Page Protection

The Requests for Page Protection page is backlogged. If an admin or two could take a look, it would be appericated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 27, 2008 @ 04:50 (archiving comment) Fram (talk) 09:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from Commodore Sloat

Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

csloat has been engaging in disruptive editing on John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 since October 25, 2008. After a month of disruptive behavior, administrative intervention is required.

• His first edit was a POV contribution with a section title name that drew a conclusion that the source material did not. The first diff, and a later edit which sourced it. This initial contribution was also incorrectly placed in a section which lists events chronologically. The result of this edit was a long heated content dispute which was ultimately resolved satisfying everyone involved to some degree. In the interest of keeping this brief, I'll just say that csloat's contribution to the consensus was hardly constructive and he exercised no compromise whatsoever. Upon request, multiple specific incidents can be diffed.
• Repeatedly reverted deletion of libelous material only supported by biased media outlets. Here, here, and here. The content is no longer in the article. Again, contributions related to this on the talk page were hardly constructive.
• Insistence on using pejorative terms. Related to this first contribution, multiple sources have been found showing that Muslims find the term "jihadist" offensive, so general consensus on the talk page determined that "Islamic extremist" is a more appropriate term. His only "proof" is links on Amazon and pretentious comments. Yet again, no real constructive contribution to consensus. A few examples here, here, here, and here where he claimed the argument was "conceded" after a mere 20 hours of inactivity on the talk page.
• Removed factual information from World Opinion section, claiming that a source which drew no conclusion drew a conclusion. First collection of edits here, and more here where he also unilaterally restored the "jihadist" term. He then switched his tactic to tag abuse, applying a totally-disputed section tag which claims neutrality and factual accuracy are in dispute. After applying this tag abusively multiple times, and being warned that it was not the appropriate tag to apply, I finally warned him on his user page, indicating this would be his last warning. The warning was for a mention on the Vandalism noticeboard, but considering all of his incidents I think a disruptive editor report was more warranted. He shortly after removed the warning, calling the warning an abusive lie, (similarly to how he removed a 3RR warning calling it "incorrect" in the edit summary) and then reapply the inappropriate tag yet again -- at the same time restoring the pejorative "jihadist" term (he's done that a lot to say the least).

There's more evidence available if needed related to these incidents, but I think in this brief report there is enough to indicate disruptive behavior. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 18:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The above is all a content dispute. The dispute got disruptive because Amwestover refused to abide by typical Wikipedia policy which allows the use of such tags as the NPOV tag and the Totally-disputed tag to warn readers that the material they are about to read is disputed. I chose to employ the tag in order to avoid an ongoing edit war with Amwestover. The other editors on the page have been more reasonable and have tried to talk the issues out; Amwestover has instead chosen to personally attack me over and over, and to edit war over the tag. His removal of the tag is extremely unjustified - even if he feels that I am wrong in the content dispute, he should leave the tag up and attempt to resolve the dispute in talk, as I tried to do. Instead, he bullied me in talk and kept removing the tag without addressing my arguments on the talk page at all. Then he posted a phony warning on my talk page falsely accusing me of vandalism. I removed the warning and warned him on the article talk page to stop being disruptive. I see he has now escalated his disruption to the AN/I page in the hopes of getting me sanctioned. It is inappropriate to attempt to resolve a content dispute through sanctions.

If anyone would like a fuller explanation of the reason I felt that the term "jihadist" is appropriate on the page or the reason that the totally-disputed tag should stay on the page until the dispute is resolved, please consult the talk page (read the last sections in order rather than just the comments cherry-picked by Amwestover to make me look bad), but I don't feel that we should extend the content dispute over to AN/I so I will not address them here. Thanks. csloat (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Often a tactic that csloat used was diversionary arguments instead of addressing the actual issue, of which this is a fine example (and the subsection below, too). Since any content disputes that may have related to csloat's edits have been resolved, this is clearly about his disruptive editing behavior. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 02:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The content disputes have not been resolved; that was the point of the tag that you disruptively kept deleting, Amwestover. Again, I'm happy to discuss them, and we will no doubt continue discussing them on the talk page of the article, but the only relevant issue for AN/I is your disruptive behavior, as outlined below. csloat (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from Amwestover

