contribs) 18:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you continue to comment on things of which you have no understanding? The admin who RtV'd RP clearly and repeatedly explained to him what RtV is, and it is clearly and unequivocally a measure one may invoke when leaving the project permanently. There is no ambiguity here, and to return to continue to make a fuss is hardly something we should consider a good-faith return to the community in spite of the clarity of RtV. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Can this end now?
What about this conflict still requires the attention of administrators on AN/I? Is there an admin action remaining to be done (or undone) or is this thread basically rehashing the same issue over and over at this point? Reading the above, I'm not even sure exactly what the current status is. Who is blocked/unblocked/banned/vanished? <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 18:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Adambro vs. Crimsone
vs.


 * I want an apology. This is not acceptable, and should be acknowledged as such

The first encounter ( [] ) I have had with an admin named Adambro has resulted in repeated incivility. Adambro, rather than commenting on my contributions, decided to comment on me personally in a negative sense regarding my memory of an obvious and unforgettable wikipedia principle (namely, the whole "be bold" thing). I find this to be unacceptable on it's own but would usually let it pass. However, Adambro opted to do this in the third person while replying to the comment I had just made, before once more referring to me directly - " Crimsone seems to forget this is a wiki where users are encouraged to be bold whilst of course remembering our key polices and guidelines."

This left me inclined, in my reply to Adambro, to point out the incivility inherent in that remark, which one would assume is likely to leave anybody with the realisation that it did not amuse me, and I infact found it offensive - apparently it was intended for the discussion as a whole, though at that point there were only the two of us discussing it. However, rather than apologising for any unintentional offence, or even just plain ignoring it, what I got in reply involved yet more incivility through a complete failure to assume good faith...

"You're welcome to stand up for a "better way" but perhaps consider avoiding suggesting other editors are not being civil whilst you do so. Certainly annoying other editors who you happen to disagree with is not going to make the Wiki any better, better for you perhaps but not better for the readers."

... whereas all I'd done was to argue a point without getting anymore personal than to point out that to negatively and without very good sound cause, refer personally to an editor who's comment you are responding to in the third person is incivil, and certainly should be done merely because you disagree with someone. It should be fairly clear that making personall suppossitions about people publically is not ok. I did my best to make it clear, but apparently, I am out for me and my own ego rather than the good of the encylopedia - lets not forget here that if Adambro has seen my other contributions, he'll have realised that I've been a member here since 2005, am a rollback user (granted to me by complete suprise by the way... I didn't ask, but was one of the first to get it seems) have contributied significantly to, and nominated an FA which was accepted... blah, blah, - and if he hadn't seen my other contributions, he had no business making such remarks, having no good grounds on which to make them.

This is where I demanded an apology. The emphatic answer came back "No", the reasoning roughly being that he's an administrator, and so has substantial experience thus clearly knows better than I do about all these things, and I am the one that's wrong for being offended. You know... up untill that second insult, I could almost have ignored it had it not come from an administrator, but administrators aren't supposed to be administrators unless they are inclined to follow the rules and guidelines as best as possible and set an example. I somehow doubt that WP:IAR really aplies to me getting an apology... yet it was all but implied, in that I was categorically told that he would discuss it no further because it was all getting in the way of making the encylopedia better, and simply wasn't going to apologise. Apparently, debating the issue of him offering an apology for his incivility is a "waste of time". In the process of which, I get my command of my mother tongue (English) insulted - where, I do believe, I have a userbox clearly on my userpage, quite clearly stating I am a native speaker - not to mention that I've used it pretty well, and the only possibly cause he had to assume my english to be anything but a first language is that he couldn't apparently see (after I'd explained it) why I should make note of his original incivility. Fact is, I'm sick of the incivility on her, and I'm sick of being personally slurred by implications and suppositions, and patronised as though I only arived todat when I mention something wrong with an article on a talk page... I'm not about to let it go unchecked from an admin, because if an admin is free to do it, then what's to stop anybody else?

So... after explaining again why it was incivil, and that I want an apology for the lack of good faith and the incivility, and the insult over my command of my mother tongue... And in fact I demand that apology (and in the process agreeing that the venue for the continuing conversation was wrong, and pointing out that thus without an apology to end it, I would bring the issue here)... and finally making the point "one further thing... what makes you think it's in the slightest way OK to get personal with me at all, let alone in the third person to the rest of the discussion as you say? Whatever happened to "discuss the contribution, not the contributor?", I get...

"Well considering that English is your first language then it surprises me even more that simply referring to to you in the third person was enough to start upsetting you to merit you mentioning it. I will once again inform you that I will not be apologising for what you perceive I may have done wrong and your threats of raising this at ANI will not prompt me to. Good night.!"

...in reply. Apart from the obvious dissatisfaction with that response, and apart from the obvious fact that what I "percieve" is in fact what is there... namely, ...


 * A third person supposition of my inability to remember and recall key Wikipedia principles
 * An assertion that I'm damaging the encyclopedia through being out for myself rather than the encyclopedia
 * An insulting comment suggesting poor command of my mother tongue to the point it would be suprising if it were my first language
 * An assertion that I am being unreasonable in being offended at the original third person supposition
 * An assertion that all of this incivility is in my mind, and that I don't know what's incivil as well as he does, as he lorded his administratorship as though that meant I couldn't possibly surpass his experience (whatever happened to administratorship not being a big deal?)
 * A failure to assume good faith

... I finally get ...


 * An accusation that my mention of ANI was some kind of threat, thus suggesting a lack of integrity n my part, a sense of untouchability on his, and once more demonstrating a lack of good faith

...when in reality it was merely a run of the mill fact, and here I am, on AN/I, taking to discussion to a more appropriate venue (which is the reason I'm here with it now and not there - and the only reason). All I want, and all I wanted after the second round of incivility, was an apology for it. And that's still all I want now... and administrator or not, after that behaviour, I rather feel I deserve one. In fact, after that lot, I'd demand an apology of any editor. It's not, in my view, something that is excusable in someone who cites their administrator status as evidence of some manner of superiority in understanding of wiki's basic rules in the least though. I want a simple apology, that's all - is it really so much to ask? I do believe it's even mentioned as a recommended course of action by the relevant policy. Crimsone (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like both of you are being petulant and combative. He should stop being a prat and accept that you want an apology; you should stop being a prat and accept that he doesn't feel like apologizing. Failure to assume good faith is not a fault of one party, here, but both. Sometimes civility means being the bigger person and moving on. – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No... I'm just demanding an apology for invivility. Originally, I merely noted the uncivil comment. If was th proceeding, worse, instance of incivility with it's inherant lack of good faith that's got me demanding an apology, and his insistance that he's done no wrong and that I'm being unreasonable in being offended that's got me entrenched in said position. All I want is all I asked for - a simple apology for failure to AGF. That there has been a gfailure to AGF is evident, and that there has been incivility is evident. I have not failed to abserve AGF, but rather, no sooner did I mention that I considered the original comment incivil, no good faith has been shown. Quite simply, all I've got is a string of further incivility and insults, when a simple apology would have sufficed (and indeed, had there not been that second instance of incivility, not even an apology would have been required. I see little unreasonable in that. Whether he meant to be or not, he was uncivil, and on seeing it pouinted out, the next course of action is ignorance (ie, moving on) or apology - not further incivility and insults. I was prepared for the moving on option.) Crimsone (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Taking an off-the-cuff remark as a "slur," demanding an apology for it, demanding further apologies when your counterpart doesn't suddenly reverse their position or stroke your ego at the expense of their own, implying several times that the other user is a terrible Wikipedian and a stain on the community, repeatedly inferring nefarious motives, compiling a growing list of your counterpart's offenses even as you lecture them for failing to assume good faith... yeah, obviously you are a paragon of AGF, here. :p 76.114.18.153 (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello IP 76.114.18.153. If you read what I wrote here (and indeed, perhaps if you read the original discussion), you will find that that off the cuff remark (which was indeed incivil, though I did not call it a slur, but good call - it was a slur of sorts, intentional or not) was merely noted with the same half-serious off the cuff tone that the remark was given in... a sort of "touche" at the very worst. It was only after the second round aimed my way that I demanded an apology. At NO point did I call Adambro a terrible wikipedian, or a stain on the community. I didn't imply any nafarious motives (and if I felt they were particularly there in an admin, I'd be suggesting more than a demand of an apology), nor did I compile a growing list. That was indeed the list as I compiled it for this post, at this point in time, as a summary of incivility recieved to this point in time(ie, the basis for complaint). The thing is, Assume Good Faith doesn't mean that after somebody insulted you and was generally incivil to you repeatedly, then says "good night, I'm not apologising.", clearly assuming the worst of you by suggesting you are threatening AN/I (the implication of threat being of hostile intent in the hope of sanctions of some sort)... Well, AGF doesn't mean that you assume it as all because he was trying to be nice to you. It might suggest that perhaps originally the offence was not intended (which doesn't mean the comment wasn't incivil - it was), but it doesn't mean that that event and all that follows it should go unnoted. Crimsone (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec)Compiling a list of offenses is what anyone does, and is supposed to do, when filing a grievance. That's not an AGF violation. And I'm glad this user is merely demanding an apology rather than suggesting a de-sysop, as many users often do when their conflicts involve admins. I think an apology would be reasonable in this situation. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">Equazcion •✗/C • 01:44, 15 Apr 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh gawd no! The whole "off with his/her head!!!" de-sysop thing is infuriating - and in some ways worse than that which I'm seeking an apology for. I don't really know why it happens, but I do know it's kind of beyond a joke at times - mostly when it's beyond all reasn. I think people tend play the de-sysop card either for politics or revenge (save for occasions where it's actually justified of course, but they are comparatively few) Crimsone (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "If you read what I wrote here" So the only reason someone might disagree with you is poor reading skills? :)
 * "I did not call it a slur" "some manner of slur"
 * "It was only after the second round..." Fair enough, that's a point in your favor.
 * "At NO point did I call Adambro a terrible wikipedian" Never said you did. Wonderful word, "imply."
 * "I didn't imply any nafarious motives" Except that you've repeatedly and apparently willfully taken the worst possible interpretation of Adam's actions. You were offended by his post, he replied (tersely) that no offense was intended and expressed confusion, and you took more offense at his unintended offense in a wonderful sort of chain reaction.
 * "The thing is, Assume Good Faith doesn't mean that after somebody insulted you" That's missing plenty of chances to AGF, though. Adam's already stated no insult was intended, and didn't understand why you took offense. Confused people say stupid things from time to time. It can be important to know when you're speaking with a non-fluent counterpart (granted, he could have asked more gently, if he needed to ask at all, and that sort of question is more likely to cause offense if the speaker is fluent). Likewise, we could AGF and wait to see if he continues this sort of behavior in the future, or if he learns from it.
 * For what it's worth, I do think he might as well just apologize to you, but I don't see the productive end in getting too caught up in it, either. 76.114.18.153 (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Mr. IP, sarcasm is what got us here, so saying things like "Wonderful word, 'imply'" and "...poor reading skills", well, let's just say "I don't see the productive end" in that. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">Equazcion •✗/C • 17:36, 15 Apr 2008 (UTC)
 * I wrote a rant here. It was huge. then I decided not to post it. And now I'm deciding not to post. No apology, no more contribution. I'd like to say it was nice being here, but, sadly, as you can tell, for the most part, including this incident now, it wasn't. A few of you have been great - thanks. The rest of you, I have no words for. Quite soimply, I've had enough, and I will not accept that it' OK for admins to behave like this, clearly have caused opffence, whether intentional or not, and fail to apologise for it.
 * By the way Mr. IP, clearly your knowledge of Wikipedia is great, which isn't bad for an ip whose only 2 contributions are in fact to this discussion, over the course of a good many hours (making it very unlikely that the IP is dynamic). How about you sign in, eh? Crimsone (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) I've had plenty of my own encounters with editors who like to use the "seems to forget" phrasing. That seems to have been where this started. It's not exactly uncivil, but it is snide and sarcastic. About 90% of the times it's used, the person saying it doesn't actually think anyone "forgot" anything. There's simply a disagreement, and the person saying it wants to get their shots in, rather than simply voicing their disagreement.


