Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Boomgaylove II

Note: the first AN/I incident may be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive373#User:boomgaylove) - Wikidemo (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see this edit I inadvertently made to the archive. Should I pull the whole thing back here or file a new report? I'm really not sure how to proceed here but we could use some help in the midst of a sock/meat/disruptive/AGF/NPA/AfD, issue that seems to be blowing up. I don't know whether a checkuser request is the best approach. I'm hoping we can declare a standstill (and possible protection for the articles and speedy close on the AfD) for J Stalin and Cypress Village, Oakland, California while we sort out the sockpuppetry issue. Wikidemo (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we kindly get some administrative help on this? There are edit wars brewing on the AfD discussions, articles, etc. I'm in a tough spot of having to choose between attempting to keep order at the risk of edit warring with possibly legitimate Wikipedians, and letting the articles devolve because I don't want to get involved. This may all clear up once we run a checkuser on some of the suspicious-looking editors who have jumped in, so I think everything would benefit from a cool-down. Some neutral, experienced help would be much appreciated. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There are several issues here, one of which is a possible BLP violation accusing this rapper of having been a drug dealer, another of which is alleged sockpuppetry, but if a user is using socks and another user is making potentially harmful claims of drug dealing by a subject of an article, then we have a problem. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please, do help! I am not "making" claims of drug dealing or inserting any derogatory material. The article mentioned the rap artist's drug-dealing (he was convicted of it and placed on probation as a 17-year-old) before I ever came to this, and I did so only because of the abusive sock puppet issue. The sockpuppets have been gaming this issue heavily. The information does not seem to be harmful because he apparently freely admits to it, and a feature article about him in a local newspaper mentions it. The news article and the artist's own words are the sources, and the attempt to remove the fact and the citations, as well as all references positive and negative to the rapper himself, were part of the sock attack. Since the sources are reliable and the mention relevant and harmless, there is no obvious BLP violation. I have no stake here, but I do not want to let sockpuppets dictate article content or goad people into starting edit wars. Wikidemo (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparantly is the problem, it must be verified by a reliable source. Also what newspaper article says this? Provide it! Provide an opinion based on WP:RS how album notes are reliable. You simply can't. Therefore it is gaping BLP vio.Icamepica (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SELFPUB for the interview. The newspaper source is obvious from the article. Try reading it.Wikidemo (talk) 10:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved Wikidemo's edit from the archive to this thread for ease of use. --jonny-mt 03:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

New sockpuppetry report

Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Boomgaylove. In addition to the obvious sockpuppets / evasion of block, a number of IP and recently-registered users have recently flocked to the issues, nominated for deletion the two (now five) articles that the now-blocked editor was trying to gut, parroted the same tactics and language. There are several users who are not clear sockpuppets but may be, could be meatpuppets (the user has admitted to meatpuppetry as well), or might just be innocent editors who wandered in. I'm not sure what to do next - a checkuser?

Also, I'm wondering if we can speedy close or otherwise suspend the AfDs pending a resolution of the sockpuppet issue. I won't argue the articles' notability here (obviously I think they are or I wouldn't be here), but it's an undue waste of time dealing with edit wars, AfDs, and other wikigaming in the middle of trying to figure out who is a sockpuppet. If the articles are deletable they can wait a couple weeks until we've gotten rid of the trolls, and reasonable editors can have an honest content discussion. Wikidemo (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There are legitimate AfD concerns which are evident by the majority opinions on the AfD of J Stalin. Just because some user was blocked for contentious editing does not mean that any editor which coincidentally has a similar stance on the article's notability its a sock puppet. Also not a reason to indefinatly stop AfD's which you are biasly in favor or not occurring, while vindictively adding arbitrary and baseless warnings talk pages.Icamepica (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't look like it will be deleted so the question is moot, and I see no point responding to the random potshots of an accused sockpuppet. I don't want to get into AfD procedure because, assuming this is boomgaylove, he/she has nominated at least six articles for deletion in five days, including this one three times using three different accounts, and should not be taught the ins and outs of how AfD relates to sockpuppetry.Wikidemo (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Note - I am commenting out some of the residue of user:Icamepica's trolling from yesterday. As per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Boomgaylove we have uncovered a dozen or more sockpuppets (including Icamepica), some clearly linked to boomgaylove and some not yet. I'm adding this comment in part in case Icamepica causes trouble again when his/her block expires in a few hours and if the account has not (yet) been indefinitely blocked. Wikidemo (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet more attacks

And in the midst of all this, yet another user with civility issues, User talk:ILike2BeAnonymous is making personal attacks. He's attacked me before in opposing my attempts to deal with the swarm of sockpuppets / trolls. See this edit[1], which he has made three times and I've deleted twice as a personal attack on me. My statements are correct, actually, and for that he/she calls me "ignorant" and says my edits are a demonstration of an "encyclopedia-that-any-idiot-can-edit." Rather than reverting him a third time I'm inviting him to remove his (or her) comments. Would someone mind taking a look to see if this is an NPA violation and if so, what we can do? Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 06:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Some additional material - He's been edit warring in support of the sock puppets and making personal attacks on this article elsewhere in the past two days. here he calls me "irrational" for adding a second source, and deleted it along with sourced content, during the article's WP:AfD process. here he's doing the same thing a few days earlier. From the talk page this editor has a pattern of civility problems, and showing up in the midst of the bizarre sockpuppet swarm raises concerns (although the majority of the account's overall edit history does seem productive and in good faith). Anyway, I don't want to let stand an attack that I'm "ignorant" and an "idiot" for saying something that is, actually, true. Wikidemo (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The user has not removed the attacks. They really should not stay as a fixture on the article talk page, nor do I think it's good to leave them up while the article is under a sockpuppet AfD effort. I haven't gotten any guidance here and the user hasn't responded to my request for removal. I'm also hesitant to go to a different forum with this because I've tried to consolidate it all here after the sockpuppets went forum shopping and canvassing. So unless anyone has any other suggestion I'm going to just archive the incivilities. The editor has threatened to go past 3RR, claiming my removing his attacks are "vandalism", so please be alert in case this continues. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

