Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive448

Avril again

Resolved

 – someone seems to have fixed it

--Allemandtando (talk) 10:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

see here. --Allemandtando (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Job queue. (I think I already tried to explain offwiki :D) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Chemistrygeek/BG7

Section header modified by GDonato (talk) was: "Emergency"

I was asked to comment here. I will not be commenting on wiki, but several people have been emailed. Feel free to pass these on. All I will say, is that I know i'm innocent, which is what matters. I am retiring from Wikipedia indefinitely. Also, if needed, my IRC nicks are Bluegoblin7, Bluegoblin7_ and Bluegoblin7|away. I occasionally use some such as Bluegoblin7|mibb when i'm on Mibbit. Thanks to all who have AFG'd and trusted me. BG7 out for good. BG7even 13:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:JzG need a break from an article

Resolved

 – Not an AN/i issue. Try dispute resolution for disputed content, or WP:AE for Arbcom enforcement, if even necessary. Beam 23:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher I am asking that JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be asked to step aside from editing the related article. For a week now several editors have been going line-by-line in reviewing the article and editing it. Along comes JzG who bans one editor (who was a sockmaster but then making good edits, per consensus) and blanket reverts to a highly POV and non-neutral version, all against consensus. Further, JzG is bordering on violating 3RR on this article. He has lost his objectivity and needs to take a break from this article. Bstone (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at the context: this article was the subject of an ArbCom case due to the volume of single-purpose meat/sockpuppets trying to whitewash the article. It more or less faded from everyone's radar, and Guy was on a wikibreak, during which at lesat 6 or 7 single-purpose meatpuppet accounts showed up to pick up where they'd left off. No admin except Guy really watches this article. I tried to step in and rein in the meatpuppetry, and was the subject of a coordinated campaign of wikilawyering, admin-abuse accusations, etc which made me appreciate the work that Guy did/does all the more.

Currently there are a handful of actual (non-meatpuppet) editors working on the page, including Bstone, myself, and Orlady (talk · contribs). I think Guy's block of the meatpuppet accounts was reasonable, certainly in the context of the ArbCom case and surrounding issues. That said, I think there is room to improve the article, and discussion was moving in that direction on the talk page. I'd just say we should thank Guy for being willing to deal with yet another abuse of Wikipedia, and kindly ask him to give discussion amongst actual editors on the talk page a chance to move the article forward. Surely we don't need WP:AN/I for that? MastCell ^Talk 20:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to love the "need a break" bit - Bstone skimped on his research there. He also failed to mention that I have justified my revert on the talk page, not least by reference to the fact that the disputed text was introduced by banned users, and is used in the main to obscure the fact that the school, identified as "worthless" by the BBC, lacks any provable accreditation and has, uniquely I believe, caused the GMC to rewrite its rules on foreign medical schools. Sure it's in some directories, it's probably in the phone book as well, but it's a scam. Guy (Help!) 20:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

JzG, scam or not (which is highly disputed, as their graduates are practicing medicine all over the world, with full medical licenses in most all locations), you are blanking and reverting consensus-approved edits to a version which is highly POV and not neutral. As an example, there was a conversation on the talk page here in which we all discussed, debated and finally agreed that listing the IMED listing was relevant and appropriate. Yet you have undone that edit based upon your own opinion. This is a violation of WP:OWN. Instead of following consensus, you simply deleted it, saying that listings in directories are not valid. Again, you did this against consensus and discussion. Why? I am incredibly eager to hear as, currently, you're editing against consensus and it's highly confusing. Bstone (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Highly disputed? When the GMC changed its registration procedures and struck off the only doctor they could find in the UK who was a graduate? Every single reliable independent source which gives any kind of critical evaluation of the place, characterises it as substandard, including several US state governments. I would not call that highly disputed. In fact, I'd say the only people disputing it are the people who run the school. Obviously you don't have as much experience with diploma mills as some of us do, on wiki and on OTRS, so you may not be aware that use of directory listings which also include legitimate schools, is a standard technique used to obscure lack of accreditation. Being duped by the whitewashers is forgivable, pretending that everybody else is the problem, which you seem to be doing here, is more of an issue. Guy (Help!) 08:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The page is currently protected (by User:Ryan Postlethwaite). Also, although its fairly obvious, you've failed to note that you are editing against JzG. And judging by *your* comments on the talk page, its not just JzG, you have a problem with Orlady too. JzG has just blocked some socks on this article; that is rather more a matter for ANI, *if* you have any concerns about that action. All of which adds up to me disagreeing that JzG should be asked to step aside William M. Connolley (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit puzzling that the only person with whom Bstone doesn't have a problem appears to be the banned user. Guy (Help!) 13:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a content dispute. Bstone seems to want an editor with whom he disagrees with removed from the article. I definitely do not condone behavior like that. I see no admin action needed, at least with JzG. Beam 21:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It absolutely it a content dispute, tho since this article has an ArbCom case behind it, and JzG is supposedly enforcing those ArbCom sanctions, it needs to be discussed here. Further, as JzG refuses to discuss edits (other than in his summaries) and is ignoring consensus, AN/I is the appropriate place for discussion. Further, the ArbCom case broadly allows for individual editors to be blocked from this article. Bstone (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've reviewed the ArbComm case. The only things the case empowers admins to do is to ban single purpose accounts from the article and related pages. Nobody with a lick of sense would call Guy a single purpose account. If you think any of the blocked socks were not single purpose accounts, you could take that to WP:AE and ask for a review of their block. But for your content dispute with Guy and others, you need to follow the usual methods, which don't involve this page. And, in case you hadn't noticed, Guy just got back from a 7 week break from Wikipedia, so asking for him to take a break from an article is more than a little ludicrous right now. GRBerry 23:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, the sanctions being requested have nothing to do with the case being cited. Its also rather discomforting that in addition to trying to stretch the limits of the Arb case, Bstone is also making other false claims, like stating that JzG isn't discussing his edits when the talk page of the article clearly shows otherwise. Bstone, you might try working on the dispute for more than a few hours before suggesting that someone "take a break" from the article because honestly, between that, the not quite so true claims you're making here, and your comments like "scam or not (which is highly disputed.." it really looks like you've developed a strong POV on the issue and you're trying to cut out the other side of a dispute here.Shell ^babelfish 23:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• JzG is, however, going beyond the ArbCom sanctions, which only permit the imposition of page-specific bans, and limited-time blocks if the page-bans are violated; there is no authorization for indef blocks such as he issued. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Admins don't require special authorization to block disruptive agenda-based meatpuppets, though the ArbCom case is useful background and context. Indefinite blocks are the standard administrative response to such disruption, ArbCom case or no. I don't think you'll find anyone who will seriously argue that these were anything but the latest batch of the same old agenda-based sock/meatpuppetry, so it seems a bit academic to argue the letter of the ArbCom decision when the end result was to prevent an abuse of Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 01:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think even Mary Poppins would have trouble concluding that this is anything other than the same banned user returning time and again. The edits, the style and the article focus are the same in every case. Guy (Help!) 08:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Judgement Call

Resolved

 – Seems fictional. Beam 14:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this okay? I mean, I know it doesn't violate WP:USER in any obvious way, but...well, let's just say I have concerns about this user already, per some of his other edits.Gladys J Cortez 03:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What are your concerns with the userpage exactly? Skomorokh 03:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't like the posting of what could be personal information. I'd highly recommend that get deleted, probably oversighted (although it's a lot of revisions) and the user strongly warned and/or blocked. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 03:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious, blocked? I'm not sure Erin T. Femaleboy, Fludder the Butterfly et al are in a position to protest the publication of their personal information. Skomorokh 03:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

So it gets stupid later on. That doesn't change the fact that most of the earlier entries could very well be real people, and the latter ones, as dumb as some of them may be, could be attacks against real people (Erin T. Femaleboy, for example). The content of the page is inappropriate, and merits speedy deletion under G10 or WP:IAR. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 03:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of the names could be real people and all but a few are minors. If they are real people personal information is being posted.— Ѕandahl 04:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, talk about over reaction. I have this crazy idea, and bare with me while I say it.... don't stop reading I'm going to drop the bomb.... why don't you guys ask him about it? Beam 06:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. To me that page looks like the user is testing table layouts or something. None of the entries can seriously be taken as meaningful.--A bit iffy (talk) 10:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If this user is who I think it is, he's not gonna answer any questions. But yeah, we could ask. (Incidentally, since others have taken this to a slightly different place than I was originally headed with it: My original concerns about the userpage is that it reminds me of a blocked user who had a thing about his "soap opera", mentions of which he shortly-thereafter spammed all over creation. Is this "personal info"? Doubt it--those names are a little...um, creative....to be actual live humans and/or....um, does anyone know what a "Moldy Gode" is?? That was never my original concern--between that, and some other edits which concerned me (resembling those of a DIFFERENT blocked user) it just seemed a little WTF-fy and I wanted a sanity check, that's all. I wasn't overreacting, just curious.)

IP 89.132.227.181

Resolved

 – No admin action to be taken at this time. Beam 14:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there,

I hope this is the right forum. IP 89.132.227.181 continues vandalizing Convergence criteria (and now other articles), at the beginning I was asking to source the changes and I was reverting them. Now it turns that the editor is changing even sourced data (like the recent changes done to Hungary and the euro). I have warned the user several times, even in the talk page and the editor continues doing random changes without sourcing them. Can this IP be blocked for a period of time?

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You might want to use WP:AIV, for future reference. I can't block the IP at the moment (logged into the wrong account) but it should get handled shortly. (Note, I didn't review the edits, but this does sound like obvious vandalism. Complex cases do belong here.) Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 03:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the trouble, I was told by another administrator to use this forum instead, will use WP:AIV going forward. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I just tried WP:AIV and true, it was considered a stale report, since that IP has not done any changes in 36 hours. Shall I just wait for another vandalism to happen and try there then? Or shall I leave it to this forum? Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless you have reason to believe that the IP is static and will be used by the same person tomorrow, just revert the vandalism and move on. AIV can stop them in the act, but for most IPs the original user will never know and a new user may be prevented from contributing. If there is a concerted attack on some article, there is also requests for page protection. - Eldereft (cont.) 10:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Consist, edits in Cladistics and other articles

Resolved

 – Blocked for WP:SOAP and WP:OR by User:LessHeard vanU. Beam 14:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Consist (talk · contribs) who also edit as 83.254.23.159 (talk · contribs) is still editing the same way (inserting his own research in the article contrary to consensus and posting long texts on talk pages but not on how to improve the articles). See the earlier threads Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive439#User:Consist and the Cladistics article and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive445#User:Consist and I: one of us here needs some advice. He has been warned several times, but it is obvious that he has decided to enforce his own point of view, I will "work together with editors" in any media as long as they accept facts. If they don't, I will enforce facts anyway. FYI the same user is permanently blocked on Swedish Wikipedia.Sjö (talk) 06:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have indef blocked the account for violating (and commenting that they will continue to do so) WP:SOAP and WP:OR. Other editors have also detailed other policy violations at the user talkpage, all relating to the same matter. I suggest that an eye be kept out for sockpuppets, since this appears to be someone whose mission absolves themself of any regard to considering other peoples concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you also block the IP.Sjö (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The ip will be autoblocked for 24 hours. I would only be happy with blocking the ip upon further disruption, not as a precautionary action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for semi protection of The Jew of Linz

Resolved

 – As result of a content dispute protection was given in hopes of conversation. Beam 14:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There are a few Ip addresses that have been placing blatant original research on that article since July 10th. see this page for examples.... Albion moonlight (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:RFP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I will do that if the problem persists. Albion moonlight (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have sprotected for 72 hours. Perhaps a discussion will commence on the article talkpage..? LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Leszek Jańczuk and orphans

Resolved

 – This is not an orphanage. ;) Situation to be discussed elsewhere. Beam

Hello -- User:Leszek Jańczuk has been removing dozens upon dozens of "orphan"" tags incorrectly, possibly using an automated tool, judging by the speed of his edits. Can anything be done to halt him/her and roll back those edits? (I hope this is the right place to post this.) Thanks. -- Avocado (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I see him occasionally making two edits within the same minute mark, but there is usually more than a minute between his edits. I see no evidence of anything other than manual editing. He seems to be removing 'orphan' tags because a few links to the articles do exist. Could you provide specifics on the articles where you think the tags have been improperly removed. -- Donald Albury 13:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and have you notified him you were posting here? You didn't wait very long for him to respond to your message on his talk page. -- Donald Albury 13:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe the user is going through the list of all orphaned articles and removing the tag for articles where "What Links Here" is non-zero. Mostly good work, although some of them, while technically no longer orphaned, should probably still have the tag... --Jaysweet (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

In which case the question of when an article is no longer 'orphaned' should be discussed with the user. I don't think this merits attention on this page. -- Donald Albury 13:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize I needed to notify him -- I'll do that now. The Orphanage criteria are much stricter than "have at least one incoming link." That means that instead of doing "good work" he's undoing a lot of hard work the orphanage members have put into tagging those orphans. According to his talk page he's been approached about this before, and I'd previously reverted at least one such edit of his with an edit summary pointing to those criteria. Since he appears to have made hundreds of these edits that need to be inspected and most undone, I was hoping to get some assistance fixing the damage already done and preventing further problems. Thanks. -- Avocado (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User Jaysweet gave an answer. I thought before, links from lists are enough. For instance we have List of New Testament uncials, and some of articles have links only from this list, and no one marked them as orphaned articles. OK, I will read about the criteria for orphans. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Leszek -- thank you for responding, and thank you for reviewing the orphanage criteria. In response to your remark about the List of New Testament Uncials, orphans are marked only when someone who knows to mark them stumbles across them -- much as any other maintenance tag is applied. So thank you for bringing that list to my attention, andI'll look through it later today. In the meantime, would you prefer to move this discussion back to User space? -- Avocado (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Suspending a moot sanction

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The purpose of the sanction was to separate Martinphi and ScienceApologist. If Martinphi is active, the sanction remains in force; if not, then it is suspended (as best I can tell, once all the tedious fighting of old battles and banned users on open proxies are sifted out). MastCell ^Talk 17:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Martinphi (talk · contribs) and ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) were under a community sanction designed to ensure that the two editors disentangled from each other (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi). Martinphi has since retired from the project. Some discussion has taken place about this matter.[1] Myself and the other editor (Nealparr (talk · contribs)) that were the principal architects and proponents of the editing restrictions both feel that it is largely moot at this point. GRBerry (talk · contribs) recommended raising the matter here to ensure there is community approval to suspend the sanction. It was intended purely to separate two editors who had a difficult time extricating themselves from each other and it would seem to serve only as a one-sided weapon if left in force (since only one of the two editors is active in the project). Thoughts? Comments? Vassyana (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think "suspending" is a good way to describe it. It can always be reinstalled if they were to 1) both be active editors and 2) continue to be at each other throats. Otherwise there's really no need for it since it only applied to edits regarding each other. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi has edited Wikipedia this month, so I would be reluctant to say that he's completely gone. If he is absent for a few months, then it might be worth revisiting this, but it probably really will be moot at that point. Also, for those who are wondering why this is even an issue, it's because ScienceApologist today abused the "undo" button to specifically target an edit of Martinphi's[2] from March.[3] There have been several edits from other editors in the meantime, so ScienceApologist could have easily just edited the article to his preferred version. But that he is going through article history, looking for edits of Martinphi just so that he can undo them, tells me that the ArbCom restriction is still necessary to avoid disruption to the project. In any case, this probably isn't a discussion for ANI... A better venue would be a request for clarification at WP:RFAR. --Elonka 01:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not completely up on the latest incident was that caused this note, but if Martinphi has left, why would it matter if the sanction were in effect? Shouldn't it be rather impossible to interact with someone who's not present or, if this is a case of ScienceApologist selectively reverting Martinphi's edits now that he's retired, should we still be discouraging that? Maybe I'm placing too much emphasis on the method here, but I think if ScienceApologist were to make editorial changes to articles Martinphi had edited instead of specifically undoing Martinphi's edits, it probably wouldn't even catch anyone's attention. Shell ^babelfish 01:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Shell - Am agreed with you in principle, but in practice it's tough to read that and quickly understand that it's really only meant for SA-Martinphi interactions. To save everyone time and headache, I'd support suspending this, just so there's no ambiguity. Antelan^talk 03:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion, I obviously support it. I had proposed suspending it so long as one editor has been retired for two weeks. Since 23 June, MartinPhi has commented on his retirement, but not edited anything but his user talk page and user page. The last edit to the user page could be interpreted to say he might consider returning, but since he is quoting someone else I think it would be a stretch to put that interpretation on it. He might, he might not. I wouldn't object to a longer term prior to suspension, so long as it is defined. (Also, this is a community sanction rather than an Arbitration sanction, so the community is the right venue to modify it.) GRBerry 01:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This is pre-mature for a couple reasons, not the least of which is that people usually come back. Let's look at the restrictions: "...should not enter into discussions solely to fight against..." I don't doubt that some of the discussions Martin participated in (before leaving) are still ongoing. "...should not make a comment about..." We should not condone attacks against departed users any more than we should condone lower content standards for, say, articles about dead people (but unfortunately we still do). "...should not edit policies or guidelines based obviously on his interactions with..." Sounds like open season. SA's marked difficulty in abiding by the restrictions is not a strong argument to lift them. I would recommend waiting a few months, both to see if Martinphi returns and whether ScienceApologist's behavior improves during this likely brief hiatus. — CharlotteWebb 02:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hate to point out the elephant in the room, but this is about the 3rd block by Elonka on SA that is dubious. It's time to see what this is and that's Elonka on some mission to reform SA via blocks, blocks and more blocks. Shot info (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Support suspension. On the one hand, if one editor is gone, this sanction is inherently inapplicable. On the other hand, it is easy to miss that point, making suspension worthwhile with respect to reducing drama from accidental applications of an inapplicable sanction. Antelan^talk 03:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Extended discussion