 * The comment about English possibly not being your first language was harsh and completely uncalled for.


 * I'm not sure if an enforceable apology is in order though. I'd say probably not. I understand you're peeved, Crimsone, but you really need to develop a thicker skin. Unfortunately, people do resort to sarcasm often here, even though it's really, really unhelpful. This isn't the first time you'll encounter situations like that on Wikipedia (or anywhere), and it might be wiser to try and come up with ways of dealing with it on your own, because running to ANI each time will become tiresome (WP:WQA is a possibility, though).


 * That having been said, I think Adambro might do well to decide to offer an apology of his own accord, in the interest of settling this, even if offense wasn't intended and this was a misunderstanding. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">Equazcion •✗/C • 00:52, 15 Apr 2008 (UTC)
 * I had a thick skin once, but when it got to the point where I had to walk away from just about any article I edited owing to this sort of behaviour, it caused me to leave... shortly after that FA I mentioned was promoted actually. It got to me, so I left... I tried again, (and see the result of that on my talk page! accused of comparing rape to politics of all things!!! and other stuff!) I know a thinck skin would be the easier answer, but one of the reason I'm being firm on this, is because it's this sort of behaviour that drove me away in the first place, and drives other editors away. It's not on, and even for the lighter remarks, it's about time wikipedia got back at the very least to a policy of commenting on the contribution, not the contributor. Especially for admins, who are looked up to, and are the ones that tend to be responsible for any actions dealing with such behaviour - what kind of example and hypocrisy does that set up if admins are free to partake f such behaviour themselves without apology? Crimsone (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Adambro was short with you but it sounds to me as though you're dealing with some wider worries (which is ok). You might want to keep in mind, this is an encyclopedia and you weren't discussing something which had to be sorted out straight off. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 76.114.18.153 makes some good points. As I've already said elsewhere, I will not be apologising. Adambro (talk) 05:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Couldn't you just say you're sorry and not mean it? I do it all the time. It would be very adminly of you to give an apology in the interest of peace even if you don't think you did anything wrong. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">Equazcion •✗/C • 09:24, 15 Apr 2008 (UTC)
 * The IP makes no good points, because the points the IP makes up are all invented... they claim I said things I didn't (another thing I'm sick of)... and you will note that I answered them. Crimsone (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good grief. Demanding an apology from an administrator who is under no obligation to do so, and has stated he will not do, is only fueling more hysteria in your case. <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  18:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think lots of unhappiness with Wikipedia has been funneled into this wish for an apology, which seems to be sought for a lot more than the brush with Adambro. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

← It appears the user has retired over this. That is a shame. This could've been resolved with a simple apology, regardless of where the fault lay. Pride got in the way of resolving this, and now a user who's been editing for about 2 and a half years has left. Again this is independent of the specifics of the conflict. If you're an admin and a simple apology would resolve a dispute, you don't say "but I wasn't wrong". You just do it. You've failed an important test here in my mind, Adam. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">Equazcion •✗/C • 12:50, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)


 * I would strongly dispute any suggestion that this user leaving Wikipedia is directly related to this incident. Just days ago, before I began discussions with this user, they stated that they were effectively retiring from the project.


 * Whilst it is of course disappointing when editors leave the project, I'm not convinced that attempting to retain this user by apologising to them where I feel no need is the right way of going about things. It isn't a precedent that I want to be setting, that by threatening to leave the project people suddenly bow down to whatever demands you make. Adambro (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Having reviewed the comments I made which prompted this discussion, I remain happy that my comments were appropriate and feel that Crimsone's reaction to me referring to her in the third person couldn't reasonably have been expected and her reaction and subsequent raising of the issue here was disproportionate and unnecessary. Adambro (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "...whatever demands you make" -- No, I'm not suggesting that. I am, however, suggesting that an apology is a reasonable thing to offer, even when you don't feel you did anything wrong. When you're an admin people will hold you to a slightly higher standard of willingness to both resolve issues, and to sacrifice argumentative luxuries such as the last word. And rightfully so. Regardless of the background or even of the outcome, it would've been great had you just swallowed your pride and offered your apology. I suspect everyone would only have respected you more for it. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">Equazcion •✗/C • 21:32, 16 Apr 2008 (UTC)
 * I am, however, suggesting that an apology is a reasonable thing to offer, even when you don't feel you did anything wrong. (Civility) Thank you--NewbyG (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think admins need some customer service experience before picking up the mop and bucket. The first step in CS to disarm a conflict is, "I'm sorry this hasn't been a good experience for you. What can I do to help?" It's not even a formal apology, but it acknowledges that the other party feels there is a problem and you're willing to extend a hand to help. Even if you honestly feel the real problem is with the user/customer/editor, it's a good thing to defuse and then take steps to resolve. Only when it becomes clear that the other side has no intention of defusing do you dig in.
 * … as a side note, it looks like that article needs some work. Hrm. -- Kesh (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad bot chases new good user off site
We have a trolling bot who just chased a new user off the site. The new user rightly reverted vandalism] and got revertd by this troll bot who then reverted back to the vandal, the good user reverted again  only to be reverted by the troll bot a second time  and put a troll notice on t eh poor nebie users talk page  resulting in the suer declaring they are leaving the project. I dont care how nmany good edits this bot does it should be indef blocked for blatant trolling of a newbie user actring in good faith while the bot continues the insultas towards a sovereign nation. Can some opne please do something cos if this crap continues we won't have any editors, just mad bnots whose owners appear reluctant to control them. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Contact about it; this looks like a malfunction. Until then, I'm blocking it. -<font color="32CD32">Jéské  <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 23:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * First thing I did was contact him and contact the user who was being attacked telling him it wasnt human maliciousness but I fear this user has left the project for good and would question how valuable a bot that chases off good faith new users is, especially as changing the text for Hionduras to a poor place is what is obvious vandalism. perhaps he should switch iot off until it stops malfunctioning but VoA is not online right now. If I were an admin and could I would switch the bot off until the problem is fixed and hope someone will consider doing so as chasing off new good faith users is catastrophic. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on, bots don't "blatantly troll", they malfunction from time to time. <font face="Arial"> Corvus cornix  talk  23:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned about SqueakBox's failure to assume good faith towards VoABotII and its operator, . Read VoA's talkpage, and you'll see what I mean. -<font color="32CD32">Jéské <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 23:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * VOABot doesn't specify why it thinks something is vandalism, so it's hard to know what happened. Something that has happened to me before: someone deletes the article.  I restore it, but included in the text is a "bad word" or a blacklisted EL.  The bot thinks I'm adding profanity or spamming, and reverts.  Or, as Jéské says, it might just be having a HAL 9000 moment.  In either case, it isn't a "troll bot".  Mistakes happen, VOABot's notice admits as much, Squeakbox fixed it on the user's page, and he had stopped there I would have applauded his actions. --barneca (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What happened is a new good faith user got chased off the site, and Jéské is worried about the bot's feelings! Chasing a new and good faith user off the site is not how we work here, and changing the article on Honduras to "a poor country" is vandalsim23:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC). Thanks, SqueakBox
 * Again with the failure to assume good faith. VoABotII has done exemplary work in the past; it simply malfunctioned this time.  Do not attribute to malice what can be attributed to accident. -<font color="32CD32">Jéské  <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And thanks for blocking the bot, reverting vandalism reverts on Honduras may be acceptable but chasing off new users is not and I hope VoA responds to this concerns himself. One chased off new good fauith user counteraxcctas all the good work the bot does, we simply are not a viable project if we do such things. perhaps Jéské Couriano you would care to rwrite tot he user and reassure them they were not being trolled. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Other issues aside, you need to look up what 'trolling' means. John Reaves 00:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well VoA clearly is trolliong see here and here and in the meantime a new good faith user has beenn riun off the siter. if you think that isd okay, as VoA appears to, I suggest you review our policies yourself such as do not bite the newbies. This user was doing good and got trashed for it and now some people are supporting this trolling of new faith good faith users, well you appear to be, John, trolling is getting a reaction from someone by being nasty to them and this bot and its owner will not even apologise to a good faith newbie user whom they have run off the site. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, you really need to stop the ad hominem attacks and hyperbole. A bot screwed up. It happens, it was blocked, its being fixed. Nothing is perfect. You are blowing this totally out of proportion and now are accusing people who disagree with you of "supporting trolling." You really need to stop. Mr.  Z- man  00:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you chuck someone's talk page full of unambiguously rude, confrontational, and self-righteous rhetoric, do not be surprised if it gets removed. Jumping on a sword and crying about it is not going to help. Out of thousands of edits, mistakes still happen. I'm always trying to get the rate down. I encourage anyone to report problems, specific or general, and not to hesitate to block in the case of problems. I don't mind if people complain, but please tone down the rhetoric.  Voice -of-  All  01:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Even as a patriotic Honduran I dont care about the mistake. My only concern is with the way the new user has been treated. Are you going to fix this so we don't see a repeat. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe your actions here Squeakbox are much worse than the error from the bot, and your continued ranting about a non-issue really speaks volumes regarding your behavior. Your ad-homiem attacks and other nonsense is really nothing more than you taking a situation and forcing it out of proportion. How do you suggest that the issue be resolved? The bot is disabled and is being repaired, and has been dually noted -- which you most likely passed over. Do you want the bot to be permanently disabled? Or do you want to do the grunt work yourself? <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  03:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, Squeakbox, you claim this person was a "good newbie editor." On the basis of what? Four mainspace edits that were all reversions, four edits to the user's own talk, and nine edits to the user's own userpage, with an account that was a whopping five hours old as of its last edit?  This is ridiculous, and for you to claim what you did implies that you have some sort of bias relating to this person, or you're simply exaggerating to cause a problem.  Frankly, a newbie who has a problem shouldn't simply quit, especially when they know next to nothing about the system they're trying to work in.  Somebody who's going to jump to conclusions and extreme measures like that after five hours and less than 20 edits on WP I would posit is not going to be a good editor at all. MSJapan (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Holy crap, it's AGF in Bizarro World! --barneca (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