---

I'd just like to point out that whatever the merits, or lack thereof, in Wikidemo's arguments above, that he (or she) has tried to, basically, censor the discussion on the Cypress Village page, most recently by a rather transparent move of "archiving" a short discussion with the clear intention of getting it out of sight. I don't mind the ongoing back-and-forth here, but I do object to such unilateral attempts to remove what this user apparently sees as embarassing material. Discuss the issues on their merits, why don't you? As I said there, for my part, I'd like to get back to a substantive discussion of the topic, in this case, neighborhoods in West Oakland. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing a personal attack (calling me an "idiot" and "ignorant") is not censorship. I proposed here exactly what I was going to do if the editor did not remove the uncivil comments, and I did it. Of course it is transparent, deliberately so. I archived the thread with the insults because there is no more conversation to be had when one of the two parties is calling the other an idiot, and that is the best way to preserve it without altering it. The editor said he "stands by" his comments (notably, that I am an idiot and ignorant), and has now violated WP:3RR with this edit[2] by inserting those invectives for a fourth time. Can someone please help? Is this the wrong place - should I take it to the 3RR notice board? Wikidemo (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I can block both of you for violating WP:3RR, or I can conclude that both archiving is different than removing completely and unarchiving is also different from restoring after a removal. I choose the latter. Stop edit warring, both of you, or I'll change my mind and go with option 1. Yes, his comments are incivil, no they don't reach my standard for administrative action. GRBerry 19:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Scolding both of us is not helpful. The other editor has violated 3RR, I have not. The other editor is misbehaving by spewing insults; I am not. I am trying to deal with a serious abusive sockpuppet problem here; the other editor has been supporting the sockpuppets. I am not a disruptive editor. I have been asking again and again for guidance and help, and gotten none. Is that the official word from administrators around here, that I get blocked? I have zero risk of future disruptive editing - I have asked for administrative blessing every step of the way and gotten no opposition or guidance of any sort. If that's the thanks I get for helping with the encyclopedia, go ahead and block me. Wikidemo (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC) I should note that the two of us are talking on our talk pages and I don't expect any more trouble for now. I've asked if he/she would mind putting an archive box around the part of the discussion that just concerns the two of us, so that it does not distract from the larger ongoing sockpuppet matter.Wikidemo (talk) 04:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As a victim of both of these users, WikiDemo's McArthy-in-scope sockpuppet paranoia and ILike2BeAnonymous' colorful borderlining and incivility may I suggest all parties involved take a breather?Cholga^talK! 00:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that there is considerable evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Boomgaylove pointing to the fact that Cholga is Icamepica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was recently blocked for disruption in this very discussion. While I rather agree with your suggestion that a breather might be in order, I object to your misrepresentation of the situation in order to take a dig at both editors involved. --jonny-mt 01:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The results of the checkuser are here Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Boomgaylove. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 06:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

216.231.41.66 Threatening to Sue Wikipedia over VfD

Christopher Wunderlee, purportedly through a representative named "Greg Levant," is threatening to sue Wikipedia unless the Christopher Wunderlee article, which is currently on VfD, is kept by the community. This is one of the worst violations of the non-lawsuit guideline we have ever seen. In short, he is threatening to sue merely because his self-promoting article has been proposed for deletion. I think the full force of our guidelines should be applied and he should be banned. Here is the specific threat: [3]. Leesome (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless you have proof you are willing to stand behind in court, you should seriously refrain from accusing someone of "self-promoting". Indeed, I think your making this claim here would normally count as a personal attack warranting at least a 24 hour block. But consider yourself warned instead.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if banning the IP would mean an indef block, it might not be best if it is reassigned. The editor should be informed that it is a discussion page, so it isn't really libel. Based on the article in it's present condition, I'd say the article should be deleted, but I'm avoiding getting directly involved. If the article in question doesn't exist, it can't be libelous. How are all the other supposed legal threats handled? I mean, after all restrictive actions? Who do they contact? Why is Wikipedia never sued, with all these BLP cases. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 22:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be aware that your statements are being monitored and action will be taken. well monitor this, block for breaching WP:LEGAL. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for 48 hours and left a note explaining why on the talk page. Obviously the IP cannot be blocked for any longer period of time unless there is some suggestion that it's static, so this will just have to do for now. I've watchlisted the article, the AfD, and the IP talk page, but some other people with magic buttons may wish to do the same. If this becomes a real issue we can courtesy blank the AfD, but obviously not until the discussion is actually closed. Natalie (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not just 'splode it? Every entry has been for delete, the only entry not suggesting has been a legal threat and every entry since has been delete and salt. Snowball, maybe? Or too soon? HalfShadow (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Try putting the IP into the address bar of your browser, ie http://216.231.41.66/homepage.htm to find that it is actually the IP address of CollinsWoerman architects. This means that it's fair to assume both that someone has received a legal threat from an architect and that there's a good chance the IP is a static one, therefore blockable. --WebHamster 22:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel terribly strongly either way about the AfDs, but as this author appears to be somewhat upset and has an itchy lawyer finger, maybe it's best to let them run there course so the delete is as valid as possible. I'm also not up on my technical knowledge in regards to IP addresses, but if others are pretty sure that this IP is static then I'm not opposed to lengthening the block. Natalie (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Good catch! seicer | talk | contribs 22:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the AfD debate as a violation of WP:BLP. See section below. As for The editor should be informed that it is a discussion page, so it isn't really libel, you couldn't be more wrong. It doesn't matter where you publish something, it is still published. There is no excuse for gross insults to subjects of articles and such lack of courtesy. I suggest an apology is in order to the subject, or to his agent. The IP was warned 3 hours after posting the legal threat, then 12 minutes later he was blocked. Tyrenius (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Tyrenius is absolutely right. Yes, this poor person should not have made a legal threat. And people should never have engaged in the kind of completely failure of courtesy that led to it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Since it's my block, I'll point out that blocking indef is SOP for legal threats until the threat is revoked. To quote from WP:NLT: "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding." If the IP revokes the threat of legal action, they will be unblocked. If they continue in this vein, they will continue to be blocked. This is how these matters are nearly always handled, and I can't see any compelling reason to handle this matter any differently. Natalie (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think it's preferable to let a new user know they are doing something that contravenes policy, before they are sanctioned for doing so. They should be given the opportunity to withdraw. They hadn't done anything during the 3 hours after one post. Tyrenius (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, blocks generally aren't sanctions. They are an attempt to prevent further harm and I believe the theory behind insta-blocking after legal threats is that it prevents the user from pushing the lawsuit point, and creating a further chilling effect. And they have been given the opportunity to withdraw - there is a templated warning on the IP's talk page as well as a personal note from myself, explaining exactly why they were blocked and welcoming them back once they withdraw the threat. Once the threat is withdrawn, or once 48 hours has passed, they will be free to edit once again. Natalie (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not complaining about Natalie's block at all, although if forced to choose, I would support the idea of letting the warning stand in a case like this to allow the person to withdraw the threat. But a better response would have been a mass blocking on all the people who insulted the guy in the first place.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"VfD"? This guy must be an old user socking. John Reaves 21:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Loony: a novella of epic proportions

I've just deleted this as a violation of WP:BLP with its liberal accusations of vanity. Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Shorthands states unambiguously:

"Vanity is a potentially defamatory term that should be avoided in deletion discussions."

This has been there since October 2006.[4], after discussion at WT:AFD and WT:BLP.[5] Likewise since 2006, the shortcut WP:VANITY has had a warning:

Please do not use this shortcut, as the term can be considered insulting to the subjects of articles.

There are pertinent posts about this also (under maintenance at the moment).[6], [7], [8], [9]. Neither vanity nor self-promotion are in themselves valid delete reasons anyway, so there is no need to mention them. This applies to the above section also. Tyrenius (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a major difference between "should be avoided in deletion discussions" and "is cause for immediate deletion of an AfD page that makes use of the term". I've restored the page pending consensus for doing otherwise here; maybe the word vanity should be removed from the page, but your action was heavy-handed to the point of ludicrousness. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've refactored it. I'd point out that using the term "vanity press" is completely reasonable, it's a valid term for a self-published book and has even got its own article. Thoughts? Black Kite 23:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Vanity press seems like an acceptable term for me, but then again, I haven't tried to promote a vanity press-published book. I'm sure everyone can just avoid the specific word "vanity", if that's the problem, and the AfD can continue as normal. Natalie (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• "Note: Avoid using the word "vanity" in a deletion discussion even if you think it's the case — AFD gets media attention, and the word "vanity" in AFDs has caused real problems for the Foundation."[10] (emphasis in the original) I think that's clear enough. Tyrenius (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Given that the author's article has just been snow-closed as Delete, I doubt if it's going to be a problem for much longer. Black Kite 23:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd suggest courtesy-blanking (not deleting) the AfDs when they're completed. Note, though, that the individual was threatening to sue not over the content of the AfD, but over the outcome, which is plainly dumb. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think actually deleting the discussion was more than a bit overboard, especially considering it was two discussions deleted, and not one. If there is libel, you can delete the particular revision in question and leave a note. Deleting the entire page of an ongoing discussion without restoring any part of it is outlandish. Avruch ^T 23:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I've closed it as a snow delete and redacted the nomination. I don't see any reason to continue a minor drama. Black Kite 23:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Completed AfD deleted per WP:BLP:

Courtesy blanking of deletion discussions

If a biography of a living person is deleted through an Articles for deletion (AfD) debate, the AfD page and any subsequent deletion review that fails may be courtesy-blanked or deleted if there was inappropriate commentary.
"...In the meantime, it is my position that MOST AfD pages for living persons or active companies should be courtesy blanked (at a minimum) as a standard process, and deleted in all cases where there was inappropriate commentary. This is not the current policy, but currenty policy does allow for deletions of material which is potentially hurtful to people." --Jimbo Wales 01:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[11]
After the deletion of a biography of a living person, any admin may choose to protect the page against recreation.
End of material quoted from WP:BLP. Tyrenius (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think a courtesy-blanking would be more than sufficient in this case, and would ask you to stop making contentious deletions unilaterally. As "inappropriate commentary" goes, suggesting "vanity" is very mild. In the interests of avoiding wheel-warring, I won't restore the pages unless there's a consensus to do so, but I think your actions are getting a little tiresome here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Besides which, you appear not to have deleted the discussions at all. Please don't. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Vanity as in vanity press is apparently a provable fact here. Just to muddy the waters :-) Feel free to courtesy blank the debates after closure, that is entirely acceptable in these case. {{courtesy blanking}} does the job, but probably no need to actually delete. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Guy, but if we have not received such a request and have no obvious reason to expect one, the default would be to leave it well enough alone. — CharlotteWebb 23:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"No obvious reason to expect one"? Just above, there is a legal threat. The default is WP:BLP and the onus on wikipedia editors to act pre-emptively:

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.(emphasis in original)

Wikipedia is an international, top-ten website, which means that material we publish about living people can affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends.

Vanity accusations are clearly contentious and were made as pure editorial opinion.

Tyrenius (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've courtesy-blanked the pages, as there seems to be something approximating a consensus in favour of doing so. All history is still available to anyone who cares to look, so I don't think it does any harm, and I agree with the substance of Tyrenius's interpretation of WP:BLP (although obviously not with the severity of the conclusions he's drawn from this interpretation). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that is the main reason the server is configured not to allow Google to index AFD pages (despite how difficult it can become for as editors to find a specific AFD at a later date), not that the overall behavior of Google should matter much to us anyway. If we actually do believe the user plans to sue (and is not simply trying to troll us), I would suggest consulting Brad Patrick Mike Godwin before tampering with any of the "evidence". — CharlotteWebb 00:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that (not instantly, not overnight, not in a way as to shock people) policy be firmed up to make it clear that a deletion reason of "vanity" is a personal attack on the subject of an article, and not just "not recommended" but a blockable offense under WP:NPA.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wales has also stated here that to use the phrase "self-promotion" is a "personal attack warranting at least a 24 hour block", and in that same diff called for a "mass blocking" of everyone who "insulted" a particular person by using that and similar terms. These statements of Jimmy's are problematic and over the top. For one thing, WP:NPA does not and was not meant to cover "attacks" against subjects of articles. WP:BLP is better for that sort of concern, and it focuses—and rightly so—on keeping attacks out of articles, rather than on punishing offenders. Second, the text of WP:NPA itself wisely counsels that blocks are not the best remedy against personal attacks except in cases of high disruption.

The reality is, experienced Wikipedians, including many admins, use terms like "vanity" and "self-promotion" all the time. Does Jimmy really think that each time someone has used it, they deserved to be blocked? Should, for example, Freakofnurture and JzG be (or have been) blocked for popularizing the word "vanispamcruftisement"?

I submit that if use of phrases like "vanity" and "self-promotion" are causing legal problems for Wikimedia, then a separate policy page ought to be erected stating such. To proclaim that use of such terms merits blocking under NPA is not the way to go. Mike R (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the need to move away from "vanity" as a term of art in discussion. It has an inherent, unavoidable negative connotation and has caused Foundation issues in the past. On the other hand, there are some logistical problems with making a term blockable; would we similarly mandate that vanity press publishers (term in use since the 1950s) be referred to as print on demand or otherwise euphemistically? But more to the point, I am not at all comfortable with the idea that "self-promotion" is an equally damning descriptor. A CSD G11 article on, say, Bob's House of Stuff created by User:BobsHouseofStuff is, with NPOV in mind, a type of promotion and from the source itself. In particular, it is an example of below the line marketing (and wow, that's an article in need of work!). "Self-promotion" has been used in places as a pejorative, but is equally common with a positive connotation (there are many books available on Amazon touting self-promotion strategies for small businesses). Is declaring the hypothetical article above as self-promotion thus any more pejorative or biased than suggesting it meets the requirements of CSD G11, which specifies "blatant" advertising? Obviously it--like most anything else--can be made into a personal attack or otherwise cross the line, but, ceteris paribus, I am not certain that it does. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Totally in agreement - some cases are self-promotion and I don't see why we should have to lawyer around the point to make it. The end result will be completely incomprehensible AfD nominations and an entire encyclopaedia held to ransom. Orderinchaos 04:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Oy. We deep-six "vanity" & we're back to arguing over "notability" when all we want to do is get rid of articles about teenagers created by friends/would-be lovers, & business ventures with no chance of success or advertising budgets. Let's see an explanation how "vanity" is a bad thing before we consider this suggestion, if at all. -- llywrch (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

G11 is not about "self promotion". It is about "promotion" regardless of who is doing it (could be a fan, for example), so that is not relevant to this discussion. "Vanity" and "self promotion" are both used in this context as disparaging terms and are therefore unacceptable, whether per WP:BLP or WP:NPA. They are furthermore needless and irrelevant in AfD debates as neither is a reason to delete. Arguments should be addressed to the worth of article content per WP:N and WP:V. Derogatory comments about living people are not only against the ethos of wikipedia, but are also likely to result in complaints to the Foundation,[12], [13] and should not be used, including for example "scam artist"[14] and vanispamcruftisement. This needs to be firmed up in guidelines and policy. When it occurs it should be removed with a strong warning to the editor who made it. Reinsertion would merit a block. However, at the moment I see such offences are unintentional, and most users would co-operate, once they were made aware that it is not acceptable. Tyrenius (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your hypersensitivity aside, "self-promotion" is a perfectly accurate description and "vanity press" a perfectly valid consideration and term. "Vanity"? Eh, so what. I'm not seeing the value of your attempts to ban perfectly valid, descriptive, and useful terms merely because you don't like how they sound. I, for one, will continue to use such terms where appropriate, and I think you'll find little support for disciplining editors who insist on precision over knee-jerk hypersensitivity. --Calton | Talk 04:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that some people, including Jimbo, are being way too sensitive here. Calling something vanity being blockable? What? It's No Personal Attacks, not Might Be A Personal Attack If You Are Easily Offended And/Or Suffer From Blood Loss To The Brain. -- Ned Scott 06:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ned, I think that statement is closer to being a Personal Attack than nominating an article for deletion as "vanity". :) -- llywrch (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself is the world's biggest and best-known example of vanity publishing, so to see wikipedia editors using the phrase "vanity publication" as a way to atttack someone is like the pot calling the kettle black. Meowy 19:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Accurate or not, calling something vanity or self-promotion is just an expression of an opinion, not a claim of fact particularly. In the US it would be covered by freedom of speech, in the UK it's not libel if the person writing it believes it's true, as far as I know, only if they're knowingly spreading a lie. Special Random (Merkinsmum) 01:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Same situation in Australia. Orderinchaos 04:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Mikkalai

• Mikkalai (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I appologise in advance for not discussing this directly with Mikkalai but if you read his talk page you will hopefully understand why. He's put a notice up refusing to take part in any discussion within Wikipedia whatsoever and that talk page messages will go unanswered and most probably reverted. The note is inflammatory as well, calling other admins trigger happy cowboys and wikilawyers and if anyone comes to his talk with a concern about this, it makes them a jerk. A quick look at his talk history shows he's simply been reverting any complaint for some time now. I'm sorry to say it, but this isn't the behaviour we expect of administrators and communication is something that admins must be good at. This attitude, and lack of civility is simply not the way an admin should act, but I'm at a :loss as to what to do about it. Has anyone got any suggestions? Ryan Postlethwaite 04:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• and here's his reversion to my AN/I notice. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

An admin who refuses to discuss anything should be desysopped. Corvus cornix_talk 04:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We have had this conversation before regarding Gustafson. If you're an admin engaged in administrative tasks, you'd damn well better be prepared to admit liability for them, and discuss them. If he doesn't want to discuss editorial issues, that's a different issue, but if he's including admin tasks in this too, bad idea. No go. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AOR. He wouldn't pass a second time. seicer | talk | contribs 04:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is really ridiculous now. It's almost like pouting. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So you support this type of behaviour? seicer | talk | contribs 04:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not pouting at all - just a serious concern about an admin who is refusing to discuss anything. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the admin's unacceptable behavior. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I have to agree with Riana, while it is not the best practice to not discuss article building, it does not require de-syoping. Now, if this user was not communicating about admin related functions, thats a whole different boat. Tiptoety ^talk 04:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering he's still performing admin-powered actions [15] I'd agree that there is a problem given that another admin wouldn't be able to check an action with him before undoing it. A non-admin user wouldn't be as much of a problem, as the same rules of discretion in acting wouldn't necessarily apply. MBisanz ^talk 04:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to play Devil's Advocate here. Is anyone really disagreeing with his admin actions? Is it possible everyone could simply leave him alone for a bit and let him cool off? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been an issue in the past, so when we have to inform him about issues regarding admin actions, we will get reverted. If you noticed, Ryan gave Mikka a chance to respond to this, but Ryan was rebuffed with a revert. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You say "rebuffed". I say he read/acknowledged the note and didn't feel like it being there anymore. Common practice nowadays. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not his admin actions I'm trying to bring up here - it's just the general inability to discuss things. It's his editing concerns he's not communicating about either, and simply rolling people back. It's not just been happening over a few hours/days - this goes back quite a long time. How long do we give him? Ryan Postlethwaite 04:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We can't make him communicate. What we can do is make his continued participation here contingent on him conducting himself like a civilized editor. Sure, we could leave it alone- if we want to make it clear that we welcome childish sulking admins. Friday (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan, but dont think that de-syoping him is going to change the way he communicates. Tiptoety ^talk 04:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the block of User_talk:Alex_Vogt is a good block since it was vandalism, but the lack of a template or notice to the user's page that he was blocked (and how to appeal it), is disturbing to me. MBisanz ^talk 04:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

For now I would take a cautious approach, we can't force him to communicate but if somebody disagress with his sysop actions then we have a problem, the last admin to ignore communication when asked about his use of the tools was taken to arbcom and temporally de-sysoped. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one, an IP block for 2 week [16] without any comments to the user talk [17]. Again, the IP was vandalizing and should have been blocked, but a notice should have been left. MBisanz ^talk 04:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I think this provides a clear example of his ability to communicate, when Ryan left him a message regarding this thread he reverted it, if he does not care to even leave a message here what does that say? Isn't this dealing with administrative issues (if that makes any sense :P), and still there he is silent. Tiptoety ^talk 04:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleting talk page messages and not leaving block messages for blocked users - both more common occurrences than you might think. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that does not make them right. Users should still know their options for requesting unblock. Tiptoety ^talk 04:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Then there's a whole host of admins to bring here too. Why single out Mikkalai except that he's openly pissed off right now? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn’t singling anyone out, how many admins do you know that have a “I will not communicate with anyone” notice on their talk page? Ryan Postlethwaite 04:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The same number who have had their comments interpreted in a way that got them blocked within the last few days. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the block of User_talk:Alex_Vogt is a good block since it was vandalism, but the lack of a template or notice to the user's page that he was blocked (and how to appeal it), is disturbing to me. MBisanz ^talk 04:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no need for block templates because we have MediaWiki:Blockedtext. John Reaves 04:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Opps, did not know that feature existed. MBisanz ^talk 04:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's important to distinguish his editing behavior from his administrative actions. If he refuses to discuss reverts and the like then he can be handled like we'd handle any other uncommunicative editor. Being uncommunicative can be a form of disruption depending on the circumstances. Refusal to discuss admin actions is far more serious, and in my view would be grounds for summary de-sysop. You just can't block people and so forth, then refuse to discuss the matter. (I hasten to add that disinclination to respond to pestering and badgering is of course within one's right as either an editor or admin, but that's not the issue here.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Wknight94. It serves neither the encyclopedia nor the community to continue hounding him when he's already pissed off. All it will do is confirm his low opinion that us. Meanwhile, if it really bothers you that these vandals didn't get their notices, go ahead and post them. Hesperian 04:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

WKnight, if there are others as well, & I agree that there are, all the more reason for us to get started doing something about them when they get noticed. Are we admitting its unacceptably wrong, and saying we should ignore it? DGG (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you suggest we do DGG? Tiptoety ^talk 04:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If Mikkalai wishes to not communicate via his talk page, then go ahead (I'm not condoning such behavior though). But Mikkalai should be warned that any of his actions, admin or not, can be overturned without his notification and consent. —Kurykh 05:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a bad idea... the only thing that now seperates him from the POV pushers is the mop. Will ^(talk) 09:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That and unreasonable content editing. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If this was a new problem, just waiting a few days would be sensible. As Ryan points out, this has gone on a long time. So we are faced with a question: do we tolerate admins behaving in unacceptable ways, or don't we? He needs to understand that his editing here depends on him behaving like a reasonable editor. The only way I can think of to communicate this message is a desysop and/or an indefinite block until such a time as he comes around. Yes, it's time for the clue-by-four; we've already seen that lesser measures do not work. And, for the record, no, I don't care what good things he's done in the past. Editors are only welcome here as long as they continue to do the right thing. Friday (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This admin needs to be desysopped. No matter how good the admin actions, a refusal to discuss them automatically makes them bad - it is not possible to be a good but uncommunicative admin. We could do an RFC on his behaviour, but I think it's safe to say that he wouldn't participate. I have little experience with ArbComm; would they accept a case like this without an RFC? Would they accept it with an RFC? I know ArbComm's the last step in dispute resolution, but where somebody's admin bit is concerned, there aren't really any preliminary steps, especially given a refusal to discuss anything. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

One thing is for sure (in my mind anyway), if you can't find any sysop-related infractions, there's little chance of ArbCom even accepting a case against him. Why desysop someone who isn't misusing the sysop tools? I'm still waiting for someone to point out a sysop-related infraction... —Wknight94 (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

so your post here will most probably be reverted without reading is a very childish attitude for an admin to take and how are blocks etc suppose to be discussed with an admin who claims, he will not read his talkpage? --Fredrick day (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with Wknight that there needs to be a blatant infraction of an explicit rule before Arbcom would jump into it. But a user's participation in an RfC isn't required. And there is a special Admin-focused RfC procedure. MBisanz ^talk 17:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Precedence, ArbCom has already stated that admins, more than any other user, must communicate to the community. Just wanted to point that out. « Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that what he is not responding to is basically everyone saying, "Hey, why aren't you responding to me?!" I haven't heard anyone raise any other issue that he has subsequently shot down. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom has stated that admins must be available and willing to discuss their actions. He is not responding to more than just "why aren't you responding to me?" [18] [19] [20] He is refusing to speak about his own administrative actions. That is a problem. If he continues to refuse to discuss his administrative actions, he should be prevented from conducting them. Simple. RxS (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The three diffs you provided are for Richbold, Count of Breisgau. While he didn't respond, he did actually restore the article as asked. Then, in your third diff, Friday (talk · contribs) says he's re-deleting it anyway and says Mikkalai is "being a jerk" about it. All this within a few days of being blocked. Gee, I can't imagine why he doesn't feel like talking to people. </sarcasm> —Wknight94 (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

All of them were in reference to admins actions and he responded to none of them. If he doesn't feel like talking he shouldn't be in a position that requires him to. RxS (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure he responded. He responded to one by restoring the article - that's a response - while another was an uncivil jab and didn't deserve a response. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would draw the communities attention to a request I made to Mikkalai back in January, to which I never received a response. This matter eventually wound up at ArbCom. I had previously requested comment in December, last year, from Mikkalai regarding his involvement in the initial area of dispute, again to no response. I recall I checked Mikka's contributions at the time to see if he was editing, and simply not responding - and it appeared he was. As I remember, I didn't bother chasing the matter as I was then compiling evidence for the ArbCom. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure of your point here. You were questioning Mikkalai about a three-week-old block that had already been undone (with his permission) - a block of a user who has since been banned in the very ArbCom case that you're referring to. I might have ignored you too. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well, Zeraeph wasn't banned when I made the first request - and it may have actually impacted on the subsequent ArbCom which resulted in the ban if I had had a response - and neither was she when I made the second; since I was clearly commenting about ongoing situations. Indeed, I was trying to gauge the basis by which he gave his permission. Now, unless it is your position that Mikka knew that Zeraeph was going to be banned and there was no point in responding to a polite request for information to assist in the administrative processes of the community, I would gently suggest that your responses appear to be simply imply that Mikka is outside of normal avenues of communication. I thought that that was the basis of bringing this discussion here in the first place, which is why I placed the comments I did.

Also, I will try to remember not to bother you with bringing up mundane questions regarding your actions in relation to editors and other such bothersome members of the community until after it has been decided that there was no case to answer, or that they were right, or something innocuous like that.LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Community desysop?

Resolved

 – WP:SNOW, no consensus to de-syop. Take to arbcom if you wish to continue. Tiptoety ^talk 19:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The community can do anything ArbCom can do, as long as we have the necessary consensus. Typically this is defined as "no admin objects". If the community feels that it is highly unacceptable for an administrator to refuse communication (for an extended period of time), then we can decide here and now to desysop, and then ask ArbCom to implement the decision. As observed above, an RFC will not work because the user refuses to participate. If any admin objects to desysopping, we can refer the matter to ArbCom and let them decide what to do. Jehochman ^Talk 17:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose: No demonstration of sysop misuse. Plain and simple. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - He has the right to walk away for a short time or a Wikibreak. Block for a long period of time (1 month?) if necessary to avoid harm to WP. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

But he hasn't walked away and is not on a break, he is just refusing to communicate but continues to wield the admin mop. Corvus cornix_talk 17:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Not yet. Maybe in the future if things don't improve or the circumstances drastically change somewhat. Rudget | talk 17:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - While I don't agree (and that's putting it mildly) with how he/she behaved - If the admin is determined to take a respite for a short while, then there is no reason to desysop. If he/she returns and something similar is brought to ANI again, someone should consider reopening this discussion. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So this idea has no support. No need to continue. It seems that the admin can proceed with the current behavior until there is a disputed block. If and when that happens, they may end up in hot water, but we can cross that bridge when we get to it. Jehochman ^Talk 17:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• He knows he has a handful of rope; if he hangs himself, so be it, but until he abuses his power, there's really nothing to complain about. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• So then we do welcome childish sulking admins? Act as poorly as you want, just as long as you don't abuse the tools? --Kbdank71 18:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't necessarily respond to every message left on my page. And I've even disappeared for a few months. Does that mean I am subject to desysopping too? How about everyone just leave the guy alone and stop coming to WP:ANI for everything (this one has been a waste of time, honestly) and see if he does anything wrong. I'd rather he quietly did everything right than noisily did everything wrong. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer that too. Then again, if you're quietly doing everything right, there would be no reason to come to AN/I for anything. --Kbdank71 18:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct but we haven't been to ANI since his vow of silence ---- except to discuss his vow of silence (and a desysop discussion resulting from the silence). —Wknight94 (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think the question is whether a pre-emptive refusal to communicate about anything constitutes abuse of the tools. Being an admin isn't just hitting the block, protect, and delete buttons or whiling away the hours in elevated discussion on IRC. An admin whose talk page states: "I hereby pledge to not engage in any communication in wikipedia whatsoever" (emphasis in original) is abusing his power - my sense was that ArbCom has affirmed that communication is a central part of administrative responsibilities (e.g. here). Add to this that he's not using deletion summaries as even a minimal form of communication about his admin actions. What if he deletes one of my articles, even justifiably, and then I go to his page and see a blanket refusal to discuss his actions or respond to my questions? Don't get me wrong - I've never crossed paths with Mikkalai, I'm biased in favor of grumpy rouge admins in general, and I'd favor giving him time to chill and regroup. Still, I don't think we need to wait for a bad block to call this behavior "abusive", and if he keeps using the tools even non-controversially while refusing all discussion, then that would seem to be a problem. MastCell ^Talk 18:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• How do we know if tool use is controversial? A user who is aggrieved may go to his talk page and be discouraged from inquiring by the hostile message. This creates a poisonous atmosphere and should not be allowed. Jehochman ^Talk 18:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This could be rather controversial, or at least out of policy. Mikkalai deletes Marathon dancing as a copyvio [21] (which it was). He then restarts it as a stub, which is ok. But now he's deleted Special:Undelete/Talk:Marathon_dancing the talk page twice, without restoring it when he recreated and stubbifyed. There wasn't a copyvio on the talk page, just discussion. MBisanz ^talk 19:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm not seeing any reason why Special:Undelete/Cut-and-paste_job should have been deleted. It was 2.5 years old and didn't have any deletion/questioning tags on it. MBisanz ^talk 19:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose he could have deleted Talk:Marathon dancing under G8 (talk page of a deleted page) and then forgot to restore it when he recreated the article, but I can't see any reason at all to delete Cut-and-paste job - it's an adequate stub, didn't meet any criterion for speedy deletion, and wasn't sent through prod or AfD. What's more, no deletion rationale was provided. Hut 8.5 20:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste job is the first small red flag for me but it was completely unsourced. Articles like that get me inching towards the delete button too. So, if he doesn't want to talk about it, go to WP:DRV or raise the issue at WP:ANI, etc. If further questionable actions occur, try a WP:RFC and eventually WP:RFAR. But pre-emptive desysopping is silly, esp. when someone is clearly pissed off. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Even while MasterCell raises a good point, I do not think that there is a clear cut case where this has ever effected the way he used the tools. I would say differently if he was abusing the tools, or using they questionably and did not discuss it. But that just has not happened, how do we know that he will not engage in discussion when he must justify his admin actions? Tiptoety ^talk 19:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, of course. Taking draconian action against people who get riled when relentlessly trolled is not a great way to reduce the amount of trolling that goes on. Guy (Help!) 20:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• But should a administrator get riled when trolled? If they are unable to re-main civil and keep a calm demeanor, then what good are they to the project. Maybe talking with those "trolls" may change their contributions to the project. (I still oppose de-syoping) Tiptoety ^talk 20:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• By definition, talking to trolls is unproductive. Hence WP:DNFT. Wknight94 (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Users DGG, Kim Dent-Brown and Friday are not trolls, thanks. And calling people trolls is hardly ever productive. RxS (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Straw man? How did we get from Guy talking about trolls to me calling DGG, Kim Dent-Brown and Friday trolls? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You invoked WP:DNFT in response to Guy's claim that he was undergoing relentless trolling. At that point the last 3 editors that tried to talk to him were those 3 editors, and they got blown off. They were not trolling nor were they relentless. WP:DNFT absolutely positively does not apply. RxS (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment One of my biggest criteria at WP:RfA is evidence of communication - I think it vital for the position. Perhaps it is legit to not respond to "trolls" - but it appears that that sobriquet is being applied a little too liberally here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Before everyone forgets, Mikkai is a long-term member of Wikipedia, who can be expected to know what is good behavior & what is not. As at least one person pointed out above, he hasn't done anything that deserves desysopping. On the other hand, he's clearly a burn-out case. He's demonstrated a brittle & contrary attitude (to put it mildly) towards anyone else that crosses his path for some time now: one may wonder which is worse -- being blocked by him or receiving a message from him. :-)

To repeat myself, he hasn't done anything deserving action -- yet. Refusing to respond to questions on his Talk page doesn't help him in the long run, although it might in the short term. Many cases of questionable behavior can be adequately dealt with by exchanging messages on a Talk page; take that option away & the options we have left are desysopping or blocking. Probably the best option is to let this slide, while keeping a careful, non-stalking watch over him in case he does cross the line & needs immediate handling. -- llywrch (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment How interesting. The rudeness and refusal to cooperate are troubling, and perhaps the project might be giving him stress. On the other hand, judging by the edits he's a productive administrator who does good work around here for which administrative privileges are important, and seems to have good judgment about staying on the right side of a dispute [22]. Maybe we should just agree to call him User:Dirty Harry and be done with it. It might shock people to hear me stick up for a problematic admin but I really think the way to go is through discussion, kindness, and understanding here, not arguments and threats of desysop. Wikidemo (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose very strongly, this is one of our best editors and admins and deserves our full support against the harassment he is receiving, to desysop would be to side with his trolls. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Who has been harassing him? If we can stop them, perhaps he will cheer up? Jehochman ^Talk 05:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Check his talk page hsistory for details. I have been watching it for a long time myself. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose If anything, the community needs to help good users who are stressed or harassed, not stress and harass them further. Kicking somebody when they're down is certain to hurt the encyclopedia and the community in the long run. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

While I would oppose a too hasty desysop on AN/I, I'm equally uncomfortable with the idea that we should just wait until something goes wrong again and then press the point. This is the third time in ten days that Mikka's behaviour has been raised on AN/I (see here and here). There are obvious civility issues, along with the unresponsiveness. But all I see is a variety of bad options. A longish break seems best, but that's pointless unless he desires it. Marskell (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose community desysop. Desysoping is not the job of a group of people chatted about it for a couple days then had a vote. This is a job for arbcom, who will examine the evidence and rebuttal in detail. If it continues then that is exactly where it will end up. I do however endorse the communities right to block disruptive users. I also condemn the unilateral unblock of this user as a violations of the blocking policy, a fact the unblocking admin couldn't care less about. I think this is an even greater violation of admin trust that what Mikkalia did. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion

Obviously de-syoping is not the way to handle this, but something needs to be done. Why don't we try and discuss other methods of fixing/improving this issue. Tiptoety ^talk 19:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• It should be noted that he is participating on other user's talk pages and article talk pages...[23][24][25][26][27][28]. --Smashville^BONK! 22:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This is outrageous conduct for an administrator. Does anyone imagine an RFA passing, where the candidate says "Once I become administrator, I plan to delete things and block people and I refuse to discuss it with anyone"? There is no way that this is anywhere within the realm of reasonable. There is a DRV currently under discussion, where the editor had to take the issue straight to drv because the admin refuses to accept any communication on wikipedia. If the deletion policy and the instructions at Deletion review say for editors to discuss the deletion with the closing or deciding admin, then this implies that the admin should discuss it with them. To refuse to do so id an abuse of the tools. What message does this send out about administrators in general, and our collabarative consensual community? This can not stand. Desysopping would be the appropriate measure to take, so how do we get that done? Someone said arbcom? Is that right? Lets take it there... who knows how?... lead the way. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A clear weakness in the system. If this came to rfa, how would it turn out. Yet since this occurs after the rfa clears the only word is "live with it."--Cube lurker (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Yep, it needs to be taken to arbcom, though i do not feel comfortable doing it. I do not think desyoping is the appropriate measure to take. Tiptoety ^talk 04:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear a week ago when the last Mikkalai post was started when I said "per his pledge of muteness and per his previous actions, the next step should be arbitration". Now a week has past since that pledge of sorts and there is continuing problems arising. Again, my recommendation is arbitration. — Save_Us † 05:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So let me get this straight.. there's no actual problem (as in, no one is currently talking to him about admin issues), but there might be a problem, but no one is sure if it even exists? Don't you people have articles to write? -- Ned Scott 06:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ned. Is there a specific admin move that people are concerned with? I see some concerns with Mikkalai about the lack of warnings or posting for blocks (it can be a problem if blocked users don't know how to contest their blocks). If so, someone here complaining about that should just ask him. If he doesn't respond to that, you have something to go to Arbcom with. Otherwise, this is just pointless. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There are multiple issues Ned Scott, and they have been addressed many times over. Mostly it is his civility issues. This week in particular because of his 'pledge of silence', there are issues with him blocking editors and not issuing warnings, improper deletions and protections which were addressed on his talk page (responded to them with a revert) and issues with him removing content from pages (which he again responds with a revert of the message questioning him). Then there is the message on the bottom of his talk page: "If you came here to teach or bait me, this is a proof that you are a jerk and I am right.", which is a personal attack to anyone who thinks commenting on his admin actions is worth discussing with him. And if you look at the history of his talk page recently, you will find that you're statement "no one is currently talking to him about admin issues" is patently false. — Save_Us † 09:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• My recollection of the Gustafson mess was RFC first, then ArbComm. And that case resulted in only a thirty day suspenseion. To me, that seems the most relevant precedent, and if people really are that bothered they should take the time to do it right - expecting no more of an outcome than that. GRBerry 14:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have a wacky, loony, goofy, koo-koo suggestion: what if we wait until this is actually a problem, rather than just a potential problem? I can think of a lot of reasons why one might cut oneself off from communication temporarily: a death in the family, a medical procedure, religious reasons, or simply to introspect and clear one's head. I wouldn't do this myself, and I make clear that I'm not condoning it per se, but at the same time it's absolutely nothing in comparison to Mikkalai's years of excellent work as an editor and as an admin. Give Mikkalai some breathing room and see what happens. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Did you folks read before you replied? there is a problem. An editor had their page deleted, and they wanted feedback on what was wrong or what they could do to get it right, and they went to the user talk page of the deleting admin and saw that nonsense about that admin not being willing to discuss anything wikipedia-related. THis particular editor had the wherewithall to go to deltion review, but how many editors will not know how to do that? How many brand new editors will just leave the project with a middle finger waving at the rear view mirror? We won't know how many, and we won't know if/ when this happens. But at least one editor was denied the due process described in the deletion policy, to have a civil discussion with the deleting admin. So that is a problem. Now let's deal with it, as you suggested. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Take us to arbcom then Jerry! Tiptoety ^talk 06:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

One possible compromise might be for Mikkalai's talk page to direct users to somewhere else to get answers to their questions. It could say, for example, that if you have a question about a block or delete by this user, you can post your question to AN/I (or to the talk page of someone who volunteers for this purpose, etc.) and others can answer questions. Based on some of the above discussion, perhaps it would not be that difficult to explain the reasons for the actions, and others might be willing to do so.

Apparently (according to the talk page) Mikkalai wants protection from insults and is willing to end the vow of silence when an effective system of such protection has been established. Another approach, therefore, might be to try to set up such a system. Others, too, could benefit from such a system, if it could be designed to work well. A previous such system which was discarded was Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard.

Mikkalai's talk page contains not only a vow of silence, but also generalized insults which may be considered a problem in themselves.

While there has not been support for immediate desysopping, nevertheless the community could make a decision that certain behaviour is required or that certain behaviour is unacceptable, with the possibility of desysopping in future if certain rules are not followed. The community might decide, for example, that someone will post a message to Mikkalai's talk page informing the user that from now on, any blocks or deletes must be accompanied by either a talk page that seems to welcome questions, or a direction to the user where else to go to get questions answered. Subsequent admin actions in violation of this could then lead to arbcom or community desysop. Whether the user actually chooses to read the message is irrelevant -- the ultimate effect would be the same. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed resolution (Mikkalai vow of silence)

I am proposing the following actions, which will be taken if consensus for same occurs here. Please participate below this proposal in a vote-style fashion.

A message shall be placed on Mikkalai's talk page informing the user that consensus has been reached for this resolution, and that the community makes the following requirements:

---

The community is concerned with your vow of silence in as much as it can negatively impact users who have the right to discuss with you any administrative actions you have taken. In accordance with Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator conduct item #5:

“ Failure to communicate^[29] - this can be either to users (eg lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions), or to concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought) ”

You are hereby notified that it shall be considered an abuse of admin tools if your talk page continues to discourage legitamate communication from users affected by your administrative actions, and you subsequently perform any of the following:

• Any speedy deletion
• Closing of any XfD with a result of delete
• Protecting any page
• Blocking any user
• Using "rollback" to revert any user's contributions

It is hoped that you will provide an exception to your vow of silence to allow such users to have a civil discussion with you as the need arises. Should you choose not to comply, the matter will be referred to the arbitration committee with a recommendation for desysopping, administrator probabation, mandatory reconfirmation and/or other remedies be issued.

---

• Support (as proposer) Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

* So you propse Mikka now can't revert vandalism? Maxim_(talk) 01:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Of course he can rollback - but if there's a good faith concern, he should be willing to discuss it. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    • All it means is that if he reverts anything and a user comes to ask why, he must respond. Not that he cant revert. Tiptoety ^talk 01:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• (Just clarifying) My understanding is that the above means not only that the user must respond if someone questions a rollback on the user's talk page, but also that the user may not rollback (or do other admin actions) while having a notice on the user talk page that discourages people from posting there. In case of non-rollback reverts, that can be dealt with in the same way it is for non-admins, whatever that is (i.e. probably no action). --Coppertwig (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• I support this - I think it makes it clear that Mikkalai can carry on reverting his talk, but he must discuss good faith concerns with his administrator tools - this is what we're all supposed to do. With respect to Maxim above - of course he can rollback edits, but if there's concerns over his rollbacks, he must communicate accordingly. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • A serious concern I have at the minute is that if Mikkalai was to go through RfA now, or in the substantial future he would seriously fail because this attitude is not expected of administrators. This isn't about reconfirmation or anything, it would fail because of an extremely serious attitude problem. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - seems reasonable, better than being de-syoped. We need admins that are willing to communicate. Use this as a final warning before arbcom. Tiptoety ^talk 01:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

** Then why is communication needed only for admin actions? What about edits. I also propose we abandon voting - voting is not a substitute for discussion. Maxim_(talk) 01:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • Discussion has taken place, and Mikkalai refuses to be a part of it. I am not sure of a better solution right now. Tiptoety ^talk 01:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    • But his keeping his sysop bit is what's under discussion here - not discussing editing behaviour is one thing, but sysop actions have more serious consequences. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

**** It says above Please participate below this proposal in a vote-style fashion. