Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive452

User:Italicus is ignoring the issue

Italicus appears to be one of many sockpuppets—a series of IPs and a couple of accounts.

I responded today by notifying all of the accounts of the report for suspected sock puppets, but 201.67.241.178 probably noticed and went ahead with the same thing (here we go again).

When that IP was blocked today, Italicus simply continued in doing the same thing. I don't think that I can deal with this for ten whole days. What should I do??? ~ Troy (talk) 02:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Italicus for continuing the edit war. Kevin (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright ...if something happens before the sock puppetry is confirmed, I might need some help. This situation is not quite what I'm used to, although it has been months now. ~ Troy (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Gene Poole

Resolved

Not seeing what admins can do here. An unfortunate case where two good editors are in conflict over something extremely trivial, and at least one of them is saying things they really shouldn't. WP:CIVIL is policy. Orderinchaos 13:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Gene Poole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continued with the uncivil insults[1][2][3] and will not remove the comments made yet remove mine. If this user is allowed to continue to insult me and left those comments up then that leave a message out there saying it's ok to insult of other editors. Bidgee (talk) 07:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a note that I've posted this here and they call my notice as trolling[4] Bidgee (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Basically, the user "Hey, you, out of the..." Gene Poole, is unhappy about this article being nominated for deletion, and is spending his time baiting other editors instead of actually working on improving the article, i.e. on finding reliable sources. Maybe a good word from an admin would get Poole refocused. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Aww FFS. This does not require admin intervention, unless Baseball Bugs and Bidgee are somehow compelled to look at Gene's page. Gene's being a prat, but he's also being needled at home. Go find something else to do, please, everyone. - brenneman 07:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As an Admin you should know better then what you said above (and here) and know that the comments made by User:Gene Poole are uncivil not matter where it's posted, Do you have a personal problem with me? Bidgee (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Get over yourself. This is a bilateral problem of baiting and biting. Either bury the hatchet or walk away, but don't come here looking for people to take sides because you might not like the side they take. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not about sides but it's to do with insults and it seem JzG it's ok for a user to call someone stupid and an idiot which is wrong and you fail as an Admin since they user broke Wiki's policys. I could careless if the list that I put up for deletion is safe. As of now I'm will no longer be an editor on here since the Admin (Aaron Brenneman) refuses to remove the statements made by Gene Poole. So it seems to be ok of users to insult and for Admins to leave the insults and have ago at the victim. The way it's going editors will see insults as ok which is the wrong path for Wiki as a project to take. Bidgee (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. --Gene_poole (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That didn't help either. But I am pig sick of people who come here bitching about the reaction their actions provoke, and refuse to admit any fault whatsoever. It's rare that any issue like this is wholly the fault of one side. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The two editors need to leave each other alone and work on proving or disproving that the article in question should be deleted. As I've told them. And also warned Poole that calling people "idiots" enough times is a blockable offense, unless the standards have relaxed in the last year or so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have respect for both editors from past dealings, and I'd say Baseball Bugs's advice immediately above has merit. AfD can be an emotionally fraught area, I avoid it for weeks at a time for that reason. Orderinchaos 13:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The unfortunate result here is that failure to take any action on the civility policy implicitly states that calling other editors "idiots" is OK. I was once blocked for doing that. Has the level of civility worsened so much in the last year that "idiots" is now considered to be an insult only on the order of "you silly pudding"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, if they are being idiots, then there really isn't a problem. But actually what's happened here is a dispute which has escalated over time to the point of insults, and to treat that as a problem of only one side is wrong on several levels. Guy (Help!) 16:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the overall problem as one sided. And I offered the complaining editor what I thought was good advice, and he ignored it. There's only so much we can do. If I were an admin, I would have blocked the both of them for a day or so and let them think about things. Whatever. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Lawrencoma's identity theft

This user User:Lawrencoma has very recently created a similar user name to my own (as well as copying my user page) to evade previous banning for sockpuppetry as well as to continue their disruptive edits to the Al Anbar Governorate and Ramadi articles. I think this user has already been banned previously under the names of Hisham 5ZX, Hisham100 and Shihab20 as well as a number of IP addresses in Haifa, Israel. Following the ban, he created Hisham600 and the new Lawrencoma.

• Supporting evidence:

Here is the diff for the most disruptive edit to the Al Anbar Governorate article: [5]

I also think that our respective user pages is clear evidence of a breach, not to mention identity theft. It should also be noted that I always include an edit summary in my edits - this user clearly does not.

Please move this to the correct page if I have made a mistake. Lawrencema (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've blanked the userpage because it seems like impersonation and left a message on the users talk page asking him to change username. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This would be reasonable if the similar names were a coincidence, but they aren't. A deliberate impersonator should be blocked outright. — CharlotteWebb 17:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User changed names, so I think everything's good here. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Mybiggestfan123

Resolved

 – Blocked for a week. Perhaps a clue will emerge in this time --Rodhullandemu 00:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This user is being really disruptive. Last week,he kept changing the genres on Rihanna and Britney Spears,and because of that,he was blocked for 24 hours. As soon as he was unblocked,he went back on his genre-changing spree,and got blocked for 72 hours as the result. And tonight,as soon as he got unblocked again,he started changing the Rihanna genres again,as you can see here and here. If he continues this,a block for anytime between a week and a month may be necessary. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Hopefully he'll stop when the block expires. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

User:RopeRil

Resolved

 – Already blocked by someone. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted some template vandalism by this user. Then went to user's talk page to post warning. Appears to be a Grawp sock. Can someone please block immediately? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you  – ukexpat (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

206.170.104.70

Resolved

 – Blocked for 31 hours. seicer | talk | contribs 02:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

206.170.104.70 has made repeated vandal edits to my talk page. [6][7]. Could this IP be temporarily blocked for a week or so please? The person behind the IP shows no indication of stopping. Kopf1988 (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Two edits over a two day spread is not "repeated vandal edits" with respect to your talk page, however, I did block for 31 hours for other offenses. seicer | talk | contribs 02:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, friends, Wikipedians, countrymen....

Resolved

 – Error that has since been rectified

...is this acceptable? As far as I'm aware, the IP isn't an OP. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 02:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you notify Daniel Case of this? Or take it to his talk page, for what may be an error? seicer | talk | contribs 02:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm on my way to do so; I have other things going on. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 02:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, your first stop should have been DC's talk page, not here. Tan ǀ 39 02:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I know, and I admit I slotted up here. I did, however, start a thread asking about it on DC's page and backlinking to here; I came here first because this is the first time I've had to second-guess a block from another addy. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 02:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It was indeed a mistake I made and have since corrected. Since school is not in session in North America I've been doing more username and VOA blocks lately and so have been almost reflexively hitting indef. Thanks for catching the error. Daniel Case (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Resolved, and ready to be slapped in the face (use a marlin, it tends to be more memorable than a rainbow trout). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 03:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, done. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

gold heart still on a similar IP range, which doesn't seem to be blocked

Resolved

 – As stated below by SirFozzie, the /16 has been blocked for six months - DigitalC (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please extend the block on this range. This is him today User:93.107.64.86, him the other day User:93.107.68.59, there was another one too. As you can see, the IPs are similar so a range block would sort it at least in terms of this current access he has at home or wherever it is. Sticky Parkin 23:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd have no problems with blocking out to the /16, that happened previously, and per CheckUsers, he's the only editor on that /16 currently (any new folks that come by, we can judge collateral damage at that time, and look in releasing the block, narrowing it, or granting IP Block Exempt. I won't do the block myself, due to my extensive history with Gold heart, however. SirFozzie (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, this has already been mentioned here [8], don't know if it's already been done. Sticky Parkin 23:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it, I've brought up Alison's statement that there should be no problems with blocking out to the /16, as he is the only user on that /16 (despite his claims that a rangeblock would take out "all of Ireland") SirFozzie (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we can all agree, Gold heart's word (at this point) is worthless. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What can we do about this? I've just spent the last half hour reverting stuff he's been trying to add to articles. TharkunColl (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The /16 IP Range has been blocked for six months. SirFozzie (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Range Block of Ireland Beam 00:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Now now, it's not a "range block of Ireland." It's a range block of an Irish ISP, which is apparently only being used by one individual to edit Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this IP range belongs to Vodafone Ireland, an Irish mobile phone operator (IE-EIRCELL-20080409). Checkuser shows that there are no other anonymous editors on this range other than Gold heart - no others, not in months - and that there will be little if any collateral damage. The IPblock is assigned to the Dublin area and while there are some registered editors on it, a softblock will not hurt them - Alison ^❤ 05:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you seem to have blocked everyone who edits anonymously from a Vodafone phone. Good thing the iPhone is on O2 in Ireland, eh? :) Stifle (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And good thing I use O2 as well... Stifle (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous Restoration of Personal Attack at Talk:Haile Selassie

Last March, "user A" made a personal attack against "user B" at Talk:Haile Selassie, which "user B" then removed, with a note to the effect that the comments had been removed. No problem, business as usual. However today, an anonymous user User:201.50.0.58 (Contributions) located in Brazil restored the personal attack. I reverted this, because it serves no purpose whatsoever to have this irrelevant personal attack between users "A" and "B" on the talkpage. The anon then began edit warring with me, has broken 3RR, and insists through edit summaries that wikipedia policy fully justifies his edit warring to restore the Personal Attack from 4 months ago to the talkpage. I have read all the concerned policies very carefully, and can find no such justification. This very insistent user has now begun making personal attacks against me for reverting him. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Neither of you are right. Stop the edit warring, which applies to both you and the IP. You've both violated the 3RR, though I think it's hardly enough to count for anything but a warning right now. WP:NPA says quite clearly that there is no policy regarding this sort of thing, only that it is generally frowned upon. This isn't the sort of thing I'd remove, but some people have thin skin (or whatever, it doesn't matter why it was removed). If he wants to revert you should just let him and leave it at that; avoid the drahmahz. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 19:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

When an anonymous user comes out of the woodwork and starts re-adding personal attacks from 4 months ago, insisting to the point of 4RR, I consider that purely disruptive behaviour - on his part. It serves no use whatsoever and it merely takes up a lot of my editing time dealing with it, or at least trying to get it dealt with. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I see two users violating 3RR, I have decided not to act on it. Stop edit warring, both of you. Chillum 19:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Last I had heard 3RR only applies to article space, not talk, or otherwise. They might be disruptive, but 3RR doesn't apply here.--Crossmr (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The IP contacted me on my talk page, resulting in this discussion. He didn't post here because it is permanently semi-protected.

Hi there! I'm the IP mentioned here. I cant edit the ANI page so I'll leave a comment here instead, as much as I hate to drag you into this. I tried to talk to user Eulenspiegel but he simply removed my message from his talk page, that was before my last revert. He branded my post harrassment and is now calling me a vandal. See here [9]. I feel strongly about this issue because the comment was removed by the user it was directed at, and in its place the user left a note calling it trolling which it clearly was not. Assuming that he continues to ignomre as he did last time what course of action do I have? I do not wish to continue reverting, although I see that he has reverted yet again. 189.104.40.157 (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are the same person (I assume this is true) you've got a dynamic IP and it's changed. I suggest you just let it all drop, leave the talk page in whatever form it's currently in, and go do something else. You violated 3RR as much as Til Eulenspiegel has and further edit warring will just get you and him in trouble (as well as probably start stupid things like a WP:SSP....). No moar drahmahz. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 19:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I'm the same person. I'm too involved now to just let it drop, but I'll settle for this: An independent admin, can be you or ony other, reviews the situation and decides if it should indeed have been removed or not. I'll abide by whathever they decide. how does that sound? (I know this whole thing prob seems silly to you, but it has a greater importance to me: I've edited as an IP for a while and frequently I've seen that when users disgree whith IPs theyre fast to call them vandals even when theyre not, so I decided to make a stadn on this issue) 189.104.40.157 (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Chillum's assessment, as well as my own, this this: Just drop it, leave it however it is, and walk away. It's not that big a deal, guys. It's not the end of the world or anything. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Carol Spears IP edits

Resolved

 – Community Banned.

Carol Spears requested, on her user talk page, that an edit be made to the article Senecio vulgaris to undo an edit she had made earlier (before being banned/blocked).[10] A single purpose single edit took care of this for Carol.[11] I suspect this is Carol editing with an IP account and would like this checked, if appropriate.

It also revealed even more problems with Carol's edits. She apparently used herself as a source to insert nonsense into articles, this one back in February:[12]

and one mention that perhaps it is distilled water which is harmful to laboratory animals and to human beings since every thing that drinks it inevitably dies.

This nonsense edit was recently reverted by User:Cacycle as vandalism, although it had stood for a long time.[13]

I request that arrangements be made for all of her major edits to be gutted, rather than allowing them to stand any longer on Wikipedia or requiring editors to spend hours checking this crap.[14][15] Her crap should not be returned by search engines as sources on any subject. Preferably this could be done by a bot as I first suggested.

I won't be arguing this point or participating in this discussion if one occurs. There are too many supporters of Carol Spears' contributions willing to attack anyone who finds problems with her making stuff up to write articles on Wikipedia.

But it should not go down when her edits come back to mock Wikipedia in the press that no one knew what was going on. This is a notice about the potential for Wikipedia to look really bad for supporting Carol Spears as an editor and allowing her edits to stand without large scale reversion.

--Blechnic (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that IP is her, it's on a different ISP and in a different country to the last IP she used. I just removed two more links to Carol's webpage. One was a link to her chili recipe that that she added as an external link in the Sherzer Observatory‎ article and had been there for over a month. The other one was to a page that doesn't exist (404 error) on her site that she was using as a citation in the Annona cherimola. There's another ten or so links that show up on the Special: EL tool but they all seem to be on discussion pages. Sarah 06:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

More than likely it's (the single-edit IP) just someone who's seen the drama and forgotten to log in before fixing it. Orderinchaos 13:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You are most probably right. I also saw her request and I made another change to that photo on that article right after that IP. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree also. I doubt the IP is a proxy so I also doubt she is in the UK ATM since she lives in another Country. Also that cite above was added by Carol on the (8th Australian Time) Feb 2008[16]. Bidgee (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As an editor who was blocked and caused a lot of work for other editors to repair the damage I was amazed to see she is still editing. I agree with Blechnic and others, all of her edits should be removed immediately. A bot would be the easiest way I assume, that is if there is a bot programmed for this kind of work. She was given plenty of opportunity to help fix the massive amount of edits she did, and then did nothing to help with the clean up. Thus I feel the block should be enforced in full and any socks she is using should also be blocked. If necessary, her talk pages should also be blocked to stop her from interfering or trying to stay involved. If a bot cannot undo what she has already done, then can an administrator do a rollback on her account to remove her edits? I'm sure there are probably edits that she made that are acceptable but given there is so much that is not, I think removing her contributions completely would be the best. There are other knowledgeable editors that can add to the articles she has edited to get the information needed added. I endorse her block and feel block should continue and maybe even a community ban be considered from Wikipedia since her behavior has shown she sees nothing wrong with what she has done or is doing. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As the account is indef blocked and the user talkpage is not being used to request unblock or otherwise for appropriate purposes I feel it should be protected. I was also against the community ban, but given the subsequent actions by the editor I am no longer in a position to advise that I would unblock the editor should consensus allow me to. I think that there was one other sysop who was not willing to sign up for the community ban, and if that individual were to clarify their position we might open a brief discussion to formalise a ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I did express a willingness to undo my block, but sadly I've seen no sign on the talk page that she's prepared to play nicely. I think Wikipedia needs protecting from this editor - endorse ban proposal. EyeSerene^talk 09:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of User:CarolSpears

Based on the above, User:CarolSpears is banned. I will update her userpage. Mangojuice^talk 01:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's fair to say that this user fell on its surname. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What's next

Something still has to be done about her edits, in spite of her wish to "keep her edit history," it appears that there is not much she contributed outside of taxoboxes that is worth keeping. Particularly now that it has been shown her references don't contain the information, were misquoted, are gratuitous, or joke references to herself. What can be done about this? Can her edits be reverted with a bot in some way? Or what?

Also, about her talk page, while I appreciate that Privatemusings may want to chat with her, she is abusing her block by using her chat page to ask others to edit for her, and by making personal attacks. None of these are allowed uses of talk pages on Wikipedia. Also, if an editor had an account used only to chat with others on their talk page they would be warned, then blocked. This isn't the purpose of Wikipedia talk pages. Carol Spears can find a social networking page for this.

--Blechnic (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a level 4 warning template for her latest personal attack on her talk page. This has also gone on long enough. Editors who enjoy her humor should make contact with her off Wiki to continue accessing it. --Blechnic (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have commented on your talkpage, and am watching it there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh heh, yeah, that warning probably didn't achieve too much. I'd suggest full protecting the talk page and courtesy blanking it. --barneca (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll concede that point. --Blechnic (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

67.180.38.172 (talk · contribs) Aaaaand, another IP sock. CarolSpears edits her talk page to complain about how an editor reverts a IP edit from 21 July [22]. We can see that the same IP was used on 7 July (when Carol was already blocked) signing as "IP editing allowed" and announcing two templates on Commons where the only contributor was Carol [23]. Had this been spotted already? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have since protected the talkpage, and now I have archived the content that was there (and I am watching that archive, and will protect that if necessary). LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Unusual action by admin FCYTravis

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Lots of heat and little light. —Kurykh 07:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Admin FCYTravis has just deleted the article Historical pederastic couples, in spite of the fact that it just survived an AFd. I find this action unusual, to say the least, ands would like input from other admins and the community as a whole. One person's distaste for an article must not take precedent over a sourced article and lack of consensus, which was divided 60/40. Jeffpw (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The AFD was closed with the specific admonition from the closer that Any inadequately sourced entries (especially those pertaining to the 20th century) should be summarily removed per WP:V and, as the case may be, per WP:BLP.

I made an attempt to comply with that admonition by stripping out those entries which were, in my opinion, inadequately sourced and speculative.

User:Jeffpw blindly reverted me.

I made a second attempt.

User:Jeffpw blindly reverted me, again.

It is obvious, by his own actions, that Jeffpw is not interested in complying with the terms of the AfD closure, either. So why should I agree to be bound by it?

The article in question was full of unsourced, poorly sourced and speculative arguments about purported sexual relationships between people. It does not belong on the encyclopedia in its current form. The above user has thwarted two attempts at ensuring that it complies with our content policies. If he does not want the article in a form which complies with policy, then we cannot have an article at all. FCYTravis (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You didn't just remove (sourced) info) that might have conflicted with WP:BLP. You gutted the article, even though there were good faith efforts being made to source it all. This was out of process, and, in my mind, malicious and vindictive. Unfortunately, as you have deleted it, I can show no diffs to back up my assertions. So goes the power imbalance on Wikipedia. Jeffpw (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You made no attempt to discuss, with me or on the article talk page, the sections which were being removed. You simply blindly reverted me twice. You could have copied the removed sections to the article talk page and questioned why I removed them - and I would be happy to explain. FCYTravis (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

And you could have questioned on the talk page the issues which concerned you. The article had a "rescue' tag on it, and was being worked on by multiple editors. your offer of restoring it (on my talk page) if I agree to your reversions is nothing less than extoption. Jeffpw (talk)

Excuse me. Did you not read the AfD closure? It says quite clearly, Any inadequately sourced entries (especially those pertaining to the 20th century) should be summarily removed per WP:V and, as the case may be, per WP:BLP. I made an attempt at doing that. You blindly reverted, in violation of the AfD closer's admonition. FCYTravis (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I support the actions by FCYTravis, we should not have unsourced or poorly sourced articles which deal with such sensitive and delicate information, regardless of whether the subjects are living or deceased. It shocks and amazes me how frequently people fail to grasp this concept. Its a matter of common decency. JBsupreme (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• How can we provide proper sources for material that's been deleted? I see a lot wasn't sourced as we would normally expect to see it, but giving no chance to fix the sources seems a touch WP:POINTy to me. I see no need to delete the article in toto until a reasonable chance has been given to address those issues. --Rodhullandemu 20:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • As the AfD closer said, Any inadequately sourced entries (especially those pertaining to the 20th century) should be summarily removed per WP:V and, as the case may be, per WP:BLP. I made an attempt to do that. I was blindly reverted, twice. I have made an offer to the user to undelete should he agree to not blindly revert. He has, as yet, not answered. FCYTravis (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

and where is the policy that states that a closing admin can bind the hands of editors in this fashion? --Rodhullandemu 20:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the policy that says unsourced/poorly sourced/flat-out speculative material about people's sexual activities belongs on the encyclopedia? FCYTravis (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

First impression is that deleting the article flat within a couple of hours after this AFD closed as a no-consensus is a pretty bad idea. We don't delete articles for maintenance now, do we? Because that's essentially what is being stated here. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm especially concerned, as a second thought, that FCYTravis appears to have used his admin tools when involved in a dispute over the article, as he notes himself above. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The AfD was closed under the clear condition that speculative and poorly sourced material be summarily removed. I attempted to do so. I was blindly reverted, twice. If the above user is actively thwarting my efforts to make the article content comply with the AfD closure, then the AfD closure is invalid. FCYTravis (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have had my own share of disputes with Travis, he tends to be particularly arbitrary and inflexible (in my opinion) over BLP issues. (And I though I was hardcore in that area.) But he will often relent if you produce evidence to back up your position. I recommend talking to him. Kelly ^hi! 20:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This is outrageous behaviour. Imagine if any admin who believed an article was not compliant with policy deleted it until all those who disagreed with him agreed to give way. This a recipe for chaos on the wiki - administrators do not have any special editorial authority. This is clearly not a WP:BLP. I have no opinion on the merits of the article, but if FCYTravis believes the AfD was wrongly closed, WP:DRV is the place to go. Deleting an articles hours after it survived a deletion discussion where he argued for it's deletion is a completely inappropriate use of admin tools. It would be poor conduct were he completely uninvolved - given his involvement in the deletion discussion, it is unacceptable. I realise he strongly believes this article to be problematic and respect that, but this is exactly why he should not be making admin decisions involving it. WJBscribe (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me. The AfD closure was made with the specific admonition that unsourced/poorly sourced and speculative material be summarily removed. I made two attempts at doing so, and was blindly reverted each time. What tool should I use to enforce the idea that unsourced/poorly sourced and speculative material about people's sexual activities does not belong on the encyclopedia? FCYTravis (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This admonition is no more than that. There is no policy to enforce its application or not. It's no higher than guidance, if I understand deletion policy correctly, and it's probably ultra vires the closing admin anyway. --Rodhullandemu 20:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion, consensus? I believe that is how things are done. If you thought Jeff's conduct was disruptive you could have asked an uninvolved admin to look into the matter and take appropriate action. But deleting the article was not a legitimate response to the problem. WJBscribe (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't wait for "uninvolved" people when we're talking about an article that called Bernard Montgomery a pederast, for God's sake. FCYTravis (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

He has been dead for 30 years so this is hardly a WP:BLP situation. The fact that this distresses you is all the more reason why you should not be taking admin actions in relation to this matter. You really need to restore the article and engage in dialogue with other editors to work towards a version that everyone agrees complies Wikipedia policies. WJBscribe (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The offer has been made and stands - I will agree to undelete if editors will agree not to blindly revert to a version full of unsourced and speculative material. FCYTravis (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Your offer to undelete to a version which satisfies you is nothing less than extortion and an abuse of your admin privileges. I find your behavior appalling, considering your responsibilities here. Jeffpw (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are unable to use your admin tools in an appropriate manner, you need to reconsider continuing to have them. Nothing justifies deleting an article because others object to your preferred version. WJBscribe (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't get to impose conditions, just undelete and admit you were wrong. RMHED (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think I'm going to undelete an article which contains unsourced/poorly sourced/speculative material as historical fact. FCYTravis (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not a deal. You can't seek sources for absent material. No. --Rodhullandemu 21:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure you can - it's called the article talk page. The material can be discussed on the article talk page. I have no objection to that. FCYTravis (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This is quite disconcerting. I participated in this AfD discussion, as did FCYTravis. Another admin closed it, and it appears FCYTravis did not like the decision. Why participate in the discussion in the first place, or hold a discussion at all if this is the outcome? I freely admit the article has issues, but so does every article that is less than FA (and even some of those). In fact, I gave suggestions on the talk page of the article to assist the main editor who has added the majority of information to the article, Haiduc, about how to avoid these issues in the future. I offered to assist him in improving the article clarity and structure. I wish I could show them to you, but you know...the page was deleted. --Moni3 (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I supported deletion in the recently-closed discussion (I think that categorizing someone as a "pederast" is inescapably POV), but I agree this unapproved deletion was out of line. If an admin is simply frustrated by the obstructionist behavior of a particular editor, he has many tools for dealing with that editor -- summary deletion of the article they are both trying to edit is a clear abuse of privilege.

Dybryd (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The offer was made on the user's talk page quite awhile ago: if he agrees not to blindly revert to a version that includes a multitude of unsourced, poorly sourced and speculative alleged "relationships," I will undelete it. I have had no response. I will not undelete an article that purports to include as historical fact that a number of people were "pederasts" when there is no such historical and biographical consensus. FCYTravis (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You are required to abide by editorial consensus on an article just like anybody else. I think you need to agree to restore the article unconditionally and to taking part in civil discourse with other contributors to it. WJBscribe (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Quite a while ago"? I posted it at 2.47 and it's 5.04 right now. In the interim I was writing about geologic formations in southern Florida. Now those were formed "quite a while ago". Think you can give a guy a chance to read it on a Saturday? He could be in a different time zone. Gracious. --Moni3 (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I am genuinely shocked that an admin would use deletion/undeletion as a bargaining chip in a content dispute. Dybryd (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I urge FCYTravis to undelete the article. Whether intended as such or not, overriding what was a carefully thought through closure of an AfD is not acceptable. The right response to inappropriate reverts does not include unilateral deletion of the article; instead the matter should be taken up with the user who reverted you, and if necessary, wider within the community. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Support undeletion and listing at WP:DRV. On closer examination, Travis' action was wrong. Kelly ^hi! 21:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The talk page is still there. Unclear why the article as it was when the AfD was closed wouldn't be restored. If there are particular items someone thinks needs to be more fully sourced then there are numerous and less pointy ways to make ones concerns known. Using <!--- these handy mark-ups to temporarily hide content until sourced ---> adding {{fact}} tags and (shock!) actually discussing the issue would all seem to be more considerate and cooperative behavior befit of this project. If any other (non-admin) user was to delete the content as such they would more than likely be on vacation at this point. Banjeboi 21:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I am beyond words that people are defending an article which contains random speculation and innuendo in the guise of historical fact. Do what the hell you want. FCYTravis (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Travis, as others have said, you were out of order. What you are taling about is an opinion of what is sourceable and correct, and what is not, and edit/revert thereof. In any terms, that is called an editing dispute, and you abused your admin priveleges to "win" on the issue by deleting the article, because you felt you were right, thus someone (all) else must be wrong. You now quote a selective part of the article... part that was at issue... in defence of your action, but of course, as the article is deleted and nobody can see what was said, nor the nature of other edits, nor indeed information that wasn't removed (which by nature of your not removing it was thus OK to remain... the AfD admonishment wasn't a binding order anyway). As a result, nobody can speak up in favour of the articles content or the ability to put the article straight (over time... a matter of hours is not reasonable), and yet you use article content in your defence. That's highly objectionable. I personally would go as far as to say a disgraceful action... there was no support in policy for the way in which you deleted that article, or indeed, for it to be summarily deleted like that at all.

The article isn't being defended... the article is deleted so how can it possibly be defended. What's being defended is due process and policy on wikipedia, which you have rather inappropriately thrown completely out of the window because of your own personal edit conflict and opinion. What is being said is not that the article was fantastic, but that it had survived a considered discussion, thus was OK by the community (with an admonishment indicating the need for work), and thus your subsequent actions were innapropriate on a number of levels, especially given your involvement in editing the article prior to deletion.Crimsone (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There was a simple and obvious solution to this; Travis could have protected the article in the version he considered to be BLP-compliant and then made a note here at ANI. Deleting wholesale was at best overkill. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add the note that we are talking as if consensus had been to keep the article -- in fact, the admin found that there was no consensus and preserved the article by default as a matter of policy. Travis has acted inappropriately, that's clear. But he hasn't acted in opposition to editorial consensus, because there wasn't one.

Dybryd (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

How does one get sysoped with such blatant disregard for, or ignorance of, our most basic standards of administrator conduct? You just edit warred with an editor and then used your admin tools to delete the article you were warring over in gross violation of the trust that we place in administrators. It's outrageous. Just because you happen to have admin tools, you do not get to take your ball and go home. Please undo your obvious mistake as many others here have already asked you to. HiDrNick! 21:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. From looking at the diffs for the deleted article, I see that much of the material FCYTravis deleted was referenced. I see a discussion on the article's talk page about some references but not all of these. I also see discussion started on the talk page about what to do following the AfD discussion to fix the article. Finally, FCYTravis, I see no edits by you to that talk page. Did someone evaluate the references for the disputed entries? What about the material that wasn't deleted by FCYTravis -- why wasn't that retained? Why wasn't this article first discussed at DRV if it should have been deleted?

I have left a courtesy note for the closing admin, Sandstein, informing him of this discussion. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. This is just to clarify that I don't understand my "admonition" to observe WP:V and WP:BLP by deleting noncompliant material (as cited variously above) to have any particular binding force above and beyond that of the policies themselves. The wholesale deletion of the article by FCYTravis and then its protection in his preferred version cannot be supported by these policies, in my opinion, and amounts to a serious misuse of the administrator tools. Protection may be used to enforce WP:BLP compliance in certain circumstances, but even if this were such a case, it should certainly not be done by an administrator involved in the content dispute at issue.  Sandstein  22:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Coming to this late, but having being invloved early.... Travis unilaterally deleted an article and then advised he would restore should Jeffpw refrain from editing. There is no policy or guideline at all for this. Travis should ask for his bit to be removed on meta. Rarely do I get this angry, but this a shameful abuse of the admin buttons, and would be best dealt with simply and effectively. Resign your bit off your own back Travis, and run RFA if you want it back. Pedro :  Chat  21:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Travis took this action due to the fact that the article violated at least three important policies: WP:BLP, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Wikipedia appears to be blazing the trail in a new field of documenting "pederastic couples" (a term which inherently OR, as I think it was Geogre pointed out very well in one of the numerous related AfDs). It is almost as if someone were trying to portray pederasty as somehow mainstream, or desirable, but that would be inappropriate pro-paedophile activism,. so I'm sure nobody would dream of that. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No need to drag in irrelevant considerations, even by the side door. Pederasty and pedophilia are quite different and conflating the two is unhelpful. Can we stick to the point please. --Rodhullandemu 21:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Travis has now gone on wikibreak "until the community wises up." And Guy, I and many of the other editors here don't have any dog in the pro-pedophile activism fight, so let's not lump all of the editors commenting here about Travis' inappropriate actions into the same pile, okay? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted his talk and can't be bothered to communicate. I'm sure he's watching this however. Fall on your sword Travis. Go to meta and ask for removal of your bit. You're not fit to be an administrator here I'm afraid. Pedro :  Chat  21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Pedro, that is a distinctly unhelpful contribution. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Sam, but I'd argue that Travis removing the bit "sans-drama" would be a positive for the whole community, given the actions tonight, and therefore my urge for him to do it is very helpful actually. Pedro :  Chat  21:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly valid. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater in such a way is conduct unbecoming of one trusted with "the tools". The comment on his userpage is his business and perfectly reasonable. Deleting his talk page too however looks to me like more of a tantrum than anything though. Crimsone (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Admins make mistakes. Admins are human. A single bad deletion is not a reason to desysop. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

They do, and they are, and it's not. However, A bad deletion such as this, with the conduct of the admin in question that followed, especially in light of being given the reasons why it was a bad deletion clearly and numerous times, as well as restoring the article to his prefered version, and edit protecting it, is at least significant cause for concern. Crimsone (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

FCYTravis has acted and is acting like a sulky child who couldn't get their own way. RMHED (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Bullhonkus. Wherever there's one admin action in someone's log that stinks, there's always more sure to follow. Just yesterday FCYTravis got into an edit war on Ashley Alexandra Dupré with some IPs over Ms. Dupré's occupation, and semiprotected the page. I'm sure there's plenty more where that came from. HiDrNick! 21:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

And what is to be done with Travis when he returns from his "wikibreak"? Is he to be admonished for his rash actions? Will his admin actions be monitored? Or will he be alllowed to continue this admin style unchecked? These questions concern me, and I would hope somebody can come up with an answer. Jeffpw (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that one mistake is not worrisome, the refusal to admit that the action was, in fact, an error in judgment is much more troubling. From what I can tell, FCYTravis has refused to acknowledge that there was anything at all improper with his actions. That's just unacceptable, to me. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Now protected by FCYTravis in his preferred version

I see that Travis has restored the article to a gutted version that ::I see that Travis has restored the article to a gutted version that deleted much sourced material regarding pre-modern Asia and the 15\th and 16th centuries. And then protected it. This is clearly another abuse of his admin tools. This is not resolved by a longshot. Jeffpw (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Request immediate unprotection from any sane admin. HiDrNick! 21:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Now you discuss things on the talk page and see what other editors thing and what is or is not a BLP problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That's disingenuous and absurd, Joshua. Pre-modern Asia and 15th and 16th century individuals clearly do not fall under BLP. Stop wiki-lawyering. Jeffpw (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

So if that's the case, put the material explicitly on the talk page that you want on and we'll confirm that it is only about those time periods. Once there is a serious BLP issue it is best to procede slowly. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The closing statement referred both to WP:BLP and WP:V; verifiability applies across the ages. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ands that's exactly the point: Travis removed SOURCED material from pre-Asia and the 15th and 16th centuries (see my diff above). If the BLP violations were so serious, they should have been taken up at theBPL discussion page, or addressed immediately in the AFD. Jeffpw (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with protected, discuss it on the talk page. If you have consensus and policy backed edits to make use the editprotect tag for now. Beam 21:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Jeffpw, but agree this needs to stay protected just for a while (multi multi ec). Pedro :  Chat  21:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I disagree quite strongly. WP:BLP does not apply to the information in the article about ancient Asia and the Middle East because quite simply, those people are not living. To be fair, all articles that have no sources then should be protected and any improvements should be approved by an admin. It was my point in the RfD that the "ick" factor of this article compels editors to fail spectacularly at being creative in finding solutions to the article's problems. Treating the uncited claims in this article by locking it is as absurd as my suggestion to lock all articles that lack sufficient citations. --Moni3 (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that BLP doesn't directly require this, but discussing the individual sections and readding them after discussion will minimize drama. This is a very controversial topic and it is best to proceed slowly. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. As a result of this thread the article is likely to become more high profile. A short protection should help to work out editing issues (one hopes!) and minimise any more drama. Pedro :  Chat  21:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that it would. Indeed, this very discussion demonstrates that it isn't minimising drama. In fact, it's causing it. What drama was there prior to the restoration? I mean beside's Travis's poor actions? Prior to this lot, it was just a case of improving an article, as with any other article fresh out of AfD Crimsone (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The article was being worked on by many editors to improve it, and the sections Travis gutted wholely had sources. For an admin to lock his preferred version without any arguments to back up the removal of sourced material is egregious behavior, to sayu the least. I ask that an impartial admin take a look at the diffs, remove any blatant BLP violations, and restore the rest of the article. To do anything less amounts to gross abuse of admin privilege and censorship based on personal considerations. I am shocked that this has occurred at all, and also shocked at the waffling I see on the part of many admins in this discussion. All I see is appeasement of FCY's ego, and trying to let him save face when he fell so badly on it.Jeffpw (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the content that FCYTravis objected to. I know we're big believers in protecting the wrong version and all but as an involved admin FCYTravis should hopefully see that allowing another admin to do the protecting and doing so on the version that have survived AfD would at least seem a bit less problematic. As I, and Haiduc, stated in the AfD, sources were on the article but because the items weren't individually sourced, as is common in older articles, those who wished to delete assumed no sourcing existed. Although undeleting the article was the right first step, let's now complete the restoration so those interested in getting the sourcing documented on each item can do so. Banjeboi 22:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, i count about 16 sources deleted with that content. Banjeboi 22:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe this article should be unprotected. Let's pretend Travis didn't delete the article out of process, then undelete and protect to his version (three actions, by the way, of which two are clearly bad ideas). Had he gone to WP:RFPP and requested protection, it would have been outright declined. Clearly, no protection is warranted in this case. Sure, the dispute should be discussed on the talk page, but there are many disputes that should be discussed on the talk page that don't get the added push of protection (especially from someone involved in the dispute itself). FCY's action shouldn't get preferential treatment simply because it has been done already (especially since it was done improperly). -- tariqabjotu 22:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Who is to determine what consists of a sufficient citation and reliable sourcing if it not its editors? I must suggest then, since I am clearly unable to participate in the editing of the article, it should be an admin with more content experience than I have. Please find an admin with more than 9 FAs to do the job. I do not trust an admin with primarily non-content related experience to be able to ascertain what should be done any more than the admins who are protecting this article trust me to determine what content should be in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is a really odd definition of "sourced". Try goodling on "pederastic couple" - I get a whopping 57 unique hits. Wikipedia is not supposed ot blaze a trail, and that is very much what seem to be happening here. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

  You know as well as anyone that the number of google hits for a given phrase is not the measure of the legitimacy of an article, nor is it the measure of the verifiability or suitability of given sources within it. A google search for "pederastic relationship" has a hit count of 3,270 if we really must have numbers exchanged though... and no, as with another that felt the need to say so, I don't support abusive and dangerous philias, especially involving children, and it would be useful not to bring in issues not significantly related to the issue being spoken of. Crimsone (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• (copied from article Historical pederastic couples talk page):I wrote an article titled Indigenous people of the Everglades region. That has a single entry on Google that matches the words in the title, here on Wikipedia. Is our creativity and capacity for language that limited? If the major objection is the title, then let's come up with a different title. --Moni3 (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of protection for a while, especially if it brings more eyes on this terribly troublesome article (which, in my opinion, should have been deleted at AFD, but that's a separate issue.) My claim all along has been not that this article contains problematic material, but that since collecting the list under this named topic itself is original research and synthesis, it must contain problematic material. The defense against this was "Oh, well, we can just remove the offending material." The blind reverting that Travis' attempts to fix the article met with, I think, give the lie to this claim. I myself wouldn't have protected the article given that I was involved in the deletion discussion, but the outcome is, in my opinion, better for the encyclopedia. Nandesuka (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)Well so much for "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". As soon as I joined this outfit, I realised that that would cause problems, and it sure does. However, in the current context, the Afd had no consensus for deletion, and per deletion policy, the default is not to delete. It's complicated by the closing admin giving advice as to the future conduct of the article which strictly I don't think is enforceable. That's not what an Afd is meant to do. However, that advice seems to have been taken literally and as carte blanche. The deletion guidelines should make it quite clear that closing admins should not engage in content-based analysis. It's regrettable that Travis took this as licence to gut the article, even to the extent of removing sourced, if not beautifully-sourced, material; it's difficult not to see an agenda here, because I've never seen this kind of behaviour before. Even WP:TRIVIA suggests moving material to the talk page of an article for discussion; I see nothing in any policy to suggest unilateral deletion of an article merely because parts of it may be unsourced. WP:BLP is largely a smokescreen here, since very much of the deleted material, even before the total deletion, was not relevant. WP:V is much more to the point. Some material was unsourced directly. Some was poorly sourced. But it could have been fixed or deleted as appropriate. There is no need to continue protection of the article, because while it's fully protected, you rely on {{editprotected}} and thus on an admin agreeing that your edit satisfies policy. Having seen this evening's shenanigans, I'm no long sure that I even trust myself to make on objective decision on that. However, I may have a different view tomorrow. --Rodhullandemu 00:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of User talk:FCYTravis

I see Travis has deleted his user talk page - under what circumstances are admins allowed to do this? Kelly ^hi! 00:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Allowed? When they feel like it. Just like any other user. --CBD 00:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Blanking is different from deleting. I'm not aware of deleting being accepted outside of right to vanish cases. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a consensus to undelete, and then courtesy blank? The people who might need to see some old posts can get around it easily enough, but this is (another) out of process action by this account. I would hate there to be a wheelwar and a desysop RfAR, so I should think we need to do this mindful of the consequences. For what its worth, I think that there are no special circumstances and the content should be undeleted and then blanked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. As far as I can tell, the deletion of the user talk page was done completely outside the deletion policy. There was no AfD, no speedy tag (and no CSD criterion would apply here anyway), so the page needs to be undeleted and the content restored. Courtesy blanking it afterwards is fine, but people should be able to look at the history log. Nsk92 (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should say, short of WP:RTV this shouldn't have happened. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that everyone have a nice cup of WP:TEA and re-cage the hounds. Yes, using the delete button to delete one's own talk page generally isn't "allowed by the deletion policy", but in the present case I don't see any pressing harm being done, and it seems to me that building a federal case over this is going to escalate tempers rather than calm things down. In the absence of some urgent need to see his talk page, this doesn't have to get resolved today. Nandesuka (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's been done recently by another admin, who also deleted his user page. I'm only one editor, but I don't know that it's a big deal. (I see there's more above about unusual activity by the editor in question; I am not making any comment on that as I haven't read through it. I am commenting only on the page deletion.)  Frank  |  talk  01:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just had a cup of tea, but it did not change my opinion in the matter. In fact, in view of Frank's comment, I see a very good reason to undelete the talk page now. Allowing such an obvious violation of the process to stand would set a really bad precedent and send the wrong message to others who might be enclined to do something similar in the future. This is especially the case since, as you say, there was another recent example of a similar action. We do not want to set a trend of admins deleting their talk pages when they feel like it. Nsk92 (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

When there's no good reason to do something other than "to set an example" is the best possible time to take a deep breath and not take any hasty action. There is absolutely no emergency here, and it would behoove us to take steps to avoid drama, rather than to create it. Nandesuka (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not a matter of emergency but of setting and reinforcing a really bad precedent. When there is a clear violation of deletion policy, such as this one was, it should not be allowed to stand, not because there is an emergency but as a matter of principle, in order not to encourage others to do the same. Nsk92 (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? What drama? Kelly ^hi! 02:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree - this especially should not be done by admins with problematic conduct. I'm not upset about it or anything, but we don't delete these pages unless users want to vanish. If Travis would like to vanish, he should probably turn in his tools on the way out - he can get them back if/when he returns. Kelly ^hi! 02:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Travis has been an admin in good standing for at least 3 years, has never been blocked for anything, and to the best of my knowledge is a valued and respected contributor. I don't see any reason here to do anything other than sleep on the issue for a while. Nandesuka (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

He can get them back if/when he returns. ← I believe bureaucrats would reject such a request, for better or worse, citing the "under a cloud" doctrine. — CharlotteWebb 21:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is not by any means the first time FCYTravis has used the admin tools questionably. For a long time, FCYTravis kept his talk page permanently semi-protected, and kept hundreds of edits in its history deleted. Following a couple of discussions on this noticeboard, FCYTravis was required to restore the history and remove protection. Just days later, FCYTravis again indefinitely semiprotected his talk page against policy and consensus (and it has remained semi-protected since February). It may be time for FCYTravis to step down. - auburnpilot talk 02:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with CBD. It's not against any policy or rule to delete your own talk page. To revert his deletion seems like a personal move instead of a move to benefit the project or a move to fix a "wrong" against policy. Just let it be, imho. Beam 02:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Er, excuse me? Whatever do you mean, "It's not against any policy or rule to delete your own talk page"? The deletion policy is very specific on how a deletion process can occur: either through a prod, a CSD tag or through an AfD debate. None of these happened here, and the only one which might allow for a quick deletion, namely CSD, is not applicable here. Nsk92 (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You're excused. The talkpage is not a normal article. Beam 02:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, given some problems I've seen in the past, I'm thinking that a Request for Comment might be a good idea, so when Travis returns he can see how the community feels. However, that's pretty hard to judge, or to present any evidence of trying to resolve the problems, when the user talk page has been deleted. Regards - Kelly ^hi! 02:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Reading the above I wondered to myself, 'when was WP:CSD#U1 repealed?'. So I checked... and it hasn't been. So I wondered, 'when did the user talk page stop being a user page?'. So I checked... and it hasn't either. So... any user can request deletion of their user talk page at any time and it is customarily granted as a U1 speedy deletion except for "rare cases" where it is necessary to maintain the page, usually for evidentiary purposes. Or at least that's what the policies actually say... and a practice I've seen carried out in the past. An admin deleting a CSD page without first inserting the tag isn't at all unusual either. --CBD 04:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not an accurate summary of our policy regarding user pages. See Wikipedia:User page, which states "As a matter of practice user talk pages are generally not deleted, barring legal threats or other grievous violations that have to be removed for legal reasons; however, exceptions to this can be and are made on occasion for good reason (see right to vanish)". In other words, it says the opposite of what you claim. Taking a Wikibreak is not a "good reason". - auburnpilot talk 14:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should post a proposed change to that at WP:USER, as there seems to be consensus here that people may delete their talk pages. Another recent example I can think of is Spartaz (talk · contribs), who also deleted his user talk page but is still editing. Kelly ^hi! 01:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any such consensus. Deleting user pages in which the user was the sole editor is diffent from deleting a talk page in which the contributions usually come from other users. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Nor have I seen any consensus for this. Waiting to see what FCYTravis will do is one thing, changing the policy is very much something else. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

FCYTravis deleting his talk page isn't anything new, I had to have a talk with him before about his problematic deletions of the page, which he finally did undelete. I haven't checked the history, the primary reason he did that was because of trolls commenting there, which if those revisions are the ones he is deleting, I wouldn't care, but prior experience with him was that he was deleting good intentioned revisions, and unless he is leaving Wikipedia, that shouldn't be tolerated. — Moe ε 05:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Calm

(ec)I have only just stepped into this mess. Noone is blocked - so can we slow down, get a hold of our tempers and sort this out in a rational manner. I understand people are upset by these actions, but nothing is gained by screaming at each other. Viridae^Talk 02:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Granted I've only been reading this discussion for the last 10-15 mintues, I must say it seems like a fairly calm discussion at this point. I think everyone has already moved beyond the initial shock/bewilderment of FCYTravis's action, and are now discussing how to move forward. - auburnpilot talk 02:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't see anyone screaming at each other. Just trying to figure out the best way to resolve this. Kelly ^hi! 02:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I have not seen anyone screaming at each other here (and hopefully we can avoid it). Nsk92 (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you reading Viridae? This conversation is actually very civil and especially when one looks at the recent convos at this page. Shoot, this is like a party compared to other "discussions" of late. I'm pretty happy with the civility and levelheadedness displayed towards each other here~ Beam 02:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I haven't seen anyone screaming either. Anyway here's the policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly wht I'm talking about (screaming wasn't the best choice of words) there is no paticular hurry to get his talk page back, against policy or not FYC is obviously stressed at this point - so slapping him with a "you shouldn't have deleted your talk page because of XYZ is not helping things resolve" Viridae^Talk 02:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it should be undeleted, I said, "Here's the policy." Gwen Gale (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I said above, I think an RfC would be a good idea, but that is pretty much impossible with the talk page deleted. (I'm uninvolved in whatever disputes are going on here, by the way - I've had differences with Travis before, but we have always been able to work it out amicably.) Kelly ^hi! 02:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd wait to hear what his reason was. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not find Viridae's arguments persuasive. Yes, FYC is upset (and for the record, I had absolutely no prior interactions with him). But, in my opinion, trying to soothe him is too high a price to pay for allowing such an obvious violation of the deletion policy to stand and to possibly encourage others to folllow his example (especially in view of Frank's comment above). Nsk92 (talk) 02:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Who is being hurt by having it remain deleted for a little wile while he gets his breath back? Viridae^Talk 06:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't see your reasoning, or any valid reason to revert his delete. Unless you have a personal gripe with FYC there is no reason. I don't buy the "encourage others" idea, and I definitely think you're wrong about it being "such an obvious violation." As I describe below it's not an obvious violation at all. Beam 03:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we know this isn't a first step towards RTV? Gwen Gale (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, his userpage just says he's on wikibreak. Kelly ^hi! 02:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The policy does NOT say you can't delete your talk page. It says it's rare, and gives some valid reasons (right to vanish etc) but it does not say you can't delete your talk page. This isn't an article, this wasn't someone elses talk page, this wasn't the main page, this was his own talk page. Let him delete it. It can only hurt him to take such an action. It is NOT a good idea to revert his deletion. There is no "right now" reason to do so, and it can only make the guy feel even worse about this whole situation. Anyone who does revert it, would seem to be acting against FYC, and not for anything. Beam 03:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• I heard from Travis - he plans to undelete his talk page if he returns. Speaking for myself, I'm satisfied with that. Kelly ^hi! 03:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You speak for me as well. :) Beam 04:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Yep :) Gwen Gale (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Same. This appears to be a mountain out of a molehill situation. Orderinchaos 13:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick Summary

Side A: If I have a problem with one single individual regarding an article, making it unavailable to everybody is an acceptable response.

Side B: You have got to be shitting me.

Tell me, which side sounds saner here? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

False characterisation. In this case side A is saying that an article violates three important policies and the editors of the article obdurately refuse to conform to said policies. I have checked the entries which are backed by online sources, not one of them use the term "pederastic couple" and several did not use any version of pederasty at all. An agenda is being promoted, as it has been promoted numerous times before, and that stinks. The article is a festering pile of crap at the moment and deletion improves the encyclopaedia, but an acceptable resolution would be ro testrict all past editors to the talk page and have people check every source, remove those not supported by cast-iron references and rewrite so we are nto blazing the trail. It is no secret that Wikipedia is regarded as the number one most important place to get your agenda promoted, and that is what I think is happening here. It needs to stop. Guy (Help!) 07:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it not possible that the refs are there, but simply in book form? Haiduc has added several book refs to the article, but did not supply the page numbers or ISBNs. Perhaps we should AGF of him here? Jeffpw (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm speaking of "false characterisation" you have now accused "editors of the article" of "obdurately refuse to conform to said policies" and pushing agendas. This is patently false. There has been nothing but a willingness of editors to address concerns raised at the AfD, which just closed when this incident occurred, to ensure policies are upheld. Your continuing to insinuate otherwise, here and elsewhere, and leaping of bad faith that all those editors are promoting an agenda as well is quite alarming. Further throwing around how the editors should now be restricted to talk page use only as well? Wikipedia isn't served by punishing the very people who are working to correct problems. Just because the exact phrases pederastic couple or a version of pederasty isn't splashed around doesn't mean the more clinical or scientific terminology is false. It's simply referred to in different ways by different cultures throughout history. The footnotes should expand to include this so these sweeping accusations can be more readily dismissed. Banjeboi 14:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. It's the actions of only one particular individual that are mentioned as being the problem. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed this and I agree that it was a serious abuse of the tools. The deletion itself was bad enough, and it was followed by an attempt to use the deletion to impose conditions on editors with whom Travis was in dispute, along with the inappropriate deletion of his user talk page in the midst of a controversy. This kind of behavior gives me serious doubts about whether Travis should remain an admin. Everyking (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As somebody directly involved in this dispute with Travis, I will not make a comment as to what should happen to his admin status. But as I stated above, I would like a clear explanation from Admins or Bureaucrats about how they plan to proceed if and when Travis returns. Jeffpw (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"FCYTravis is taking a wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia when the community wises up." At least that is what it says on his user page template. Is this the kind of attitude that the community wants to endorse ? I sincerely hope not. Albion moonlight (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hell yes, I endorse it. One, the article's a mess. Two, When things got to the point where Travis might flip his shit, he took a break. That's EXACTLY what we want when we talk about people needing to take Wiki-Breaks. Good on him! He needs to KEEP his mop and bucket bits, and talk of him surrendering them is absurd. ThuranX (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is, he "flipped his shit" before the wikibreak, and there's a definite suggestion in this lot somewhere (I forget where or by who) that it's not his only questionable action either. Crimsone (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a serious problem and the community needs to take a very hard look at it. Some people are far too willing to give admins a pass if they abuse their power. There seem to be 2 clear cases of abusing his admin powers to win an editing dispute. The moment an admin edits an article and gets in to a dispute he needs to put his tools away and ask other admins to perform administrative actions.--Crossmr (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Update - relisted at DRV

I have relisted it at DRV here - 24 editors out of 000s is not enough. I can't see how this article is compatible with WP sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)

FCYTravis is elsewhere on the internet

This person is elsewhere on the internet and not, in my opinion, making Wikipedia look good (but not quite BLP'ing WP if you consider WP to be a living thing). The discussion is on flyertalk.com but only established users can see his comments. In flyertalk, established users mean half a year of editing, not just 4 days as is required in Wikipedia. Presumptive (talk) 05:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible you could be just a tad more cryptic? This is utterly petty if it's what I think I'm reading...that he's criticizing Wikipedia outside Wikipedia and you are wanting to take action on him for it. --Smashville^BONK! 13:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Links to external sites have been considered bad for wikipedia for much the same reasons. Badmouthing wikipedia off wiki is either acceptable or it's not... concensus seems to be that it's not... especially from admins apparently, if my memory serves. You can be sure that if any admin were found to be an active editor of, say, wikitruth for one example out of many possible, it would be frowned on greatly. There's nothing I hate more than double standards. Crimsone (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, WP:BADSITES is a soundly rejected policy. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's also throw out that I'm fairly certain participating on a travel forum is not grounds for anything. --Smashville^BONK! 15:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty impossible to criticize any part of Wikipedia ON wikipedia, it's a shock that more editors aren't agitating off-site all the time. Like when an admin stands up and takes strong decisive action, too many wikipedians come running to criticize not taking enough time. THe culture of voluntary submission to bureaucracy seen here at times is ridiculous. FCYTravis took action, instead of dancing around till the time limits ran out. good on him. More admins willing to do the right thing would be better. ThuranX (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got to say that this whole situation is absurd and irks me. I mean, an admin takes a stance. Does what he thinks is right...and won't back down because he believes what he did is right. Therefore, everyone cries "abuse" because he won't change his mind. And then when it dies down and there's a compromise...someone stirs the pot again by bringing up that he deleted his talk page...and then it dies down again and someone stirs the pot by pointing out he's posting on non-Wikipedia websites. Forget common sense and morals (which seems to be what the case was...he saw the page to be a farm for BLP-violations), we are all slaves to process. --Smashville^BONK! 16:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a different understanding of the situation, and I think you have oversimplified it. Moreover, the arguments of the article in question are too complex to be handled by the actions of a single administrator. FCYTravis took a simple approach to a complicated issue over the input of other editors. You call it "tak(ing) a stance" and ThuranX calls it "strong decisive action", but I am unable to see how the arguments of those who were looking to delete the article are valid. I assume those who were in favor of deletion regarded my points the same way. That's why the site needs administrators who can see value in both sides and are able to mediate. Travis did an admirable job in participating in the AfD discussion; his arguments were civil and he treated people respectfully. Not all comments given during the discussion did that. Travis allowed his opinions, which are limited, to direct his action against another admin and a small majority of participants in the discussion. To my knowledge, this was my first interaction with Travis, so I am unable to comment on his actions as an admin in total, but this one action is not praiseworthy and suggests that Wikipedia is not for those who agree with this action. We are still a community. Singular actions such as these are more appropriate to one's individual blog or website. --Moni3 (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

A Community, not a commune. Harmony and perfect unity aren't our goals here. They can't happen with the various cross prupose agenda warriors populating this site. Travis looked at the debate, at that abyssmal quality of the article and it's attendant lack of citation ,sources, and BIO vios, (not just BLP), and deleted it. It should have been fried long ago. He took the right action to remove an article that romanticizes those relationships, and written by POV pushers seeking to give currect pederasts and pedophiles a historical context to validate their molestations. Some, if not many, of those relationships are poorly 'categorized' and framed there. Leyendecker and Beach, for example. Since marriages between 15 year olds weren't uncommon in much of America, nor marriages of older men to younger wives, categorizing such a relationship as pederasty is questionable without good sources stating that at the time it was considered particularly more distasteful than the average gay relationship. Others on there sound more like white slavery and obvious rape/molestation situations, with 11 year old boys and other prepubescents. There's too much POV and agenda mess going on there. Travis made the right call. ThuranX (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Your language betrays you - pederasty doesn't nessecarily involve molestation, or indeed any form of sexual contact whatsoever. Interesting also that you are supporting the use of the tools in a clear case of editing dispute, you support throwing process and the decisions of the community itself out of the window in favour of "decisive action"... Admins aren't here to lead. They are here to serve. Travis most certainly did NOT make the right call if only in light of the fact that he used the tools to win out on his POV over an issue he was himself involved in... that's bad enough without any other considerations. If there's any POV pushing going on, there it is. It's also telling that you so assume bad faith of the articles authors... not just any given authors, but its authors in general... indeed, you yourself are pushing your own POV here, evidenced by the very text you type. The right call is the one that follows either the rules and processes, or the community concensus, by someone not directly involved in the situation... this call failed completely on all counts. Crimsone (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Again. We're all slaves to process. He thinks he is right, but he still fixed the problem. Why are we still having this discussion? Because he still thinks he's right? --Smashville^BONK! 19:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

More accurately, because he still doesn't think he's done anything wrong, and apparently not for the first time... as such, somthing must be done, an no it doesn't have to involve sanctions... a slapped wrist an a "don't do it again, it'll be noticed" from an appropriate person would suffice. Crimsone (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"My language betrays me"???I don't like child molesters? what a crying shame. Simple fact is still that the article's crap and travis did the right thing. Process wonkery's not going to change the result, either. right is right. the article can't be sourced properly, and thus shouldn't exist. ThuranX (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, horrors! Somebody has the absolute unmitigated gall to participate in other sites and forums other than Wikipedia, and even sometimes talk about Wikipedia on them! And the stuff they're saying isn't always highly favorable! How unspeakably evil! Get out the banhammer now! *Dan T.* (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Seriously...you want to really make the news...start banning people for things they say outside of Wikipedia. I don't remember filling out a confidentiality agreement with my account. --Smashville^BONK! 15:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Wikipedia has no jurisdiction outside of Wikipedia. Jtrainor (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. User:Zeraeph was banned from Wikipidea partly because of things she posted at other sites. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph, where the arbitrators decided 9-0 in favor of the idea that a user's off wiki postings related to Wikipedia can be used in judging their participation here. Jeffpw (talk) 05:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

FCYTravis has left wikipedia indefinitely. I think that the community should just ignore him until he comes back. The chances of him ever using his admin tools again are miniscule. Without his tools he is just another editor. There is no sense in pissing off those editors who back his actions because polarization is not helpful. The time has come to end this drama and wait and see what happens. Albion moonlight (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You know I don't really see the point in archiving this only 8 minutes after the last comment is made. Honestly the final comment of "The chances of him ever using his admin tools again are miniscule" does not leave me sitting easy. If he claims to have left the project indefinitely and there is serious doubt about his actions, why in gods name does he still have his administrative powers? (if I read that correctly). Those should have been stripped immediately upon him claiming he is leaving the project. There is zero reason we should allow a user behaving this childishly to keep his power.--Crossmr (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Grawp

Resolved

 – Note: Enable email block when blocking Grawp accounts, Tiptoety ^talk 03:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably nothing that can really be done, but FYI Grawp has moved to special:Emailuser for his amusement so if you block a grawp sock, please remember to disable email. --B (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Pfffft, he can spend all night sending me e-mail if that's what he wants to do. I can delete them faster than he can send them. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:BEANS. Don't think he's not reading this. Daniel Case (talk) 03:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The beans have already been spilled. Let this just be a reminder to admins to block email when blocking said accounts. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

He tried that stunt on me, too, but they all fell into my gmail spam filter. Bummer! Probably something to do with his MASSIVE COCK stories etc :/ Either way, I strongly recommend blocking all Grawp socks with email disabled. Same goes for User:TougHHead, if anyone encounters his socks - Alison ^❤ 04:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That Gmail spam filter, always one step ahead :) Gary King (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ausonia is ignoring the issue

Resolved

 – Blocked for 24hrs.

Ausonia has made the exact same reverts as several IPs and a user called Italicus.

The user has decided to ignore the issue and bypassed an IP block as Italicus yesterday (see User talk:Italicus and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/200.215.40.3).

Today, that user is Ausonia as the other two were blocked. I have tried to explain that no consensus was reached for those edits to be made on Italicus's talk page—and failed to convince him/her. What should I do? ~ Troy (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. I also highly suggest that you stop edit waring as well; although you're right, you've violated the 3RR a few times yesterday. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 01:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Phil Sandifer

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here, move along please

I started a new page which Phil (rightly) identifed as needing more work - of course -but wrongly immediately started a deletion process on. Since then, despite modifications, he has been repeatedly seeking its deletion, without changing his arguments at all... this looks like prejudice. But more blatent is he has evidently followed my edit history and attempted to 'undo' my other edits: as his 'history' shows

• 14:22, 22 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/'101' as a teaching method for Philosophy‎ (→the comments on the new version, 'Teaching Methods in Philosophy' are here) (top) (attacks me)

These 3 edits are nothing to do with me

• 13:39, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who‎ (→Determining companions)
• 02:02, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who‎ (→Determining companions)
• 01:38, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who‎ (→Determining companions)

then:

• 01:29, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) The Dictionary of Fashionable Nonsense: A Guide for Edgy People‎ (I disagree.) (attacks me)
• 01:28, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Why Truth Matters‎ (I disagree.) (attacks me)
• 22:55, 20 July 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Docmartincohen‎ (→MfD nomination of User:Docmartincohen/Wikipropaganda and manipulation) (attacks me)
• 22:54, 20 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 20‎ ({subst:afd3|pg='101' as a teaching method for Philosophy}}) (top)(attacks me)
• 22:54, 20 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 20‎ ({subst:afd3|pg='101' as a teaching method for Philosophy}})(attacks me)
• 22:53, 20 July 2008 (hist) (diff) N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/'101' as a teaching method for Philosophy‎ (←​Created page with '{{subst:afd2|pg=Incidents|cat=U|text=Article, created by User:Docmartincohen, talks heavily of Martin Cohen's work on the subject, making it pretty c...') (attacks me)
• 22:52 20 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Teaching methods in Philosophy‎ (attacks me)

Phil might be right to disagree on all this! That is a content issue... But my complaint is that he has followed my edit history to disagree and reverse my activities. This seems to be 'wikistalking' not legitimate editing.

I suggest he be warned or blocked...

Docmartincohen (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide links or diffs, please? It is very difficult to judge things without being able to see it. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Researched it myself. We're talking about this AfD of this page (note that it was moved after the discussion began). --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I went through and looked at some of the edits he cites, and removing a pair of tags (which Phil did on two of the listed edits) is not a personal attack, nor is all of the stuff regarding the addition of the AFD tag. While the discussion at the AFD may be considered a personal attack (I disagree with that interpretation), Phil is unquestionably correct that there is a serious CoI issue here, and it could be construed as self-promotion. Horologium (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful, that's exactly right. Phil hasn't done anything wrong here, hasn't attacked you, and generally doesn't appear to have done anything but make you angry. This isn't the place to try to get him blocked, especially under false pretenses. The people who comment here generally do their research, and the "history" you've provided shows nothing you're accusing him of. I suggest you keep any issues you have with him off-wiki. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There is an established understanding that concerns about an editor's behavior are properly followed up by a trawl through the editor's edit history. I had some concerns, looked deeper, and found some things that I felt required some action. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Nothing to see here folks. Chillum 19:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Docmartincohen

Oh, there is, could an independent admin look into the behaviour of Docmartincohen??? In particular, these accusations on my user page sums it up for me. I moved it to my talk page and responded. It is completely unfounded and related to our current disagreements on the Julian Baggini biography. After that kind of stuff, he comes here complaining suggesting Phil be blocked?

Well, I suggest Docmartincohen be warned or blocked... Merzul (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I confess, I share the concerns - between his seemingly spurious COI tags of books by other authors, and his writing of promotional articles for his own work, I am very concerned about this editor. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done, warned Docmartincohen. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ii consdier the above commetn by Phil to be clearly a violation of Wikipedia policy, in that it slanders me as and my motives. I'm not going to take legal action, of course, but I DO think the adminstrators noticeboard shoudl be a place a user can raise a matter without being slandered.

Docmartincohen (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You're not being slandered. First off, when it's written it's libel, not slander. Second off, there are no accusations of anything here that aren't backed up with evidence that shows the sorts of behavior the accusations are about. Persons not agreeing with you does not amount to libel, nor does it amount to a personal attack. Please do not assume that editors mean you any harm. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 22:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible infringement of Wikipedia content?

User:Ziggythehamster expressed a concern on WP:RFC (here, specifically) that an external website[24] is using Wikipedia content without citing Wikipedia as its source. Is this really an issue, and if it is, can someone please send it to the right people? I figured someone here would probably know how to deal with this. Thanks! SunDragon34 (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This can be reported at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, someone might want to send a Standard GFDL violation letter. Algebraist 23:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann conflict of interest

Resolved

 – FuPe stuffed the sock in the washer, Dab cleared of any possible wrong doing. Beam 00:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann has protected an article here for which he is involved in dispute. This issue was brought about in the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann in which a decision was made here that Dbachmann should not protect pages of articles he is involved in disputes. Dbachmann is involved in a dispute at Origin of religion per his numerous contributions such as July 4 and here. Crazy baldhead (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Just another probable Muntuwandi sock.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Besides that, looks like a kosher WP:SALTing of the page too. Might've been better to ask someone else to do it, but I'm not concerned as long as the outcome is fine. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't like Dbachmann, but looking at the topic and article content, looks like a reasonable redirect. I can't see any prior content of the old article, however, so there may be more to this. ThuranX (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

He has deleted the edit history and there are other editors who made comments Talk:Evolutionary origins of religion, so it was premature of him.Crazy baldhead (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It was an article validly deleted after AfD, and then recreated by an obvious banned sock. Preventing obvious banned socks from abusively recreating articles is as legitimate for an involved admin as fighting vandalism. Nothing to see here, move on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not the article that was deleted. Crazy baldhead (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Sting au had made contributions on the page, yet dab has deleted the edit history. Crazy baldhead (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And you as a one-week-old account "just making fun" would know about all this background exactly how? -- Blocked as another obvious troll sock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Chrisjnelson by User:72.0.36.36 a.k.a. User:Sackmachine91

Resolved

 – Marking this resolved as a bit of forum-shopping in a lame edit war where the complainant is, as it happens, in the wrong.

This user is deleting a good-faith ediit at Chris Long (American football). I made a good-faith edit, he reverted, I reverted it back. He then, then me. However, do to a "majority rule" mentality there it seems I cann be given a fair shake. The note was judged WP:N by not only me, but one dipassionate user who has no history of being part of a mob. So, I ask, if this rule listed below counts, why does someone get to revert a good-faith edit? Why does this article a democracy? Why doe the rules not apply to the long-term users who abuse their power? Why does a known trouble maker (chrisjenelson) get away with this even after he is blocked time and again? If the rules matter, I ask that Admins who are not part of the NFL project look at this. Those who are fair and unbiased.

1. Particularly, don't revert good faith edits. Reverting is a little too powerful sometimes, hence the three-revert rule. Don't succumb to the temptation, unless you're reverting very obvious vandalism (like "LALALALAL*&*@#@THIS_SUX0RZsammygoo", or someone changing "4+5=9" to "4+5=30"). If you really can't stand something, revert once, with an edit summary something like "(rv) I disagree strongly, I'll explain why in talk." and immediately take it to talk.

If this does no matter then why is it a guidleine or suggestion? If wiki is a democracy then why doe the rules say it is not a democracy. If the so-called majority will not compromise in any way, how are they a legitamte consensus?Sackmachine91 (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

CHrisjNelson's been here at AN/I before about the same exact page and behaviors. that said, this is a content issue, adn one that ChrisJNelson is correct about. A minor comment about a non-issue isn't notable. ThuranX (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a textbook example of tendentious editing by Sackmachine91, AKA 72.0.36.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). At Talk:Chris Long (American football), not a single person has been persuaded by his numerous arguments for inclusion of this trivial piece of information. When he disappeared for a while recently, the article sat quiet and untouched. He returns and begins pushing the exact same arguments again as though no one had heard them the first 20 times. He throws around threatening speech calling everyone uncivil and childish and lets the propaganda terms fly. Now he's targetting Chrisjnelson, likely because of his lengthy block log but the fault clearly lies with 72.0.36.36 in this case. One scan over the article's talk page is quite convincing. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The IP editor is now being hostile to those drawn in from AN/I, telling me that because I agreed with an extant majority, I don't understand Wikipedia, that I think it's a democracy of mob rule and so on. Now, not only do I believe that the IP editor is in the wrong, but hsi Tendentious Editing style and the fact that there are multiple talk page sections at the article devoted to his unstopping behavior means he's due for a block to prevent further tendentious editing. 48 to 96 hours ought to be fair. ThuranX (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a clarification, even though I think ThuranX has got it right anyway: CJN's past run-ins with the law ANI had more to do with civility than they did with edit-warring. And I think he finally got the point after the last go-round. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

To support jaysweet's comment, CJN is being far better in that regard in this conflict. ThuranX (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is strictly a content issue, and Nelson is on the side of consensus at this point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with ThuranX. Enigma ^message 22:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an open request for a block of the IP and account in question. His BAD faith behavior and wikilawyering, are signs of seriously tendentious editing. He refuses to see consensus, asserting it is just a conspiracy of numbers, though the debate is days old, sections long, with plenty of explanations from half a dozen editors. ThuranX (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless the IP is currently fighting upstream against obvious consensus than please don't block. If he's stopped, take the time to give him a stiff warning, and try to garner a conversation of positivity. If he reacts poorly with uncivil comments or makes further bad edits than consider a block. Try a little goodness first though please. Beam 01:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Unless the IP is currently fighting upstream against obvious consensus..." Yes, that's exactly what's happening. This reminds me a bit of the user MAL-something at Talk:Atlanta Braves and elsewhere, who is absolutely relentless and uncompromising in his argument, in the face of all opposition. The difference is that MAL is currently only debating. 2X.0.X.X continues to debate AND to post his edit in the face of all opposition, and continually dances around the question of the notability of the item he keeps trying to post. In a nutshell, he's being disruptive and something needs to be done to at least temporarily put the brakes on the endless loop that he's produced in the article's editing process. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think everything has been tried. This stretches back over a full month and the IP has not changed his behavior one whit. Same old story. No one agrees with him, yet he asserts that the opposition is a conspiracy to prevent him from editing. Enigma ^message 01:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

When was his latest offense? After this offense, was this ANi the only action taken? Was he contacted at all on his talk page? Beam 01:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

He is aware of this thread, his last post was about an hour ago, if not more recently. This has been going on for over two weeks, see an earlier thread User_talk:Ksy92003#Funny about it here. This has been ongoing for more than two weeks; using the 'well, he hasn't done anything in the last few hours' defense isn't going to work this time. He needs to be stopped; this is not going to abate otherwise. ThuranX (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course he's aware of it - He's the one that posted it, assuming these diffs correctly demonstrate that they are the same guy: [25] [26] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

He has been warned several times about continuing this behavior, and was also blocked for edit-warring on the same article. Enigma ^message 01:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