RTV
An IP has just requested that the Talk page of an account be blanked and fully protected in an apparent RTV request. I'd just deleted the user page of the user in question and declined db-g7 on their Talk page; he claims to have already "made his account inaccessible". As the user page is already gone and the Talk page blanked, I'm not entirely comfortable indefinitely protecting it, though I respect the user's apparent wish to "disappear". Thoughts? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * From looking at the times of his edits, I doubt (s)he'll be here tomorrow. No protection needed. Rudget  15:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry, I just courtesy blanked and protected the talk page (didn't know this discussion was here) in response to a new db tag. My rationale is, protection is harmless if they are really gone, and easily noticed and reversed if they come back.  Plus, it seems like it will make them happy.  The page history is still there for those who want to see it.  Open to opposing reasons. --barneca (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My bad. I was looking at the IPs edits who had made the request, in that case, I'd agree to a protection–though, isn't protection upon user request frowned upon? Rudget  15:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would it be frowned upon? Now deleting a talk page on user request, that is generally frowned on.  In any case, I don't know if protection is frowned upon or not, just trying to do the right thing. :)  --barneca (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion by Gerriet42
As per [], User:Gerriet42 was blocked recently for 5 days for sockpuppetry on the Sunscreen article. He has unwisely chosen to register an alt account to evade the block in order to castigate me on my talk page: []. This account has also been used to continue editing the Sunscreen page: []

I leave it to you folks to determine what to do about it, of course. Jtrainor (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sock blocked indefinitely and master's block reset. Stifle (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne
Hi, I've copied back this thread after I received the following message:

You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia.You can still read pages, but cannot edit, change, or create them. Editing from (your account, IP address, or IP address range) has been disabled by JzG for the following reason(s): Block evasion

This block has been set to expire: 13:18, 17 April 2008.

Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and contact other editors and administrators by email. Note: If you have JavaScript enabled, please use the [show] links across from each header to show more information.

Original Thread:

nowiki {resolved|75.57.196.81 is disruptive and disputatious, blocked.} nowiki

Hi, I'm just trying to get along and do my best here, civilly and with reason.

I posted a question at the Reliable Source Notice Board, "Are a Films credits a reliable source for a Movies InfoBox?" I received an answer, 'A films credits are a reliable source and are the preferred use for an InfoBox.' I marked the thread as Resolved. Arcayne changed my edit marked it as Unresolved. After a couple of additional comments by Arcayne and no change in the answer to my question, I marked it as Resolved. This is in accordance with the instructions on the Reliable Source Notice Board which state: If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with . Arcayne then removed my entire comments and marked it as Unresolved while stating the following:   "do not ever in you life alter the content of one of my posts, or I shall see you blocked so fast your kids will be dizzy"  Arcayne


 * Suffice it to say, I am not comfortable with his obsession with me, and do not feel particularly welcome here, is this just Wikipedia and do I need to toughen up? I'm really not sure what has made me his latest target, I honestly just think he saw me as a soft target of opportunity as I'm just a lowly public editor. Irregardless, he has brought me before more forums, reverted me, followed me and discussed me on more pages than I can possibly count at this point without any evidence that I have done any of the numerous specific things he has tried to pin on me. Can someone respectfully request that he try to abide by the bare minimum of Wiki standards?75.57.196.81 (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have now been reverted and a second, nearly identical threat has been left for me by Arcayne: "Do not ever alter (1, 2) the content of my posts in a discussion page again. I take significant exception. If it ever occurs again, I will have request to have you blocked so fast that your kids will get whiplash. This is your only warning in regards to this topic, so I would urge you not to test my resolve on this particular subject. Arcayne"

Sorry to use your time on this. 75.57.196.81 (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have informed User:Arcayne of this conversation, as we usually try to do here. - <span style="font-family:Papyrus, sans-serif; color:#775ca8;">Philippe  22:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I missed this one that came with the second one - " if you are looking to get blocked, you are going about it in the right way."75.57.196.81 (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * With respect, manipulating my posts to alter my intent is refactoring. We don't do that here. Yet you seem to feel (1, 2) that you are exempt from this behavioral guideline. You don't refactor another user's comments to alter intent or content, though you can fix indenting and the like (and even that is open to debate). However, after wrning you that this is an unacceptable practice, and my offense to it, you did it again. I subsequently warned you that you were well on the path to being blocked for it, as it is a part of a history of harassment on your part.
 * Additionally, you have a rather long-standing habit of marking as resolved those conversations where discussion is still occurring. If you feel that the moment you get the answer you are looking for marks the end of a multi-user discussion, you are mistaken. This is why you have been counseled (and, unfortunately, warned as well) to await the conclusions of discussions before taking action.
 * Perhaps if you are not comfortable with having your actions paid attention to, you should consider altering how you interact with your fellow editors within the encyclopedia. As for my so-called "obsession," with you, I think you are forgetting that you have filed (now) three separate AN/I complaints against me, two of which were dismissed with the advice that you seek DR. When approached by myself to pursue DR, you simply ignored it. Subsequent AN/I complaints have indicated that your editing behavior needs somewhat noticeable improvement. If you are concerned with y attention to your personal attacks on me, consider not making htem in the first place. Try leaving my edits be, without altering them. That seems to be an awfully good start improving how your actions are perceived.
 * And while we are on the subject of your actions, it has been discussed that you might be a former user. Have you ever edited under a formal ID in Wikipedia before (before the dozen anons, I mean). - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Arcayne, but I will no longer respond to your empty baseless accusations. I'm here to improve the content of the articles that I edit. That is all. I will not waste my time responding to every McCarthy like thumping of your fist upon the "facts". As was once said so eloquently, "At long last sir ..." 75.57.196.81 (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest that, in keeping with that brand new outlook, that you perhaps stop filing AN/I reports every time your edits get reverted? Or when you are caught trying to conceal your edit history? Or when someone warns you to stop attacking others? Granted, I responded a bit harshly with having my edits altered, but you were the one who altered them. Twice. After I asked you specifically not to. You want to be left alone. Leave others alone. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I will continue to defend my honest actions and will, as always, abide by the customs and practices here, and I will not stop shining a harsh light upon your actions here when I am your target. I do it not for me, but for the good of the community and in the defense of your future prey.75.57.196.81 (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's hardly a civil behavior for a thread where civility's the key. Youv'e been on AN/I before for this sort of combative response to newer editors than you, and the cavalier way you dismiss some aspects of opposition while berating opponents in those backhanded manners grates on others. Those who see the good work you do have spoken to you about this sort of problem before, both on the previous AN/I threads, on the relevant talk pages, and on your talk page. As such, I can't say much more than that if not this time, the very next incidence of such persistent behaviors ought to result in a block, so it doesn't escalate into another drama. ThuranX (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)



It looks like the block came from here, but no one seems to have been aware of this or the reason for it. 'This action here appeared to conclude with the edit above by ThuranX at 01:57'', 16 April. My IP changed and I had confirmed edits from a new IP at 14:07, 16 April. I was apparently blocked at 21:35, 16 April.''' I am now charged with Block Evasion by Arcayne and he is now engaged in a private effort to have me banned. Arcayne has also informed me that I have been Blocked for 1 Week (this differs from my screen shot: 13:18, 17 April) As I have stated I do abide by the rules here and will continue to do so, I will refrain from edits until this is sorted out and my status is resolved. I am not comfortable with Arcaynes continued relentless obsession with me - especially following ThuranX's comments. I had hoped that this combative and personal assault was over.75.58.44.23 (talk)
 * While I always think Arcayne can be more reserved in his responses (I have that critique about myself), from what I read on Talk:Fitna (film), this IP address has been pretty contentious with most editors, declaring consensus when consensus was not obtained, telling Arcayne he is making "false statements" and other behavior that is not optimal. Granted, Arcayne has been around and should respond to a contentious IP editor in less sardonic language; but this IP's behavior is also objectionable, and based upon the Talk:Fitna (film) discussions, was trying most people's patience on that page...that was my reading of it.  --<font color="#0000C0">David <font color="#0000C0">Shankbone  15:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As a point of fact, Arcayne failed to enlist a single voice in support of his effort to overturn community consensus, it has been discussed in the Scarlet Pimpernel article, the Fitna Article, five different sections on WP:RS, taken before WP:OR, efforts to enlist support were made on numerous user talk pages; it has been marked as resolved and archived four times in Fitna:Talk, edited into the Infobox by numerous distinct editors and then immediately Reverted by Arcayne on Ten Separate Occasions and now he's opened still another front in the campaign, The Wiki Manual of Style!WP:MOS

The issue was nothing more than listing a name in the credits without an editorial addition, that was the sole issue. The current discussion is an effort to compromise with Arcayne on how to do it. Please do not equate my defense of Encyclopedic standards with Arcaynes personal efforts to "Win." 75.58.44.23 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because on one proposal does Arcayne have a minority view does not make him disruptive. In fact, most editors on the Talk article seem to be taking issue with you.  Arcayne seems to be trying to work out a compromise.  Many of your diffs are just his disagreeing with you.  You are raising a content dispute at this point.  Yes, Arcayne can better phrase himself; the rest of your issue...whether it be consensus changing or Arcayne raising policy and guideline arguments...this is not the place. Continued discussion on the Talk page is the place. --<font color="#0000C0">David <font color="#0000C0">Shankbone  15:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I have only sought to support my response to your assertions. I have not posted there since yesterday. The last line in the section is this: "Arcayne, as the sole holdout to Proposal 2, can you live with this approach? If not, why not? Blueboar 15:02, 17 April". 75.58.44.23 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustration, but if Arcayne is the sole holdout, then it sounds like consensus is against him and the Proposal 2 will be adopted regardless. If he raises another argument against it that had not been considered before, then it merits more discussion.  Arcayne is not known for WP:GAME, so I would imagine he is at least giving reasoned and thoughtful arguments.  You had a point with the WP:CIVIL argument, but this board is for violations of guideline and policy...please keep the content discussions on the article's talk page.  Good luck to you.  It *can* be frustrating to argue over minutia; everyone here understands (and does it!)  --<font color="#0000C0">David <font color="#0000C0">Shankbone  15:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Murder threat
Andy o'rourke specifically: [problematic text commented out, see page sourse]

do we just ignore this stuff or what? ninety:one 16:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the user who posted it. Someone in Ireland may want to contact the authorities. Max S em(Han shot first!) 17:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:TOV for more instructions and suggestions. Bstone (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

IP threat
User:172.192.57.37 has left a somewhat threatening message on my talk page, and is engaged in a continous edit war on Mary Baker Eddy using as he/she says an unlimited number of ip addresses, User:172.191.81.28, User:172.191.126.225 etc. All similar numbers beginning with 172 and on a singular track having to do with religion. I'd appreciate some help, thanks Modernist (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * IP address blocked 31 hours for WP:3RR breach; article semi-pp for three days. We'll take it from there. --<font color="7F007F">Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 17:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated. Modernist (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Ariesubg/UrbanBridgez.com
—admittedly from the UrbanBridgez.com website (UBG for short)—added content (with UBG as a source) that was removed due to WP:RS concerns. User continually reverts and responded to discussion with incivility and personal attacks Promotes website on user page and talk page. I posted on the RS noticeboard regarding the reliability of the source with no response as yet. Looking for suggestions for additional action, if any. — Hello, Control <sup style="color:#FF0000;">Hello, Tony  19:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've blocked him for 12 hours for edit warring and 3RR violations, but it does appear to be a single-purpose spam account - any other opinions? <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 20:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The attacks aren't helping his case either - see diff in Hello's post above, and original version of his user page. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 20:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The block has expired and the user is back adding links to the same site. Shortly before those, an IP located in the same city as UBG was adding similar content. — Hello, Control <sup style="color:#FF0000;">Hello, Tony  19:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Giovanni di Stefano - banned user legal threats
This talk page needs to be reviewed, and may need to be semi-protected indefinitely. The BLP subject in question, Giovanni di Stefano, is apparently banned as a user. The son of the BLP subject is a banned user. However, for some reason it appears a variety of users have tolerated his IP-based posts, as seen here. This includes such gems such as My questions are: why is this tolerated when this page is clearly watched by multiple admins? BLP subject or no, they live by the same rules as every other user. This guy needs to go to OTRS, or leave the public website. WP:NLT exists for a reason. My other question is, as the entire anonymous history on the talk page appears to be just this person posting from Italy, why have we not simply semi-protected the talk page? This user appears to have lost, or discarded, his usefulness and right even as a BLP subject to this talk page, and I would wager his services are no longer needed or allowed there. I see an ex-arbiter has worked on this before, as has Jimbo Wales, but there are no exemptions to NLT I am aware of. Will someone be willing to semi-protect the page? Lawrence Cohen §  t / e  13:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * calling users idiots
 * calling an user stupid, and to get a life
 * calls a user a 'non entity'
 * Finally today, issuing a loud legal and outing threat.
 * First are you sure that di stefano is banned, thta is news to me. He had an account, can you confirm that account is indef blocked. Second as far as I am aware di Stefano has not posted tot he article or talk page for months, it is his son who has been doing os recentlky and got blocked by Fred Bauder today. Thanks, SqueakBox 13:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine, MSDS is banned then (altered the original post), the individual who claims to be di Stefano's son. However, since this user only posts from random IP addresses in Italy, and no other anonymous users post to the talk page, for the protect of our users from legal threats and disruption we ought to semi-protect the talk page. MSDS, whomever that is, has lost the priviledge of using that page in the way he has. Lawrence Cohen  §  t / e  13:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would support semi-protection of the talk page and ideally full protection of the article page but if not semi-protection for that page too. Clearly issuing legal threats on wikipedia is nott he way to resolve anything. Thanks, SqueakBox 13:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The article has been protected long enough.Geni 14:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't be against semi-protecting both the talkpage and the article. Even before the threat against me, it was pretty clear to me that the activities of the subject and his son were not terribly helpful to the article or Wikipedia in general. They still have recourse to OTRS. Full protection of the article seems unnecessary at this point. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 14:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How about semi-protection of both for 2-4 weeks and a helpful reminder about OTRS? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont believe that would be controversial at all. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A month semi-prot wouldn't be bad, but 6 months might make more sense. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 14:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * IPs often do make very helpful edits. I wouldn't want to see them shut out for so long, when this could calm down within a few weeks. The page can always be semi-protected for another month if the IP threats start up again. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would support a 6 month semi on the article but re the talk I think we should not semi lock for more than a month on the basis that we can review in 4 weeks time as to whether the lock should be extended. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Either way I'd support semi-protection now, of both. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How about we split the difference and semi the entire mess for 2-3 months? Lawrence Cohen  §  t / e  15:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and do it. If all goes quiet and somebody asks, it can always be lifted. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't myself, I'm not an admin. :) Anyone willing to do this? Lawrence Cohen  §  t / e  15:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see this item is now posted at WP:RPP but, for whatever reason (hot potato?) no-one has touched it. I'd support one month semi-protection for both article and Talk. There were personal attacks, though but we don't see all the time. The April 17 legal threat is more troubling, and that's why I believe semi-protection is justified. The IPs used by di Stefano's son do occasionally seem to provide relevant information, and the rate of bad editing is low. The article edits he has made are not defamatory, so BLP doesn't obviously apply. But if there are any more legal threats (after 1 month) I'd support indef semi for the Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Per this discussion, and the request at WP:RPP, I semi'd the article for 2 months and the talk page for 1 month. Anyone is free to adjust the durations or remove protection entirely, without contacting me. For those who are active on this article, I would suggest creating a subpage (such as Talk:Giovanni di Stefano/comments) that can be transcluded somewhere on the main talk page so that anons and new users who wish to make constructive comments can do so. I suppose another alternative would be to place a note at the top of the talk page directing them here. - <font color="#0000cd">auburn <font color="#EF6521">pilot  talk  20:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

sockpupeteer creates yet another sock, please block
short summary: please block User:Martindanza for being a sock of a blocked user, and repeating the same stuff that got him blocked.

This user Pinoybandwagon was blocked for using socks and not respecting wikipedia naming convetions, including altering them to name one of his socks as top authority for philippine radio stations. He has created another sock called User:Martindanza, wich needs to be blocked asap. For proof, see the sock case, his changing of names just like his socks on the templates and on moving articles to bad names after being moved back by admins and warned by it. He has been denied unblock by 3 admins, and his talk page was protected to avoid him editing it. He's still doing the same stuff that got him blocked. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * His contributions are here. 19:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:UP, I would appreciate if Levine2112 would delete User:Levine2112/notes and apologize to me publicly. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 18:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If he's using this to gather evidence for an arbitration case against you, I suppose he's within his rights to do so. I wouldn't complain too loudly, either. Forewarned is forearmed.


 * If, however, he's just using this as a "laundry list" moaning page, it should be deleted/moved off-wiki. Unless the arbitration case materialises within a week, I'll delete the page. Moreschi2 (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Since it's not allowed, as I stated above, and it represents an attack page, I hope another admin will choose to delete it. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 19:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it is allowed if it's evidence-gathering for ArbCom. Please read the policy you linked to again. Otherwise, yes, it is not. Moreschi2 (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See this recent MfD debate - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The undertow/Notebook. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 19:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Time to cool down folks. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe Levine2112 should explain his reasons for creating the note page. QuackGuru (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleted by an admin. We're done here.  And note to Pop-psychologist-over-the-internet editor.  Who's not cool?   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 20:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you're not, after that pointless snide comment. Was there significant value to attacking him? ThuranX (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't bother to expect an answer; anyone who doesn't see things OrangeMarlin's way is one of 'the bad guys'. He probably already considers you a troll. HalfShadow (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

vandalism only account, sock of blocked user
This user User:Markymark120 is a vandalism-only account (see contributions ), and is a sock of the blocked user User:Aimar120, see his sock case. Please block him too. (I didn't log until today, so my user page has been vandalized for 3 days because of him) --Enric Naval (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody's userpage should go three days with that kind of nonsens on it. Sorry you had to be the first to find it after being there for three days.  You're on my watchlist now Enric, for what it's worth, to try and catch it sooner if he (or anyone else) returns.  <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper   |  <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76   |  <font color="#ff0000"> Disclaimer  19:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Killah666 should be indefblocked
is nothing but trouble. Edit history shows little else but petty vandalism, creating and then repeatedly recreating inappropriate articles , edit warring, spamming , blanking pages , leaving inappropriate edit summaries containing attacks on fellow editors , and then continuing to vandalize his own talk page after being bocked for 31 hours. Should be indef blocked as a persistent troll. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This could go to WP:AIV as he is vandalizing after a block was placed. Also this looks like nothing but a vandal account anyway. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And I see here that the user's been blocked indefinitely. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:WEB
Wikipedia talk:Notability (web) has not been used recent times and probably there are not enough editors to answer the questions there. This may not be incident, but important. Can anyone please explain what is the criteria for WP:WEB. I read WP:WEB several times, and found the following:

This guideline says "non-trivial coverage" and then WP:WEB explains what "trivial" means:

Some questions can arise from the above quoted statements.
 * 1) "multiple non-trivial published works" -- what is meant by "multiple"? One, two, three, four, five or more?
 * 2) Trivial implies "brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site". What is this "brief"? When it would be considered that an article published in third party reliable source is more than brief?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Multiple" in this case, at least from my experience, implies more than one.
 * "Brief" in this case means that articles mentioning them must not do so in passing; i.e. they mustn't simply give the site as a case example or name-drop. -<font color="32CD32">Jéské <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 20:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This isn't really the place for this discussion. There are multiple forums where it might be appropriate, AN/I doesn't appear to be one of them. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 20:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Jéské. I will propose to add this facts within WP:WEB.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it remarkable for a page responsible for so much brouhaha over the years that its edit history has been so quiet in recent times. Interesting to muse to oneself on the reasons for and implications of this. Splash - tk 21:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oompapa
Just a quick heads up, is back creating socks. I see that oompapa has been tagged as a sock of molag bal? I never saw that happen. Prob close to a year ago, i was involved with oompapa who at times would create 100's of accounts a day. IF you see something with it, just block and and deny him. His names often have buddah in them. <font color="1E90FF">Chris <font color="4169E1">lk02 <font color="2A52BE">Chris Kreider 21:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Added the "oompapa" catchphrase that was being spammed on user talk pages and articles to Lupin's badword list.<b style="font-family:comic sans ms; color:purple;">¤~Persian Poet Gal</b> <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

user removing poll results
On the talk page of Afghanistan a poll was opened for whether to include the term Afghani in the demonym list of the info-box or not. The poll is very straight forward and two users already voted. But user: Carl.bunderson keeps crossing out the poll and its results because he does not like the results and is opening a new poll which is very different from this one. His poll also asks for Afghanistani to be included or not, but that has not been discusses here and that is not what the original poll was about. The poll is only asking to inlcude Afghani or not, just because he doesn't like the results he crosses it out. Can an admin please tell him to stop doing this? Thanks. He is also a bully, dictator, throws around silly accusations, and insults others. Can someone also tell him to stop that or give him a warning with short block maybe? Thanks. Also he's violated 3RR because he removed the poll more than three times.


 * The poll is not straighforward--the way he worded it, people were encouraged to vote for his position. We all know that the questions you ask affect the answers you get. He is trying to manipulate the results by manipulating the questions. I am a well-esltablished user, and he is an anon who has done nothing but work on this talk page. The Afghansitan article has a shistory of socks, and I would not be surprised if he was in this vein. I am agsint the poll in as far as it is unfair. I have provided for a new poll that will be fair, and is worded essentially the same as poll was worded earlier which established consensus on this. My concern is that the anon is manipulating the system. He has also tried to stuff the ballot box, as it were, by getting people to vote on Wikiproject pages. He has more knowledge of WP than an anon would usually have, so this also suggests to me that he is a banned sock. Also, one of the two users who has voted is a sock. This is ridiculous and anons need to step in to make the poll fair. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Again this user is throwing around false accusations and acting as a dictator. Both the users that voted are not socks but long time users. Any admin can see for themselves and see that the poll was straightforward. It is you who is trying to manipulate things. His idea that there is something wrong with the poll is his POV. I hope admins take a look at this and see what a rude editor this Carl.bunderson is. He thinks he owns Wikipedia or something.


 * I said one of the users was a sock, not both. And look at their user page--one is a suspected sock. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * He has been accused of being a sock before and checked and the result was negative. You also threw insults at me and called me blind. No one is asking to be involved with the Afghanistan article, if you are getting frustrated because you don't like the poll's results and bullying and cursing at new users and acting like a dictator, then you can move on to another article.


 * You need a dictionary. I never cursed. I called you blind because you seem to be. You are blind, figuratively, to the difference in our polls. I am obviously open to a poll...I made a new one that is actually fair. I have been involved in this page for a long time, defending it from nationalist/pov-pushing socks such as yourself. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Carl Bunderson's version distinctly differs. It seeks to create all new consensus about what can or can not be in the infobox. The old poll merely sought consensus about adding a single element. This is somewhat disturbing, because it was Carl Bunderson who so loudly advocated that consensus had been established. It's almost like he's gone to a WP:POINT violation, arguing that if any part of the old consensus is challenged, the entirity should be scuttled. The old poll seems to be far more circumspect in its goals and methods, and more designed to modify consensus than rewrite it whole. ThuranX (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes the other way also includes a poll on Afghanistani demonym. But that is a different demonym and so should have its own poll. This is what I'm trying to tell Carl.bunderson but he doesn't listen because he accuses me of ignoring Afghanistani. I now added a separate poll for Afghanistani as a result so he stops accusing me of neglecting Afghanistani. Now we have a poll for both demonyms, I really don't see what else is missing.


 * Carl.bunderson is not the only one who thinks that something was wrong with the anon's original poll. As someone who has never been involved in editing the Afghanistan page until the anon left a message about it at WikiProject Central Asia, I disagree that the old poll was fair; its wording struck me as push polling. I tried to reword it (diff) but the anon rejected even that minor change in favour of his own version. cab (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually user: CaliforniaAliBaba I did not see that you re-worded it. But shortly after I changed it back to the way you had it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.209.223 (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I also read your edit to change the options as a different choice. Perhaps your option should have instead been added, instead of changing the poll's nature. Again, it looks like the initial poll was to widen extant consensus, while subsequent edits were to change the fundamental nature of the poll. ThuranX (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Thuranx, please read the conversation between me and the anon on the talk page, as well as going through the whole history of the demonym issue on the talk page. Afghani and Afghanistani ought to be dealt with together, not separately. Consensus on this matter has in the past dealt with all three demonyms, not just doing one at a time. The page has suffered greatly from nationalist pov-pushers and it is ridiculous the number of socks that have attacked the page. Look at my contribution history…which of the two users is more likely to be pushing pov? Me or him? As cab pointed out, the anon has tried to stuff the ballot and engage in push polling. The poll I provided for is as neutral as can be, and is practically the same as a poll that we had on this same issue earlier. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Since Carl.bunderson was complaining that we also needed a poll on Afghanistani, I started one. He was trying to poll Afghani and Afghanistani together without even giving the poller any reasons for Afghanistani. I started a second poll and give the poller some background info. The two terms need their own poll because for instance a user might want Afghani but not Afghanistani, or they might want Afghanistani but not Afghani. Also, Carl.bunderson is now calling me idiot (link) after I told him to stop crossing out the poll I started first. He has called me blind, now idiot, and keeps accusing me of things which I keep proving him wrong anyway. The reason is pretty easy to understand why Afghani and Afghanistani need to be separate polls. I hope he understands this now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.210.156 (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Read the the talk page archive. Afghani and Afghanistani have always been dealt with together, and you have not provided a reason that they should not be treated the same now—there is precedent for dealing with them in one poll, and there is a substantial reason as well: both are alternative demonyms which are sourced, but used far less than is the primary demonym, Afghan. Also, while both are soured, neither are included in the OED. You have utterly failed to provide a reason for treating them separately. And my calling you idiot and blind have been justified. I mean them matter-of-factly, not as an insult. Carl.bunderson (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I just provided you a very simple reason: for instance a user might want Afghani but not Afghanistani, or they might want Afghanistani but not Afghani. In the last poll long time ago, this was not considered, so this is why I am now treating them as 2 polls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.210.156 (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There has to be a reason for the positions people take when they vote. You have said that people might want to include one but not the other, but you haven’t actually given a reason for this. It is ludicrous to provide one but not the other, because both are sourced but not recognized nearly as widely as is Afghan. You have failed to give a reason why someone would want to include one but not the other. Carl.bunderson (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Carl, All I see is that you are interested in getting your way on this. I see little to no POV pushing on asking for a modification to existing consensus. If it's a good idea, it will be supported, with solid arguments; and if not supported, then the same. However, stating that you don't like his poll, and slashing it out, then starting a competing poll, is childish tantrum behavior, and you need to stop it. Your best option would be to state that IF the results indicate a change, it's evidence for a whole new poll, one covering any and all permutations, which requests reasoning from the 'non-voting' responders. It's that simple. All I can see here is you obstructing to get your way. knock it off. ThuranX (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How can I be solely interested in getting my way on this? If that was the case, I would not have provided a poll which was completely neutrally worded. Did you bother to look at the page history, and the talk archive? Afghanistan has been a major draw to cases of sockpuppetry. Why do you think that an editor who spends the vast majority of his time on here reverting vandalism is acting petulantly? Who is more likely to do that? An anon who edited a few pages last month, was blocked, and then came on and has done nothing but deal with the Afghanistan page, or an editor who has a history of being a hammer against vandals? I’m fine with consensus changing, I’m perfectly aware that it can, but look at my wording of the poll? Can you tell me in what way it is inferior to the anon’s? If the results indicate a change, why bother making a second poll to cover any and all options? Does it not make more sense to expedite and move to the ultimate poll in the first place? Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ksuwildcats10's user page
I just blanked almost 15,500 bytes of information at 's user page. He had previously been warned that the amount and type of information he had there was a violation of WP:USER and WP:NOT standards. He was given several weeks to clean it up but never made any attempt to. Because of that, I have parsed it down to one line. The page was a totally unnecessary list of his personal achievements and news about his life (from the death of his cousin to the time he was interviewed as a student with concerns about security).

I post this here for review and thoughts about what is and is not appropriate for this (and other) user pages. Metros (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Was it defamatory? Did it attack other users? Did it contain BLP violations or copyright infringements? Did it advocate violence or criminal activity? DuncanHill (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Totally unnecessary blanking of a benign user page. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  00:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well per NOT, this appears to be a pretty blatant policy violation. It's a resume with an excessive amount of personal information and it offers, essentially, blog-like accounts of his life.  When you're talking about 15,500 bytes of personal information, I'd call that excessive.  Metros (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a highly detailed biographical user page written in the 3rd person with a bit of blogginess and CVishness, maybe overlong with more personal info than one might want to see but I don't see anything untowards about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is that Ksuwildcats was using the page as an ad hoc way to promote himself, and as his personal resume. I had contact with him when he first registered a profile, it seemed he was trying to create a wikipedia page for himself and his high school band director, in addition he went through numerous warnings about adding information about him self to El Paso, Texas, Great Bend, Kansas, and Great Bend High School. He has also used inappropriate markup on his user page such as Category:Judges, the Judge infobox, and sources his page like a real article from his own person website. I'm not totally supporting Metros actions, but ksuwildcats clearly does not understand WP:NOT and was clearly warned that his blog like page was in violation.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Resume-like"? Yes.  "CV-like"?  Yes.  "Article-like"?  Very much so.  "Blog-like"?  No way. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  01:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's back:) <font color="#FF1493">Merkin's  <font color="#FF1493">mum  01:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I only say blog-like because every-time something of questionable notability happened to him, he would update his page and create a new section on for instant how he was interviewed for a local television's spot about a new dormitory.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 01:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it's been deleted now. Next time, I'd suggest taking anything remotely controversial to MFD and it'll be gone soon enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The user's penultimate edit seems to have been to metros' talk page, asking to be left alone.  Dan Beale-Cocks  01:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Notifybot
has run amuck and is tagging images as orphaned when they are clearly not. For example Image:ChanduTheMagician.jpg is clearly still reciprocally linked to Chandu the Magician (radio). can someone please shut it off and fix it? Thank you. Now how do we untag the images? EraserGirl (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the image isn't being used, as evident from the empty "File links" section on the Image description page. There is a problem with the infobox at Chandu the Magician (radio) though, and I can't get the image displayed properly.  Once that is fixed, the image will be no longer orphaned, and the deletion tag can be removed.  Somebody else will have to look at it though, I can't figure it out. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It was just missing an imagesize (fixed). Might want to look into the template to avoid such mishaps in the future though. — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed the deletion tag from the image. All done here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ive had the same issue, but someone had changed a template which is what caused BCBot to tag some images as orphaned. (just a heads up). βcommand 2 00:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editor on Alexander the Great
For almost a week now, User:PelasgicMoon has been trying to go against consensus and change the intro to that article. Numerous users have weighed in, all against him, but he persists. He uses fringe sources and deliberately skews and misquotes those that are not. He asked admins for help, and they told him off. Then he posted a request for comment, and uninvolved editors disagreed with him, but still nothing. I tried to talk him on is talk page, but still nothing. He just ignores everyone and posts the same material over and over like broken record. The final straw came when he re-posted some misquoted sources that had been posted by banned User:Dodona and which i removed. He has so far escaped sanction because he is careful not to breach civility and keeps to the talk page, but his behavior is quite disruptive. He has filled pages and pages with his rants, infuriating other users and ignoring a rock-solid consensus. I have a feeling he will NEVER stop, because just as soon as some users tire of him and ignore him, new users join in and the cycle starts anew. He has even been warned per WP:ARBMAC and still nothing. --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

just a precisation, before banning me i suggest to read my posts. (and it's not true all editors disagreed with me, see PhoenixWiki). Thanks. PelasgicMoon (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh?? I find this pretty far from this one from your IP in your talkpage. If anything, it can be interpreted as a consideration that WP's content has to be manipulated because of the fear of trolls constantly coming and disrupting. Note that Phoenix is saying that they were "practically one race". NikoSilver 22:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's right, Phoenix did not agree at all with PM. Rather he disagreed later on, but here again PM is twisting what someone is saying, just like he did with those sources.  In fact, the only one who agrees with PM is his banned friend Dodona (the anonymous IP mentioned above).  --Tsourkpk (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And ethnic trash-talk now by the same person [] --Tsourkpk (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

it's jsut what i think, a greek pushing team, it's my opinion, i hope i am free to say what i think. PelasgicMoon (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a "team". just people who disagree with you.  --Tsourkpk (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Question
Although, I should have brought this up sooner, could someone more knowledgeable on the foundations' policies take a look at this. Nan oha A's Yu ri    Talk, My master 23:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like trolling to me. I am not sure what they want us to do. Tiptoety  talk 23:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting how that diff is supposedly deleted, yet I can see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.129.57 (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You just needed to purge your cache, it is most defiantly deleted now though. Tiptoety  talk 02:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Juggernaut12
probably trying to get someone in trouble? revert userpage and block? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Indef blocked for now, based on the way he keeps mentioning someone named "Adam" while vandalizing (as well as this edit) its pretty safe to assume that he is either trying to get someone in trouble, or harrassing an unidentified user (he does mention looking for "Adam" in other Wikis), in any case I see no intention to contribute constructively. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  02:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked User:ShaolinDoTruth
I've blocked a user, but wanted to get additional opinion into my action as I was the original creator of the article that he was vandalizing. The user is User:ShaolinDoTruth. Shaolin-Do is one of the larger martial arts chains in the US and has a questionable history. Not only is his user handle a violation of policy, but User:ShaolinDoTruth is a SPA account whose only edits have been to attack the organization with unsourced biased original research.  Prior to creating an account, he had a static IP where he has been making the same unsourced/poorly sourced edits.  He repeatedly puts his original research on the talk page of Shaolin-do. In addition to being a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:V his posts are a violation of WP:BLP as they are essentially claiming the style's grandmaster to be a fraud and a liar. I've warned the user on several occassions. His last endeavor was to post his diatribe on Shaolin-Do on his User Page believing that the user page was immune to any requirements of neutrality/original research/verifiability/BLP. I reverted that edit and indef blocked said user as a disruptive SPA.Balloonman (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Shooting/Death Threat
This edit really concerns me. What is the proper course of action?<b style="font-family:comic sans ms; color:purple;">¤~Persian Poet Gal</b> <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:TOV covers it in this case. Tiptoety  talk 23:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually I believe WP:DNFTT is a better answer. It's been reverted, the IP has been blocked.  Friday (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * When does a threat need to be taken seriously then? The IP (ran through GeoBytes) originates only a few miles from the location of the school which the threat has been made against. Tiptoety  talk 23:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Or you could just look a tad higher on this page. <font face="Harlow Solid Italic"><font size="2px" color="teal"> « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 23:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I found a relevant news report that already indicates this high school has been made aware of this death threat. However, this seems like a serious threat regardless of authorities "combing the lockers of the school" (according to the article).  Should the Hacienda Heights police be notified?<b style="font-family:comic sans ms; color:purple;">¤~Persian Poet Gal</b> <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  23:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC) (oh didn't know this threat has been made throughout the day and is being handled)
 * I think this is a clear cut example of when threats need to be reported to the police, that is their job is it not, and by the news story they obviously took it seriously. I dont like the whole "their blocked, lets move on" thing. Sure they can do no more damage to Wikipedia, but what about in real life? Tiptoety  talk 23:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The news story Persian Poet Gal posted says that the school will be closed Friday, 4/18 (when the threat said something would happen). Hopefully this is all resolved. --clpo13(talk) 01:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * IPs are still readding this threat. I cannot watch this article that closely at the moment and may not be able to catch readditions, so if RC patrollers could watchlist this I greatly appreciate it.<b style="font-family:comic sans ms; color:purple;">¤~Persian Poet Gal</b> <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  02:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I put in RPP request for the article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)I just went ahead and protected it for the rest of the day. The authorities have already been contacted now it is just time to deny the threat makers the satisfaction of seeing their edits placed on wikipedia. Tiptoety  talk 02:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder if those threats should be removed from the edit history. It purportedly has the names of real minors. Double Blue  (Talk) 02:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say yes in any other case, but I think the police need this to stay available to them for evidence purposes. I know that I have reported some threats to the police before and they wanted the diffs to stay available to them for later use if needed. Tiptoety  talk 02:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The police to find it very helpful to be able to reference the history. When I reporting a threat to a high school in Texas I sent the diffs to the detective while on the phone with him. He was very concerned about it and thankful that he was able to have the threat right in front of him. Bstone (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked another possible Soccermeko sock


Asking for a block review on one of my own blocks. Someone double check me on this one. I think its pretty clear this was yet another Soccermeko sock, but someone go ahead and back me up on this one. Thanks. --Jayron32. talk . contribs 00:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As an aside, they have just asked for an unblock. DO with it what you will. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  00:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I declined it as incivil and suggested that (s)he work on it to be a bit more temperate. Expect another one. -<font color="32CD32">Jéské <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 00:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who says they are not a sockpuppet of Soccermeko on their userpage, as their FIRST EDIT, is a sockpuppet of Soccermeko. I remember that this person is not good about hiding themselves. Grand master  ka  02:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, not only to mention that their grammar (compare the unblock requests for Soccermeko with that of Update27) is SUBSTANTIALLY identical to each other. Either they are the same person, or they come from the same village where they don't know how to conjugate verbs correctly... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  03:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Strange warning on user talk
RyRy5 might have bumped into you in the last week or 3. He is essentially a lively wikipedian, true at heart and learning day by day. I was a little concerned to come across this. As far as I know Ryan hasn't reported it to anyone but it is not the kind of thing we should ignore if we are trying to mentor and what he should not ignore. (or is it just cruft talk?) -- <font face="Sans Serif">Bp <font size="3" color="green">E ps - t <font size="3" color="green">@  lk 02:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ? I'm a bit confused by your comment / question... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was confused when I got the message. I thought that his explaination was convicing to me so I striked the vandal warning. Maybe the Administrators' noticeboard is a good place to discuss this, so please continue. Comments?--<font color="navy" face="Times New Roman">RyRy5 (<font color="navy" face="Times New Roman">talk ) 02:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If that post is what this thread is about I do not see how it requires the attention of administrators. I deleted the page which that user had blanked and told Ryan about because it was clearly a hoax.  So is this in regards to a different post?<b style="font-family:comic sans ms; color:purple;">¤~Persian Poet Gal</b> <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  02:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I'll wait for others to decide.--<font color="navy" face="Times New Roman">RyRy5 (<font color="navy" face="Times New Roman">talk ) 03:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what is wrong here. Tiptoety  talk 03:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We're mainly disscussing this, I think. I will ask User:Bpeps to clarify what is wrong.--<font color="navy" face="Times New Roman">RyRy5 (<font color="navy" face="Times New Roman">talk ) 03:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But what specifically about that? I am not seeing anything wrong. Tiptoety  talk 03:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Me neither. Me and User:Persian Poet Gal have asked User:Bpeps to clarify. But I don't think he is online. We will just have to wait until further notice.--<font color="navy" face="Times New Roman">RyRy5 (<font color="navy" face="Times New Roman">talk ) 03:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry User_talk:RyRy5 Struck me as strange/bullying? Despite checking Ryan's edits, I just couldn't make sense. It just appeared like an editor "having a go". <font face="Sans Serif">Bp <font size="3" color="green">E ps - t <font size="3" color="green">@  lk 03:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I do not see anything that requires admin intervention here, why not just discuss it with RyRy5 on his talk page? Tiptoety  talk 03:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) Here's my guess at what happened: created  and made a few edits to it. blanked the article without explaining why or without stating a reason. then undid the edit and warned CorinthMaxwell not to blank pages. CorinthMaxwell then explained that the article was a hoax and that the author was creating it to prove a point on GameFAQs.com. So, as I understand it, FargothRocks created a nonsense page that deserved to be deleted in the first place, and CorinthMaxwell blanked it because he didn't know Wikipedia policy for speedy deletion. RyRy5 didn't do anything wrong. And now... you know... the rest of the story. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No admin action needed. Resolved. Tiptoety  talk 04:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wonderfool socks
After his latest return, I have blocked, , and as sockpuppets of Wonderfool based on strong CheckUser evidence and some corroborating behavior. The last of these, at least actually got quite a few edits. It might be worth it to review the contributions, as WF has been known to create hoaxes and articles that test the boundaries before. Dmcdevit·t 03:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Dutch Wikipedians importing disputes
Could people review what is happening with Dutch Wikipedians trying to add and remove content from the English Wikipedia? Those removing content seem to think that consensus at the Dutch Wikipedia can be imported here. What should be done in cases like this. See the following: This dispute seems to be spreading: Guido den Broeder may have a conflict of interest here, but I am concerned about the activities of the Dutch Wikipedians who are following him here. They are reverting him and trying to impose an external consensus here (formed at the Dutch Wikipedia apparently, though I can't confirm that). What should be done about this? Carcharoth (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability tag Vereniging Basisinkomen
 * Prod tag (reason = not notable, removed from Dutch wikipedia as well)
 * Prod contested (with unhelpful edit summary saying it was vandalism by a one-purpose account)
 * Prod tag re-added
 * Removed by Fram who correctly said: "if a Prod is contested (by removing the template), you may not put it back on. Leave it alone, discuss it, or start an WP:AFD"
 * Conflict of interest/Noticeboard
 * Talk:Melody Amber chess tournament
 * 3RR report
 * Archived AN discussion