Amwestover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

I've created a subsection here so that Amwestover's userlinks are easily accessible to admins. I am certain that if this incident is investigated it will be Amwestover, not csloat, who is found to have been editing disruptively. My actions have been focused entirely on trying to add factual material to the article. There is some dispute about whether the material belongs in the article -- I have tried to address those disputes civilly and have bent over backwards to compromise. But I feel it is disruptive for Amwestover to continually portray basic content disputes as "libel" issues or as "vandalism." It is also disruptive for him to lie in warnings to my talk page, to constantly insult me on the article talk page (the NPA violations flow in nearly every post he makes to me), and to waste everyone's time with an AN/I report that is obviously lacking in any basis whatsoever. csloat (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute

You guys seem to be arguing over a quote from Washington Post. That's a content dispute. I don't see what admins could do here (besides locking the page, which they've already done). Both of you need to follow WP:DR. Did anyone consider drafting a WP:RfC on this issue? Pcap ping 19:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The content dispute related to Islamic extremists supporting McCain on the internet was solved several weeks ago. All productive editors involved contributed to the consensus and the compromise which solved that content dispute. Speaking of which, csloat did not participate in the consensus or compromise which resolved this issue whatsoever, other than to voice his opposition to any suggestions which differed from his original edit. No, this report is about his disruptive editing habits on the article and talk pages, which goes beyond this particular issue. If you believe that more evidence is necessary, please let me know. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

"libelous material only supported by biased media outlets" [1]. The outlet would be MSNBC. Yeah, I find the material very marginal, so I would argue it should be removed per WP:UNDUE, but you'll have a hard time getting someone blocked for this. Pcap ping 21:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said, this report is about disruptive editing rather than content. Disruptive editing can involve the content of someone's edits, so I mentioned that where I felt appropriate. Since I organized the report around the content issues, I'll make an effort to reorganize the report around each aspect of his behavior that is disruptive in order to make a stronger case. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 22:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

csloat, you also need to be less aggressive in editing, and avoid edit warring over contentious material. I know it can take a long time to find consensus on politically charged articles, but insisting on every minor point will aggravate editors holding the opposite POV. If you guys cannot come to an agreement, try WP:3O first. This is all I'm going to say here; I put a {inuse} tag on an article, and I need to get back to it. Pcap ping 21:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind it taking a long time to reach consensus; my problem is with an editor falsely proclaiming consensus when there is none and then removing legitimate warning tags that are meant to help dispute resolution. I also get annoyed with an editor completely misrepresenting what is happening in the dispute when I have participated in good faith (and, contrary to his false statement above, I have attempted several compromises). I would be all for an RfC if that's what it takes to settle what should be extremely minor issues here. Anyway I hope this will encourage Amwestover to follow WP:DR rather than removing tags or filing phony AN/I reports. Have a good day. csloat (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please review block of JARIAN

I happened upon JARIAN (talk · contribs) via a report on AIV. This user was blocked for three days in February for disruption. He's returned twice since then--once in August and again in November. In that time he's created several articles that appear to be hoaxes (but to my mind, escape being G3'd by an eyelash) and inserted apparently false information into articles. He's also edit-warred by way of IP 97.89.6.61 (talk · contribs) and moved his talk page "because I am getting tired of complaints."

I decided he needed a month-long block to rethink his behavior--the only reason I didn't indef him was because, as mentioned above, those articles he created don't appear to be blatant hoaxes. Please review. Blueboy96 03:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've stretched the block out to indefinite, because he's been creating very subtle hoax articles, and linking to them from multiple articles. He's engaged in an active campaign to damage the encyclopedia by introducing non-obvious false content. We have no need of this nonsense. It's going to take me a while to go and undo his contributions.

If there are any Checkusers about, it might be a good idea to have a look for other accounts in the sock drawer. This is obviously an experienced editor. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Arrgh...he's been tampering with MADtv season summaries to insert references to his imaginary actors. I've deleted the actors' articles, but the removal of the junk that he's added is slow going. He's edited both as JARIAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and as the IP 97.89.6.61 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log • Abuse Report).