On the off chance he is unaware of the turn this discussion has taken, I left a note on his talk page. Rlendog (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

He posted this thread himself (as Wknight94 noted), so one might assume he's watching it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Was his latest edit, edit warring? The one a few hours ago? If not, give him one final warning before a 30 day block. Honestly, if he can't change his ways in the face of 30 days, than I agree with the block. Is this ok?Beam 01:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, you guys have dealt with his bullshit shenanigans thus far, give him a FINAL WARNING (duhn, duhn, duhhhh) and threaten a 30 day block. Figure it this way: if he does not heed this warning, you're free for 30 days! Beam 01:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not defending him or anything, but has 72.0.36.36 really done anything worth being blocked? I mean he hasn't violated WP:3RR, hasn't been uncivil on the talk page discussion. He might've pissed everybody off, but is that enough to issue a block? Ksy92003 (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

He stopped short of violating the revert rules [27] but his argument remains the same in spite of opposition and continual questions he can't answer about notability. There's a fine line between "good faith" and "hard-headedness". One more authoritative warning, and block if he won't stop. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To Ksy, yes, it is block-worthy. Look at the first line of WP:BLOCK: "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia". Look how much time has been spent refuting his redundant arguments today alone. If that's not disruption, I don't know what is. Disruption of what I had planned on being a productive day here. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

An excellent point, good sir Wknight94. There's an important distinction between this guy and MAL-something. MAL is only debating, and lately being ignored, so no harm. But MAL has stopped short of trying to re-post. 2X.0.X.X where X = 36 also posts his stuff in defiance of consensus, forcing someone to revert it, nearly getting Nelson into trouble again even though it's justified in this case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam, this is your mess. You want to stand on process wonking, you handle it, I wash my hands of it, I'm walking away. That's the most insulting excuse for not bothering to read things over I've seen from an admin in a while. You've got numerous people talking about his problems here, more at the talk page, and you insist on a ton of bureaucracy. You clean this mess up, I'm out. ThuranX (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel a final warning will truly give him a final chance. Worst case - he fucks up and gets blocked for 30 days. Best case: he changes and we get positive contributions. Sounds win win to me. Beam 03:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No, worst case is you string this out with process playing for another three days of disruptino. Stop coddling him, he's been warned ad nauseum in the course of the discussion. that they weren't placed in tempalte form on his talk page speaks instead to two valuable ideas:One, not tempating a regular. He might not be a 'true' regular with an account but he claims to understand policies, and as an IP, he might come back on another IP, missing the warnings. Giving them in the discussion shoudl suffice. Now block him. ThuranX (talk) 03:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Beamathan isn't an admin. Wknight has given his opinion. Anyone else? Enigma ^message 02:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The dilemma is that Wknight94 and Pats1 are "involved", so if they issue the block, 72/Sack will likely yelp about that also. But fear not, Luke... there could be... another. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ksy, I'm a little perplexed at the extent to which you've defended the IP user. No, he cannot be blocked for 3RR, and even if he did violate that, it'd really be the least of his offenses. He has been disruptive beyond words, failed to adhere to numerous policies, hurled ridiculous accusations to ruin the credibility of a legitimate consensus. Essentially, he's like a little kid crying in a store because his mommy won't buy him some candy. It's ridiculous this has lasted this long and gotten to this point.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Beam's insistence on infinite chances to disrupt, he's been warned, both at the IP and the account, and if that isn't a SOCK problem as well, including the changing of his IP sigs to his Account and such, then whatever, Beam will insist on a warning for that too. ThuranX (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To summarize, the IP has repeatedly edit-warred, edited tendentiously, and made more personal attacks than I can even count. He has disrupted AN/I with his creation of threads that serve to confuse rather than inform. Finally, the main crux of it is that he has been the sole reason for disruption on the Chris Long article stretching back to June 18. Pages and pages of fruitless talk, all due to his persistence in refusing to get along with reality. There have been warnings. See his talk page and the Chris Long talk. It's past time that he either get a block or a topic ban. Please make it stop. Enigma ^message 05:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you hit the nail on the head. Perhaps not individual actions of his are worthy of a block. Perhaps not even one day's worth of his actions. But given the time this has all gone on for, his behavior, accusations, conspiracy theories and overall disruption, I'd say more than warrants a block or topic ban. He may not be just coming out and calling someone a stupid mother effer, but I'd say his behavior stretched out over more than a month is far worse than any personal attack or 3RR violation.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I recently noticed yet another attack that I had missed the first time around. He had accused me of adding tags that I didn't add. When I responded that it simply wasn't true, he came back with this gem: "this is simple disruption by you and I find it pretty immature, how old are you? Are you about the same ages as chrisjnelson? A rage age?" [28] I point it out because it was something I didn't see until just now, but he's accused me of much, much worse, and repeatedly. Doesn't matter whether the accusations had any basis. Seems to be a matter of throwing things at people and seeing what sticks. Enigma ^message 06:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, now he's had ample warning thrown at him. If that doesn't stick, a block will. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Per this diff, made after his warnings, he isn't stopping. Block now needed more than ever. ThuranX (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Those are just his talk-page complaints, demonstrating that he either doesn't get it or is being deliberately obtuse. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've warned him to stop edit warring against consensus. If he reinstates the content again I will consider the block for disruption. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding us? Are you kidding? He WAS warned. Over and Over and Over and Over. How many times does he need to be warned? How many free passes to fuck around and play games does he get? Beamathan insisted he be warned again, and he was. At BOTH his IP and his ACCOUNT. And you warned him AGAIN? He's never gonna stop now. He was warned that he'd be blocked, not warned that he'd be warned again and again. You gonna template him to death? What a joke. ThuranX (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

He qualifies for a block, I would say. The catch is, he's now stopped trying to change the article. In effect, he's "playing" us. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And the minute we stop pushing for a block, and this gets archived, he'll be back. It's a CIVIL POV PUSH methodology. He needs a block, but we've seen the admins aren't interested in following through. ThuranX (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It certainly does appear the big picture is not being taken into account here. Like I said before, it's not want single action that's warranting a block-it's over a month of continued edit-warring, personal attacks, baseless accusations and general disruption.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And rather than answering direct questions directly, we get essays about what he thinks wikipedia is supposedly about. There is little hope that anything is going to change. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin opinion:

• OK, I've spend quite some time wading thru the extraordinarily long talk page, and I think I see at least a majority of the big picture. Given the level and extent of the disruption; the tendentiousness of the editing; and the complete misunderstanding (unclear if it is intentional or not) of consensus, I'm going to block for 48 hours for disruption: making it nearly impossible for anything productive to get done on the talk page. I'm also going to warn the user that, at least, the subject of Long's trainer speech has been more than adequately discussed, consensus is firmly against him, and that further attempts to re-add that material will result in immediate block for much longer. And, finally, that during the block, he needs to read WP:DISRUPT, WP:TE, and WP:CONSENSUS carefully, because further violations of those principles after the block expires will result in quicker and much longer blocks.
• If he returns to editing the article or it's talk page, I expect everyone will make a superhuman effort to treat him with respect, letting bygones be bygones, and no matter how exasperated you are, you'll not answer fire with fire, but if his misbehavior (not disagreement, but misbehavior) resumes, you will point it out to me, or point another admin to this discussion, my comment here, and the note I will soon leave on his talk page, and let us take care of it. If you can all stay cool, I'm pretty sure future problems can be dealt with much more quickly. --barneca (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please block both the IP and account, to avoid socking issues. thank you for taking a stand here. ThuranX (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. And the IP made some odd statement about not being able to edit here [29] and that's why he logged on. What's that about? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably because ANI is, unfortunately, often in a state of semi-protection due to vandalism, which prevents IP's from posting here. I've now blocked both accounts. Complaints are welcome, here or on my talk page. --barneca (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. I forgot about that. I'll strike out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite block request for 76.227.110.225

Resolved

 – Endorse Kevin's actions below --B (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

76.227.110.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

User on a rampage of repeated vandalism, deliberate misinformation and page blanking. Thanks for the help. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think an indefinite block is in order, but a couple months would do. JBsupreme (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

For one, A Sniper, please don't put fake block templates on the user's page. An admin looking at it might not realize that the user has not already been blocked. That aside, I looked at the contributions and there's no obvious vandalism. I have insufficient knowledge of the topic of Mötley Crüe‎ to have any idea if his claims there are correct, but his other edits look like good faith edits so without further information, I have no reason to conclude anything about these edits (other than a 3RR violation). (I'm not saying you are wrong, just that I don't know anything about this particular genre of music.) --B (talk) 06:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sorry but although I have been an editor for at least two years, I did not know that an admin must do the block - this is why I placed the template. I then read the policy, after finding the template, and placed this admin request. In any event, this IP user was deliberately placing false and misleading information (vandalism) into the article, as well as many other articles, all in rapid successsion. They blanked my home page and the home page of another user also trying to revert, thus I felt the block was justified. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for 12 hours for edit warring, and warned the other pair for the same. Kevin (talk) 06:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• IPs are almost never blocked indefinitely as the user behind the IP is likely to change. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

68.160.248.199, 141.155.157.83, an inappropriate username and Nefbmn

Resolved

 – Blocked for 1 week.

There has been a litany of inappropriate edits from the above user accounts. In particular, a large number of edits feature defamatory content and jingoistic opinions. Nefbmn needs to be watched for any further signs of abuse and blocked indefinitely if caught. The following lists of contributions say it all: [30][31][32][33].
It should be noted that this account has been indefinitely blocked for gross violations of the username policy.
A suspected sockpuppetry report for this user can be found here[34]. David873 (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've given User:Nefbmn a final warning. If it continues I'll block him. However, I highly suggest that you stop feeding the troll and get on with whatever editing you usually do. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 13:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked for 1 week, so as to prevent more damage to the site. Bearian (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Americanization

Americanization (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is apparently a single purpose account dedicated to undoing American spellings in articles, including articles where it is appropriate.
Kww (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hardly an SPA: he also finds time for some constructive edits ([35], [36]) and some random vandalism ([37], [38]). Algebraist 22:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

His first "contribution" is the best though - "downsize" = "downsise" LOL! Someone ought to learnt to use their Find/Replace function better. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 22:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

While I was busy giving him a stern warning to abide by the MOS section regarding varieties of English, User:Rifleman 82 was busy indef-blocking him. I don't know that I support an indef-block, but I'm not going to recommend a review. The user page and the blatantly offensive edit summaries he left on United States Air Force don't offer much hope that he will be able to work well with others. Horologium (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Funny he didn't spell his name Americanisation. Corvus cornix_talk 22:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

From his userpage: "I believe that the americanization of Enlgish worldwide must be halted. We speak English, not American!!!'"....yep looks like an SPA to me. Also an edit summary for the USAF article edit: "Americans don't own the internet". I also found the changing of size to sise weird. I don't know of any variants of English that does that.--Jersey Devil (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There isn't. And "Arizona" to "Arisona"? Looks like a joke rather than POV pushing in that first edit. Fribbler (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it was just incompetent use of Find/Replace as Darkson indicated. Every "iz" was changed to "is". PrimeHunter (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Truth be told, iz, having been used in British English since the 16th century, is again becoming a part of "UK spelling" with is falling out. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The OUP has always preferred endings in "-ize" (where there is an option - of course, sometimes one must use "-ise"). DuncanHill (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

We (of course!) have an article: Oxford spelling. Algebraist 23:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Which doesn't mention the verbs corresponding to a noun with "-is-" as part of the stem, that Oxford spells "-ise" (for example, comprise, circumcise). DuncanHill (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't there an episode of Morse in which the cracking of the case depended on the "preferred" Oxford use of "-ize"? – ukexpat (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse indef block. We are saving ourselves a lot of crappy, tedious work in the future by removing a clear single purpose account whose stated agenda is to remove the "americanization" of the "Enlgish" language. Perhaps, someone should clue him in on the "English" spelling of "americanization" and the proper spelling of "Enlgish." seicer | talk | contribs 01:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Block advisory (review optional)

Resolved

 – Overall consensus - endorse block.

I just blocked 62.158.64.90 (talk · contribs) for 24 hours. I'm fairly comfortable with the block, given the contribs, but am posting here because they didn't receive the customary four warnings and (as I've protected the talk page from further abuse for 24 hours) won't be able to request an unblock. Dppowell (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block You know sometimes common sense needs to override repeated warnings. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Fully endorse Four warnings aren't always warranted; page-move vandals are frequently blocked with zero warnings. I see nothing controversial about this block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think so, either--just playing it safe. Dppowell (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse, no reason whatsoever to tolerate those sort of edits until the user had been given a level 4 warning. Blocking policy allows for discretion. Good block. EyeSerene^talk 14:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Obvious endorse. I file cases like this under "People who want to be blocked - probably to impress the kid at the next desk". —Wknight94 (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose This was not a page move vandal, and there was only one edit, total, to any but the user's own talk page. The IP user had one vandal edit in an article at 14:22 [39] which merited a higher than level 1 warning, or even an "only warning." The vandal edit was reverted and a warning placed on the vandal's talk page, also at 14:22 [40]. The IP user replaced the warning on his talk page with "FUCK IT!" one minute later [41]. It should have been left at that. The IP user had the right to remove the warning; that just shows that he read it, and it remains in the edit history for other editors to see. The admin placing the warning does not "own" the user's talk page. Instead, Scottydude at 14:24 restored the warning, adding fuel to the fire. The IP user again replaced it at 14:24 with "YOU FUCKING SUCKER!" Rather than allowing a few minutes for tempers to cool, at 14:24 Sean Whitton again reverted the user's talk page to the original warning. The IP user at 14:25 replaced the warning with "FUCK YOU BITCH!" At 14:25 [42] Sean Whitton added an inappropriate warning aginst the user blanking or deleting portions of his own talk page, with a warning he would be blocked if he edited his own talk page to remove content. The IP replaced it at 14:25 with "MOTHERFUCKING BITCHES!" and at 14:27 with that with the less inflammatory "YOU SUCKER!" At 14:27, Dppowell. reverted to the original 14:22 warning, which the IP editor at 14:27 replaced with "FUCK YOU!! I AM ATHEIST HAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!" and finally at 14:28 Dppowell posted a message that the IP editor was blocked. The IP user then replaced the block notice at 14:28 with "STFU BITCH SHUT THE FUCK UP THE FUCK!!! YOU LOSEr11" At 14:26, Dppowell blocked the IP for 24 hours, and posted a block notice at 14:28, then protected the page at 14:29, and reverted from the block notice to the original 14:22 vandalism warning at 14:30, readding the block notice at 14:31. I agree with restoring earlier warnings when a later warning is added, but not just for the sake of restoring them to prove that the admin "owns" the user's talk page. The reversions from the IP users strong language to the earlier warning were unnecessary. The block was unnecessary, and the perceived need for it was brought opn by the drama-creation of swift restoration of the earlier vandal warning, when there had been no more vandalism, other than expletives on the user's talk page. The protection should be lifted and the block should probably be lifted. If it is a blocking offense to have the words "Fuck" or "Bitch" on ones own talk page, then there are lots of such users to start blocking, per a Google search.Edison (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Why did they keep reverting the removal of the warning? That's no good. Beam 17:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Fully endorse- without question. Toddst1 (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Fully endorse without reservation. I'm not even sure it was necessary to post to WP:ANI but in any case you did the right thing. JBsupreme (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block, user showed no intent to contribute constructively. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Educating, counselling and/or warning users is always essential; but it does not preclude the need for emergency measures to be imposed for users engaging in strongly egregious misconduct and showing no sign whatsoever of making any positive contributions. Endorse. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If the IP had been vandalizing the main page, or articles or even other users' talk pages, that might have constituted an "emergency." Where was the emergency when he read and removed a warning from his own user page, or when he put an expletive on his own user page? The admin action in this case merely added fuel to the fire. The best course would have been to let matters lie. Are random visitors to Wikipedia going to encounter this particular users's talk page in the FOUR MINUTES between the initial vandalism warning and the block? This all smacks of the view "I'm an ADMIN! Show me proper respect! I'm going to have the last word!" Edison (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Or more likely, this was a vandal user who needed to find somethng else better to do, and the block helped in doing so. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Speculation and reading tealeaves to discern the life-course of the vandal is fun, but please note that the block warning for the user removing content from his own talk page was inappropriate. Edison (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, Edison, you seem all too ready to "speculate and read tea leaves" as to my motivations for blocking. I'd appreciate you not attributing any imagined insecurities to my admin actions, thanks much. The vandal doesn't own that talk page, either. If they can't wait 24 hours, they can go insult people on their own webspace. Dppowell (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. Is it possible the user would have contributed constructively? Sure, don't need tealeaves for that. But considering what the person had done up until the block, it was not likely. If it looks and walks like a duck... --Kbdank71 18:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

User:InternetHero

InternetHero (talk · contribs · block log) seems to be no stranger to edit waring with a talk page[43] full of Edit war warnings, 3RR violations, and even 24 hour blocks. He/she is now at it at Telescope with POV edits along the lines of Ibn Al-Haytham's made specific contributions to the telescope, including that he invented the telescope[44] apparently following a personal POV of "great minds of these men should be recognized at all costs"[45]. I tried to point out that the references do not support the edits, that they are POV and UNDUE. This has simply lead to InternetHero's continual reverting with uncivil comments of "you are a racist person"[46] and "Take your racist views elsewhere, you bigot."[47] . Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't violated 3RR yet on that article since he was unblocked, and I'm not seeing a need to block for being uncivil yet. The bigot comment was retracted and other than the two above I'm not seeing any egregious attacks against you or anyone else (but that could just be me). Ping me if things get worse, and I'll be watching. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 13:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Banned user User:Encyclopedist appears to be back again...

..and using IP 76.107.120.142 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) to vandalize and possibly impersonate another user... Though, oddly, the user name he signs there appears to have never been used for actual edits and just forwards to another account... that might need to be cleaned up, checked for a sock or something. DreamGuy (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Kill with fire. Encyclopedist should never be allowed to edit, given what he's done to other users. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what's up with User:OMEN. There doesn't appear to be an account there. I'd suggest deleting the page and User talk:OMEN, and having a word with Ulises Heureaux. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Uhh... now that's odd. User:NOVO-REI also redirects to that same account, and the account (under the various aliases it used) has at several points expressed a major interest in Encyclopedist (listing him as a missing Wikipedians, asking other editors who the guy was) and has also been accused in the past of being very similar to him (uploading gun-related images that violate copyrights, etc.). Way back in the day, Encyclopedist (even before he became Encyclopedist, as old DBraceyRules or something like that) would frequently sign some other user name to his post and forward them. This looks possibly like an old unidentified sock of his. DreamGuy (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

NOVO-REI is a rename, so that one's kosher. Also, upon further investigation OMEN was created by Ulises but just doesn't show in the logs in a way that I recognized. So, besides the IP everything's kosher here. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 16:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I find this doubtful in the extreme that this is Encyclopedist, given that 'pedist is in Florida by his own admission and that the above IP traces to Vermont. It's known to a number of people that Encyclopedist came back briefly and that he may have been using the Ulises Heureaux account. However, in all this, an editor known as JtV/Johnny the Vandal/the Italian Vandal impersonated Encyclopedist rather successfully for over a year and was basically responsible for almost all the Encyclopedist "sightings" of 2007. His modus operandi is that he'll impersonate anyone else, so long as people believe it. Recently, on a number of other wikis, User:NOVO-REI was created on a number of other wikis and Checkuser determined that this was actually JtV up to his usual tricks. So, while I'm not sure if the above IP is JtV, it's hardly likely to be Encycopedist, IMO - Alison ^❤ 04:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Polly.White and, now, User:Pamela.Hale

Polly.White, hoaxer previously discussed here (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive449#User Space) appears to have returned as Pamela.Hale - recreating the same hoax article (The Romance Kiss, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Romance_Kiss), creating a near identical user page (Polly.White's is currently deleted and SALTed), and having the same, unusual, period between names.

Polly.White is nearing final vandalism warning and has a SALTed user page, so this looks like fairly simple sock puppetry - but there might be more to it. Polly.White appeared to be a merely a minor who liked to include herself in fantasy articles (both users specified their birthdate showing them to be 10). But as at least one of these user names is now clearly not the real name and the reason for creating the fantasy articles is less obvious. Does this sockpuppetry and vandalism which is not purely deluded vanity sound like the work of a 10 year old? Ros0709 (talk) 06:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Are you thinking an adult pretending to be a child? Perhaps as a trap? I've blocked Pamela Hale as a sock and am tempted to indefblock Polly White too. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes - perhaps not as a trap, but possibly because editors reviewing contributions may look more favourably upon a ten year old girl than they would anyone else. Ros0709 (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I should add - my point immediately above was that the reason for such deceipt (if such it is) could be trivial and pretty harmless; I am not making any grave accusation about the motives, but it seems clear to me the authors' bios are not entirely plausible. Ros0709 (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User:MagdelenaDiArco

User:MagdelenaDiArco has apparently been confirmed by Checkuser to be a sock of banned user Fone4My [48] (on June 26). Fone4My is permanently blocked for abusive use of sock puppets since July 1. Isn't MDA supposed to be blocked as well then? --Anonymous44 (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The same user has been causing havock at the page Maltese language (see discussion page) and has been attacking other users. After the revelation of the user being a sockpuppet, the edit history shows close to 100 edits that look strange to me, all related to the sockpuppet case [49]. JdeJ (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm simply labelling the sockpuppets of User:Giovanni Giove as such, based on the links you gave me. I am not a sockpuppet of Giovanni Giove. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Fone4My is blocked, not banned. Just an FYI. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, but most of his sock puppets are blocked (indeed blocking someone as a punitive measure without blocking his known socks makes little sense), so I was wondering if the exception was intentional or accidental. Or is MdA supposed to be Fone4My's better self?--Anonymous44 (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this. I am NOT Giovanni Giove. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I went to block MagdelenaDiArco but Ddstretch (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) got there first. So, naturally, I endorse that block.
Magdelena has tagged a large number of users as sockpuppets of Giovanni Giove. These taggings are incorrect and I am about to rollback the lot. Interested parties are invited to examine the so-called "proof" here - I am familliar with Giove and none of those pages confirm any sockpuppetry by him (some don't mention Giovanni Giove at all, while one or two actually clear him of any sockpuppetry charges). – Steel 19:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ignorance of Wikipedia rules, slanderous and diffamatory statements

Ignorance of Wikipedia rules, slanderous and diffamatory statements, inncludig by admins ignoring the matter and blocking me without any justification, whereas I request to apply the Digwuren restriction to the User:Biruitorul... Please explain whether the below mentioned is in acordance with Wikipedia rules. I do not see any point of editing or contributing to Wikipedia, when users like User:Biruitorul under cover of contributing to some other articles, clearly ignore basic written well established Wikipedia rules while editing most articles related to Moldova, inlcuding basic unwritten civility rules, backed by ignorant or the "would be" ignorant admins, violating the very same rules they are expected to enforce, this following Biruitorul's backstage discussion with the admin. How technically possiby can I be blocked by filing a request to enforce the Digwuren arbitration restriction against another user? Is Wikipedia really turning into a POV supported absurdity?--Moldopodo^talk 23:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

HERE IS THE WHOLE STORY

OK, so where's the beef? Biruitorul ^Talk 23:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Moldopodo, you were not blocked for filing a request, you were blocked for your racism, your ranting, your edit warring and your failure to get the point with, well, everything and anything. Whether others warrant a block has nothing to do with your block, which was fully justified. J Milburn (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

J Milburn, your prevous statement is a classical example of slanderous statements. None of what you say is true, more than that - it is a lie and you do not even address all the numerous diffs and explanations I have provided on my talk page.--Moldopodo^talk 22:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I find talking to you and pointing out why I believe you are wrong about as fun, interesting and useful as stabbing forks into my eyes. As such, I am not going to go through the motions of requesting that you shut up and actually do something useful, nor am I going to be pedantic and point that you are actually talking about libel, not slander, and that people are even less likely to take you seriously when you are wrong. What do you want done? Blocking all these nasty evil slanderous people? It's ironic that in this report you haven't provided a single diff, when your arguments on why you should be unblocked tend to revolve entirely (over the course of about eight pages) on how no one has shown you any diffs. And what are you talking about, I haven't read your essays and reviewed your diffs? I don't have to do that, and I don't see any point in doing so anyway. J Milburn (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Negligent reverts

User:Baseball Card Guy has made numerous reverts to pages in which he has made quite a few errors. I had corrected a number of problems with regard to data as well as notability and image violations. I have given warning here. I have also tried to discuss the issues here. It does not appear to me the individual is interested in correct and verifiable information. I have previously asked the individual not to make frivolous reverts out of spite. Libro0 (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please explain the errors, or how are we to know that they really are errors? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be an ongoing argument between these two over technicalities about the articles in question. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the bottom of 1980 Topps for example, you will see a source cited. This book contains all of the data for the listed sets. This individual has a habit of undoing my edits frequently and in so doing has made mistakes. The sizes are listed in # x # inches. They are from the source in fractions. He changed them to decimals and in the process of redoing them all, had slipped up on a few. This also goes for errors made in quantity(of cards) of a given set. I have also had to clean up spelling and grammar that he refuses to allow me to correct. It has become clear to me that he does not have any of the source material. Libro0 (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you two the only ones editing those articles, or can you recruit help from others who also have an interest in the subject? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I had considered this but here is the problem: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/I Hate CAPTCHAS, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bolly Nickers, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Baseball Card Guy. Furthermore, it is a children's hobby and thus attracts the younger crowd. When I said that I did it as a 'scholarly pursuit' I was laughed at. Nevertheless, I stand by the fact that I did it to introduce both a notable company with roots in a popular hobby and the national pastime to the encyclopedia, and I did by providing verifiable material with sources that are considered the industry standard. The pages are not 'for me' or 'to my liking'. They were designed with wikipedia policy in mind. I would greatly appreciate assistance with these pages without the trouble of sock puppets or people wanting to decorate it with 'all their favorites'. This is not a selfish pursuit but I feel that for the above individual, it is. When I make the articles, I have the reader in mind. Libro0 (talk) 08:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

On July 20 I made a number of edits. On the 22nd he reverted all of them and had no grounds for such action. This is clearly a personal attack. I have tried to work with him but all he does is work against me. Libro0 (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I was in the process of expanding the pages and Baseball Card Guy is impeding that progress. I expect that any more edits I make will meet with an immediate revert by him. I don't believe he has anything constructive to add to the project. His goal appears to be to prevent me from contributing. Libro0 (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

User Zero g keeps reverting a merge that had consensus and with which he disagrees

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

---

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations

User:Zero g keeps undoing a merge with which he disagrees:[50][51][52][53][54] As per talk page at Richard Lynn (where the article was merged), a straw poll was taken to get the opinions of editors. Zero g is the only one who actually disagreed. When the straw poll had become inactive for over a week, it was closed with a 5-1-1 verdict in favor of the merge. Zero g so strongly disagrees with the merge that he keeps up a slow edit war by reverting Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations to the pre-merge version, even if the other editors continue to object to it. Can an admin take a look at the situation and take whatever actions may be necessary? I will candidly admit that I am the one who keeps reverting Zero g's reverts, based on the belief that one cannot single-handedly undo a consensus decision relatively as important as a merge, so I am not by any means an uninvolved party, but I would like someone with more experience to advise on what to do in such a situation.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Because you've been around since 2005, I'm probably less experienced than you, but have you requested page protection? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As has already been advised, since there is significant opposition to the merge, I recommend that the book article be sent to AfD to get more opinions, and that will put the matter to rest. If there is genuine consensus for the merge, it will show up at the AfD. Either way, please stop edit-warring about it. --Elonka 03:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if Elonka could provide diffs to support her case, particularly for the first sentence. "As has already been advised, there is significant opposition to the merge". There were 5 for, 1 against (Zero g) and 1 abstention (Richard001). This has not changed. As can be seen from User:Zero g's talk page, Elonka is now following his edits and providing him with tips on editing, for reasons best known to herself. Possibly she still regards some of those voting for a merge as a "lynch mob", the words she used when opposing Cailil's recent successful RfA. Her own intervention on the talk page of Richard Lynn [55] came shortly after Zero g's [56]. Without apparently looking at any background, she made an odd suggestion as an ordinary editor and failed to engage in subsequent discussion, thus causing a certain amount of disruption. Could Elonka please be more careful to distinguish between her roles as editor and administrator? Elonka seems also to be misrepresenting User:Wsiegmund, who was responsible for the merge. It would have been appropriate for her to have made her remarks one or two weeks earlier when the merge of this article was suggested and discussed in detail, but certainly not when she actually intervened with such disdain for other "junior editors"[57] by refusing to enter into discussion. (The article on Lynn actually contains far more material on the book than the subsequent fork, which apart from a list of contents, contained a synopsis of the book which as WP:OR would not have survived.) If at the appropriate time, Elonka had herself proposed an AfD for the article on the book, to debate a merge/deletion, that would have been fine; but not how and when she did it. That seems to be the problem/wikidrama she has helped create here. Mathsci (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy and the consensus has little value in this case. The way the merge is carried out is mutual to an article deletion, hece the AfD route should be taken. It also appears that Ramdrake's goal isn't as much to improve Wikipedia, but to delete and erase anything he does not like (from what appears to be an extreme liberal pov), whether it is properly sourced or not. Just a brief glance at Ramdrake's contributions shows his main activities on Wikipedia appear to be reverting, minor edits (often mentioning a certain somebody has been called "racist" by some liberal source), endless talk page discussions with the opposition, and wiki-stalking. --Zero g (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, Wikipedia is based on consensus editing. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy which requires an AfD to be produced every time a merge is proposed; that would be pure and simple red tape. Please don't confuse your non-acceptance of a consensus with the absence of consensus. Unfortunately, the world doesn't revolve around you.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

On WP:RPP, Zero g has written

Ramdrake and four other editors (who appear to form a pov cabal coordinating their efforts on hereditary articles displaying an extreme liberal bias) refuse to put the article up for deletion, and instead try to silently burry it by merging it into the Richard Lynn article

Could Zero g please explain how this "pov cabal" functions and how it applies to both reviews of the book presented in Richard Lynn? Could it in fact be the case that these are simply editors who independently happen to disagree with Zero g? As I've said before, I would actually not be against having the very recently created article put on WP:AfD to discuss a merge/delete. So far its notability has not been established by normal academic criteria, although all of the 7 or 8 academic reviewers agree that it is a valuable source of data. Mathsci (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The cabal functions by canvassing, another editor of the group will soon show up whenever there is something going on.

They generally don't try to have the same opinion, but share the same deletionist attitude. For example User1 wants an article or chapter gone for reason A, User2 wants it gone for reason B, and user3 wants it gone for reason A and B; though amazingly, favoring alternative C slightly more.

It should go without saying that the stuff they want gone is properly sourced. When there is opposition to the removal of sourced content, they'll make sure they have a reasonable amount of support and have a 'consensus vote'. They always vote in favor of their group, and if they manage to get enough votes in, have one of them start edit warring claiming to have 'majority consensus'.

When this doesn't work, Wikipedia after all is not a democracy, they become rude and start wiki-lawyering (you're not AGF! etc), taunting, and having long tedious (soapy) talk page discussions that go in circles and never go anywhere because they don't desire a consensus (they have 'majority consensus' after all). Not before long they'll report the offensive user to Ani, or some 'neutral admin' - who is in fact part of the clique and sympathetic to their viewpoints - though not editing the article in question (but often editing one or more related articles). --Zero g (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I second Mathsci's request that Elonka's statement of a "significant opposition" is pointless, unless she herself now objects, intervening as an editor rather than an uninvolved admin. Otherwise, the "significant" opposition is limited to a single editor who cannot accept a 5-1-1 merge verdict, and if we let this go by, we indeed demonstrate that a single person can significantly derail Wikipedia's processes and indeed act as it they owned an article without opposition, and indeed be supported in this disruption. Indeed, I wouldn't have objected to an AfD at all back when the merge was being proposed. However, seven editors expressed an opinion, 5 of those being in favor of the merge, and when no opinion had been registered for a week, the straw poll was closed. Then, after one week without anyone objecting, Zero g (the lone original dissenter) comes back, and starts reverting the merged article (which had been stable as a redirect for a week), even though most other editors have voiced their objections again to undoing the merge. Also, although I won't delve in them, Zero g's contributions also show a pattern of editing which demonstrates a kind of slant not normally accepted at Wikipedia. Just the fact that he calls such articles as Dysgenics and Race and Intelligence "hereditary articles" should give people a hint as to his leanings.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea for you to review your understanding of WP:CONSENSUS. Wikipedia is not a democracy. The fact that more people oppose the merge than agree with it does not mean a consensus is reached. If there are valid points being made for both solutions then these need to be addressed. I highly recommend an afd or rfc as suggested above. I also remind you to assume good faith objecting to a merge is not disruptive, but claiming a false consensus and trying to 'railroad' a decision is. --neon white talk 13:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As per the link I provided above, the decision was 5-1-1 in favor of a merge, with no overpowering argument against the merge, except one which amounted to WP:ILIKEIT. I'm not saying that objecting to a merge is disruptive, but single-handedly, repeatedly undoing a merge which has been in effect for a week because one disagrees with it certainly is disruptive. Also, if you are thinking that more people oppose the merge than agree with it describes the situation either you are mistaken about the situation, or you are privy to information which nobody else has. If the latter is the case, please share with us.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I am part of the "cabal" Zero G refers to ... I can only appeal to my fellow editors to judge what follows based on the contents and not my identity. The question is, why do we have an article on a book about population genetics, when the author has no expertise in population genetics and the book is not taken seriously by population genetics? Does the book really need its own article, or can't it be discussed in the article on the author of the book (the author is clearly better-known than the book in question)? Above, Elonka states that there is significant opposition to the merge. She elides two different meanings of "significant." It is true that Zero G is really opposed to the merge. However, it is not true that many editors are opposed to the merge. In fact, this proposal has been discussed extensively and as Ramdrake observes Zero G is the only person who objects. In the context of this discussion - of a discussion of how to resolve conflicts on the article talk page, and how to improve the article, one objection is hardly "significant." Zero G is coming very close to the kind of POV warrioring that Wikipedia must strongly and decisively reject.

For those who are not clear on the nature of the dispute, it is this: there is a body of evidence that Blacks on average score lower than Whites on IQ tests, at least in the US. There is considerable debate as to why, and researchers have put forward a range of explanations. Richard Lynn, a psychologist, claims that Blacks are inherently inferior to Whites i.e. their inferiority is genetic. Richard Lynn is not a geneticists and has done no genetics research, and his view is considered fringe by all trained professional geneticists. This is not an "extreme liberal POV," it is a "scientific" POV meaning the view of geneticists about genetics. Most of the editors who have argued against Zero G - I will name Ramdrake and Alun - have never argued on political grounds and have only argued on the grounds of identifying notable versus fringe views amond different kinds of scientists.

There is at Wikipedia an article on Richard Lynn, and his views are aired here at Wikipedia. No one has argued that his views be deleted from Wikipedia (so much for some liberal POV!) However, Zero G is systematiclly inserting Lynn's views everywhere he can, including creating new articles to repeat the same views. I view this as straightforward POV-warrioring. Does this make me a liberal? Well, skip what I just said and do what we Wikipedians are supposed to be good at: scholarly research. Look at the literature by trained professional geneticists on this topic, and see how many geneticists support Lynn's views. When it comes to complying with our NPOV and FRINGE policies, this is what matters, and not the enthusiasm with which Zero G pushes his own POV.

This is a set of conflicts that has plagued this article for a long time. you would have thought that a couple of RfCs would have been sufficient to resolve the issue, especially since they all overwhelmingly went in the same direction (the direction Ramdrake, mathsci and others are following). But Elonka and Zero G apparently are not satisfied with the RfC process, so I urge other editors to give this matter serious consideration. Let me close by observing that the race and intelligence topic is highly controversial in the US and I would think the articles on this topic are among the ones many people judge us by. Screw politics: let's focus on NPOV, FRINGE, V and other policies, as well as our responsibility first and foremost to write a high quality encyclopedia that provides readers with an accurate and proportionate account of current leading research on scientific topics. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please. Not Race and intelligence again. Can't we just ban Zero g and any other SPAs in the closet from this set of articles/topic? They're doing no good here, unless you count persistent WP:FRINGE violation as "good". Zero g has been doing this since 2006, so he really should have learnt the rules by now. Looking at this, incidentally, he looks to be of the far-right Dutch type that crop up again now and again. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not worth a lengthy ANI thread. Just file an AfD. If no one is sure how to file one, see WP:AFD, or ask for assistance. If there's a genuine consensus, it'll show up at the AfD, there's no need to insist that a limited conversation on one talkpage "proves" consensus. --Elonka 16:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. Talkpage discussion is how we do merges. AfD is for deletion debates, not merge debates. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(resetting indent) I think we may be losing sight of the real issue here: a merge was proposed by the book (i.e., following Wikipedia processes). The merge proposal remained open for 2 weeks, during which time it received input from 7 different users. The proposal was closed after 11 days without any activity. The proposal was closed by the book, returning a verdict of 5-1-1 in favor of merging. This is no different than several merge proposals and XfDs which I've seen, which are rarely if ever unanimous. Now, the lone dissenting editor keeps reverting the merge, arguing that Wikipedia is not a democracy (nobody says it is) and that either there was no consensus because he didn't agree to it, or that consensus doesn't mean anything (it is a major editing policy of Wikipedia, on the contrary). The remainder of this situation is basically wikidrama, and hides a simple, plain fact: one editor is consistently acting disruptively by refusing to accept consensus (or even denying it exists), and reverting a merge that was done in full compliance of Wikipedia policy.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Any editor can file an AfD, they don't need to have "consensus" to do so. It appears that Zero g wants an AfD, but he's unsure how to file one. So I recommend that someone who does know how to file one, please do so. An AfD will put this matter to rest, once and for all. --Elonka 16:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Except that merge discussions are not supposed to be decided at AfD. That's what the talk page is for. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

A merge discussion is also sometimes a deletion discussion, as it involves the deletion of one sub-article that is then merged into the larger article. There is disagreement about whether or not the sub-article should be deleted, so an AfD is appropriate. I think Zero g would have filed the AfD himself, but he's just not sure how.

My own participation in this situation is as an uninvolved admin. I personally don't care if the merge is accomplished or not, but I do care that it's handled properly. From what I see, the merge discussion that is being referred to at the talkpage, was not handled "by the book". It was started by Wsiegmund on June 29,[58] and then closed by the same editor on July 13.[59] It is extremely bad form for a nominator to close their own discussion. Further, there was no "announcement" of this discussion. No RfC, just a small discussion on one talkpage, with primarily the same editors participating, just as they have in multiple other articles in that topic area. Then once they'd "closed" their own merge discussion, they declared consensus, and proceeded to edit-war to enforce their view, and even went as far as opening this ANI thread to deal with their "opponent", Zero g.

I strongly disagree with this approach. To make it truly fair, there should be an open RfC, or an AfD. An AfD is probably easier, but either method would be acceptable. The point is, that this kind of a decision should not be railroaded by a small group of editors that are already working together in other areas of conflict. The current merge discussion at the talkpage, even though it looks like a formal RfC, is not.[60] So, I still recommend a wider community discussion, or at least the opportunity for one. If there is a genuine consensus, it will show up that way. So, in terms of disruption, we could continue wrangling about this on ANI, or we could just file an AfD, and then there's an organized mechanism to put this issue to rest. So revert this edit,[61] file an AfD, and then we can close this ANI thread and let the normal community discussion process handle the rest. --Elonka 17:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, there are several inaccuracies in your assessment of the situation:

• A merge proposal does not require anything else than the proper template being placed on the merge-from and merge-to articles' talk pages, with a link to a single discussion space on either talk page (so as to avoid duplication of the discussion). It does not require special listing as for XfDs and RfCs.
• As per WP:MERGE, there is nothing preventing a nominator from closing their own merge discussions, after a reasonable amount of time has passed (I would say several weeks qualifies as a reasonable amount of time). In fact, the very wording of WP:MERGE seems to imply that it is indeed normal for a merge nominator to close and archive their own discussions.
• By allowing the strong objections of a single editor to override a closed merge discussion process, you are in fact allowing him to railroad the intended process. This is not even the case of be(ing) railroaded by a small group of editors, this is the case of a single editor being allowed to railroad the process.
• Your analysis seems to confuse a merge discussion with an RfC discussion. Please be aware that these are not the same process, as per WP:RfC and WP:MERGE.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake, I do not believe that is an accurate assessment of WP:MERGE. The nominator is only supposed to close their own merge discussion if there is a "clear consensus" or silence. However, if "the merger may be controversial, you might want to add a listing to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers." So, was this particular controversial merge listed? Because I did not see it. Was there an RfC? I didn't see that either. If there was some discussion or notification of this merge, outside of the specific article talkpages, I would be happy to review the links, thanks. --Elonka 20:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's see: 5 people were in favor of the merge, 1 against and 1 neutral. At the time of closing, the merge discussion had been inactive for 11 days. I do not see any signs of controversy here; there is just one editor opposing the merge, and then letting go of the situation for 11 days. This was not a controversial debate until Zero g started making a fuss about it and reverting the merge repeatedly several days after it had been done. Please note that posting to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers is not a requirement, just a suggestion. There wasn't either a requirement for an RfC. As per WP:MERGE, the specific requirements for a merge discussion were met, and the merge wasn't a controversial one until Zero g made it so, several days after it was done.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Because I am wary of misusing AfD. Each time we do that we send out the wrong message about what AfD is for. At bottom AfD is for telling admins when the community thinks they should use their "delete" button. Right? But a merge does not involve deletion. It involves redirection, which is not a matter for administrators to resolve. That's a matter for the community to sort out, on talk pages. I get really cheesed off when someone comes to AfD saying "I want this merged", because a merge is something anyone can do, anyone at all. It does not require admin buttons, and hence AfD is not the right process. Talkpage discussion is. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Besides - Elonka? All this dysgenics/race-and-intelligence-connection material Zero g is pushing is really fringy. And he's been doing it since 2006. Without doing anything else, hardly. I think he's the underlying problem here, not his opponents. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, thanks, and I understand your concerns. And I agree that talkpage discussion is fine, as long as there is adequate participation. It's just that in this case, I am not sure that there was sufficient participation. To fix that, I still think an AfD is easier, but an RfC would be fine too. As for Zero g (talk · contribs), he's been an editor for two years, but also note that he's got fewer than a thousand edits.[62] But even with limited participation, he has still managed to work on a variety of articles, and he has made many valid edits. So I don't think we should just label him as "Fringe" and ignore what he has to say. I'd be more inclined to abide by WP:BITE, meaning that if he wants to challenge the merge, instead of us labeling him a troublemaker, we should patiently explain the Wikipedia dispute resolution mechanisms, and show him how he can best participate on Wikipedia. Remember, just because someone is proposing a non-mainstream view, doesn't mean we should kick them off of Wikipedia. Instead, we should welcome them, if they can participate in a civil and constructive fashion, since their participation helps us to create neutral and well-rounded articles. So I recommend that we work on this from an angle of teaching, not punishing. --Elonka 18:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I was involved in a lengthy merge dispute that was quickly resolved by taking one of the articles to AfD, described in more detail at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Mergers at AfD. The situations may or may not be comparable. Flatscan (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:TIGERS, Elonka. Unfortunately, no matter how civil they are, there's a limit to the compromises we can have with someone who holds a viewpoint this far out, and who pushes it on Wikipedia, which aims to reflect academic consensus. If Zero g refuses to understand that then there will be consequences. There have to be. And his viewpoint is fringe. WP:SPADE. The same holds true for our Hindutva pals or Neo-Nazis or hardcore Afrocentrists or whatever. See also the the quotebox here. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

An indef block/ban of Zero g in this case is excessive. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

yes, I wasn't proposing that. Please check again as to what I did propose :) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I think Elonka's defense of Zero g is a bit disingenuous. Two years, 1000 edits, and maybe 97 percent of those edits look in some way to be related to Eugenics, even the ones to not-obviously-related articles like social justice. Again, WP:SPADE - that's a single-purpose account, I'm afraid. WP:TIGERS points out very nicely that eugenics articles do not have to be written via endless controversy between editors representing mainstream science - Ramdrake, Slrubenstein - and the hardcore right-wing element of Dutch politics, where I strongly suspect Zero g fits in. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) For the record, I don't oppose moving this to AfD, even though I think it should have been done weeks ago, as it now looks like a violation of WP:PARENT (having been overruled in the merge discussion, Zero g seems to want a change of venue to get a second chance). I do, however, object to Zero g's repeated reversal of the merge, followed by telling the other editors to "start an AfD". If he wants an AfD, he should start one.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have looked through Zero g's contribs, and to my knowledge he has never filed an AfD. It can be a daunting prospect for someone who has never done one, so I'd recommend that one of the more experienced editors do it. Or, if there are no objections, I'll go ahead and file it, just for procedure's sake. I truly do not care if the book article exists or not, I just want to make sure that dispute resolution procedures are followed. --Elonka 21:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Great, Elonka, you have proven that ZeroG has not petitioned an AfD, as perhaps was his prerogative. Swell. But ou have also said that an alternative would be an RfC - and it has been pointed out to you several times that there was at least one RfC on the matter. Elonka, it is time for you to come clean. The integrity of Wikipedia depends on this: What is your motivation in derailing the prope following of the merge-article process? Everyone save Zero G, a single-purpose editor, supports it, and other editors have been following Wikipedia policies. Why do you want to derail wikipedia policies? What is your interest in subverting the process here? I honestly do not understand it. AGF insists I take your comments as constructive but please, can you explain to me what constructive suggestion you have forwarded here? All I see is an attempt to derail a pretty standard Wikipedia process. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder whether Elonka might please stop acting as Zero g's alter ego? Her experiment in mentoring his companion editor Jagz was a signal failure. Now she seems determined to continue it with Zero g. If Elonka wants to file an AfD, please could she do it herself? It seems quite improper for Elonka to act as a behind-the-scenes advisor for other editors, suggesting the actions she would take if she were in their shoes. She says there is a dispute to be resolved. However it is in fact a careless disruptive edit of Elonka herself that has created this whole wikidrama. Could she please carefully reconsider her behaviour on WP in the future and when intervening on a page take some time to review what has been going on. That way she will not waste the time of good faith editors as she now is doing. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is this RFC? This issue of whether to merge a book/author has probably been discussed hundreds of times before, so there should be plenty of good yardsticks lying around, and maybe even guidelines. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As per this diff, Zero g is still unmerging the article and asking me to put it up for deletion. Can someone make him understand that if he wants to unmerge the article, this would be solely for AfD purposes, and that the onus is then upon him to put it up for Afd? Otherwise, that becomes just plain and simple POV-warring for the sake of POV-warring, and that's a blockable offense.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That diff is not what I asked for. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, indenting error, that never was meant to be the diff in question.--Ramdrake (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Randrake, Slrubenstein, Mathsci - can I ask why it is we keep seeing the three of you show up in places together and the threads quickly degenerate into snippy comments and personal attacks? "derail wikipedia policies" "integrity of Wikipedia depends on this" "wasting the time of good faith editors" -- c'mon, are we really supposed to take you seriously when you throw out comments like that? You guys need to take a breather and try to come at your editing on race related articles in a much more calm and civil fashion. If there's crap going on, document it, present it factually and deal with the comments you get - this persistent drama when you're not getting the outcome you want is really unnecessary. Several people suggested actions here, such as requesting protection and community discussion forums - is there any reason not to try that? Why do all of the threads started by this group end up looking like they're out to get another editor? If an editor is that much trouble, there's pretty standard methods of dealing with it through user RfCs and ArbCom; roasting them over ANI isn't really a preferred method (though sometimes tasty). Shell ^babelfish 01:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding why I haven't gone the AfD route myself, primarily because I believe the article is notable so putting it up for deletion would be WP:POINT.

Regarding talk accusations, I guess he isn't well read on the subject matter, Ramdrake and Co have failed to provide notable sources that state that Dysgenics is considered a fringe science. And given there haven't been any public polls that I know of, the 'assumed' public opinion, unfortunately, cannot be added to these articles. The edit conflict actually began when Ramdrake started to remove properly sourced content from the Dysgenics article. I've never tried to push a pov on wikipedia, as an editor I've grown and learned to properly source my edits, and to respect sourced edits of other editors. Ramdrake on the other hand more than once removed sourced content, and has tried to add content that wasn't backed up by the sources he provides. This wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact that he doesn't seem motivated to improve his editing behavior.

I'm also not particularly fond of the 'hey you're a nazi! - lets ban the nazi!' thing. I'm a libertarian and I'm quite aware that many people would vehemently disagree with many of my viewpoints or motivations for my viewpoints, but I wasn't aware that people can get banned on Wikipedia for a suspected political belief. --Zero g (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Zero g's request, I have started an AfD, which is available at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations. I have also added it to two delsort categories, for "science" and "social science". I now recommen d closing this ANI thread, since the AfD should now be the primary point of discussion. --ElonSpecial:Contributions/Elonka 04:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to Shell (I am on European time). I did not choose to bring this to WP:AN/I. Since my carefully sourced addition of the book reviews precipitated the forked article, it was quite normal that I should participate here. I don't quite understand why you have adopted the tone above. Certainly what you write does not seem particularly accurate (my recent participation here was concerned with now banned users User:Muntuwandi and User:log in, log out). This thread would not have come about if yet another of your friend Elonka's "experiments" hadn't gone wrong. Mathsci (talk) 06:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of who brought things here, the three of you seem to have developed a nasty habit of drama building that includes feeling personal attacks are appropriate. I believe you also seem to have a particular penchant for taking swipes at Elonka, which you've been warned for multiple times and you're here doing it yet again. Zero g has made mature and thoughtful posts to this thread, while you, Ramdrake and Slrubenstein aren't holding yourselves to quite the same standard. Zero g took it upon himself to try one of the methods suggested to resolve the issue; you, Ramdrake and Slrubenstein did not. I know its tough to really take a step back and look at your own actions, but when people keep saying the same things to you in multiple places, please consider that they might really have some merit - and if nothing else, please don't try to deflect concerns about your behavior with attacks on other editors. Shell ^babelfish 08:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Shell, please step back a moment. I have not been uncivil. I have merely criticized Elonka's tardiness. Moreschi is one of the few people to have recognized the problems with editor Zero g. His contributions have not been "mature" - his reference here to a "pov cabal" was unhelpful. The tone you are adopting is equally unhelpful and your observations, particularly about the belated AfD, do not seem accurate. Elonka suggested and initiated the AfD, not Zero g. Why not, like me, do something constructive and go to the AfD page where I have already expressed my thanks to Elonka for its creation? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Honestly Mathsci, I really didn't comment just to get into another long debate with you where you feign ignorance of any of your (and your cohort's) behavior and pretend I'm being somehow rude. Your comments here have clearly not remained civil; you've managed to call Elonka an alter ego to a "bad" contributor, characterize her edits as careless, disruptive and a waste of everyone's time [63] and even accused her of being the one to create drama [64]. You have been asked very politely before to stop commenting on Elonka since you've said that you're unaware that you're making personal attacks in reference to her.

Aside from the "pov cabal" comment you mention by Zero g, I don't see anything of concern during this discussion. I think, give the behavior I've seen during this thread, that Zero g may have a point, even though it could have been more civilly phrased. Perhaps Zero g behaves differently elsewhere, but again there's a proper avenue to handle things if that's a concern. As far as the AfD goes, I'm going to guess that you just overlooked the "Per Zero g's request" part. Thanks for the invite, but I'm not sure I'm quite ready to dive into the issues surrounding the race related articles at this time. Since you appear to be content with handling things there, that should clear up the concerns for this thread then, no? Shell ^babelfish 10:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Shell, I am the one who started this thread at ANI, based on a simple, objective set of facts: Zero g kept reverting (and edit-warring to keep the reversion) a merge which was done fully according to the rules (at WP:MERGE) several days ago. He was also the only one to object to the merge when the merge proposal was active. On top of this, after reverting, (and mostly denying the existence of a consensus even though it did exist) he kept insisting that other editors should file an AfD if they disagreed with his reversion. To me, that's not really acceptable behaviour. This situation got further inflated when Zero g started throwing around accusations of a POV cabal (or whatever) and gradually escalated from there. From what I see, your comment only further inflames the situation, even though I'm pretty sure that's really not what you intended. I would really appreciate if you would let this situation de-escalate. Thanks.--Ramdrake (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Shell, you write, "c'mon, are we really supposed to take you seriously when you throw out comments like that?" Before you accuse me of either being defensive or offensive let me explain because I am not trying to throw out some casual insult. But you have questioned my good faith and you seem to base it on a comment I made here. Do you know that there has been a series of ongoing disputes centered on Race and intelligence and adjunct articles over the past two or three years? If you want to know what kinds of comments I or others "throw out," you need to look at them in the context of the whole conversation. If you look at the talk pages ofr R&I and other articles you will see a great deal of reasonable, constructive discussion by myself, and others you have maligned. In fact, Alun in particular has added hundreds of kilobytes or more to talk pages on these subjects in which he has gone into painful detail about the current state of scientific research, detailing various sources, discussing their notability, and how they could be used in articles. Yes, you should take us very seriously, because of the valuable content we have brought into the articles and into discussions. And you should take us seriously because of our commitment to Wikipedia policies. The question you should be asking is, why do several editors who are clearly not single-purpose accounts, who have contributed to a variety of articles, who have clearly done considerable research relating to articles, disagree with an editor who apparently has no expertise in science and whose edits all have in common the pushing of a single point of view? The only way a responsible editor can answer this question is by looking at the contents and the research behind it. Zero G is promoting as mainstram science a scholar who argues that people are poor because they are less intelligent than people who are not poor, and that "What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the populations of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of "phasing out" of such peoples. If the world is to evolve more better humans, then obviously someone has to make way for them. ... To think otherwise is mere sentimentality." Do you really believe these views are mainstream science? I have read through a good deal of the mainstream science on intelligence, genetics, and poverty, and I know that Ramdrake and Alun have as well; Matchsci has also demonstrated that he has very well-grounded knowledge of the sciences. This is why you should take us seriously. Now, you want us to take you seriously, I suppose. How much time have you spent researching the mainstream science concerning these topics? Have you done any research at all? Or are you just taking Zero G's side against several editors because ... well, why? Is it just that you agree with the views he is promoting? Or are you opposed to Wikipedia's FRINGE policy? Or are you opposed to mainstream science? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't commented on the content dispute at all and really don't intend to. I honestly wasn't trying to take a "side" and my remarks weren't intended to lend any weight to any kind of content issues that may be underlying the posts here. My comment was only about the behavior of editors in this thread, the language used and the general incivility. You may well have been in this mess for so long that you're very frustrated and its coming out in your posts, for example, asking if I'm just "opposed to mainstream science" is actually pretty offensive - if you genuinely feel that by pointing out that you may need a breather, I'm aligning with fringe somehow, you may want to re-think they way you're handling this area right now. Your response to my comments in general underscores the point I was trying to make - you, and several other editors involved in the dispute, seem to be taking things a bit personally at this time and may not realize that you're coming off in a rather defensive and incivil manner. But hey, its my opinion, not law and didn't come with any "be nice or else" type nastiness, so if you really feel I'm off base, you can just ignore the friendly insights. Shell ^babelfish 14:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, Shell, I appreciate your clarification that you are not trying to take a side. I realize that this is going to sound defensive but the fact is that some people have responded to this report by disparaging my character. The facts: There was a poll taken at talk: Richard Lynn to merge the two artciels. The results were 5-1-1, the one opposid 9the only one opposed) being Zero G. Zero G and those involved in the merge got into a revert war and Ramdrake posted the notice here, which seemed to me to be appropriate. At that point Elonka characterized the opposition to the merge "significant;" on Moreschi's user talk page she characterized the dispute as a small group of editors ganging up on a "newbie" (except he has been active - as a single issue editor - for two years) and calling whatever they believe to be "consensus." Elonka is wrong to assert that there is significant opposition to the merge, and she is wrong to question the good faith of several very well-informed editors who have challenged Zero G's edits on substantive grounds. It is frankly perverse that Elonka says we should disregard WP:FRINGE in this case, and that the view of one single-purpose editor is considered "significant" and the five very well-informed editors who disagree are a cabal who are creating phony consensuses. Let's be very clear about what is going on: the biological basis for social inqualities is a controversial topic, and it is especially important that we comply with NPOV. NPOV requires that we distinguish between significant and fringe theories, and this distinction is especially important to the quality of the encyclopedia, which is the whole point. And this means taking seriously editors who are committed to serious research, and being careful that our editorial choices are well-informed. And that is exactly what happened when, after much well-informed and thoughtful discussion, five people voted for a merge and only one person opposed.

Now, Shell, you cannot step in and basically lump myself, Ramdrake, and Mathsci as some kind of gang of disruptive editors who should not be taken seriously, and then claim to be offended when I question your motives while you also admit that you have not gone over the actual content of the dispute. You write, "If there's crap going on, document it, present it factually and deal with the comments you get - this persistent drama when you're not getting the outcome you want is really unnecessary" - huh? Please now tell me why I should take you seriously, when all you have to do is read the opening of this thread and you will see that Ramdrake DID document the crap going on factually, and with no drama whatsoever. Or are you now denying that Ramdrake presented the facts, or claiming he did so in an inappropriate way? Are your insights really friendly, and my reaction "taking things personally," when I was responding to your comment which basically was your saying: I do not take Ramdrake, Mathsci and Slrubenstein seriously - especially when it is we who keep asking people to look at the facts, look at the content, look at the substance behind this edit war. No comments for Zero G? Really? Are you sure you are not taking any side? You write, "I haven't commented on the content dispute at all and really don't intend to." Well, it is easy to sit back and pass judgement on your fellow editors when you make it clear that you do not intend to take the time to investigate the situation. You want to know why there are a few people who pay careful attention to race-related articles and take firm positions when science is misrepresented? You will have to open your eyes and learn something about both race and science if you want to know the real answer to your question. As long as you refuse to look at the contents, of course you will misunderstand. I won't take that personally - and I am just offering you some friendly advice Slrubenstein | Talk 15:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, Moreschi's identification of Zero g as a single-purpose agenda account was correct. But notice how easily the thread got derailed when Zero g was able to be relatively more polite here than Ramdrake, Mathsci, and Slrubinstein? I can sympathize - anyone dealing with Jagz for that long is bound to get frustrated - but you have to realize that Elonka and Shell are not The Enemy. From my experience in looking in on these articles, I would support Moreschi's idea of a topic ban for Zero g, but I don't think it's going to fly - because any admin looking at this thread without a familiarity with the lengthy history on those pages is going to conclude that you guys are going overboard. MastCell ^Talk 17:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

What substance? Your only contributions seem to be to the article talk page discussions, most notably voting in "polls", and reverting. Then there is also the social networking. [65] [66] --Zero g (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

HEY! THIS IS LEFT FIELD! The Topic is up there ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^. Kindly shut the hell up and go fight elsewhere, ALL OF YOU. You're embarrassing yourselves. ThuranX (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, I hope you are not responding to me, because if you are I have been unclear and apologize. i have not called for any block or ban against Zero G. My first comment was a protest against Elonka's inappropriate re3sponse to Ramdrake's AN?I post, and subsequent posts were meant to defend myself and others from outlandish accusations of POV-pushing. I also intended to makie a more general comment that no one can adequately resolve such disoutes without an awareness of the contents itself. That's as far as my comments went.

I asked serious questions of Elonka and Shell, both of whom are dismissive of my views about enforcing WP;FRINGE and my commitment to research. Neither of them have responded yet. But I see no enemies: I see a typically contentious argument over a controversial issue. I am strived to explain my views clearly and do not like being told I will not be taken seriously because I care about race related articles and have given tem serious research. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, one of my own concerns about your style here, is that you tend to make personal attacks at those who disagree with you, and you do this with comments that are extremely repugnant. In my own previous discussions with you, you have accused me of "tolerating trolls", of trying to delete WP:DNFTT, and even of supporting racism,[67][68] which is simply absurd. You have made your opinion clear that you see my actions as "corrosive" to Wikipedia,[69] and that you wonder about my "priorities as an administrator."[70] Here in this thread at ANI, you have continued with these kinds of hyperbolic accusations, implying that "the integrity of Wikipedia" depends on my motivation, and accusing me of trying to "derail the merge-article process" as well as other Wikipedia policies.[71] You have also effectively accused Shell Kinney of agreeing with extremist views, and being "opposed to mainstream science",[72] which, again, is absurd. So, if you truly desire to be taken seriously, I recommend that you adopt a better standard of rhetoric, and get away from these kinds of bizarre accusations. Especially as you are an administrator, other editors do look to you as an example. I would be more comfortable if you were able to present your thoughts in a more measured fashion, without all the excessive accusations. --Elonka 22:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, Elonka. I hope that you might also appreciate that it was not very helpful posting remarks like this on Moreschi's talk page:

My concern is that a small group of editors, all agreeing with each other, moving from article to article and rolling over opposition, does not define "consensus". And that this group is adamantly opposed to any kind of wider community input such as an RfC or AfD, further concerns me.

Might you have privately communicated similar remarks to Shell before she appeared on this thread? Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, after Zero G implied I was part of a liberal POV-pushing cabal, I wrote my first entry to this thread on 12:39, 20 July 2008. And I refrained from all the contentious comments you so quickly identify me with. Really, I maintain that my July 20 comment was a resonable and civil response to Zero G's comment, which called for a justification of my views. Then you (on Moreschi's talk page), Neon White, and Shell all jumped on me, basically supporting Zero G's accusation that my edits and views just reflect my being part of a POV-pushing cabal. I think when my good judgement has been so quickly dismissed it is fair that I ask why, and ask that the explanation be based on a thoughtful consideration of the substance of the dispute. As for my comments to you, I would just ask others to read them in the context of our earlier discussions rather than your misrepresentations. Be that as it may, the main purpose of my 20:37, 21 July 2008 was to clarify to MastCell and others that I had never called for a ban or block against Zero G. I also stated that while I did not like the way you and Shell are so quickly dismissive of my views, I do not view Zero G, you, or anyone else as an enemy. Somehow this triggered an outraged response from you. I am not going to sit here and parse my 21 July remark to figure out what kind of rhetoric is so outrageous to you, but I really am baffled as to clarifying that I do not support blocking someone is so provocative.

A final comment - you seem to think I am an example for others because i am an administrator. I find this reasoning anathema. And to be clear, Elonka, I am not insulting you, I am disagreeing with you. I think this one thing you wrote is wrong and dangerous, but that does not mean that I think you are a bad person or dangerous. I have no opinion about you personally, and I just assume that you have done good work here with good intentions. But you have written something - indeed, you have repeated it several times - and I think I have a right to explain why I believe it is wrong and dangerous. Wikipedia is a relatively anarchic community. It used to be more anarchic, and we realized we needed some structures to function, but always with some concern and regret about moving away from our original anarchic ideals. The ideal is simple: any one can edit, any time. There is no hierarchy here. No one is above anyone else. The only possible exceptions are Jimbo for legal reasons, and ArbCom in situationally specific ways as part of a dispute resolution (but not legislative) process. Administrators are certainly not above non-administrators. We are given certain tools that help us perform necessary maintenance on Wikipedia - we are like maids and janitors, servants of the community cleaning up messes. I hope some people are grateful for the many little chores we do but no one should look up to us simply because we are administrators. If anyone looks up to me, it should be for one reason, which is the same reason any editor should look up to any other editor, whether they have made 100,000 edits or five edits: they have done serious research and are making substantive contributions to the encyclopedia. I do not think Alun, for example, is an admin. And we have had big arguments - big, wopping nasty arguments. But I look up to him because I know he knows far more about genetics than I do, and he takes research seriously, and only makes edits that are consistent with his serious research and Wikipedia policies. In fact, we need more editors like Alun (and several others who have beeninvolved in the articles under discussion here) because the future of the encyclopedia depends on them ... and not on us admins. Editors, I ask all of you to look up to any other editor who is committed to serious research, as an example. No one at Wikipedia should be given more respect, or be looked up to more, than well-informed editors who comply with our policies to add well-researched verifiable and NPOV content to articles. If it is not clear already, these are the standards Ramdrake, MatchSci and others are defending. I look up to them because I value these standards. I hope it is clear now why anxieties about some thuggish cabal are misplaced. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

In a nutshell, all we're asking is that your defend it without the nasty personal attacks against people you disagree with and anyone else who happens to wander into your path. That's it - there's no hidden agenda against science, Wikipedia or productive editors in general, just a pretty simple request to tone it down. A request that someone be civil isn't the same as (or even similar to) supporting their opponent. Shell ^babelfish 12:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Shell, then, please look at Zero g's first and second posts in this thread. Nobody's pointed out that these are indeed grievous personal attacks. I guess everyone here could learn from taking criticism, but when one side in a dispute is criticized in kind for their words, while the other side, making accusations that are just as grievous (and maybe more) are left to their own devices as if this sort of commentary was normal, some sense of one-sidedness seems to exsude from the exchange, wouldn't you say?--Ramdrake (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have gone over my 12:39, 20 July 2008 comment (my first comment here) several times and I just do not think it violates WP:CIV. My next comment is I agree more assertive, but still I do not think uncivil. Elonka argued that WP:FRINGE should not apply to this situation - a dangerous proposal in my mind because that could undermine NPOV which is our one non-negotiable policy; she also insisted that AfD is the appropriate solution to this conflict which, as Moreschi pointed out, takes some power away from the community and puts it into administrators' hands - a potentially dangerous proposal in my mind because we should always be very wary of concentrating power or authority among admins here at Wikipedia, concentrations of power undermine the wikicommunity. Ramdrake called attention to one editor who kep reverting a decision made through discussion on the talk page of an article. I think it is reasonable to ask admins to pay attention to a brewing revert war, but to say that the decision (merge two articles or not) should be left to admins rather than the community is at the very least curious if not alarming. And I asked Elonka to come clean about her own motives. I do not consider this uncivil. You and Elonka have and others have not simply asked me to be more civil. You and Elonka have challenged my motives and those of Ramdrake and others. Now, when an admin argues we should ignore a very important guideline (FRINGE) and also take from the community the right to make decisions about mergers and put it in the hands of admins, I do not think it is uncivil for me to ask what agenda these admins have. It doesn't seem to be about supporting policy, since in one case the proposal weakens a guideline and the other, a policy. It doesn't seem to be about encouraging community process, since it rejects a virtual consensus. I guess you will just keep claiming I am being uncivil for questioning your judgement. I sincerely apologize: I did mean to question your judgment; I did not mean to be uncivil. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this post by Alun (aka Wobble) makes him an editor to look up to. [73] Wikipedia isn't a political platform where you edit solely based on an ideology or pre-conceived notion, which is what Alun seems to be about if his posts are an indication. Manipulation of the casual reader aside, I also don't think the praising of fellow cabal members is going to add much substance to this dispute. I would use a different word than cabal, but that is what it appears to be.

Regarding the claim of being great editors, take Ramdrake's edits for example, an astounding 40% of his edits are reverts or revert like in nature, 50% is talk page, and the remaining 10% of his edits are minor/copy edits. The other editors show similar patterns with more talk and less revert. I'm not sure how they believe they contribute - they certainly don't seem to add well referenced content, instead they prefer to remove it. [74] --Zero g (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Seriously Zero g, calling people a cabal and trying to minimalize the contributions of other editors isn't going to help you work out this dispute. I'm sure we've all said or done things we regret, but that does not make Alun anything less than a stellar contributor. Please stop. Shell ^babelfish 14:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware of this, I however, have given up any hope of ever editing productively alongside the core members of this group of editors (on the so called R&I articles), because they simply refuse to work toward a reasonable consensus. As some may have noticed, I've been phasing out my activities, and the recent AfD has shown me that the principles of Wikipedia only apply to non political and ideological articles - apparently the scientific evidence supporting the dysgenic hypothesis is too threatening to mainstream egalitarian convictions. So I'll take a short break and work on articles unrelated to heredity or psychometrics which should solve this particular dispute, hopefully without being wiki stalked. --Zero g (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Where do you get that "40% of my edits are reverts"? The specific edit of mine you referred to removed a slew of differential fertility research papers which had been cited to support the dysgenic hypothesis, when they themselves never even mentioned dysgenics. As such, I just removed a whole bunch of OR. That's all. And if you think Alun's talk page comment was about ideology, it just goes to show you haven't read 90% of his comment, which is entirely about pure, hardcore science. Please, stop this. I'll assume good faith and won't accuse you of deliberately misrepresenting our edits, but in this case it looks like you're direly misinterpreting them at the very least.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I checked your last 100 edits and there were 40 revert like edits. Regarding the removal of sourced content, the sources used the term dysgenic which is an adjective of dysgenics and was clearly used in that context in the sources - many of the sources even used dysgenic in the title. While you are correct the sources didn't use the term 'dysgenics' your removal of the sources on that basis... and now once again claiming to remove OR... well, I don't really know how to describe it other than calling it extremely tendentious. Hopefully it gives people an indication of how incredibly frustration it is to deal with this kind of behavior when trying to do some serious work on an article. --Zero g (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you for admitting that your numbers were made up by you. Also, looking at the article, a total of 18 references were removed, 15 of which did not contain any reference to "dysgenic" or "dysgenics" (which is why they were removed - their authors never inferred that their results suggested something like a "dysgenic trend" - and leaving them in would be OR). The last 3 were either already duplicated in the article, or were reintroduced. I won't push the insult to making the same ad hoc "analysis" on your edits as you did on my edits. Also, I would strongly suggest you just stop this line of attack, as Shell has already suggested; it won't get you anywhere.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Five sources that directly addressed dysgenics in fact, and sources can be used more than once, so deleting sourced content of a previously used source doesn't make it any less disruptive. Nor were the other sources used to claim something the sources didn't state, they were used to add more context to the article and show the historical scientific interest and findings regarding intelligence and fertility.

Anyhow, I'm done with this. You're clearly much better at this than I am. --Zero g (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Also just noticed that your "diff" is in fact hiding no less than 10 intermediate diffs of mine, which carefully explain why I did all the changes I did:[75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84]

So, please be more careful next time you accuse people of "just reverting stuff".--Ramdrake (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka has made further remarks on her claimed "lynch mob" and "pov cabal" on Moreschi's talk page and has threatened to mount a case against them [85]. I find it quite sad that, unlike Moreschi and most other administrators, Elonka seems unwilling to distinguish between established good faith editors like myself, who add mainspace encyclopedic content in a variety of different disciplines, mostly academic, and a single purpose account like that of Zero g, who since 2006 has only edited articles connected with eugenics. (To my knowledge I have only interacted with Zero g once on the talk page of Race and intelligence some time back over whether Richard Lynn was connected with the extreme right group American Renaissance, which is documented as having hosted talks by him.) It does not seem that Elonka has the support of the community in adopting such a maverick position, judging by the current state of the AfD page - as good a barometer as any of community opinion. BTW I am quite willing to wash my hands of making what have only been very occasional carefully sourced and neutral edits to articles related to Richard Lynn, if only to avoid getting entangled with single-purpose administrators like Elonka. Mathsci (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

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