 * What should be done is a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. There's no policy that allows external consensus to be imported from anywhere-- as far as the English wikipedia is concerned, it's the same thing as posting on an external forum to gain support for something here. Jtrainor (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think User:Fram hit the nail on the head, there's no problems with the Dutch guys wishing to chase the COI and spam aspect down. But just because it has been through the channels on nl.wikipedia, doesn't mean it doesn't have to go through it again here. The prods have been contested so they should go through AfD and the case argued there. <font face="verdana" color=#6633cc>Khu <font face="verdana" color=#CC66FF>kri 13:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (thanks). In general, my (not unbiased) view on this is that we have two problems: the first is a group of Dutch editors who are bringing their conflict with Guido den Broeder to the English Wikipedia. By doing it in such a way (as a group effort), it comes close to harassment. The second is Guido den Broeder, who, despite his denials, has serious COI problems in much of his editing, and doesn't seem to be able to take criticism from anyone. He is under severe ArbCom restrictions on the Dutch Wikipedia for exactly this problem, he has had a mentor for six months, and that mentorship has just been extended, and he is currently blocked for two weeks there. This should have no influence on what he can and can't do here, but it gives an idea of the background. I think that both sides of the conflict need some serious warnings from uninvolved admins, one for importing their conflicts and for harassing anyone, and the other to stop all possible COI edits. Fram (talk) 08:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Multiple established users have seemingly left Wikipedia this week
Dear fellow Wikipedians, I have noticed an unfortunate trend this week of many established editors (Giano II, Kwsn, MONGO, Pixelface, etc.) having left Wikipedia. Anyway, I thought I might share this news here so that if anyone wants to leave these users a nice message or thank them for their contributions, they might do so. Regards, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 18:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea, User:Maxim has left us too. :( Tiptoety  talk 18:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also User talk:One Night In Hackney (who has previous doing this, but appears quite serious about it this time) <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 18:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this week just off or something? I take Wikipedia seriously and all, but I have way more personal matters to actually get stressed out about than a volunteer project regardless of how interested I am in it. Is it really so difficult for people to cooperate and when they cannot agree to disagree without getting so frustrated? Best, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 18:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that IRC i see mentioned in several threads there, maybe the unaccountable nature of that medium has something to do with it. <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist ) 18:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a severe problem, and it partly has to do with some cultural issues that we need to address on Wikipedia. We need to be a more supportive community with each other, even those we disagree with.  What tends to happen is people who give a lot of time, effort and consideration to how they work on Wikipedia are disparaged when they don't handle attacks, stalking (in my case) or perceived underappreciation.  Then we have people who give very little content (but a lot of Talk page argumentation) and disparage those editors even further (Case in point: Don't Feed the Divas).  Often, those who have done or given little, and may even be considered a net negative to the project, resent those whose work has enhanced it (technical, content, artistic, graphic, research, Wikignomes, vandal fighters) and whose voices are listened to more than those who...do very little.  It creates a bad environment.  There's an attitude that, "We can always find another one of you."  That simply isn't the case with many contributors.  That doesn't mean they should be given carte blanche, but in some cases, people who are attacked or feeling overwhelmed sometimes need the community to take a look at their situation and provide some help or support.  We really need to focus on community more, and less on deriding each other.  --<font color="#0000C0">David <font color="#0000C0">Shankbone  18:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)So Giano leaves, and the admin who blocked him left. Mongo leaves, and the admin who blocked him might well leave if ArbCom takes a case "scrutinising" his block. ONIH has left - and he can take a lot! - and Pixelface left after being "vandal templated" by Will, who's been nominating random things for deletion as well. Can we all take a step back and recognise that we need to do something to reduce the amount of pile-on frakking drama in this place? -- Relata refero (disp.) 18:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, because I am surely an evil deletionist who doesn't want to improve the encyclopedia at all. Sceptre (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I was merely pointing out that that sort of thing encourages too much drama. Look, we're too big and have too many people with entrenched interests now to do crazy bold things like nominate State Terrorism and the US and Mark Foley Scandal or whatever for deletion without a reasonable discussion about whether its a good idea first. Ditto, templating a regular with whom you've just had an ArbCom case. What I was trying to say is that reducing this sort of stressful drama is a priority, and, yes, I was singling you out - I apologise for that - as someone whose recent actions have definitely not helped. -- Relata refero (disp.) 19:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion on whether to make discussion is the stupidest thing ever. Sceptre (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that was polite, and worded so as to reduce any atmosphere of tension. However, may I humbly submit that since you have recently done several things that haven't worked out too well, you might want to actually get a bit of a reality-check before doing anything drama-inducing. I hasten to add that this thread isn't about you. -- Relata refero (disp.) 22:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Succinct and pretty much what I was thinking. I swear, this place has more drama than the furry fandom, and believe me, that ain't a compliment. A look at the issues above, though, are rather concerning: the Giano situation is unpleasant - from both sides of the coin - and the MONGO deal is certainly upsetting in how it came about and how it was handled. I've no idea what the other situations really are, but all in all this does indicate that we need some sanity to return to the place in a big hurry. My concern is that right now our best routes for handling incidents are discussions here or at RfC that can turn into long, drawn-out bitchfests with more noise than signal, ArbCom, which some folks have declared as ineffectual and bureaucratic (or, in some cases, as corrupt - which is kind of sad in itself), and ... well, that's about it. How do we best deal with drama? Do we enact some other kind of message board for community discussion that's aimed at a positive approach? Will that even work in a collaborative editing environment? Lots of questions, but until we find some answers to them we're probably going to keep seeing this kind of thing happen. Sad, but true. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is well-said. I've often thought we should have a counterpart to WP:BITE which held that established contributors are no more worthy of being "bitten" than newbies. On the one hand, they should know a bit better... on the other, they're known quantities, and there really is a process of burnout that happens in dealing with a seemingly endless string of petty incidents of the sort that are so common on Wikipedia. In any case, though, messages of support for users who have left are best delivered by email or off-wiki. At least one of these users, Giano, has apparently asked specifically that people not post to his talk page for now. In general, a long line of "please come back" posts on a departed user's talk page probably plays into the same sort of drama that led them leave in the first place. Give them some space, and send a message of support by email. I'm sure it will still be appreciated. MastCell Talk 18:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have an issue with "Please come back" on Talk pages, especially since it alerts people that the person has left. But regardless of your method (on or off Wiki) letting people know they have support when they are under fire is an important aspect of our collaboration here.  --<font color="#0000C0">David <font color="#0000C0">Shankbone  19:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I sent a message to Mongo a few days ago and he responded fairly quickly, indicating in the message that he was fairly serious about leaving. I do note that WP:MILHIST has a stress hotline. Maybe we could try to institute something similar for wikipedia in general, although it'd probably be a bear trying to make it known or useful. John Carter (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Add User:Crimsone to that list, as a result of this discussion, above. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">Equazcion •✗/C • 20:04, 17 Apr 2008 (UTC)
 * As a volunteer project, we will have people leaving on a regular basis. Those who know them well may want to contact these people by private means, but as a general community we should just wish them well and let them go in peace. See also GoodBye. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 19:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a very good view. Rudget  19:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No it's not, it's a poor view. It says, "If you want to go, go."  There are people who work on this project who neither seek nor expect gratitude or thanks.  But when they feel under attack, they feel unappreciated.  Like it or not, leaving Wikipedia is typically the only way people realize that others, in fact, like them and what they did.  Many people leave exactly because of that attitude.  --<font color="#0000C0">David <font color="#0000C0">Shankbone  19:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that, independent of individual situations, we should look for overall patterns and try to remedy the bad ones. A more functional dispute resolution system would be a great improvement in this regard. But, once someone has taken the step to walk away, rather than trying to get into their head, I think it's more respectful to just say "Your contributions are appreciated, and you're welcome back any time. Thanks for lending a hand." This will reassure those who have left in good faith, without validating any who may have stormed out in a passive aggressive display. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 19:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. People who tell someone to not leave aren't doing it to people they don't know.  They say it people who they do know, typically see they are going through a rough time, etc.  We aren't detached robots, and Wikipedia is a stressful place to work for just about all of us.  So, I disagree wholeheartedly with your approach, but we each deal with people departing from the project differently.  But if enough people get fed up and leave, and you suddenly find yourself without people who create bots, take hard-to-get photos, create challenging maps from scratch, research and write interesting articles, etc. you may have found yourself saying, "Wow, I wish I had told those people how much I wish they would stay instead of letting them passively letting them go..."  What you articulate, this idea we are all replaceable, is the cultural problem I have talked about.  There simply are some people who I see as key to the functioning and pricelessness of this project.  There are others who I don't think anyone would miss.  It's important differentiate the two, and recognize that sometimes all it takes to retain one is to give them a little heartfelt appreciation.  That really isn't a lot to ask of any of us.  --<font color="#0000C0">David <font color="#0000C0">Shankbone  19:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Toss in User:The Evil Spartan and User:Ed Poor.  MBisanz  talk 20:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to seem cold or anything, but how is this an incident for the Admin noticeboard? People exercising their right to leave is not something that "requires the intervention of administrators." They all left for different reasons, and no admin action is required. This seems like something that belongs over at the Village Pump or something.AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind moving this over to AN, but there are some admin issues I think insofar as some of these users did "special" tasks like handling mass-tagged image deletions or creating unique templates. Like I've said, we really need to work on our redundancy issues re: this sorta thing.  MBisanz  talk 21:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * AN, AN/I...does it really matter? The fact is a discussion is taking place, and here looks like just as fine a place as any. Tiptoety  talk 21:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was about to post something in this thread, but then saw that Carl/CBM said pretty much exactly the same thing, word for word, and link. :)  So, ditto. --Elonka 22:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That many people have left? sheesh.. I didn' tknow about half of those. Wizardman  22:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In well-run organizations, you do your best to hold on to your most productive workers. You give them the support they need and shield them from stuff that gets in the way of their work. New people are supported too, but if it becomes clear that things aren't working out you make the split as quickly and cleanly as possible. At Wikipedia we do the opposite: we worship the unproven newcomer and bend over backward to accommodate those whose impact is net-negative, ignoring the damage that this does to our best editors. Raymond Arritt (talk) 08:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd agree there. We seem to take quantity-over-quality approach when it comes to keeping people here. We also reason that seasoned editors should be more difficult to offend, so we aren't quite as careful in dealing with them, and when they do take offense we blame them for not knowing better. "He's been here a while, he should know this by now", so there's no need to handle the situation delicately.