Any article-space entries that come up in the "what links here" for Tisha Williams, Kevin Barrymore, Eddie Mitchell, Jeremy Wayne, Judith Foxworth need to be cleaned up. What a twit. (I've cleaned up links to the struckthrough articles already.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Eddie Mitchell leads to a huge number of red-linked names at Home Improvement. They all look like nonsense since I can't seem to find them at IMDb (yes, I actually stopped once I saw Q2 listed there). Does this go any further? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, those were all added by JARIAN while logged out (diff), under his already-identified IP address. For now I'm going to say that I think we've got them all...but I've filed a Checkuser request to be sure: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JARIAN. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Fully endorse the ramping up to indef. A classic case of gaming the system, in my mind. Given TenofAllTrades' evidence, the results of that checkuser ought to me mighty interesting. Blueboy96 18:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

And he was operating at least one sleeper account as well. Good grief. Blueboy96 19:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

weird edit history possible massive article disruption.

Can someone take a look at the edit history of RichHandsmGuy (talk · contribs) - virtually all of his edits seems to be reverting to article versions (sometimes those versions are over a year old) of Rassmguy (talk · contribs). Sockpuppet? team editing? I'm going to take a look but some eyes would be helpful and maybe if it is disruptive - a block to prevent further damage. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

OK clearly disruptive - virtually all of his edits revert article back at least six months and in every case seriously degrade the quality of the articles by reverting clean-up work, removing sources etc. The guy is a menace. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Both accounts indef. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Great and as far as I can see the edits have been rolled back. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

huh? claims that it's a bot account. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It may well be written to be somewhat automated. However, this particular task ("revert to the last version by me") would never be approved for a bot. In any case, an indef block seems reasonable for the time being. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This edit looks suspicious, too. Why would another unrelated user make that edit? -- The Anome (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Now trying to get unblocked on the basis that it's a autoblock of a bot account. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Rassmguy (talk · contribs) has posted two unblock requests at his talkpage - the first is on the basis of "I know nothing about this" - but what's odd is that he's posted a second on the basis that the first one was declined - but nobody has edited the page in-between his edits to decline the request? huh? --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

"Compromised by his 11 year old daughter who doesn't know any better." As compared with the average adult troll. That's an interesting twist on the "evil roommate" story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Update: Returned today as Handllrich (talk · contribs) reverting to 69.122.210.59 (talk). DoubleBlue (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Gavin.collins

There has been a long, ongoing dispute regarding Dungeons & Dragons articles between User:Gavin.collins and the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject (prominent members who have been involved in the dispute recently include User:BOZ, User:Drilnoth, User:Shadzar, and User:Webwarlock) for approximately the past 14 months.

Problems: The issue started because of Gavin.collins's tagging. He often tags articles with templates such as {{notability}}, {{context}}, {{in-universe}}, {{plot}}, {{nofootnotes}}, {{Primarysources}}, {{Original research}}, and {{unreferenced}}, typically adding multiple tags at once. Examples include (although there are many more, as seen in his contributions): [2], [3]. Some members of the project have come to believe that he also does not read the articles he tags. For example, he made the following edits within a 1 minute period: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] Gavin has stated that he reads articles and then tags them all at once[14]. Some users have found this difficult to believe because he often applies almost identical tags to all articles (in the ten samples above, he added four tags to each, three of which were identical on all the articles) and because a quick look through his contributions shows that the tags are typically added at a fairly constant rate of one every few minutes any time that he is actively tagged, with only some larger clumps of successive edits like those listd).

Disagreements have revolved around which tags are appropriate, whether sources are reliable secondary sources, and whether uncited content is original research or simply unsourced. The primary focus of his edits over the span of the dispute seems to revolve around placing tags on D&D articles rather than attempting to help resolve the issues (with a secondary focus on discussion on Wikipedia policy and guideline talk pages relating to the same concerns he has on the articles he tags); as there are only a few active members of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, the sheer volume of this tagging places an excessive burden on these few editors.