I retired partly because my sanction devolved into having an admin (who was quite well intentioned) looking over my shoulder and banning me because he thought I wasn't right about what the sources said- even when I explained fully how I was using the sources. I can't base my editing on what I think an admin, who is no expert on the subject, might think of the content. I retired mainly because I saw no hope that Wikipedia would come to its senses and notice that debunking is not NPOV. I will remain retired as long as Wikipedia doesn't wake up and notice that debunking is no more acceptable than promotion of fringe ideas. People must recognize that WEIGHT is relative to the subject of an article-- Mainstream science is highly notable in an article on Creationism, but doesn't really have a lot of WEIGHT; certainly not more than Creationism (I don't edit that article). And Creationism is notable in an article on the science of evolution, but not very notable. And I remain retired because of the absolutely abominable actions and nastiness which debunkers heap upon pro or neutral editors in the paranormal articles. I remain retired because of the double standard which applies to debunkers versus those, like me, who oppose debunkers. This double standard allows debunkers to get away with almost anything, while those who try and follow the rules but nevertheless oppose debunking, have to endure month after month and year after year of abuse, even when they don't desire to make the articles sound positive toward fringe ideas. I see little hope that this will change, and so I intend to remain retired. Wikipedia has already suffered because of the debunking: its articles are much less developed, most of its editors who know the subjects have been driven away, and the negative tone is the best way to make people reject mainstream science. Even if mainstream science is wrong about some fringe things, this is a very bad outcome.

However, I might come back if Wikipedia wakes up (though I do feel I have lost the joy of the thing). I monitor the situation, but so far Wikipedia seems to be ascending into a flight of chaos (see the ArbCom situation). However, at least some people are making a noble attempt, including Vassyana, even though I disagree with part of his method as relates to me (being a judge of content). ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

With regards to your editing, I hope you let us know when you decide to come back. If we were to change the NPOV policy, your modified version of WP:WEIGHT that you summarize here could certainly be considered. Antelan^talk 13:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Views are being pushed against policy from both sides of the fringe debates. Non-scientists are being presented as scientists and their speculations are being presented as science. For example, James Randi is not a scientist, yet in many places he is cited as the scientific view - here [4] for example. But with me gone there are few if any people left willing to do something about it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This account appears to be operating from a proxy. The contribution list of this account makes it appear to days old at Wikipedia, an assumption that is incompatible with such knowledge of the SA/Martinphi controversy, and incompatible with antagonizing SA on his talk page. Therefore, the next good-faith assumption is that someone is using this instead of their real account in order to avoid backlash on a topic in which they are involved with another account. This behavior would be in violation of the sockpuppet policies. Finally, this could be a banned user such as User:Davkal, back to push his agenda. It is unclear which this is, but none of the probable options are allowed by WP policy. In other words, this IP's comments should be ignored or perhaps stricken. Antelan 14:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

An article about Santa Claus should not consist mostly of scientific rejection of his existence. WP:WEIGHT makes it clear that minority viewpoints can have articles specifically devoted to them. But this could not happen if in every case the mainstream view dominated the content of the article. For example, Creationism should not be turned into a duplicate Evolution article. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to debate your novel reinterpretation of NPOV's WEIGHT clause. Antelan 14:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to think that Creationism should be turned into a duplicate of the Evolution article. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

As I've never said anything that even resembles that, it's just pure baiting on your part. Antelan 11:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop using proxy servers to try to evade blocks and bans. Antelan 16:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Debunking is POV?! So Wikipedia should knowingly propagate discredited information just because some people believe in it???

Debunking can be WP:OR, but not inherently. If a reliable 3rd party source presents facts that prove a fringe theory is false, then Wikipedia better present those facts. Or should we modify Coriolis effect to say that toilets flush the other way in the Southern hemisphere, just because most people I know believe it to me factual?

The day debunking becomes pov is the day Wikiality has taken over. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Do not support. Many of you assume that Martin dislikes SA and that is the reason for the altercations. If you took the time to review Martin's edits, you would see that he opposes SA's edits, not the person. SA is very skeptical, and by his own admission on his personal page, his skepticism leads him to be a strong protector of the status quo. His way of doing that has been to push what he thinks is the status quo point of view at all cost. Martin has only tried to balance SA's tactic.

With that said, Elonka's first reason to block SA--edit-warring with Martinphi, using "undo" to remove an edit of his from March as "irrelevant"[5]-- acknowledges the reason for the earlier sanctions. SA made exactly the kind of point of view edits that has brought them in conflict in the first place. The article was "...it says that it..." and SA made it "...it admits that it ..." "Admits" establishes a denouncing point of view by innuendo.

It is clearly the operational policy of Wikipedia to preserve the process by which it has arrived at what it is today. Unless you plan to kill off Martin as an editor, the processes are still alive and active. I am a little astounded by how quickly SA supporters have seized the opportunity to unleash SA from this one enforceable requirement that he be nice. The reasons for him to be nice are still active. Tom Butler (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No one is talking about lifting the ArbCom-imposed civility parole (to my knowledge), which is the only "enforceable requirement that he be nice". Vassyana (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

By now you should know that any disagreement with SA results in him not being nice. Being "nice" also means respecting consensus, discussing changes and not being so determined to characterize subjects in as negative a light as he thinks he can get away with. I have to admit that I am disappointed in your studied determination not to see that all of this is just reinforcing the fact that SA is untouchable. Instead, it appears that you admins have teamed up with him to attack any admin who may be so foolish as to attempt to modify his actions.

It is your wiki now, but don't be dismayed when some of us decide to complain in public. Tom Butler (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Please take a breath and a step back. You're replying to one of the admins who has stepped forward on multiple occasions to intervene against SA's favor. (Such as, apropos for the discussion, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi#Enforcement.) On the other side, despite my actions against them, I've maintained polite (and even friendly) lines of communication with Martinphi and DanaUllman. Taken together, the situation is nowhere near as one-sided/two-dimensional as you'd present. Vassyana (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your point, but after being abused by SA and his friends for so long, being called a moron, a fraud and accused of lying, seeing him abuse others and outright drive off constructive editors, basically telling admins to butt out and seeing articles he edits become more and more biased toward his myopic point of view, I think my response is pretty modest. However well intended your efforts have been, and I agree with Martin that you intended well, your actions have apparently been the last straw and I literally see no editor willing to even attempt balancing SA's excesses. It is a one-sided/two-dimensional situation from my perspective.

I know this is not the place to right great wrongs, as SA is so fond of saying in his kinder times, but Martin is right. Until the rules are changed so that categories such as fringe are no longer relevant because it is not permitted to characterize subjects (probably not a good paraphrase of Martins intention), Wikipedia will continue to be a platform for people like SA to push the skeptical viewpoint. Until you see that, I really cannot see how I can think of Wikipedia as something in the best interest of our country. Please do not argue with me here about this. Just show me with deeds that I am mistaken. Tom Butler (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tom and MartinPhi. Removing comments from Anon editors is another example of protecting the Golden Boy. Of course all critical anon users must be banned users! --71.18.216.36 (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does every discussion about ScienceApologist get derailed into a string of attacks on his character? This thread's purpose is essentially procedural, and we have gone far askance. Antelan 00:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It's probably because in the last six months SA has breached his civility and AGF restrictions on over 300 separate occasions. Or maybe it's because in the last six months he has edit warred articles until they were locked over 25 times. Or maybe it's because he has about 6 sockpuppets or IPs on the go at any given time. Or maybe it's because he goes to 3RR on multiple articles virtually every day. That is, maybe it's because hundreds of editors have now had enough of the perpetual abuse, edit warring and seeming untouchability of someone who, when all is said and done, contributes virtually nothing of value to the encyclopedia. You think I'm making this up? Would you like to see the diffs? 66.96.243.12 (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering that SA is under a specific ArbCom restriction to only use one account, yes, it would be very helpful to produce diffs of suspected sockpuppetry or usage of anonymous accounts. Even better, file a report at WP:SSP or WP:RFCU. --Elonka 03:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not know how to revert a "redacted" (you all are creating a world of your own) But every user has the right to an opinion here and as SA has shown us, using your "real" screen name does not matter. Antelan, stop deleting legitimate comments! Tom Butler (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, the IP that posted this is an open proxy, the use of which is (as far as I know) forbidden on Wikipedia. I blocked it until sufficient evidence is shown to prove that the IP belongs to a normal ISP.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

what does "redacted" mean? Does it mean "censored"? Is this part of wikipedia's new [WP:ScienceApologistIsAlwaysRight] policy?--feline1 (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourselves with the policy on banned users. Tom, please particularly see the portion of that page that deals with removing comments made by banned users, and the portion that deals with posting information on behalf of banned users. The policy on no open proxies may also be of interest. Antelan 16:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Antelan, while I respect the spirit of Wikipedia rules, I question wether or not they are intended to be used to promote your viewpoint. It does seem that you are always close at SA's side and taking such actions appears to me to be a conflict of interest. Perhaps explaining why you felt the comments were so harmful to the discussion and offering some evidence to support your claim would diminish the appearance of impropriety.

It seems that this might be a good time to ask you to accept the offer to see the diffs or move to close this discussion without a decision. Tom Butler (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can demonstrate how this extended commentary on ScienceApologist relates to the purpose of this thread, I'll reconsider. First, please reread the many sanctions on him, and make sure that you are familiar with which of the many of the SA/Martinphi sanctions that they are talking about suspending. I'm convinced that even you wouldn't mind lifting this sanction, which applies only to SA&Martinphi - an interpretation which has been endorsed by the very creators of this sanction. Once you have demonstrated this to me, I'll be happy to continue talking with you about whatever you'd like (on one of our talk pages). Antelan 17:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It is kind of you to offer to continue talking with me ... after I demonstrate an understanding of the sanctions. If Nealparr thinks it is a good idea to close the sanction, that is his choice, but he and others made a proposal that was accepted. Having been accepted, it became policy. I do not agree with the idea that it is now "largely moot ." I am under the opinion that the sanction was set in an effort to modify behavior and I have not seen that happen. The only way that it would make sense to remove the sanction is if you permanently banned one or both parties. As it stands now, there has been no contrition and there is no reason to believe that the sanction would not be needed again, should Martin decide to return to editing.

I call for the question. Count your votes and move on. Tom Butler (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It was proposed as a suspension (and as I proposed it only when the other editor had been inactive for at least two weeks) precisely because if the departed editor returns I want the sanction to go back into force without any need for a drama thread. The two editors need to be kept apart, and the community has realized this. If one editor is retired, they are apart. If they are both active, the sanctions will be back in force. GRBerry 23:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is why I wanted Tom to reread the sanction and your proposal. From his previous comment, it seems that he thinks that the proposal makes much more sweeping changes than it actually does. It is "largely moot" until Martinphi decides to start editing again; this !vote simply makes that even more clear. Antelan 02:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that Martin is busy here in AN/I enabling a banned user [6], does this mean that in fact he is (inter alia) editing again? Also, does this qualify under the restrictions per the policy (see WP:BAN and WP:MEAT? Shot info (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

One, have you established he is enabling a banned user and two, are you saying that he is not permitted to advance an opinion of a respected contributor? Since as I understand it, SA is the purpose for the ban of the person you think Martin is enabling, should we also be talking about reinstating that person so that we can benefit from his input? As I see it, SA is the cause of that ban just as he is the cause of so many editors abandoning Wikipedia.

You tread on dangerous ground. I recommend you have your vote and go on. And for the record, I am aware of the finer points of this discussion and see nothing to change my mind. Some of you have turned from releasing SA from the sanctions because Martin is gone to condemning Martin for not being gone. Win at any cost? Tom Butler (talk) 06:51, 14 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.

Potential case of proxy editing

Hi, chaps. There's been a long-running squabble at Viktor Rydberg and Lotte Motz recently. A couple days ago I blocked one of the main participants, Jack the Giant-Killer (talk · contribs), for 1 month for continued disruption. Jack didn't bother to appeal this, because he has two equally SPAish mates, Finnrekkr (talk · contribs) and CarlaO'Harris (talk · contribs), who have just kept on fighting for him. Please see also this thread on my talk page. The main opponent of these chaps is Rsradford (talk · contribs), whose conduct has not been absolutely perfect but has been much better than the other side: far more importantly, Rsradford has done a much better job of presenting the academic mainstream.