 * Or if you want to be completely honest, the people who are as experienced as us are seen as equals, so "bowing" to them hurts our pride. Conversely there's no shame in accommodating a newbie. All that does is make us feel like helpful mentors. There's a lot of ego at play. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">Equazcion •✗/C • 08:24, 18 Apr 2008 (UTC)

user removing poll results
On the talk page of Afghanistan a poll was opened for whether to include the term Afghani in the demonym list of the info-box or not. The poll is very straight forward and two users already voted. But user: Carl.bunderson keeps crossing out the poll and its results because he does not like the results and is opening a new poll which is very different from this one. His poll also asks for Afghanistani to be included or not, but that has not been discusses here and that is not what the original poll was about. The poll is only asking to inlcude Afghani or not, just because he doesn't like the results he crosses it out. Can an admin please tell him to stop doing this? Thanks. He is also a bully, dictator, throws around silly accusations, and insults others. Can someone also tell him to stop that or give him a warning with short block maybe? Thanks. Also he's violated 3RR because he removed the poll more than three times.


 * The poll is not straighforward--the way he worded it, people were encouraged to vote for his position. We all know that the questions you ask affect the answers you get. He is trying to manipulate the results by manipulating the questions. I am a well-esltablished user, and he is an anon who has done nothing but work on this talk page. The Afghansitan article has a shistory of socks, and I would not be surprised if he was in this vein. I am agsint the poll in as far as it is unfair. I have provided for a new poll that will be fair, and is worded essentially the same as poll was worded earlier which established consensus on this. My concern is that the anon is manipulating the system. He has also tried to stuff the ballot box, as it were, by getting people to vote on Wikiproject pages. He has more knowledge of WP than an anon would usually have, so this also suggests to me that he is a banned sock. Also, one of the two users who has voted is a sock. This is ridiculous and anons need to step in to make the poll fair. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Again this user is throwing around false accusations and acting as a dictator. Both the users that voted are not socks but long time users. Any admin can see for themselves and see that the poll was straightforward. It is you who is trying to manipulate things. His idea that there is something wrong with the poll is his POV. I hope admins take a look at this and see what a rude editor this Carl.bunderson is. He thinks he owns Wikipedia or something.


 * I said one of the users was a sock, not both. And look at their user page--one is a suspected sock. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * He has been accused of being a sock before and checked and the result was negative. You also threw insults at me and called me blind. No one is asking to be involved with the Afghanistan article, if you are getting frustrated because you don't like the poll's results and bullying and cursing at new users and acting like a dictator, then you can move on to another article.


 * You need a dictionary. I never cursed. I called you blind because you seem to be. You are blind, figuratively, to the difference in our polls. I am obviously open to a poll...I made a new one that is actually fair. I have been involved in this page for a long time, defending it from nationalist/pov-pushing socks such as yourself. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Carl Bunderson's version distinctly differs. It seeks to create all new consensus about what can or can not be in the infobox. The old poll merely sought consensus about adding a single element. This is somewhat disturbing, because it was Carl Bunderson who so loudly advocated that consensus had been established. It's almost like he's gone to a WP:POINT violation, arguing that if any part of the old consensus is challenged, the entirity should be scuttled. The old poll seems to be far more circumspect in its goals and methods, and more designed to modify consensus than rewrite it whole. ThuranX (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes the other way also includes a poll on Afghanistani demonym. But that is a different demonym and so should have its own poll. This is what I'm trying to tell Carl.bunderson but he doesn't listen because he accuses me of ignoring Afghanistani. I now added a separate poll for Afghanistani as a result so he stops accusing me of neglecting Afghanistani. Now we have a poll for both demonyms, I really don't see what else is missing.


 * Carl.bunderson is not the only one who thinks that something was wrong with the anon's original poll. As someone who has never been involved in editing the Afghanistan page until the anon left a message about it at WikiProject Central Asia, I disagree that the old poll was fair; its wording struck me as push polling. I tried to reword it (diff) but the anon rejected even that minor change in favour of his own version. cab (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually user: CaliforniaAliBaba I did not see that you re-worded it. But shortly after I changed it back to the way you had it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.209.223 (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I also read your edit to change the options as a different choice. Perhaps your option should have instead been added, instead of changing the poll's nature. Again, it looks like the initial poll was to widen extant consensus, while subsequent edits were to change the fundamental nature of the poll. ThuranX (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Thuranx, please read the conversation between me and the anon on the talk page, as well as going through the whole history of the demonym issue on the talk page. Afghani and Afghanistani ought to be dealt with together, not separately. Consensus on this matter has in the past dealt with all three demonyms, not just doing one at a time. The page has suffered greatly from nationalist pov-pushers and it is ridiculous the number of socks that have attacked the page. Look at my contribution history…which of the two users is more likely to be pushing pov? Me or him? As cab pointed out, the anon has tried to stuff the ballot and engage in push polling. The poll I provided for is as neutral as can be, and is practically the same as a poll that we had on this same issue earlier. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Since Carl.bunderson was complaining that we also needed a poll on Afghanistani, I started one. He was trying to poll Afghani and Afghanistani together without even giving the poller any reasons for Afghanistani. I started a second poll and give the poller some background info. The two terms need their own poll because for instance a user might want Afghani but not Afghanistani, or they might want Afghanistani but not Afghani. Also, Carl.bunderson is now calling me idiot (link) after I told him to stop crossing out the poll I started first. He has called me blind, now idiot, and keeps accusing me of things which I keep proving him wrong anyway. The reason is pretty easy to understand why Afghani and Afghanistani need to be separate polls. I hope he understands this now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.210.156 (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Read the the talk page archive. Afghani and Afghanistani have always been dealt with together, and you have not provided a reason that they should not be treated the same now—there is precedent for dealing with them in one poll, and there is a substantial reason as well: both are alternative demonyms which are sourced, but used far less than is the primary demonym, Afghan. Also, while both are soured, neither are included in the OED. You have utterly failed to provide a reason for treating them separately. And my calling you idiot and blind have been justified. I mean them matter-of-factly, not as an insult. Carl.bunderson (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I just provided you a very simple reason: for instance a user might want Afghani but not Afghanistani, or they might want Afghanistani but not Afghani. In the last poll long time ago, this was not considered, so this is why I am now treating them as 2 polls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.210.156 (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There has to be a reason for the positions people take when they vote. You have said that people might want to include one but not the other, but you haven’t actually given a reason for this. It is ludicrous to provide one but not the other, because both are sourced but not recognized nearly as widely as is Afghan. You have failed to give a reason why someone would want to include one but not the other. Carl.bunderson (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Carl, All I see is that you are interested in getting your way on this. I see little to no POV pushing on asking for a modification to existing consensus. If it's a good idea, it will be supported, with solid arguments; and if not supported, then the same. However, stating that you don't like his poll, and slashing it out, then starting a competing poll, is childish tantrum behavior, and you need to stop it. Your best option would be to state that IF the results indicate a change, it's evidence for a whole new poll, one covering any and all permutations, which requests reasoning from the 'non-voting' responders. It's that simple. All I can see here is you obstructing to get your way. knock it off. ThuranX (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How can I be solely interested in getting my way on this? If that was the case, I would not have provided a poll which was completely neutrally worded. Did you bother to look at the page history, and the talk archive? Afghanistan has been a major draw to cases of sockpuppetry. Why do you think that an editor who spends the vast majority of his time on here reverting vandalism is acting petulantly? Who is more likely to do that? An anon who edited a few pages last month, was blocked, and then came on and has done nothing but deal with the Afghanistan page, or an editor who has a history of being a hammer against vandals? I’m fine with consensus changing, I’m perfectly aware that it can, but look at my wording of the poll? Can you tell me in what way it is inferior to the anon’s? If the results indicate a change, why bother making a second poll to cover any and all options? Does it not make more sense to expedite and move to the ultimate poll in the first place? Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Carl.bunderson voted to not include Afghani and Afghanistani in the info-box in his own poll that he designed to push poll, shows his true intentions. He crosses out other polls that he does not like the results of, he then makes his own poll in a way to push poll, he then votes his own choice. He also claims to keep up the discussions while reverting but he took out all support for Afghanistani. In addition, he has broken 3RR like 20 times now and also insults other users by calling them "blind" "idiot" etc... and he throws around accusations. I think an admin should get involved in this case.