At this point, unfortunately, the high volume of tagging for a small group of editors to handle is only part of the problem. Gavin seems to be quick to accuse others of vandalism[15], Conflict of Interest[16], and of "hiding something"[17], with little or no evidence. There have been large amounts of edit warring (visible on most D&D articles, including [18], [19]) and unproductive discussion, which oftentimes gets rather heated on both sides (evident by the following: [20], [21], and most of the archives at WT:D&D, most notably [22], [23], [24], and [25]). Attempts at reasonable discussion between Gavin and WikiProject members often result in no conclusion, compromise, or consensus, as Gavin seems to be resistant to any view but his own (example: [26]). He has also admitted that he knows little of RPGs, but that is probably due to the "poor quality" of the articles he's been looking at.[27] An attempt at mediation seemed to pause the conflict rather than end it.

He also rarely, if ever, answers direct questions that he can't answer by citing a Wikipedia policy or guideline.[28], [29].

Gavin's arguments have also spread beyond Dungeons & Dragons articles and to areas related to what he is arguing for, such as at WT:FICT (for examples, see the entire discussions that took place around the following edits: [30], [31], [32]) -Drilnoth (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Drilnoth, if two people have tried (and failed) to resolve this with him (which I suspect may be the case), then WP:RFC is the place to log a request for comment. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the only problem being that one has already been done. Granted, however, that discussion was before the RfM and his slight change of tactics. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If this is the wrong place for this sort of thing, then we can basically copy the complaint into a new RFC/U. BOZ (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that there have been many attempts at dispute resolution; most recently my own attempt at discussion here. But the members of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject have exhausted nearly every step of dispute resolution, starting with talk page discussions,[33][34][35]. A third opinion was sought twice and giventwice. A request for comment was also opened, resulting in a 36-8 endorsement favoring the basis of the dispute. Lastly, a request for mediation was opened. We can open another RFC, but it has had little effect on his behavior, historically. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

About the only thing that seems to have changed as a result of the RFC/U was its main focus: deletion. He hasn't nominated an article in several months that I'm aware of; when at one point we were talking about a high volume of AFDs and PRODs, he hasn't seen fit to approach that avenue recently. However, as far as I can see, all of the other issues (presented as secondary) from the prior RFC/U remain. If we were to do another RFC/U, these issues would have to be presented as primary concerns, rather than secondary. I'd like to see what, if anything, can be resolved through this current avenue before bringing about another RFC/U. BOZ (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that another RFC, even with a different focus, would be the right course of action? With everything that's been tried (per COS), I personally don't think that an RFC would help very much at all. Based on the sheer amount of discussion done attempting to reach a consensus after the previous RFC that did practically nothing, I think that an ArbCom has to be the next step. Now believe me, I don't want to get involved in an ArbCom anymore than anyone else, but I think that this dispute needs to be resolved soon, and more discussion, RFCs, RFMs, 3rd opinions, etc., won't really help us get there.

Why do I think that it needs to be resolved soon? Well, Gavin hasn't really changed since he returned after the RFM, and things are getting worse. The discussion surrounding his edits have caused one user (User:Shadzar) to leave the WikiProject. The debates on particular articles has gotten longer and more heated by the day. Since he returned from the RFM, my experience on Wikipedia has gotten much worse, to the point where I'm not working on D&D articles as much due to the unpleasantness of working around him. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If this AN/I resolves nothing, then an RFC/U is probably the right thing to do... but I have to share your pessimism about what it will achieve. If Gavin weren't so aggressive, I honestly couldn't be bothered with any of this. I agree that an ArbCom might be the only way to bring some sort of resolution, becuase you are right that no amount of discussion has dissuaded Gavin from his current course of action. I don't know what else to do and would appreciate some guidance. BOZ (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added a new section at WT:D&D regarding a possible RFC/U because, although I don't really think that it will change much, it really is the correct next step, going to ArbCom only if and when the RFC fails. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• If any of you wish to discuss a particular article with me, I am open to discussion, which I feel is the most constructive process for both sides. However, using the Administrators' noticeboard to voice your dissatisfaction with me is I think a waste of admin time. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• We have, over and over again for 14+ months now. You have shown over and over again you have no interest in working with us unless we seek outside intervention. Frankly I am ready to leave en:Wikipedia all together unless something is done. Web Warlock (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• In answer to Web Warlock, Role playing games and Dungeons & Dragons Wikiprojects are not "editorial walled gardens", so your threats to leave because you disagree with the views of another contributor is misplaced. As regards working in collaboration with other editors, I think I have contributed to the substantial improvement of the article Kender, so I think your criticism is actually groundless. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• No one but you has ever said that. And unless you were dragged into it you have yet to contribute anything other than cutting and pasting tags on a subject you know nothing about. Web Warlock (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• I do not consider the projects to be in an "editorial walled garden". If you read my original post here, you can see that the problem now more is the simple unpleasantness of working around you because of your accusals of COI, bad faith, vandalism, etc., than your position on the notability of topics. The articles need work to establish notability; but you are going about it the wrong way. Looking for sources to articles before just tagging them would be a good start. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Gavin, prior to today I have never heard ANY WikiProject referred to as a "walled garden", editorial or otherwise. Now unless you can give proof to your accusations, I suggest you tone down your rhetoric. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 20:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The following is not an accusation, just a note. When I first started becoming aware of the situation, it came across to me (at first just a third party) that Mr. Collins was wikicrusading. After more looking into it, it seems more 50/50. Some of the articles he tags are legit, but when you're tagging at such a high volume then of course some have to be right. I think Dan Willis is an example of bad tagging. How many other articles on wikipedia are barely 3 paragraphs and require 12 sources? Mr. Collins has repeatedly denied the consensus, and even went as far as to describe the photograph as promotional. I just want an outcome where A)the articles are being improved (which is the whole purpose of the wikiproject), B)no one on either side is wikicrusading, and C)That all users, Mr. Collins included, don't come across to future newcomers (such as I was) as being acting in bad faith. Not saying he is, I don't now think he is, but as a newcomer it appeared so. Hooper (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your position completely. I just started edit a little over a month ago, before Gavin.collins returned after the RFM ended, and when he started his tagging again and I found out about all of the older RFCs, RFMs, and extensive arguements over articles for no apparent reason, I assumed bad faith. Now, though, I think he's really trying to help -really trying- but just doesn't really know a better way to help out. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe he's acting in bad faith. However, his good-faith contributions are starting to cross the line into disruptive, and his general unresponsiveness to criticism isn't helping to defuse the situation. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 20:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well put, Jeske. I couldn't have said that better myself. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I believe that he believes that he is acting in good faith, and that those who disagree with him are acting in bad faith, which explains most of his reactions towards us. BOZ (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't look to be going anywhere fast, probably because (despite advice to the contrary) the complaint goes beyond "things which require administrative intervention" and into "laundry lists of complaints about an editor" territory. I'd recommend another RfC. I would also strongly recommend dropping all the general complaints about said editor's attitude towards our notability guidelines (which really, really aren't going to be resolved with an RfC) and the canvassing of fiction-friendly members of WP:DND to that effect. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. I want to give this another day or two, and see what Gavin does during that time, before starting an RFC. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• If you had a serious complaint about me, I would have thought you would have started an RFC long ago; wanting to "give this another day or two" seems to me that your complaints may be trivial, and that you do fishing for reasons to find fault with me rather than discuss the issues about individual or groups of articles. I have a different opinion from yours about how D&D articles need to be cleaned up, it does not follow that I don't "really know a better way to help out" at all. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• We do have a serious complaint, not about your tagging now as much as your other disruptive edits and argumentative tone. We haven't jumped into an RFC or ArbCom because that isn't a step to be taken lightly; we'd rather try to resolve the dispute outside of such a situation. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, posting sarcastic "quotes of the week" on public policy talk pages about people disagreeing with you isn't going to endear you to anyone, and it doesn't speak to wanting to work better with others. BOZ (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I'm going to start drafting the RFC/U soon, and that'll certainly be on it. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate attack page in user space

Nishidani (talk · contribs) was recently warned by an administrator about personal attacks aimed at User:Jaakobou. After he complained about the warning, three additional uninvolved editors, including 2 administrators, stepped in, and voiced concern over Nishandi's behavior in this matter. ([36], [37],[38], [39]). Apparently displeased with this outcome, Nishandi has taken to using his personal space to write a critique of his critics, in what appears to be an attack page. Though presented in the form of a "ballad", his critique nevertheless continues to accuse User:Jaakobou of off-wiki canvassing, gaming the system and administrator shopping. I believe this is inappropriate use of user space, and have asked Nishandi to remove it but he's refused. NoCal100 (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Now that has left me slack-jawed. It might be grossly inappropriate etc etc etc but this has got to be the most impressive attack page I ever saw. Truly speechless. – iridescent 18:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Who ever saw a ballad made up of sonnets? The guy ought to be trout-slapped for playing fast and loose with our literary genres, surely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Especially as his iambic pentameter is all over the place. I mean, honestly. Black Kite 18:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• NoCal100, what is the interest of scrutinizing Nishidani's userspace that closely? You should see some of the crap I have in mine. Nishidani's "attack" is part of an archived usertalk page! If it had been a separate page called User:Nishidani/Ballad about bad people you might have had a point; but hidden away in an archive? Who would even have seen it, to be offended by it, if you hadn't brought it to this noticeboard? I'm not saying people can have whatever they want in their userspace, there certainly are limits; but please try to cultivate a higher degree of tolerance for things like a sarcastic sonnet cycle in a discreet corner. It seems Nishidani feels stalked by you.[40], [41] Please walk away. (Incidentally, have you told him you've put the issue on ANI, as courtesy requires?) Bishonen | talk 20:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC).

The interest is in keeping Wikipedia a place where editing is done in a collegial manner, vs. one where an editor may abuse user space to baselessly attack another editor, after being warned by 3 administrators about just such behaviour. I would have thought it obvious. NoCal100 (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Somebody once said insults in rhyming couplet should be cherished forever. I agree, you should at least try to cultivate a sense of humor. — CharlotteWebb 20:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• User:Geogre said that. Bishonen | talk 22:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC).

Just so that I'm clear on this - it is ok to accuse another editor, without evidence, of off-wiki canvassing and forum shopping, so long as it is done with rhymes? NoCal100 (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Read Bish's reply. If having potentially abusive messages in your talk archive were a blocking offence, pretty much every user on this site would be blocked. If it weren't for your coming here, no-one would even have read it. – iridescent 21:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree- frankly, I'd be proud to know someone had gone through the trouble to write a ballad to complain about me. Walk it off. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• It looks like you still haven't informed Nishidani, NoCal100. Never mind, I've done it for you. Bishonen | talk 22:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC).

Wow - I wonder how many hours it took him to write that fine piece of attack literature. It ought to be preserved if only for the sake of art. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I wished to stay neutral in this, but it appears that there is a gross misconception here which should be cleared up—this "ballad" is indeed archived, but it's from yesterday, so it's kind of fresh. I think Nishidani should just strike it out and the case should be closed. But somehow I have a feeling that this is now what will happen (*sigh*). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure it's fresh. If it had been a month old, NoCal100 would presumably have taken it to ANI a month ago. Did anybody here suggest it wasn't fresh? It's still in a discreet corner of the userspace, that's the point. Bishonen | talk 23:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC).

So, It is ok to have an attack page, as long as it is under an Archivenn page in user space? NoCal100 (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I hope to someday piss off another editor to the point that they spend that amoung of time writing poetic odes to my rottenness. Awesome.GJC 23:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done

I have to say, it seems a shame

That every misguided new-article creator

When warned for incorrect capitalization of proper names

Will cite Gladys j cortez, Wikipedia administrator – iridescent 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Rather than editors commenting about how they, personally, would be honored by such a tribute, I would like an administrator to answer my question, while specifically addressing WP:UP#NOT #9 and #10. Those guidleines seem fairly clear, and have no exceptions for rhyming content, or content filed under an Archivenn page, as far as I can see. NoCal100 (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

All right then, I'll bite.

• Have any of the editors being "attacked" complained about this?
• Has anyone other than yourself shown any sign of being upset by this?
• If it weren't for you reading the last post in a talk archive would anyone even know about this?
• Has a single person among all the people posting above, other than yourself, got any problem with this?
• Is this really the most incivil thing you've ever seen in userspace?
• Do you really think continuing to waste the time of the multiple administrators who don't see a problem here by continuing to flog what is obviously a dead horse is starting to cross the line from "raising a legitimate concern" to "refusing to take no for an answer"?

Seriously, let it go. – iridescent 00:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please reread what I wrote, I would like an answer that specifically addresses WP:UP#NOT #9 and #10, which is a wikipedia content guideline. Whether or not thi