Ergo, I am inclined to block indefinitely Finnrekkr (talk · contribs) and CarlaO'Harris (talk · contribs) as proxies for Jack the Giant-Killer. Checkuser says these three accounts are unrelated, but all they have done is edit the same articles pushing the same POV. I suspect an off-wiki campaign somewhere. Opinions before I dole out the blocks? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Give them a warning. Yes, I know that you think they're either the same person proxying it up or are part of a conspiracy, but still.... a final warning can't hurt anyone. Beam 23:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it can. It can waste my time. I've really had enough of these guys, and besides, they've had enough warnings already. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 06:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Say Christiano, did you ever find out whether Jack is related to that other guy (I don't recall the name). — CharlotteWebb 10:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did. CU came back negative, surprisingly. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't block them indef, but you can block them for a month as you did Jack the Giant-Killer (talk · contribs) (Wikipedia:Meatpuppet#Meatpuppets). Gwen Gale (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't get that. If we regard them as proxy editing/meatpuppetry for Jack then this comes under block evasion, not to mention disruptive editing in general. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 08:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Following Wikipedia:Meatpuppet#Meatpuppets, if it's proxy editing and not sockpuppetry, A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

it is obvious that these accounts act in unison, but it is difficult to prove they are socks. Since there seems to be a consensus that some dishonest editing has been going on, I would suggest we (the admin community) impose on them a restriction of one revert per day, which will take away their sock advantage while still not locking them out completely. As Moreschi says, both sides in this disputes have not shown impeccable behaviour, and if we were to clamp down on one side only (even if it is the worse behaving one), we might be acting partially. A 1RR parole, and a stern warnining of using one account per editor is on order though. --dab (𒁳) 09:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds good. I'll implement that soon if there are no objections. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom's uncertainty principle for socks is this: "For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." This probably could use a convenient shortcut. — CharlotteWebb 10:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

These have been consistently difficult articles, with an exceptional amount of personal animus for something not obviously controversial. I've been trying to keep things objective at the Motz article, but I would be very glad for some additional eyes on it. DGG (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

controversy is good, as long as both sides act above the table and avoid confusion tactics. We don't want to exclude the "pro-Rydberg" side from this discussion, but we want to enforce honest good faith behaviour. I take it we have a compromise to clamp down on this article a little bit, imposing restrictions of the "article probation" type such as 1RR, strict WP:TALK discipline, etc. --dab (𒁳) 08:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm new around here. I haven't read the entire talkpage for either article, but frankly, I just can't see why Jack, Carla, and Finnrekkr are regarded as behaving worse than Rradford. Rradford refers to Jack as "the COI editor" again and again. Jack refers to Rradford's web page. Rradford "outs" Jack--or claims to have done so--and uses the name again and again. He accuses Jack of being Finnrekkr's sockpuppet. Neither side is assuming good faith, and Rradford claimed in response to me that Jack had been "outing" him--maybe I just missed that and Jack started it, but what I saw was the pot calling the kettle black and I remain bemused that Jack got blocked and Rradford didn't even get told to stop waving someone else's name around. I think it's a content dispute hinging on what each "side" thinks is significant about Rydberg and Motz. I've been tempted to wade in and Be Bold and put in a bit of this and a bit of that. But the atmosphere on both talk pages is daunting, I am new, I'm clearly missing info on the internal Wikipedia history here . . . and I don't think the blocking is helping. It looks like the admins making content decisions, because it just doesn't seem to fit what I see in the discussions. So I went away and got some practice at the unfamiliar formatting language by creating a page on something outside my main interests, instead. Can we have a bit of a cool-down on these pages, please--a bit of a "Let him put some of his stuff in there and you can put some of yours in there and then we'll refine the wording for each other," recognizing that we are not enemies, we just have different notions of what is interesting about a person's life and work, and that probably means both sets of stuff belong in an article summing them up. Of course we all have RL names, credentials, and reasons for being interested in Viktor Rydberg or Lotte Motz (the admins probably have less interest in the subjects of the articles, I think that may be where the suspicions of off-wiki conversations come from), but we all want the 2 articles to be stable and decent in quality. So can we please just do that? I am the naive newbie Yngvadottir (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan2

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

Resolved

 – MFD closed, the sock is blocked

• Anon deletion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At first I didn't know where to take this. I had considered UAA or AIV but both seem like the wrong place at present. This is clearly a disruptive username, and the only edits have been disruptive. I assumed it could be a sock since we all know that new users just don't go straight to MfD over project namespace articles. I closed the MfD as such and I'm looking to see what transpires. — _Maggot^Syn 06:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I missed the part where they said it was a dummy account. So now I'd suggest we look into a block. — _Maggot^Syn 06:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the motivations of the user proposing the deletion, I don't think that your closure of the MfD as a WP:SNOW within an hour of it being opened, and after 4 comments was in order. Four people in the first hour may not be representative (or they may be). I suspect that the page will be kept, but out of process closure of the MfD is not the way to achieve that. Mayalld (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That closure is well within the guidelines. They acknowledged that it was a sock account. Its clearly snow applicable. — _Maggot^Syn 06:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I disagree, and I have reverted your closure. On the subject of the account, the user is entirely open about it not being his/her normal account, and has explained why. I don't believe that this counts as abusive sock puppetry, unless you believe that the proposer has used his/her main account to support the deletion. Could I suggest that we wait to see what happens over a more reasonable time scale. Mayalld (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Even if it is a loopy account, the deletion discussion is still semi-valid. And it may not be a loopy account which DOUBLES the validity of the upcoming consensus... ;) Beam 06:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to add a comment that it appears that User:SynergeticMaggot has had a fair bit of previous controversy around premature WP:SNOW closures of xfD discusssions as keep, and it seems to have been a factor in his most recent RfA failing. Mayalld (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh... well that's not very good. Maybe a mentor or someone who can sit down and explain how WP:SNOW works or maybe even how xFDs, and WP:SNOW specifically in xFDs, work would be in order. While I actually understand the concepts myself, I'm not sure he'd accept me to teach him, although I am willing if he would. Beam 07:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Closed again. Textbook SNOW candidate, even if it was only up for four hours. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think the account needs blocking. Even if it's sock, it's not a legitimate use. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

When you closed it, it was a WP:SNOW issue, but when originally closed after ONE hour (not 4), it had only 4 keep !votes. WP:SNOW is a useful tool to allow us to curtail a debate which is unambiguously going one way. It appears that User:SynergeticMaggot is closing many xfDs early as WP:SNOW when it isn't yet clear. Mayalld (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The initial SNOW close was appropriate, as the nomination was clearly in bad faith (and the rationale was utter garbage, but that's a moot point). Obvious efforts at disruption should be dealt with quickly. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that at least two editors who had nothing to do with the nomination felt otherwise rather suggests that it was not appropriate. Mayalld (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Mayalld: Check my editor review. This is the first snow close that was contested in almost a month. Normally, I would contest the revert, but as of late, I am taking my time more and more to discuss these things with the community. I posted here to discuss the obvious sock account, not the MfD, as that was the evidence. If you would like to talk about the MfD, I invite you and anyone else to my talk page. Regards — _Maggot^Syn 07:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I did check your editor review, and your AfDs after I re-opened the MfD. I would agree that problematic WP:SNOW closes are thinner on the ground than they used to be, but "first in almost a month", whilst better than it used to be is still not good.

WP:SNOW is designed to be used where the outcome is beyond doubt, and where there is not going to be any dissent about it. That means that it is a policy to be used cautiously. There should never be a rush to WP:SNOW, it should be something that is used when it becomes clear that we are simply going through the motions, and I simply don't believe that an hour and 4 responses is even approaching sufficient evidence of that.

Allowing the MfD to run a few hours longer doesn't cause any harm, so there was no need to rush to close. Mayalld (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that I am accustomed to closing multiple XfDs per day, possibly 25-30 a month and approx 175-200 over the span of two years. I'd say one contested MfD last month is a drastic improvement to the 6 or 7 AfDs that are currently serving as a blemish to my extensive record. Yes I have a history, and yes I defer to the community. But this current MfD was snowball closed swiftly as a disruptive nomination to prove a point, and according to my calculations, the consensus thus far is that it was entirely appropriate. Your revert of my closure was subsequently reverted and it now remains closed. Now, with all due respect, I didn't come here for a lecture on how to apply snow. I came here for administrative assistance in good faith. — _Maggot^Syn 09:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It is clear, from your editing history, that your view of WP:SNOW has differed from community consensus on the policy. It is equally clear that you have modified your application of it to move towards the consensus position, which is a positive move. However, it appears to me that you haven't moved the whole way to sit within the consensus. Rather you have moved to the edge of what the consensus will accept as WP:SNOW, and that by walking a fine line, you risk overstepping the line. In such cases, I would deem it better to err on the side of caution, and set yourself some personal parameters which are well within what has previously been deemed acceptable by the community. My re-opening of the MfD wasn't reverted. The MfD was closed again, after several more people had contributed, when it was a clear WP:SNOW. Your comments on consensus worry me here. As far as I can see, contributions relating to whether is was a proper closure per WP:SNOW sit 3:2 in favour of it being a proper close. That is clearly a majority, but a majority is not the same thing as a consensus! You say you didn't come here for a lecture on applying WP:SNOW, and paraded just how many xfDs you close. Is that intended to say that because you have closed so many xfDs, you know better? Mayalld (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No, that is to say that you are not properly researching me, or rather, you are nitpicking. A few bad decisions are not a detriment (we all make mistakes), and I expect you'd understand this rather then carry on with this line of communication. SNOW is not a policy, its an essay. Revert was a bad word to use, I meant it in its generic form. Editors who were still !voting keep are only making it more obvious that it was to be kept. I invited you to discuss this on my talk page to avoid all of this, but you chose to remain here. The overall assumption is that it was a bad faith nomination, and it would be kept, and it has (by your own words: snow: is designed to be used where the outcome is beyond doubt, and where there is not going to be any dissent about it. You are the only dissenting voice in this matter. Beam was making a retort on your comment about my history, and goes on to say he doesn't know about it, but would like to see me in mentorship, which I already am!) been kept. You are the only editor disagreeing with this. Yet this is not the issue. The issue is over the sock. — _Maggot^Syn 11:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Synergic, why don't you put yourself a hard limit to avoid this sort of problems? Like, for example, "not closing per WP:SNOW until 10 editors have commented". Also, if you think that the nomination was in faith and with no valid reasons, then close saying and don't mention WP:SNOW on the close, since that was not the real closure motivation anyways. That should keep you inside safe limits. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Enric, I will indeed take your advice to heart, as it is much appreciated. The motivation was indeed accurate. I closed it as a snowball because it was a blatant act of disruption. If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause. Nevertheless, if the objection raised is unreasonable or contrary to policy, then the debate needs to be refocused, and editors may be advised to avoid disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. There were no objections based on policy, rather, my close reflected policy. I had suspected that the account was created as a sock, and it has been (I just chose to call them a brand new user leaving the assumption of good faith, until I realized I had missed anon deletion has admitted to it being a sock to avoid scrutiny). All users are proscribed from operating a "bad hand" account for the purpose of disruption or artificially stirring up controversy. It is never acceptable to keep one account "clean", while using another account to engage in disruptive behavior. And that is what this editor was trying to do, to avoid being marked man by Wikipe-tan fans as he puts it. All sock puppet uses are forbidden and warrant aggressive approaches to protect the encyclopedia from their actions. Which was my initial reaction. We could have avoided this lengthy discussion about my close, and refocused on what was clearly a sockpuppet. I apologize for this lengthy response. I will only note that the sock is now blocked, with the same reasons I have given. — _Maggot^Syn 11:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't wish to nitpick. I only discovered the "history" after I reverted the closure as hasty. I still think that is was a over-hasty close, and that sitting at the "bleeding edge" of WP:SNOW is going to end up as a stumbling block yet again at what should be an easy RFA for you. Please accept that if another editor in good standing thinks that a WP:SNOW was hasty, then it is very possible that you are stretching the boundaries too far. I have no wish to get into any kind of battle on this, but I genuinely believe that you should have waited a bit longer, and that doing so would remove an obstacle to your adminship (which I would wish to support BTW). I think I've said all that I usefully can on this subject now, and will leave it at that. Mayalld (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Then I'm glad we can peacefully part on this. Let me leave you with some advice, as you have given me. Try not to revert a discussion before reviewing the history. You might consider it hasty for me to close, but I think its just as hasty to revert not know the full story. Best wishes and happy editing from — _Maggot^Syn 12:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

As a general point, I think that all speedy closes should wait 24 hours. Coming from the opposite side of the world to most of you, I find it irritating to wake up, get on my computer and find that something had been started and closed while I slept. That did not happen with this one though. I commented earlier on the MfD. Bduke (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with that. I'm wondering what the chances of a proposal to not permit WP:SNOWball closures within the first 24 hours would fly. (Other speedy closures, such as bad-faith nominations, are a different issue.) —Quasirandom (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Id suggest taking it to the relevant talk page. :) — _Maggot^Syn 15:34, 14 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.

User ip: 76.186.64.155/Mr. FixIt902

Resolved

 – IP address blocked, Mr. FixIt902 gets more GF by User:LessHeard vanU. Beam 14:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A problem with 76.186.64.155 (talk · contribs) (who i'm guessing has now made this username: Mr. FixIt902 (talk · contribs)), directed personal abuse at me (refer to the bottom post in Genre) over a minor argument on a band's genre, i don't really appreciate being called that after writing nearly the whole article - being reasonable trying to settle a dispute with a total halfwit, and copping that. He's also deleted the message along with the previous messages i had written, and posed as a different user by deleting the Sinebot's post adding his name with his new user, a minute of investigating and you will get what i mean. If you look at the 76.186.64.155 (talk · contribs)'s talk and contribs you will see multiple warnings about editing of genres in the past, along with a long list of insanely edited genres, never giving a reason until this... when he describes me as that, for no reason. Hope this was the right place to post this, thanks. kiac (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the ip for 31 hours for being a bucket mouth (I was unsure if I should include a total halfwit or a half a twit as an additional reason, so decided to do neither). It appears that Mr. FixIt902 is probably the same person, but as the account has not violated any policy as yet I suggest we AGF for the time being. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much! kiac (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:65.32.81.138

Resolved

Really have no idea what to do with the above IP. There is one useful edit to Sariel [7]. Since then its edits have been confined to my user page, starting with a truly charming comment to the effect of my being a "psychopathic freak White bald man" (I'm not bald, by the way) and saying I am going straight to hell here, another really interesting comment here. It later went on to apologize, saying its name is Joe Black and that it has multicolor skin ("mi is multi-colad - mi ave green, yellow, black and sometimes purple colad skin - some people tink ders somtin wrang wid dat") and asks me to wake up his brother here. He has also been blocked already once for his rather unique contributions to my userpage. Since then, he has returned again, making some really incomprehensible statement about the 6th angel of heaven who is evidently named "Rocky" here. I have left another warning on the talk page of the IP in question but I somehow get the impression that this person's problems, whatever they are, might be beyond our ability to deal with, or possibly that s/he has even a sicker sense of humor than I do. John Carter (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That's easy. I blocked for a month. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, edit conflict - I had given final warning, IP hadn't edited in two days. But, resolved, one way or another. Tan ǀ 39 15:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of nonsense to Bad Boys Blue page

Resolved

There's an ongoing nuisance created by user Playahata69 now for the 4th time on Bad Boys Blue page. This clearly immature character inserts his personal opinion into the article and he is just looking for attention. The article already addresses elsewhere an inequality between the two current formations and there's no need to include some teenage fan's unsubstantiated opinion to accentuate his/her personal, which does not belong to wiki.

I would very much appreciate if appropriate action could be taken on this borderline vandal to prevent him/her from making disruptive edits to Bad Boys Blue. Lionscitygl (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree, blocked for 72 hours for disruptive editing. Tan ǀ 39 15:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Lionscitygl (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Avril yet again

Resolved

 – Alison has blocked a number of uncovered socks --Jaysweet (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

See here and here. --Millbrooky (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't attempt to see what's at the link provided on the second page - trojan attack. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism to {{2}} by Mankerranker (talk · contribs), aided and abetted by Addict to the Wiki (talk · contribs), who has warned me and reported me to AIV. Blocks for both please. Algebraist 16:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

{{MSW3 Wozencraft‎}} and {{tag}} also hit. Algebraist 16:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted the Avril troll on {{cat also}}. A block of Glass Ball Blower (talk · contribs) might be in order. - AWeenieMan (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

These 3 are blocked. This usually comes in waves, so keep reporting if more puppets reveal themselves. GRBerry 16:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Can someone with IRC access get a checkuser to take a look? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I've protected the target templates. Let's not forget that step!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed - chill time. I've blocked a bunch more. Moving on ... - Alison ^❤ 16:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Grazie. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Alison, you are the Checkuser equivalent of Wyatt Earp. Fastest IP checks in the West! (and East?) You rule. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

lol - thanks :) I'm more like Hopalong Cassidy though :) - Alison ^❤ 17:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Stuthomas4, NYScholar and others

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The results of the discussion is that NYScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked until successful enrollment in the Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user program, and no action taken against Stuthomas4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). John Carter (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Stuthomas4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and NYScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sarah 01:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Stuthomas4 Contributions

Revision History of Talk:The Dark Knight (film) [added the link due to the ongoing personal attacks on NYScholar --NYScholar (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)]

Diffs. -- For the record, link to "Diffs." --NYScholar (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)]

Continual personal comments about me and escalating violations of WP:HAR, most recently making threats on my talk page. (Most recent Diffs.) Following Wikipedia User space and user talk page guidelines (which I have referred this user to and which I link in my talk page prominently), I have been deleting such continual postings after seeing them. I find these continual remarks personally offensive and see them as increasingly-escalating attempts to harrass me. (I remove such offensive comments from my talk page; I explain my editing practices clearly in my user space.) Please also see this user's uncivil comments posted about me in Talk:The Dark Knight (film), on other users' talk pages, on the user's own talk page, and on the user's own user page, where these comments about "NYScholar" violate Wikipedia:Etiquette and WP:CIVIL, as well as Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines (particularly, WP:UP#NOT (#9): "Material that can be construed as attacking other editors") and WP:NPA. This user and the others with whom this user engages in such conduct need to receive warnings from administrators about this behavior; this user and others may need to be blocked for this kind of behavior if it continues. I seek administrative help with this matter. Thank you. (Please note: I have no time or inclination to become involved in what I have found in the past to be extremely-time-consuming Wikipedia administrative dispute procedures; I am simply asking for assistance with this matter so that it stops before it goes any farther. Thank you.) --NYScholar (talk) 06:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC) [Added links to most recent "Diffs." and Contributions as further examples for convenience of administrator(s) here. Thank you for assistance if you can provide it. --NYScholar (talk) 06:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC); added dir. sec. link & q. from it. --NYScholar (talk) 06:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)]

[Added the number for the item in WP:UP#NOT; since I first posted this request for administrative assistance here, the user cited has further violated that UP [guideline], in my view. The user's comments below are in my view inappropriate and should be understood in the entire context of that user's postings about me throughout Wikipedia space, where they appear to me to be further personal attacks and an attempt to marshall other users to silence me and to drive me away from editing an article or articles on which I have contributed a great deal of good-faith editing. These attempts appear to me to be a violation of WP:HAR. In order to see how this problem began, one really needs to review Talk:The Dark Knight (film), so I have posted the editing history link to that page above. I have other work to do offline, and I cannot take further time to comment about this matter. I updated my comment below and updated my comment in the film article's talk page. I have also updated my own talk page and archived the most recent comments by some of these users posted in it. I expect to be offline doing non-Wikipedia-related work. --NYScholar (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)]

[That was not my heading; Sarah needs to recuse herself and to stop inserting her views in this manner. Thank you. I posted this AN/I, not she. --NYScholar (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)]

Rubbish. You started the ANI but that doesn't give you control over it. Any user and any administrator may contribute here. The heading needs to be descriptive for people scrolling though. Also, please make use of the preview button. Your hyper-editing on a busy noticeboard such as this causes edit conflicts for people. Thank you. Sarah 01:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have made several good faith efforts to engage this user. Tonight He/She/It (this user insists on no gender identification) has requested administrative help. By looking at the edit history of Dark Knight (film) and the comments by several users, ThuranX, Erik, among others, you will see that there is a consensus that this user has been abusive to other good faith editors. This user declines to engage the real issue of their abusiveness by instead resorting to quoting wiki laws and shouting that they have been the victim all along. I admit that there has been some hostility that has arisen from this entire interlude and I am guilty of an uncivil tone at times. Nevertheless, I believe that there are several users that will attest to the fact that NYScholar has driven many long-time and collaborative editors from this article through brow beating and the sheer mass of the number of edits. I have copied this response to the NYScholar talk page with the full expectation that it will be summarily deleted.--Stuthomas4 (talk) 07:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Additionally if you actually look at my comments and those of others, you will see that a series of successive criticisms (valid I might add) were just deleted without comment. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 07:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And as far as threats are concerned. I specifically stated that I would be "watching for abusive tactics". Not intended as a threat, just that this user can't continue to brow beat and condescend to other user with impunity.--Stuthomas4 (talk) 07:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And furthermore, NYscholar claims a violation against WP:UP#NOT. I quote the rest of the passage here, conveniently left out in the above quotation: "An exception is made for evidence compiled within a reasonable time frame to prepare for a dispute resolution process. This exception is subject to common sense, but as a general rule, two weeks is a reasonable time to prepare such a page." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuthomas4 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Lastly NYScholar claims that "I have no time or inclination to become involved in what I have found in the past to be extremely-time-consuming Wikipedia administrative dispute procedures" which is clearly false as his/her/it's extensive quoting of several wiki rules and long-winded argumentative responses to good-faith queries, one that are laden with what can only be described as sarcastic and condescending language and, if he/she/it had been in person would have been "air-quotes". I have stated before that I did indeed inflame the situation but I feel that the consensus is that NYScholar, while an intelligent person and valuable Wikipedia editor, is nonetheless in need of a lesson in civility, not unlike the one he/she/it has prescribed for me, and others. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what is going on here but can I suggest you refrain from calling other users "its" if you expect administrators to take you seriously. Sarah 10:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This editor insists on gender neutral language and in-fact has used that pronoun in their own writing. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies; I did not know that NYS wanted to be referred to as "it". Sarah 00:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at that talk page and it looks like NYScholar is once again being an obstructionist and driving people away ala the Heath Ledger article, however, the last time I dealt with a complaint about NYS I felt like I was pounding my head into a brick wall, so I'm going to leave this to other admins. Stuthomas, it might help if you can get ThuranX and the other users from that page to come and comment. Sarah 11:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Hi, I have encountered both of these editors at Talk:The Dark Knight (film) and through associated edit summaries. Stuthomas4 has made comments that he/she has admitted have had an uncivil tone, in response to comments from NYScholar that some have interpreted as not in the best spirit of collaboration. I happen to agree with that assessment of NYScholar's attitude, but I would urge that no action is taken at this time against either editor. Stuthomas4 has apologised, and NYScholar, judging by his/her past editing practices, will not be online for a few hours. In the meantime, I will leave NYScholar a message in the spirit of reconciliation, explaining why certain editors (myself included) took issue with the editor's tone, and hopefully this whole episode can be put to one side. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 11:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I read and appreciated Steve's comments and archived them. I do have to go back offline again, but I wanted to make clear that I appreciated what Steve said. I do not appreciate the others posting comments here (as Sarah instigated them to do, despite recusal), which further creates an impression that they are "ganging up" on me. I have "disclosed" the entire situation; I've posted links to it, which anyone can follow. The editing histories of The Dark Knight (film) and Talk: The Dark Knight (film) and of my own and others' talk pages bear witness to the history of this "incident". Some people have deleted my own and their own comments from some of the film's talk page, but they can be found in the editing history; as for my deletions of material from my own user talk page; I rarely completely delete users' comments; I generally archive them; but when I find the comments personally offensive and harrassing, I do delete them, as I state I will do in "N.B." on my current talk page and in user boxes. Users are not required to archive comments on their user talk pages; but I generally do so; exceptions are the offensive and harrassing material, which I properly delete. Examination of talk pages of some others commenting below will show that they have deleted my warnings; it is permissible to delete warnings, according to current user talk page guidelines; deleting them is taken as a sign that they have been read. Usually, I archive warnings. If I do not archive a user's continual barrage of comments, it means that I find them obtrusive and offensive and that I do not feel obliged to archive them. Obviously, I read them in deciding whether or not to archive them. In my experience, I archive far more material than many users do; many simply delete comments that they do not like or agree with from their talk pages. This AN/I was not intended as a way for others to attack me further; frequently, the posting of an AN/I turns into a "free for all"; I hope that a neutral administrator will review my request and stop the barrage. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I said I wasn't going to act as an administrator here but that doesn't mean that I'm prohibited from commenting. Sarah 00:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To weigh in on this, I think it is a bit strong to say that Stuthomas4 is "most recently making threats on [NYScholar's] talk page". NYScholar has not fully disclosed the entire situation, that there are several editors who are uncomfortable working alongside him/her due to his/her inflexible tone in discussions, particularly at The Dark Knight (film). I'm not considering Stuthomas4's comments completely appropriate, but I really think that filing an AN/I report over open, multiple concerns regarding this NYScholar's conduct is improper. I've tried to explain to Stuthomas4 the best way to describe situations like these, and Stuthomas4 has acknowledged that calling the editor a "royal pain" was a mistake and struck it out. This was not accomplished with any difficulty, so I think that going to AN/I is extreme. NYScholar believes that our criticism of his/her conduct is failing to assume good faith and that continuing it was detracting to his/her work. I think that much of NYScholar's edits have been excellent, but he/she seems unable to cordially discuss challenged edits, so the focus has moved from his/her contributions to his/her conduct with other editors. I'm not trying to say that this is blowing up the community as a whole, but I think a group of editors should be able to exchange constructive criticism in a collaborative manner. I do not believe that this mindset and transparent discussion in favor of it warrants a call for administrative action and possible blocks for Stuthomas4 or anybody else. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Since ThuranX is a regular watcher here, ThuranX saw this thread. ThuranX is not at all surprised that NYScholar ran here. In addition to being a rampant obstructionist, NYScholar deflects all discussion by invoking various rules and policies. Any use of pronouns voids all that an editor may have to say. Should pronouns be avoided, NYScholar deflects by asserting that since most comments want to discuss a change, or set of changes made BY NYScholar, then the commenting editor is 'attacking the editor, not discussing the edits', and thus, guilty of violations of WP:NPA. No matter the approach an editor takes, there is a counter invoking policy, guidelines, and so on. All responses by NYScholar are presented as coming from the right way, and deride either directly or implicitly, the intentions, ideas and character of all other editors. For the most part, editors Erik, Steve, and ThuranX have dropped this article as a result of the constant frustration the group of editors just identified feel. NYScholar refuses to present an acceptable pronoun, asserting male when identified as female, female when identified as male, neither when ‘Hir’ type is presented, gets offended by ‘it’, and so on. No matter what other editors do, there is simply no way to broach the actual meat of a topic. NYScholar basically asserts that only civil comments will be responded too, and all responses thus far are incivil.

Such behavior makes it beyond frustrating to deal with NYScholar. ThuranX notes that NYScholar has a lengthy block log for edit warring, which seems to have dropped off as the reputation for being obstructionist in tactics grew. Clearly a mastery of the text of policies allows NYScholar to invoke them to NYScholar’s advantage, and bully editors into submission and retreat. Consider the false accusations against Erik, on Erik's talk page, that he has been a problem on the Heath Ledger article, when in fact he hasn't edited it recently, if ever. Erik seems willing to assume that this was an honest mistake, but ThuranX believes this was a deliberate intimidation tactic. ThuranX feels NYScholar needs a topic ban, as NYScholar simply can not engage in cooperative editing. ThuranX (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The above comments by this gang of editors is a clear violation of WP:HAR. I have added a link to the Revision history of Talk:The Dark Knight (film), where one will see that the above user (ThuranX) said to take this matter to ANI, which is indeed what I have done. I have asked all these users to stop posting comments about this matter on my talk page, to no avail. I have requested "administrative assistance", not this barrage of further personal attacks. Wikipedia has become a very unpleasant place to edit, and it is not surprising that so many editors who edit in good faith (like me) are continually being driven away from it. The aim appears to be to drive me away, which violates WP:HAR and which I have and am protesting. I stand by my edits in the articles that I have edited and I stand by my explanations of my edits in editing summaries and in talk pages when asked for explanations (which I have provided in good faith). The above users violate WP:AGF and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, as well as many other Wikipedia guidelines pertaining to Wikipedia:Etiquette, WP:CIVIL. In my view, they are making false claims above, and I welcome the examination of Talk:The Dark Knight (film).

I filed the ANI in response to a suggestion on that talk page (by one of the above users, ThuranX Diffs.) that I do so after the constant barrage of posts on my talk page from the user in this section heading, despite my civil requests that [this user] stop posting them. --NYScholar (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC) [added the "Diffs." link. --NYScholar (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC); corr. --20:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)]

Well this just proves the point. Good faith efforts have been made and NYScholar refuses to acknowledge any wrong doing. People with more level heads than mine have extended the olive branch and it has been refused. The point is not to drive NYScholar away, the point is to create a more civil environment for all editors. NYScholar has quoted no less than three wiki rules above, which was part of our original complaint. It is fine to stand by your edits because we have all agreed that you are a valuable contributor - we have said it time and again. But you cannot hide behind regulations and continue to interpret any criticism as a violation to WP:HAR. I have and will continue to press the issue until you understand that it was your uncivil tone that started this entire affair. If you feel ganged up upon it is because you have managed to alienate many editors on many different pages. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

One other thing. NYScholar complained that the thread on the Dark Knight page was inappropriate because it veered off topic. But when we moved the discussion to the NYScolar talk page, to me the most obvious place to discuss NYSholars actions, the user delete most of the comments saying that they are harassment. I'm just sayin' --Stuthomas4 (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

NYScholar, you have never asked me to stop posting on your talk page. Indeed, I have only posted once on your talk page, today. This was a good faith attempt at reconciliation. If you please take the time to review my comments both there and in this AN/I thread, you will see that I have urged no administrative action against you. Please do not classify my olive branch as harassment; it was intended at bringing about a harmonious atmosphere in which we could all work together in the proper spirit of collaboration. You do not appear to have read it. Please do so again before you present false accusations of attempts to "drive you away". Good day, Steve ^{T • C} 21:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Addition: as a message to the administrators watching this, NYScholar's response to my blatantly good faith attempts to put an end to this are exactly the sort of behaviour the editor has become renowned for in such a short time. Either misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation. I would prefer to believe the former. There is still time for the editor to prove that. Steve ^{T • C} 21:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, Steve missed my comment in archive page 20, where I said that I "appreciate" Steve's comments; I just had added the same point above before seeing this comment by Steve. I certainly do "appear to have read it": I stated that I "read and appreciated" it. (I'll post the diffs. in a moment.) --NYScholar (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course I missed the comment. It's on "Archive page 20"! Never appearing on your talk page or mine. And yet, I shall strike my comment and apologise. Steve ^{T • C} 21:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Diffs.; see also the editing history of User Talk:NYScholar. I state very clearly on my current talk page that I archive exchanges that I feel are finished and/or when I cannot take any more of my time to participate in them. This is the case. I do not want to take any more of my time discussing this matter; that is why I filed this AN/I. I hope that some neutral administrator will review this matter and end it. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC) [(ec): had trouble fixing a link. May have to re-fix it. I did and do appreciate Steve's comments; I did take them as a sensible attempt at "reconciliation": scroll up for my additional remarks saying that, which I had posted before seeing his comment at 21:20.] --NYScholar (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)]

We both appear to have been editing at the same time; while I don't think I can be expected to have seen your comment on Archive page 20, I have read it now. I have struck out my second reply and apologise for my side of the misunderstanding on this thread. Steve ^{T • C} 21:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The above sections are more indications of the games NYScholar plays. NYScholar hides responses on archived pages. NYScholar asks that no one use NYScholar's talk page to communicate with NYScholar, as such communications would be 'off topic', and thus verboten. Further, NYScholar regards such communication as a personal attack, or harassment. Note that NYScholar lumps all editors into a group which violate WP:HAR by communicating on his talk page, when apparently, few if any of us have done so. However, when the article talk page is employed, all topics are deflected in the aforementioned manners. Note also that here as well, nothing which has been said has been directly addressed, it's all deflection and accusations. It needs to stop. As for the idea that all of us are trying to push NYScholar off the project, to the best of ThuranX' knowledge, there is no conspiracy to do so, ThuranX certainly didn't receive an invitation. ThuranX (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur. We have repeatedly stated that NYScholar's edits are generally constructive but the intimidation and condescension to other editors is the problem. --Stuthomas4 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, NYS's disruptive talk page practices were the subject of a previous ANI #NYScholar_block_overturned which lead to discussion about rewriting part of the talk page guidelines but I don't think the changes were ever actually implemented, unfortunately, but I'll have to go back and check. Several people advocated for indefinite blocks of NYScholar and I note that NYS has been blocked numerous times for disruptive editing, 3RR on his own talk page, and making legal threats in the lead up to an Arbitration case in his/her name. I think it's time for the community to consider implementing community-based sanctions such as talk page and archiving restrictions. Sarah 00:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarah was involved in a weeks-long editing controversy which I have archived. Sarah needs (as already acknowledged earlier) to be recused. Wikipedia has policies on this kind of situation. My archive documents the involvement of this user in previous attempts to block me, which were overturned. I've done my best to edit in good faith, but this user and others violate WP:AGF. I do not use "sarcasm" as some state. My words need to be read literally. I state exactly what I mean to state, without irony and without sarcasm. Those who perceive sarcasm are simply reading their own interpretations into my statements, which are intended to be taken literally. When I intend emphasis, I use italics. I do not use emoticons. Tone of voice is extremely difficult to interpret accurately in written communications and online communications like talk pages in Wikipedia are written communications. Sarah's interpretations of my intentions have been misinterpretations; and I have clearly stated that in my archived talk pages. I believe that Sarah is still nurturing the same grudges as earlier, which has already been recognized by other administrators. The only mistake that I have made is to devote my time to trying to correct errors in Wikipedia and to explain my edits. I have answered questions posed to me as forthrightly and sincerely as possible. That Sarah and others make the mistake of assuming otherwise is their mistake, not mine. --NYScholar (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

NYScholar, once again I have to ask you to cease making false and unfounded accusations. You have just accused me on my talk page of abusing administrative rights in realtion to you yet I have not touched a single tool ever in dealing with you. I have never blocked you or used any other administrative tools. And here you are claiming that I tried to block you but was overturned and that other administrators said I held a grudge against you. These allegations are all blatantly false. I have never blocked you and if you think otherwise you need to review your block log. Furthermore, no administrator has ever said or "recognised", as you claim, that I was holding a grudge against you or acting with a grudge. Your false accusations are outrageously disruptive and they cause damage to people's reputations. Please cease doing this or I will be moving for a community ban. I will also have you know that I did not delete any of your comments, as you falsely allege on my talk page, but simply changed the header to a more descriptive one for admins scanning the page. Sarah 03:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I still remember the archiving drama, where NYScholar was rapidly archiving user talk page rather than engaging in any form of discussion, then throwing bad faith accusations around without foundation. Sarah was not involved in a "weeks-long editing controversy", on that occasion we were all trying to uphold the rules of the encyclopaedia against wanton disruption. Please do not mischaracterise past events in such a manner. Orderinchaos 03:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Diffs. --NYScholar (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC) (added above, for the record).

Sarah should be recused; obviously holds a grduge from previous problems. I really went through a terrible ordeal as a result of previous involvement of that person, and the person has no business changing the heading of this AN/I. I filed it. Strenuous objection to these and earlier comments by Sarah; the full record is archived in my talk page archive. It was a horrendous experience and one that I have no intention or desire to relive via this. The purpose of filing this AN/I was to stop the personal attacks on me and on my editing; Sarah simply aims to continue them. I object in the strongest possible manner to such tactics. --NYScholar (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's the link to archive 19 of my talk page: [8]; it is a continuation; my life was made miserable for weeks as a result of the actions of Sarah, and that person should not be posting further comments about that resolved past matter here. This is a separate matter that I filed. If Sarah or anyone else wants to file their own AN/I they can do so. But I will not be participating in them or in any dispute resolutions in Wikipedia. They are, in my experience, a total waste of time. I tried to bring attention to this matter in a cordial way over and over again, but the incivility of these other users, their grudges based on sometimes a single word or phrase taken out of context, This is really beyond the pale. To those of you engaged in this attempt: Please get a grip. Thank you. I appeal to another administrator who is actually neutral to review my requests. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

So, NYScholar is now saying the cabal that's out to get NYScholar is huge? NYScholar has included no less than 6 people in it so far explicitly, and if I've been reading right, closer to 8 or 9. When that many people, as well as the raft of admins who've blocked NYScholar 7 or 8 times, hard to tell how to count a couple, and the people who showed up to NYScholar's arbcom and previous AN/I threads, doesn't NYScholar think it's possible the problem lies not in everyone else, but in NYScholar? (Note, no pronouns used.) ThuranX (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That was not my heading; Sarah needs to recuse herself and to stop inserting her views in this manner. Thank you. I posted this AN/I, not she. --NYScholar (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)]

Rubbish. You started the ANI but that doesn't give you control over it. Any user and any administrator may contribute here. The heading needs to be descriptive for people scrolling though. Also, please make use of the preview button. Your hyper-editing on a busy noticeboard such as this causes edit conflicts for people. Thank you. Sarah 01:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I will be looking for my original heading; Sarah needs to be recused and to stop editing my AN/I to make it into something it was not. The changes are escalating a matter into a worse situation than it was, and are entirely counterproductive. I seek a neutral administrator.

I will also suggest that those claiming that I have so many blocks etc. have a good look at their own block records and at the complaints filed against them on their own talk pages and in their editing histories. Sarah is clearly not a neutral observer, as my archives document. There is a policy in Wikipedia pertaining to grudges against editors, and I suggest that Sarah and ThuranX (both involved previously) review it. I stand by everything that I have already stated and object most strenously to the judgments made by Sarah, by ThuranX, and by others that I engage in "abusive" editing; the record simply does not support such claims. It is easy to block users; what matters is why the blocks are removed (sometimes within minutes) and what the end result has been. Taking these situations out of context to support long-standing grudges is not going to hold up in any administrative review, so I suggest please stop doing that. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I most certainly do not have a grudge against you. I have raised prior cases to show that this is not a once off issue with you and that in fact it is a very long term and on-going problem, not because I have a grudge. If you are unwilling or unable to deal with other editors then you should refrain from editing Wikipedia because this is a collaborative project. Saying that you're permanently too busy off-site and unable to respond to queries while you hyper-edit every single day just doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. I do not intend to act as an administrator in this case, however, that's not because I feel compromised in anyway but rather for the simple fact that I find you incredibly tendentious, disruptive and impossible to work with. Having acted as an administrator in a case involving you six months ago does not prohibit me from commenting on other cases if I so desire. I do not excuse the personal attacks from other editors but your editing style and practices are extremely antagonistic and I am not at all surprised that other editors have become so frustrated and reached the end of their tether with you that they have abandoned articles you're working on and eventually snapped and made inappropriate comments. If you would edit in a more congenial manner, you would not have these ongoing interpersonal issues with most editors you edit with. Sarah 01:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Seriously NYScholar, edit warring on this page really doesn't do anything to help your case; please leave the title and convenience links alone. I would also have to agree with he above assessments of your behavior; you are very combative and skilled at winning by simply wearing down anyone who disagrees with you. This has been a problem since your first interactions on Wikipedia; I think the community is saying that you either need to find a better way to handle disputes or you may find yourself placed under restrictions to help limit the damage. This is an excellent opportunity for change; try to take the comments here in the spirit of constructive criticism and see if you can't find a way to edit harmoniously with others. Shell ^babelfish 01:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Shell, I must set the record here straight. I have not been "combative"; I have defended myself against others' personal attacks (which continue in talk pages among them, in the talk pages of articles cited above). It takes more than one "to edit harmoniously with others"; I believe that if you yourself examine Talk:The Dark Knight (film) and my talk page archive 20, and the editing histories of these pages, my current talk page, and The Dark Knight, you will find ample evidence that it is not I who have been "combative" or, in any way, "abusive"; I have been entirely civil, as I am being now. I have just updated my current talk page to state that I will make no further comments about this matter. Enough is enough. I have no desire to deal with it anymore, and no time to do so. This process is so unpleasant that I am steering clear of it. I will be doing my own other non-Wikipedia-related work and not dealing with this matter any further. I will also not contribute anything further to The Dark Knight (film). I devoted enough time to it. If there are errors, other people can find and correct them, if they wish to spend their time doing so. Repeatedly, I have found Wikipedia a hostile and unpleasant environment (not a "community") and unconducive to productive work. It would seem to me that it would be the task of neutral Wikipedia administrators to sort out the useful contributors from those who are lurking in talk pages and fueling controversy. I do not see that happening. It is not a "community" in which I feel welcome and not one which I believe deserves my contributions. "Physician, heal thyself." --NYScholar (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have purposefully stayed away from this discussion as I felt that I was perhaps unnecessarily fueling the conflict but I can see that it continues unabated. It has truly gotten to the point where I can't believe anything that NYScholar says, including protestations that they are innocent, declarations that this is either beneath them or that they don't have the time to engage the discussion further. The real truth is that NYScholar has only one opinion, and that is his/hers and is not willing to admit to any culpability in the matter, no matter what the matter is. Any criticism is met with a quotation of wiki policy and a cry of victimhood. We would all welcome NYScholar's contributions, just without the condescension and attitude. If this is not forthcoming I welcome a neutral administrator's input on how to address this pervasive and ongoing issue. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 06:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Another denial of wrong-doing from NYScholar. One hand distributes distractions and redirects all fault at ALL who dare speak back to NYScholar, the other hand show a flat palm out, saying 'Sorry, NYScholar has no time to face the situation or learn about pronouns, or identify a gender for the writing convenience of others, so only a proper noun may be used.'. Same shit ,different day. ban this editor already. Two admins are telling NYScholar to knock it off, and the jerk keeps swinging, saying all teh admins who comment are cabal/conspiracy. ThuranX (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It is "I told you so" time. Back in February, I blocked NYScholar for refusing to discuss his edits - the specific methodology was (a) a wikibreak notice placed permanently on his talk page, while editing at full pace; (b) a message at the top of his talk page demanding that people not post there; (c) the immediately archiving of any messages posted there, citing "harassment", i.e. disregarding his request not to post; and (d) responding to posts, if at all, only in his archive, which others are not permitted to edit, thus allowing false accusations of harassment to stand unchallenged.

For reasons beyond my ken, some of you guys decided to characterise this block as Hesperian blocked NYScholar for archiving his talk page, and overturned it. And here we are five months later, and nothing has changed except that it is a different group of people who are going insane from frustration. NYScholar's management of his talk page is disruptive. I don't care if it meets the letter of WP:UP or indeed all our policied put together. It is disruptive. Hesperian 15:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And judging from the overwhelming consensus against NYScholar, that criticizes the editor for gross incivility/disruption, edit warring and refusal to discuss any changes, I would support an extended block. seicer | talk | contribs 15:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would endorse a block, too, but I would also support some type of community sanctions, such as a restriction on archiving his talk page less than 24 hours since last posting to that section, civility parole, a blanket prohibition on making accusations without presenting evidence and so forth. I note that NYScholar has continued making utterly false accusations without a single piece of evidence on my talk page, accusing me of violating 3RR on this page (untrue - I made two edits in 45 minutes and none were reverts), deleting his posts (utterly untrue), of violatinmg LOP [List of Policies] "at whim or will", (go figure) of abusing administrative privileges in relation to him (despite the fact that I have never once used admin tools against him). These false accusations are easily dismissed since they are all patently untrue and the actual evidence disproving his false accusations is easily available but it is time consuming dealing with his false accusations. I would prefer to ignore them but I don't want passers by thinking my lack of response isn't an admission of guilt. And if i do respond, he accuses me of harassing him and upsetting him. Regardless of what he says, it's really not my goal to ban him from contributing to Wikipedia; I just want him to stop this incredible disruption that simply rotates to other people - same problems, different editors. I read over the arbitration case earlier today (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar) and the behavioural and attitude complaints from other editors 15 months ago were practically identical to what people still complain about today. This is such a longterm and ingrained issue that I don't see it improving without external intervention. However, apparently I am one of a cabal who are holding grudges against him and trying to get him banned so my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt, I guess. 8-/ Sarah 17:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(after EC with below) Might I suggest that a better preventative measure would be for everyone to stay out of each others' way for a while? No more comments on the editor's talk page, no more communication from the editor to this thread or the Dark Knight talk page (the editor has indicated as much), and absolutely no response to comments the editor might make on his/her talk or archive page, no matter how unfair you/we might feel the editor is misrepresenting yours or others' words; the record is already clear enough without further escalating matters. A cool off period might serve to open avenues of constructive criticism and collaboration that aren't immediately obvious right now in this atmosphere of misunderstanding (whether deliberate or not on his/her part) and mistrust. Steve ^{T • C} 17:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Steve, I would see merit in a cool off period if this was a once off issue that suddenly came to a head. However, this has been going on for way too long and needs to be dealt with one way or the other. I feel a cool off period would just serve to delay the inevitable, and I don't think it is an effective way to deal with this sort of disruption. As Shell said above, these issues have existed since NYScholar first came to Wikipedia and that has been around three years now. This should have been dealt with properly in February but it wasn't and now here we are again and I would not support once again delaying a resolution. I don't think it is fair on the community, involved editors or NYScholar himself to have this hanging around unresolved. Sarah 18:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I was not planning to return here to comment further; but given the false statements and false claims made above, I feel compelled to do so (by those making them). I suggest that you find evidence of "gross incivility/disruption, edit warring and refusal to discuss any changes" in Talk:The Dark Knight (film).

[A user who later apologized for calling my work "crap" had complained that I was discussing my changes to The Dark Knight (film) too much: see the links to the editing history above; then the same user asked for an explanation of the present tense that I had used for coherence in a section, and I explained it; after expressing my surprise ("I do not understand....") that editors of Wikipedia do not know that one uses the present tense in writing about texts. Then I was taken to task for explaining why the present tense is appropriate in such passages about reviews (film criticism is a sub-field of literary/artistic criticism). Please consult the record.]

Those are false claims. Post the diffs. This is not a arbitration/dispute resolution; this is a notice that I originally posted due to the personal attacks against me posted in Talk:The Dark Knight (film) by User:Stuthomas4 initially, and that user's continuing unwelcome posts on my talk page and restoration of them or similar ones despite my civil request that the user desist; I posted this AN/I report when the user posted negative comments about me in the user's own user page (since deleted by the user: see the editing history of the page) and what I regarded as a threat on my own user talk page. The history of the talk pages will bear out what I have stated. I posted the links some time ago now at the top. The way I initiated this AN/I was changed by Sarah, who continues now in what appears to me to be a concerted effort (a campaign) to ban me from Wikipedia. It is not true to say that I do not explain my edits. The complaints made in Talk:The Dark Knight (film) are that I explain them too much. That is not evidence of incivility; that is not evidence of disruption; and that is not evidence of lack of good faith, etc., to name some of these what I regard as entirely false claims. I made all the edits that I have made in Wikipedia only in good faith. The insinuations and innuendoes and false statements made by those summarizing this situation are not accurate, are taking comments made out of their contexts, and are being fueled by one another. One needs to return to the actual comments that I have made in Talk:The Dark Knight (film) [including the editing history] and in the editing summaries of The Dark Knight (film) [including the editing history] to see if there is actual evidence of "gross incivility" etc. [See WP:CIVIL for the definitions of "gross incivility".] I do not believe that there is. I have probably been the most civil of anyone posting on that page. I edit in good faith, and others continally violate WP:AGF in stating that I do not. I have spent hours of my time trying to correct errors in that article to benefit "the project" Wikipedia; instead of recognizing that, others have focused on one sentence or a phrase or what they perceive as a "tone" of voice of "condescension" that I do not intend in the sentence or phrase. They have misinterpreted my reasons for my explanations and construed them as other than what they are. Among my academic fields is literary and critical analysis and interpretation, including many genres of writing. The evidence that others see of "tone of voice" is subject to their own interpretations; accepting one another's interpretations as fact, they have collectively decided that I am "condescending" and project other negative "attitudes" on me which I do not have. If I had such "attitudes" toward others in Wikipedia, I would not have devoted so much time to editing articles in this project, nor would I have taken so much time to respond to others asking me questions about editing. That I took the time indicates not "condescension" but responsiblity. I feel responsible enough to explain my edits when asked. If I write with more words than one would like to see, it is because of the propensity for misinterpretation in Wikipedia. I try to be clear. Sometimes clarity requires stating a point in more than one way and repeating a point for emphasis. I cannot apologize for the comments that I have posted in good faith. I made them in good faith, just as I make this statement in good faith. If others are unwilling to accept the fact that I edit in good faith, that is a function of their own attitudes toward me and my work. But it is not a statement of fact about me, my attitudes, or my work. --NYScholar (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There are many different kinds of people who contribute to Wikipedia; I am an academic; my style of writing is an academic style of writing. If Wikipedia wants to keep from Wikipedia writers with an "academic style of writing", then its WP:MOS and core editing policies need to make that clear. It is common in Wikipedia to label as "disruption" any explanation that someone writes that has more words than people prefer; my above comments are not intended to be a "disruption"; I write them in good faith; when a situation has become as unnecessarily complicated as this AN/I has become, it does take some additional words to point that out. If those posting in this AN/I section have not got the patience to read this explanation, that is their lack of patience with this project, not mine. I am a very patient person. But I do expect fairness in this proceeding. When I see unfair accusations tossed about, I feel compelled to point to the unfairness. Those of us who have been contributing to Wikipedia for over three years have a responsibility to others like ourselves who contribute in good faith but who are maligned for being who we are. I believe that the kinds of statements being made about me and about my editing are extremely disrespectful and themselves uncivil and violations of Wikipedia:Etiquette. My words are not "rubbish". --NYScholar (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to avoid this editor because my only prior interaction was so unpleasant and unproductive that any comment here would be taken as a grudge or attack. It was a long time ago so water under the bridge. Briefly, in August 2007 NYScholar decided that BLP needed a rewrite so as to ban any self-published external links in BLP articles (he/she/it also took the matter to WP:EL and WP:V on the iffy claim that EL and V were in conflict because we were allowing external links to other than reliable sources). The policy dispute doesn't matter, other than how misguided the editor was on policy. In any event, over the next month or so it made 72 edits to the policy[9] and more than 700 edits to the talk page,[10] occasionally hitting 50 or more edits per day. The edits were full of sniping, snideness, attacks, statements of outrage, accusations that others didn't know what they were doing, etc., and more or less shut down the policy page for a month. Feel free to look for yourself if you want to wade through 800 diffs. That could have worn most anyone down on most pages but I'm pretty persistent when defending Wikipedia against disruption, and he also ran up against Geni, Jossi, and SlimVirgin. Obviously nobody is going to be banned for something they did almost a year ago. The only reason I rehash this is in relation to the question about long-term disruption and the likelihood of reform. The issue isn't bad faith versus good faith. Whether sincere or not (and there's no reason to doubt the editor's sincerity) their presence on Wikipedia has been disruptive, causing lots of grief and wasted time. Wikidemo (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to Sarah's addition, the matter that she alludes to ("February") was "properly" dealt with at that time. She was overruled at that time and the entire record is archived in my own talk archives. As I said before, from my own perspective, she made my life miserable, misinterpreting out of context material that did not support her claims and continually referring to my explanations of what I intended as "rubbish" or similar words ("crap"), continually assuming bad faith when I was responding in good faith, accusing me of "lying" when I was actually telling the truth.

Now she has taken this opportunity to restate the same misinterpretations in her own talk page archived content, which she posted on mine (since deleted, since it is already archived there). [To see what actually transpired, one has to consult the fully-archived talk pages where that matter transpired; her summary is not accurate.]

That she is now back to restate points she made before, again taken out of context, in this AN/I that I filed about another user — what about that user's violations of civility, etiquette, and user space guidelines? That user takes this opportunity to continue to malign me, despite my objections to those earlier transgressions of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines — indicates to me that she now intends to have me "banned" from Wikipedia.

Her earlier failure to block me before was based on administrative review. There are good reasons why her attempt failed, and, just because people in Talk:The Dark Knight (film) do not like the fact that I was responsible enough to answer a user's query with more words than they would like or a sentence that they objected to is not a reason for banning someone who has worked as hard as I have over three years to contribute in good faith to this project.

There would not be such a mess going on here if one would examine with an open mind and fairness what I have been objecting to in my initial reasons for filing this AN/I and to stop trying to make it into another witch hunt. I am not a witch, and I should not be treated as if I were one.

I am a responsible editor who edits in good faith. That should be valued, not maligned. --NYScholar (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral administrator supports block of above editor, based on previous discussion and discussion above. John Carter (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral editor seconds that emotion. Responding to someone in your archives, like the editor did to Steve, then responding with "Apparently, Steve missed my comment in archive page 20, where I said that I "appreciate" Steve's comments"? That's beyond comprehension. Just wow. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I filed this AN/I about User:Stuthomas4; after first posting here, Sarah has directed everyone posting here to make this AN/I about me and changed the heading to include me; after her doing that, no one has focused on the continual posts by USer:Stuthomas4 attacking me on my own talk page and in other user space; attacks continuing unabated in this very AN/I. I have already told STEVE that I appreciate his comments posted on my talk page (archived in archive page 20), and I do. But I do not see the others posting in this thread taking his comments into account or trying to act in their spirit. I have indicated to Steve that I appreciated those initial comments (more than once). I do not, however, appreciate the comments of Stuthomas4, Sarah, and some "others" (cited in the heading), which I find inflammatory and unfair. Posting this statement does not make me a "jerk", by the way (another uncivil epithet); it makes me a responsible contributor to Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

"Her earlier failure to block me before was based on administrative review." - please stop making false accusations. As you've been told multiple times now, I did not block you previously. I have never blocked you. Click on the block log button at the top of this section and you will see exactly which admins have previously blocked you. The administrator who blocked you only to have you unblocked by another administrator was User:Hesperian. I really wish that you would stop making these claims about me that are paatently, provably, false. I also do not want to ban you from Wikipedia. I want to end this disruption that is always around you but I prefer to do that by means that allow you to continue editing. That is, through use of community-based sanctions. I am not advocating a ban or even an indefinite block, but if you don't stop making these false claims and accusations about me I am likely to change my mind about that. I would ask that you stop talking about me and instead focus on the issues that brought you here. I had nothing to do with the article on The Dark Knight or your dispute there and have never edited that article, ever, so I suggest you get back to responding to the issues raised pertaining to that and the editors you are currently in dispute with. Thank you. Sarah 18:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason people are talking about NYScholar and not me is because I apologized for my comments and struck them out as has been noted above. I deleted the one comment that was on my user page for the same reason. For those of you who haven't seen it it said only that "I find NYscholar to be particularly annoying." Not really the most awful thing that could be said, but nonetheless it wasn't nice so I deleted it. I have made mistakes in the past and I have exactly one block to my name for an edit war, and one recent warning from another page. As I have not researched the entirety of NYScholar's history I cannot comment on the above users' claims. I only know what I saw at Dark Knight. Anyway, that's why you're still the focus. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Why should others focus on Stuthomas4? He has already acknowledged his incivility at the beginning of this report. You have accused many of attacking you here, but I don't see it. What I see is your assumption of bad faith of quite a few editors indiscriminately. Good faith is a two-way street. Aunt Entropy (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec/2/3)\(ec)

For the record, here is the direct link to my "block" log: NYScholar block log. Hesperian has apparently not gotten over administrative overturning of his block. Frequently, people who look at this block log (which is the entire list of blocks over 3 years) miss the fact that some were done in error and quickly unblocked (scroll down); some occurred when I was a relatively-new user of Wikipedia and not aware of all the "rules and regulations" (policies and guidelines). Over these three years, I have tried to familiarize myself witht Wikipedia's WP:LOP, though there are so many that I may not have full knowledge of all of the subtleties, and there are frequent inconsistencies that confuse me and other users. Project pages are often revised and edited frequently and changes occur. I do my best to be aware of what constitutes "edit warring" (a term I had not heard of before I was accused of doing it), and I try not to engage in edit warring; my user boxes indicate my preferences in editing practices. I prefer using talk pages of articles to reverting others' changes; when they revert my edits, and I believe that they have done so improperly, I explain why I think that way. If they convince me of their perspective, I do yield to it. In the case of Talk:The Dark Knight (film), I figured out a compromise that in my view solved the problem so that one could have an EL in the EL sec. without causing a conflict relating to (how I read) WP:EL (and I have read a lot of the pages of discussion about WP:EL in the past. I believe that my "compromise" by re-casting the section of The Dark Knight involved improves the article. It will undoubtedly change in the future (future film) when more reviews are published; right now, it's rather stable. I will not be editing that article any further (as I say above). --NYScholar (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC) +

(ec) Re: my original complaints about posts by User:Stuthomas4: After posting a so-called olive branch, that user went on to post further negative personal comments about me and added the post on his user page that the user has since deleted; the time stamps indicate the order of events. I did not accept the apology because I had already read the additional negative comments and I was referring to them in my response to the "olive branch". There was no direct apology to me about the user space posting, the continual posts and re-posts of unwelcome further personal attacks on my user talk page, or clear indications in editing summaries of an apology. The material was deleted only after I posted this AN/I and it took some time for that to occur. In the meantime, the same user and others turned this into an AN/I about me, neglecting what I was objecting to initially. I suggest one return to what I was objecting to in order to see why I filed this AN/I report. See the top links. As far as I am concerned, this matter is partly resolved because I will no longer edit The Dark Knight (film) at all, and these users can edit it themselves to their heart's content, without my contributions; but the matter of Stuthomas4' original personal attacks against me have not been sanctioned, as they should have been (in my view). To me that kind of lack of even-handedness among those responding to this AN/I indicates a problem in this process. --NYScholar (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocks and other sanctions are supposed to be used preventatively, not punitively. Stuthomas4 redacted the comments and apologised numerous times so there is nothing "preventative" to be gained from sanctioning him right now. If he makes other personal attacks, then I'm sure he will be sanctioned at that time, but it would seem sanctions at this point would be purely punitive. Sarah 02:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense - I tried to be civil and you were, in my opinion, ungracious abut it. I am sorry that I maligned you. I have retracted, redacted and retreated. What more do you want? It's over. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, I do not "play games"; my work in Wikipedia and my comments are serious and people reading them should take them seriously. This matter is not a "joke" or a "game". --NYScholar (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

NYScholar seems to not understand that just because User One complains here about User Two does not mean that only User Two's actions will be assessed, but both users', to make a sound and reasonable decision. What has happened here is the community has looked, seem one apology, and one pattern of continued disruption. With apology, for an action many find understandable, if not justified, that editor's part is settled. However, the disruptive editor is seen to be persisting in the behavior which provoked the incivility, and seen to be deliberately obtuse about the disruptive editor's actions and their effects. As a result, numerous other editors, who have experienced the deliberately obtuse disruption from the editor before are speaking up. You opened the door to this by coming here, NYScholar, and asking others to look at how someone treated you. They also looked to see what caused that treatment, AND how you treated that person. ThuranX (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)\

Post the diffs. to support claims being made; look at the time stamps; stuthomas4 did not apologize to me for the personal attacks made after the so-called olive branch; Stuthomas4 continued to re-post the same or similar messages on my talk page complaining about me (making the same "criticisms") after I read and deleted them. I deleted them because I considered and still consider them to be ongoing personal attacks. ThuranX participated in fueling these personal attacks and "criticisms" of me further above; I have "treated" all users engaged in this matter (including the one who referred to my work as "crap") with respect; I have not been uncivil; many of them have been uncivil. When I have pointed that out, I have been accused of being "tendentious" and "disruptive". There are policies and guidelines in Wikipedia re: WP:CIVIL, WP:Etiquette, WP:AGF, and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, which I felt (and feel) are being violated in this discussion and in Stuthomas4's previous actions about which I filed this AN/I. Turning the accusations against me, people are doing so without posting "diffs." from The Dark Knight (film) to support the charges. Let us compare the "incivilities"; I civilly responded to Stuthomas4's "olive branch" with the knowledge that Stuthomas4 had already continued the personal attacks on me elsewhere despite filing that "olive branch"; thus I referred Stuthomas4 to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, giving the section that pertains. --NYScholar (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledged my uncivil tone here and elsewhere and have retracted my statements several times. I have apologized above. I'll do it here again. I am sorry. Am I done here? --Stuthomas4 (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(I was offline taking a shower and the computer was still on; so I checked this thread again.) Yes, Stuthomas4, I accept your apology for past statements about me. My acceptance of that apology does not give Stuthomas4 or anyone else carte blanche to attack me personally in the future, or to claim that I do not edit in good faith. I edit in good faith, and I am probably more "civil" (WP:CIVIL) than many of those "criticizing" me here (including some administrators). Being an administrator does not excuse any Wikipedia[n] from [abiding by] WP:LOP. In turn, I apologize for being wordy. Many academics appear "wordy" to non-academics. As I have said before, however, I have been "wordy" in good faith. From my perspective, I do not appear to be "wordy"; I am trying to be clear. (Back offline to eat and to go to the Post Office to check my mail; it closes at 4:30 p.m. ET; then must do some non-Wikipedia-related work; I work seven days of the week.) --NYScholar (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC) [Logging off after tc. --NYScholar (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)]

"Many academics appear "wordy" to non-academics." I just had to point this out. Now that's funny. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, Let's. You bring all the diffs that you're using to accuse everyone of conspiring against you. Do you understand that people are uspet with you? Do you understand that you have irritated and alienated numerous editors? Do you understand that in asking others to examine his conduct, the people looked at your part in the situation as well? Do you understand that they found your long term behavior more problematic than his short term loss of good temper? ThuranX (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

break1

I've read the above as well as the exchanges at User talk:Sarah and see that the root of this discussion is the same as was had here in February (NYScholar block overturned) — NYScholar is incapable of getting on with the rest of the community. He (I'll use the masculine - apologies if anyone is offended) makes unfounded accusations of bad faith against other contributors and when asked to put up or shut up, obfuscates and avoids; his selective and rapid archiving, hyper-editing and frequent adjustment of signature time stamp practices are disruptive and make it almost impossible to investigate the flow of past discussions; using these practices combined with a "do not post messages here" notice on his talk page effectively stifles discussion; he cannot accept that despite an overwhelming body of opinion that it is he who is out of line and not anyone else. He is alone in defending his own behaviour. A single acknowledgement of his own faults and a promise to try to follow the established norms of bahaviour would go a long way to diffusing this, by I think that that is now unlikely.

NYS is now saying that he will no longer contribute at The Dark Knight (film), but even if true, what does it achieve? He'll be here tomorrow exasperating another set of editors on another page who all somehow manage to get on with each other. I'll bet that someone will be back here discussing the same issue within 6 months. Its time that NYS was formally sanctioned. Moondyne 05:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I was the admin who undid NYScholar's latest block based on a reading of blocking policy that might, in retrospect, have been too restrictive. At any rate, the above discussion shows that, based on the long-term experience of numerous users, NYScholar does not appear to be able to work productively in a collaborative environment. I would support any sanctions imposed by an uninvolved administrator that would remedy this issue (including an indefinite block) until NYScholar shows clearly that he understands what the problem is and will act accordingly.  Sandstein  15:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Sandstein's comment above is surely one of the strongest single indicators of the problem NYScholar's conduct represents. That an admin who advocated so hard for NYS before, sticking their neck out and taking some flack for it in this AN/I, now sees the problem as more serious says it is time for sanctioning. I'm not sure which sanctions should be implemented, but something needs to be done. ThuranX (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Correction: I did not at any time "advocate for NYScholar". I did once respond to an unblock request of his by lifting the block that had been imposed on him for his talk page management, because I was of the opinion that deleting and archiving messages was allowed by the applicable policies, and that a block cannot technically prevent such conduct anyway. I still think that short blocks purely for poor talk page management are a bad idea. But a longer block for persistent misconduct (which may also manifest itself in poor talk page management) may be required here.  Sandstein  16:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, that portion struck out. ThuranX (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note: Per his own words, NYScholar will no longer participate in, nor, apparently, recognize the authority of, this thread and it's resultant sanctions. As such, it's clear that NYScholar is intent on expanding the radius of disruption, and that this may best be brought to WP:AE for some significant and permanent sanctions, or push for a community ban. I certainly haven't heard anyone really appeal for us not to do so. ThuranX (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest in my own talk page that ThuranX mischaracterizes this discussion: he ignores what Steve, for example, suggests above, and it is not reasonable to take what ThuranX states here as a summary of this thread. He conveniently leaves out the emphasis of Sandstein on "may" and ignores the fact that neither he nor anyone else has posted "diffs." that substantiate their claims that I have been "grossly uncivil" or "disruptive"; if they are going to make such arguments, they need to provide evidence that supports these claims. No administrative review would result in "significant and permanent sanctions, or push for a community ban" without actual "evidence" that these are warranted, or that they would actually benefit Wikipedia. At one point in discussing The Dark Knight (film), on a user talk page, ThuranX actually proposed that my changes (which most agree improve the article) be "rolled back" simply because I made them. The goal should be to improve the articles, not to pay retribution to editors one does not like. --NYScholar (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I see no emphasis on 'may'. Further ,I'd like to see the diff where I said I'd like to roll back edits 'simply because [you]made them'. ThuranX (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd support that. Orderinchaos 06:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I would request an uninvolved administrator close this discussion. NYScholar has refused to participate further in this discussion and has stated he refuses to participate in dispute resolution but sits on his talk page responding to comments made here with long an inaccurate screeds but objects if anyone attempts to respond to him and accuses them of having no heart. His behaviour continues to be unacceptable. I don't see any benefit in leaving the discussion open any longer given the circumstances. Sarah 08:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any point in going to AE because the Arbitration case was about BLPs and it closed with no enforceable remedies with regard to his eccentric behaviour. It would probably need to go through a whole new arbitration case which I think would be a waste of time as the community is quite capable of sanctioning this sort of behaviour with blocks and/or editing restrictions. Sarah 09:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

On the above mostly mischaracterizations of my responses

For the record: Every time I respond in this thread, Sarah or someone else complains about how I respond: it's either not what they want me to say or not short enough and some other administrator comes along and says--yes, see, the person is "disruptive". Let me state, therefore, at the outset, that to be criticized for not responding in this thread enough times or for responding in this thread too much is contradictory and the reason why I was not responding (in addition to not having time and not wanting to waste further time in doing so--given such attitudes). They cannot have it both ways. Either they want a response and will be respectful in reading and trying to understand it; or they do not want a response and will not be critical if they don't get one. Here is my further response. If anyone criticizes me for making it, one must keep in mind that I have been manipulated into making it (or not making it); I cannot figure out what these people want.

Please see my response today to Sarah's demand on my talk page that I "consider" what she posted there (after I posted a civil request not to post more about this AN/I on my current talk page). She posted an extremely-long comment directed to me on her own talk page before that, with a copy on my talk page, and I substituted a link to the talk page section on her talk page for the material she placed on mine, responding on her talk page. She seemed to be demanding responses in these long posts. After that, she posted yet another request that she asked me to "consider". It has taken me several hours more to respond to her and (yet another hour to write this comment here). After my replies to her (which she does not appear to me to have taken in the spirit that I composed them), once again, along with ThuranX and Stuthomas4, she mischaracterizes what I stated in reply to her in her talk page and in reply now on my talk page: "NYScholar has refused to participate further in this discussion and has stated he refuses to participate in dispute resolution but sits on his talk page responding to comments made here with long an inaccurate screeds but objects if anyone attempts to respond to him and accuses them of having no heart. His behaviour continues to be unacceptable."

How my "behaviour continues to be unacceptable" I just cannot fathom. Apparently, unless I come up with precise words that Sarah demands that I write, my "behaviour continues to be unacceptable" to her and then used as a basis for "sanctions."

Fortunately (from my perspective), perhaps unfortunately (from hers), I have a mind of my own, which is what enables me to contribute constructive improvements to articles in Wikipedia; that is not "obstinacy"; that is intelligence.

What these administrators and other users say that I state is not consistent with what I have actually stated. I have participated in as much of this discussion as I have been able to take the time to do up until now; and now I have had to take even more than I had wanted to take the time to do. (No one seems to recognize that my work on Wikipedia [like everyone else's] is "voluntary" and that doing it depends on what I want to do, not what other people insist that I do. To me that appears extremely odd.

There are perhaps hundreds of thousands if not millions of people who edit Wikipedia. This group of people commenting here (and any of those who have commented on my work or my "behavior" in the past) is a very small number of people in relation to those with whom I have worked over the past three years. The impression that they give is almost uniformly negative. That is not an accurate assessment of my work or my "attitude" toward my work and toward others in Wikipedia. Only the people who actually check these administrative threads are privy to what is going on here. There is no "referendum" on me that this group can be a reasonable facsimile of a "sample" of. To act as if this is a referendum on whether or not I should be "blocked" or "banned" or "sanctioned" in some manner (for having initially posted a request for help concerning another user's [Stuthomas4's] personal attacks against me, which had continued unchecked until I filed this AN/I (and become his repetitive "criticisms" throughout it) is highly unfair. (They also involved violations of WP:3RR, but I posted this AN/I at the suggeston of ThuranX, as cited earlier.)

Out of courtesy to Sarah (given her request on my current talk page), I took time to reply instead of going to bed (it's now nearly 7:30 a.m. ET, Monday morning, and I've been responding to her and now here since about 1:30 a.m.--that's six hours of my time that I had preferred not to spend. I should be asleep.)

The mischaracterization of what I have written as a "screed" or in any other similarly negative and pejorative terms is as disrespectful as the other things these users have been writing about me. In my response to Sarah on my talk page (where she placed it), I did my best to respond to Sarah's points and to some statements being (I believe) misrepresented in some people's comments above. There is no point in placing it in two places. The link to my talk page is already posted every time I post anything.

It is clear to me that most of those writing above are not approaching what I respond to them (no matter where I respond) in a fair manner. They demand further responses in such a manner that if I were not to respond, it would appear that I was being disrespectful and "uncivil"; in her 3-point post on my talk page, Sarah actually calls me "incredibly civilly uncivil": which I find an oxymoronic negative manner of portraying my actual civility (a positive trait).

I have fully explained my response to Sarah's very long post on her own talk page and her subsequent additional demand that I "consider" various things on my talk page, despite my request to let me be. Since none of these users appears able to have respected that request, I was once again compelled (by them) to respond to the misstatements, misinterpretations, and faulty assumptions about what I am thinking and saying here, even though I preferred not to and still prefer not to.

I see no evidence supporting their calls for me to be "sanctioned" for "past" behavior (which would be construed as a "punishment" for it) or in order to "prevent" future "misconduct" (which they have not proved that I have engaged in). They have placed me in a "damned if I do, damned if I don't" situation. I have tried to navigate and negotiate this situation in the most forthright and fairest manner possible. Apparently, whatever I state will not please these people. At one point, Sarah demands a "mea culpa". "Mea culpa" for what?

I am not the one "guilty" of all the misunderstandings and misassumptions that have been made about this situation or any earlier situation in which I have edited. (Some of those misunderstandings were based on Sarah's explicit refusal to read what I had written in archive 19, in response to her earlier very long comments, which I perceived as full of misundertandings.)

I have already apologized for being "wordy" ("wordier" than people would like); from my perspective on what she posted in her talk page and in my archived talk page 19, she can be equally wordy. (This is the first time that I have pointed that out; it is not a "criticism"; it is an observation of fact.)

But if all of these people are going to pile on accusation after accusation, they have to expect that it will take some words to respond to that much misleading rhetoric; it has taken me a lot of time and energy to try to sort some of this mess out. It is easy for them to make accusations; but where are the actual "diffs." supporting them. It is not up to me to provide "diffs." supporting their claims. That is their task, not mine. The "diffs." that I supplied in Archive 19 of my talk page establishing that Sarah had misinterpreted a situation from Nov./Dec. 2007 that she was complaining about in Feb. 2008 are items that it does not appear to me she even consulted. She just pursued her position without taking account of her own misinterpretations of fact.

I will not archive my talk page at all until it appears clear to me that this matter is resolved. (When I see a check mark on this or some comment that makes clear the "decision", or when this thread is archived; or perhaps when some admininistrator posts here that this siutation is "resolved".) If that is not necessary, I will archive my current talk page (in what will be archive page 21) and the whole matter will become accessible there. As per WP:UP and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages, that is consistent with current talk page guidelines/practice.

I hope that some fair-minded, neutral administrator who has not encountered me before and who is willing to wade through all the verbiage that these people and I have been referring to will be able to decide what to do. (It is not, however, fair to take one person's or another person's partial account [as a couple of administrators stopping by have done] and simply to accept it as fact; it is one or another's partial account and needs fact-checking via "diffs." and the actual record.)

In my view, there needs to be some fair-handed response to everything written in this thread (not just criticism of what I have written).

I will not be editing any articles in Wikipedia for an extended period of time because I have other work to do and also I have to get some rest. I will be doing other work and, I hope, getting some well-deserved rest as well, I will consider whether or not I want to contribute any further of my time, energy, and expertise to editing Wikipedia (as I state in reply to Sarah's demand that I "consider" her three points in my current talk page). There is some possibility that I might prefer not to continue to contribute any further of my time, energy, and expertise to editing Wikipedia in the future. There is also some possibility that I might prefer to do so in the future. I have not the time or the perspective on this matter to decide right now (despite Sarah's demands on my talk page that I do so.) But I do know that I cannot take any more time contributing to Wikipedia for at least an extended period of time because I must devote my time, energy, and expertise to non-Wikipedia related projects (which have impending deadlines) and then I will probably have to travel (Due to longterm illness of a close family member, I have to plan work-related travel around unexpected family-health-emergency-related trips, and that situation is unpredictable and not within my control). At this point, due to the repetition of unpleasant experiences with administrators like Sarah and some of those commenting above, right now I do not feel like contributing anything furhter to Wikipedia. That may change in the future. A lot depends on whether or not I perceive fairness in this proceeding. If I perceive it to be unfair, there will be no incentive for me to contribute anything any further to Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you seem unclear on what sort of things others find problematic, here are a few:

• "She posted an extremely-long comment directed to me on her own talk page before that, with a copy on my talk page, and I substituted a link to the talk page section on her talk page for the material she placed on mine, responding on her talk page. She seemed to be demanding responses in these long posts. After that, she posted yet another request that she asked me to "consider"." haven't you done the same in this post, and the four or five other responses in a short period of time? How are yours so different that they can't offend, unless we're idiots, yet hers is so offensive as to be obvious?

• "Fortunately (from my perspective), perhaps unfortunately (from hers), I have a mind of my own, which is what enables me to contribute constructive improvements to articles in Wikipedia; that is not "obstinacy"; that is intelligence." you call her an idiot and yourself a genius. That's a violation of CIVIL.

• "What these administrators and other users say that I state is not consistent with what I have actually stated. I have participated in as much of this discussion as I have been able to take the time to do up until now; and now I have had to take even more than I had wanted to take the time to do. (No one seems to recognize that my work on Wikipedia [like everyone else's] is "voluntary" and that doing it depends on what I want to do, not what other people insist that I do. To me that appears extremely odd." Here, what you're saying is: I'm important and smart and have edits to make, get out of my way. Again, a CIVIL infraction.

• "but I posted this AN/I at the suggestion of ThuranX, as cited earlier." For the record, that was clear sarcasm, because you couldn't stop whining about all the evil people who expect you to actually discuss on the talk page, which you don't really do. You say' I did this, and I'm right so leave it' over and over in different phrasings.

• "it's now nearly 7:30 a.m. ET, Monday morning, and I've been responding to her and now here since about 1:30 a.m.--that's six hours of my time that I had preferred not to spend. I should be asleep." no policy violation here, but you should really recognize this is a sign of an unhealthy mental state and makes you look horribly obsessive.

• "It is clear to me that most of those writing above are not approaching what I respond to them (no matter where I respond) in a fair manner. They demand further responses in such a manner that if I were not to respond, it would appear that I was being disrespectful and "uncivil" ". No, we expect you to be succinct, which you can't do.

• "Sarah actually calls me "incredibly civilly uncivil": which I find an oxymoronic negative manner of portraying my actual civility (a positive trait)." read the essay about the Civil POV Push. I don't have the link handy, but its' worth the read for you to see how you're perceived; you employ similar tactics.

• "I hope that some fair-minded, neutral administrator who has not encountered me before and who is willing to wade through all the verbiage that these people and I have been referring to will be able to decide what to do. (It is not, however, fair to take one person's or another person's partial account [as a couple of administrators stopping by have done] and simply to accept it as fact; it is one or another's partial account and needs fact-checking via "diffs." and the actual record.)" You actually expect ANYONE to read through your 3 year history, at least three different archives you claim will explain this, the article talk pages mentioned, the ArbCom decision, and come to the conclusion that you're "right" and everyone else in all three years who has ever opposed your edits is just wrong?? Get real.

You have implied, in talking about how much you volunteer, and how disgusted you are by all this, that you might leave the project entirely. that would be a good thing. You could catch up on sleep and get out a bit more. Further, even after stating that you were going to log out, you still posted three more replies over the next 2.5 hours or so. Log off. Get sleep. Look after your job and family. Wikipedia will be here when you return, though you will likely be doing so under some set of restrictions on your behavior. ThuranX (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The previous arbitration, etc., the "mea culpa"?

For the results of the previous arbitration request (May - July 2007), to which Sarah refers above,, here is the direct link: Requests for arbitration/NY Scholar. I have not received any sanctions for any subsequent editing of that article (which I have updated occasionally, mostly citations), and there has not been any justification that I should have received any sanctions for any of my subsequent editing of it. I also do not think that my editing of any articles or talk pages (including my own user talk page) since that time justifies any sanctions. So I do not know on what basis Sarah et al. are calling for sanctions. Sanctions of what behavior and for what specific causes (diffs.)? Re: the so-called legal threats: at the time I was criticized for making a "legal threat", I was not actually aware of what the Wikipedia policy was on making legal threats; it was not something I did with knowledge of the policy prohibiting it; I was very upset by the aspersions on my personal reputation as a scholar and reminding people that I am a living person with a professional as well as personal reputation that they seemed to me to be damaging. I struck out the part relating to that once the problem of legal threat in Wikipedia was explained to me (and I read the full policy; I hadn't realized what they were talking about up until that point). If what Sarah is looking for is a statement from me that I understand what the complaints were in the arbitration: I understand that. I also try not to engage in what that arbitration explained to be "edit warring" and I did learn from it. If I do edit any other articles in Wikipedia in the future and if I do comment on any other article or other talk pages in the future, I will certaintly try to review this arbitration and keep all this in mind. If there were any lapses in the Talk:The Dark Knight (film), I did not intend to make them. I had come to editing that article after a time away doing a tremendously-painstaking project, and expended a lot of energy on it in citation-fixing. I don't think I'll ever do that again. I just can't take the time or the energy or risk these kinds of controversies in the future. So perhaps that may help towards some degree of "mea culpa" "admission" here. I don't know. Perhaps Sarah (et al.) will respond if this is what she/they are looking for me to acknowledge. (???) --NYScholar (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I really wish you would stop crediting things to me that I have never said. Immediately above your last two long posts I stated very clearly that the ArbCom case was in regard to BLPs and it brought no actionable remedies against you. I really wish you would quit these false and inaccurate statements and accusations. I'm not even going to bother going through these last two posts pointing out all the false statements as I think everyone here has quite got the point that anything you claim about other editors has to be carefully examined because it is most likely not true or so distorted as to not resemble the truth. I also wish you would stop trying to off-load all fault for your inability to get along with any other editors onto me. Besides asking for contact details for Walter Achtert's brother who contacted the Foundation asking that we put him in contact with you, I have had only one interaction with you and that was six months ago - you are responsible for your interactions with other editors, so stop focusing your attention on me and start dealing with the issue at hand. While the ArbCom case granted an amnesty and brought no actionable findings, the community may still impose sanctions of its own, this includes community bans, blocks and editing sanctions. The sanctions I think should be applied to you are sanctions that can be applied by the community and have nothing to do with ArbCom. The only reason I raised the ArbCom case, which you appear to have refused to participate in, is that your eccentric behaviour which was illustrated on the workshop and evidence pages and led to Ryan Postlethwaite, an independent administrator, proposing a number of disruption-related findings against you - revert and civility paroles, and a topic ban - has continued unabated for the last year. I am not asking you to make any statements about the arbitration case and I cannot possibly understand why you would think that but it seems obtuse. I am talking about your present behaviour right now; the arbitration case simply serves to show that your behavioural problems are not some new occurrence that came up between you and the others on the Dark Knight but rather have existed for a long time - as Shell Kinney said above, since you first came to Wikipedia. I did not "demand" you to do anything and the suggestion is ludicrous. I simply asked you to consider a few points that I felt were in your best interest. I can't possibly think why it would take you six hours to respond to that one paragraph I wrote you. Sarah 13:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not refuse to participate in the Arbitration that I linked above. I refused to post diffs. to contradict diffs. of so-called "evidence" that others were posting right and left because I recognized that how doing so would be a total waste of time. I chose not to defend myself any further against their so-called "charges" than I already had taken the time to do in the link posted. I knew that there was no case for what they were attempting to claim, and that to have to take any more time than I had already taken to respond would have been a further waste of my time.

Re: "I really wish you would stop crediting things to me that I have never said. Immediately above your last two long posts I stated very clearly that the ArbCom case was in regard to BLPs and it brought no actionable remedies against you. I really wish you would quit these false and inaccurate statements and accusations." I simply gave a link to the arbitration that Sarah referred to so that people can consult it directly, rather than to depend on one person's summary of it. I did not "credit" anything to her that she "never said". I can't take any more time on this. It is now 9:12 a.m. and I have been working on this matter since about 1:30 a.m., whether or not Sarah or anyone else can fathom why it is taking this amount of time; this is a fact; I'm exhausted by Sarah's repeated comments requiring a response (or not--who could tell at this point?) I would not have responded to Sarah if she had not posted so many comments to me that I felt were:

1. misrepresentations of the archived record
2. misinterpretations of my intended meanings
3. repeated accusations of things that I have never intended to do.

I am basically at my wit's end with this at this point. This is my final statement in this matter; I do not care how many times Sarah or anyone else returns to make further "charges" or further calls for "sanctions"; I cannot think of any other way to end this other than to say that she misinterprets just about everything I try to state; I do not know why. But that is what happens and that is why it has taken me so much time to try to straighten this out. If she returns with another misinterpretation, I will just say ahead of time, I would not be surprised, based on my previous experience. It is a pity. But c'est la vie. --NYScholar (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What is it that Sarah is advocating sanctioning me for today? On what basis? (The previous arbitration left open sanctions only in regard to the article on Lewis Libby. [What she has done (yet again) is to take specific comments totally out of context without also observing that those making them did not prevail, for reasons given in the arbitration proceedings.] It was determined that I had violated no Wikipedia policies or guidelines. But she does not mention that.) As far as I can tell, there is nothing that I would say or do, nothing I could say or do, that would satisfy Sarah. She seems determined to sanction me as an editor, no matter what I say or do. One might ask why? I'm gong to bed. Whatever you decide you decide; and whatever I decide I will decide after that. --NYScholar (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Quotation from Steve above

<< after EC with below) Might I suggest that a better preventative measure would be for everyone to stay out of each others' way for a while? No more comments on the editor's talk page, no more communication from the editor to this thread or the Dark Knight talk page (the editor has indicated as much), and absolutely no response to comments the editor might make on his/her talk or archive page, no matter how unfair you/we might feel the editor is misrepresenting yours or others' words; the record is already clear enough without further escalating matters. A cool off period might serve to open avenues of constructive criticism and collaboration that aren't immediately obvious right now in this atmosphere of misunderstanding (whether deliberate or not on his/her part) and mistrust. Steve T • C 17:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC) >>

I leave you all with Steve's advice, which I had attempted to take. Every time Sarah et al. posted comments in this thread or in talk pages (including mine) with what I regarded as further misstatements or further misinterpretations or mispresentations, I have felt "required" to respond because not to do so makes it appear that I am being "uncivil" or "rude" even though I don't want to take the time to respond. So I repeat what Steve says above, and I am taking his advice. That's it. [forgot that I had already logged out. Resigned w/ log on name.] --NYScholar (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you respond because that's your tactic. You vomit up multipage screeds in which you couch false accusations, recast recent events to favor the interpretation of reality you wish us to have, instead of objective reality, remind us all you're smarter than us because you claim to be a 'scholar'(which is just a fancy word for student), and so on. You have to have the last word, and that's about it. ThuranX (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, what do you want here? What do you want to happen? Beam 15:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

An admin needs to look at it and close it and preferably implement some kind of sanctions. Just because you can't be bothered reading it (tl;dr) doesn't mean it's resolved and NYScholar hasn't retired, he was just resigning (re-signing) his comment because he was mistakenly logged out when he posted it. Sarah 15:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Really, Beam? All this stuff, false accusations against numerous editors, multiple cases an AN/I and an Arb case against him, multiple editors calling for some admin imposed remedy, and the best you can say is ' so... what do you want?' read it all. All of it. Figure out a good remedy, and propose it. ThuranX (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Options:

• (1) Whack NYScholar with one or more trout
• (2) Block NYScholar
• (3) Ban NYScholar
• (4) Nuclear detonation of NYScholar (maybe a bit extreme)
• (5) Enrolling NYScholar in Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user
• (6) Drink profusely to forget entire situation and let others handle it

I think I'm personally best qualified to perform #6. However, if asked for a real opinion, would favor blocking NYScholar until and unless he acquires a mentor in the Adopt-a-User program, and/or at least a week. If it can't find a mentor in a week, end block at that time. John Carter (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

On a more serious note, I have no problem with NYScholar continuing to edit so long as two sanctions are enforced:

• Restriction on archiving talk page
• Restriction on making false accusations or accusations without evidence.

I honestly do not believe a mentorship would assist, especially as the problems seem to be endemic, have persisted for three years and against totally different (unrelated) groups of editors. Orderinchaos 17:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Might make sense. Any ideas on specifically what would be done if either restriction were violated? John Carter (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

NYSchoalr will find #1 and #4 to be a personal attack, (I agree on #4), #6 will offend NYScholar's scholarly sensibilities (NYScholar's a non-monastic tradition type scholar). #2 would be good combined with #5, with #3 a consequence of avoiding the 2/5 hybrid. I oppose John Carter's timed block against acceptance. I have absolutely no doubt that NYScholar will simply wait out the block and return as normal, citing those aforementioned real world concerns as why NYScholar couldn't ask for the help in the timely manner required. An indef block until acceptance ensures that when real world concerns abate, he can't edit until accepting. ThuranX (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite block until adoption might be reasonable. The only problem might arise if, for some reason which for the life of me I cannot possibly comprehend, NYScholar gets no offers of mentorship. That was my initial reason for setting the arbitrary limit, but I could see how it might be counterproductive to set a time limit as indicated above. John Carter (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to edit this as I see this has now been archived but I just want to add a clarification here so people understand the context of Beam's comment and my reply to him. Beam closed this discussion as "resolved" with the comment: "Tl;Dr - NYScholar "retired", no admin action necessary." I reverted this because NYScholar had not retired; in fact, he stated several times that he was not intending to retire but would wait for the outcome of this discussion before deciding his future commitment to the project. When he stated in his last comment - or last at that point - that he was "resigning", he meant that he was re-signing his comment because he had been mistakenly logged out and had signed it with his IP. Additionally, I don't think it is appropriate for someone just passing by who isn't prepared to read the discussion and openly states this (tl;dr) to slap a "resolved" tag on the discussion as they pass by. And it was clear to me that this would require an admin closure, given that somewhere in the order of a dozen people posted comments in favour of some sort of sanction or restriction. Just wanted to clarify this for the record as I left last night before explaining my reversion. Sarah 00:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed outcome

As per the above, I'm beginning to think that blocking NYScholar until such time as it gets a mentor through the Adopt-a-User program might be the best way to go here. Opinions? John Carter (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems sensible - but there are 45 users in the category; how fast is it cycling? It might be usefully combined with setting up one of the archive bots to manage the archiving of the User talk page and restricting NYScholar to having the bot apply a certain minimum delay. I'm quite a bit extreme at going 1 month; 48 hours would seem reasonable if faster than I'd truly like (many editors take the weekend off). If a bot does all the talk page archiving, he can't get anyone upset about archiving by hand without reply. GRBerry 21:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Support longer block without an agreement to engage in mandatory mentorship. And knowing NYScholar, he/she will not admit any wrongdoing on his/her part, and will refuse mentorship. This has been going on for far too long. It takes a lot to upset Sarah, one of our most patient and kindest administrators. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, if NYScholar is blocked until it gets adopted, and it doesn't get adopted, the block might be very long indeed. We could set the length of the block to a required minimum, and, maybe, something like a four or five day archiving period? John Carter (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

He/she can always agree to mentorship on his talk page while he/she is blocked. I really don't see NYScholar admitting any fault in any of this, or coming to accept mentorship at any time in the future. His/her behavior has been going on for years and is unlikely to change. If he/she will accept mentorship/adoption while blocked, then the block should be lifted, not before. Of course, I expect to be in the minority on this. Viriditas (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, given the reputation NYSCholar has for a reticence to concede error, that might drive off some who would otherwise volunteer. Sadly, no one involved in any prior dispute could volunteer out of pity/good faith, because NYScholar has identified all opposition as cabalish in nature. However, that NYScholar has done this to NYScholar's self isn't a reason to make it easier on NYScholar.

As for the archive-bot, I'd ask instead for 96 hours. It accounts for long days, school projects ,work projects, real lives, and so on, and allows slower moving conversations to not be lost. if you can't respond in 4 days, you might have to refresh any other person's memory. ThuranX (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

One more question: whatever the result, should a permanent link to this thread, once it hits the AN/I archive, be attached to NYScholar's arbcom case? ThuranX (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

96 hours sounds good to me. As I understand such things, NYScholar could adjust the archiving personally even while blocked, so there should be no problem in setting up the archiving. In answer to ThuranX's question, if, as seems likely, disciplinary measures regarding NYScholar are enacted here, it would seem reasonable to me to ad a link to the ArbCom case. John Carter (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The user has been blocked indefinitely, with the provision of the block being lifted when he is successfully enrolled in the Adopt-a-User program. John Carter (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, John, for be willing to step up and take action, I really appreciate that very much as I know this isn't an easy case, particularly with the length and various accusations floating around. I'm quite happy to wait for NYS's response but I would hate to see this become a defacto ban. I think NYScholar is a very proud person and I'm concerned that he won't accept mentorship (though I sure hope he does). Sarah 00:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This might seem extremely dumb of me but, despite the prevailing sense that NYScholar needed some sort of sanction, and in the interest of fairness, I would be willing to accept some sort of sanction myself. At the least it would contribute to preventing NYScholar's perception that I've been exempted from punishment and that there's a cabal against him/her. Anyway, just trying to right all the wrongs here. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

How about a civility parole? I don't think that you really need to be sanctioned because you reacted poorly under extreme frustration, and the community seems to have recognised that, and you took all reasonable steps to rectify the situation - redacted the comments, apologised numerous times etc. But if you think you should be sanctioned for parity we can put you on civility parole for a defined period. I don't see any point in blocks or anything else stronger than that though. What did you have in mind? Sarah 01:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well not that I'm dying for a sanction. But I thought it was the right thing to do to at least allow the opportunity if the community wanted to balance the punishments. I think Steve mentioned joining the adoption program which I wanted to look into. Though in my work the past few days I've been very careful to adhere to guidelines, building consensus for edits, etc. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 06:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Subpage?

Any chance this could all be moved to a subpage? This section is literally one-third of the entire page now. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

We're going for a wiki-record. So please phrase your answers in the form of a short story or epic poem. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No subpage, please, in the above section, there's serious progress to a resolution; given NYScholar discredits all involved as too small a subset of the community to make any sanctions against him, taking it to a subpage would play into his thinking, and give him ammo for the inevitable appeal. ThuranX (talk)

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.

User:Save humanity

Adding

Unresolved

though

Resolved

 – blocked for 24 hours --Allemandtando (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Save humanity (talk · contribs) is conducting some disturbing behaviour at the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena‎ article, introducing bloggish/spammish/soapboxish commentary (like posting contact phone number of the party), breaching 3rr, creating a fork article and not responding to the various warnings posted at his talk page. --Soman (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

User has been notified, please notify the Subject of AN complaints in the future. Also, I recommend you file a 3RR report by going here and filing a complaint. Beam 16:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Can someone delete the very clear POV folk that is Maharashtra Navnirmaaa Sena (MNS) --Allemandtando (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I redirected it. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, this user seems to have copied my user page. I came to know of this as one of the fellow editor with whom I regularly interact left me the message. Check this - User_talk:Gppande#Question & User:Save_humanity. I would request Admins to be help me by deleting his/her user page. I have never ever got involved with this user earlier. Looks like he/she is making improper use of my name. --gppande «talk» 14:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What is confusing is why does Save humanity assume Klopto (talk · contribs · count) to be Gppande whom 'he' (Save humanity is a male as per his userpage declaration) refers to as Dear Klopto (Gppande) in a message at Klopto's talkpage?! KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 17:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case, the first thing to be done is to clean the message coz I am definitely not Klopto. I would prefer admins doing this as I hesitate to wipe off discussion threads on others talkpage. BTW, my userpage got vandalized had to get it semi-protected. Something fishy is going on. --gppande «talk» 22:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Save humanity has now reappeared as an anon user, 66.255.99.91 (talk · contribs), still breaking 3RR, still adding nonsense material, still creating fork articles. I'll post a sock tag and 3rr report. --Soman (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

NCdave deleting uncomfortable material about Jesse Helms

Myself and another editor, TexasDex (talk · contribs) are having problems with NCdave (talk · contribs) who keeps deleting vast swaths of sourced content on Jesse Helms.[11] [12][13][14]. We seem to be met with circular arguments and sarcasm and have tried to maintain civility and respond to NCdave's concerns, some of which have been helpful. The article itself has greatly improved since Helms' 4 July death but having to deal with this is generally halting constructive dialog on improving the article and working through some challenging material - like Helms' response to the AIDS pandemic, affiliations with foreign political figures and social views on segregation and sexual minorities, etc. NCdave's main line of reasoning - as far as I can tell - is that Helms couldn't have been a racist or segregationist because his political opponents would have used any proof of such in their campaigns. Neither TexasDex nor myself accept that reasoning for including or deleting content. It may be true but we also may never know. Regardless we go by reliable sources which we have provided for everything that has been deleted, repeatedly. Some insight on how to manage this rather sweeping content dispute is appreciated. Banjeboi 15:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If he continues reverting, send him to 3RR, though if he does a third revert, may also want to request full page protection until the RfC is done to avoid needless edit warring. In discussions, invite him to note specifically which sources he feel do not meet WP:RS, then point out why they are. If he still disagrees, you could ask at the RS noticeboard to see if he is more willing to listen to a larger consensus. As an aside from a North Carolina native, NCDave is living in a fantasy if he doesn't think Helms wasn't a racist (and sexist) *blank blank*. It wasn't a state secret and his political opponents did note both in their campaign ads against him. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm already on WP:RSN about a source I had some reservations about (fair.org), but I should probably have brought up the other things he's disputing. I'll start new section on RSN once he's made a list of sources he finds unacceptable (with justifications). --TexasDex ★ 16:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

His issues seem to be more about the content than the sourcing although in an effort to remove the content he insists there is no reliable sourcing for anything he is deleting. Banjeboi 16:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking over the user's block log there seems to be a history of edit warring.--Jersey Devil (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:A Man In Black

Resolved

 – In as much as this is the venue for anything to be done about this, I have taken the appropriate action. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

He has performed major edits without notification.[15][16] Has deleted important information from articles, despite the fact that dedicated editors were willing to improve. Talk:Princess Sally Acorn#In response to recent edits and all below. Says that all the important in-universe information from the Sonic character articles is pure "crap". And to get a better undersatnding of the characters, (which is what these articles are for), they need this information. And has cut so much sourced information that the only way this information could stay would be if it was merged.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

And what specific action are you requesting in this content dispute? --Allemandtando (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of the actions he's done to the Sonic character articles.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Administrators cannot use their powers to force content, only under very specific circumstances. Have you tried discussing this matter with him or getting a 3rd party to mediate? (by the way, I informed him of this AN/I thread). --Allemandtando (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Again, what do you want us to do with our admin tools? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend that both User:Fairfieldfencer and User:A Man In Black are given a final warning about edit warring, a reminder about civility and refrain from editing these articles until the dispute is resolved, both have breached the 3RR and could easily be blocked. This needs to go to dispute resolution not here. As an uninvolved editor, i see nothing controversial about the edits made by User:A Man In Black. --neon white talk 18:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason for AMiB to be warned for anything. he's not deleting, but redirecting articles which are essentially duplications to a central location. The articles in question lack any real world context and read as gigantic plot summaries and fan writing. Fairfielddancer ought to be reminded about WP:NOTE, NOT, and so on, though. ThuranX (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

He has done terrible edits to the Sonic character articles which are very unconstructive. I'll stop with the edit warring, but it was done in good-faith.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring is against behavioural guidelines so whether it was done 'in good faith' is not really the issue. I agree with ThuranX in that User:A Man In Black's edits appear to me to be construstive merges/redirects on the basis of overlapping info. His/her manner might not be civil at all times but the edits appear to be contructive. If you can provided diffs that are you believe are contrary to that, please do. --neon white talk 19:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's one. Article with 38 refs down to 17. [17]Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see AMiB removing 22 references in the edit you provided. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 19:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry fixed now.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

And I don't see him removing 21 refs either. In fact, I only see him getting rid of (at most) three or four in that diff. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 19:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with AMIB's actions. I don't think this requires admin intervention.-Wafulz (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, there were 17, but TTN got rid of them.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Alot of the sources (not all) seem poor and some are novel interpretations and primary sources. I recommend discussing the sourcing of this article and using the reliable sources noticeboard for questionable sources. --neon white talk 19:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Many of those so called sources were just episodes and such, fueling the aforementioned SYNTH. removing them with their SYNTH material is good, and improves the project. ThuranX (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think some of the edit summaries could be toned down, i.e. [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], etc. If nothing else, there does seem to be some escalation going on regarding some of these articles and I hope that everyone will be able to come down and try harder to work more colloboratively in as friendly and constructive a way as is possible. --Happy Bastille Day! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)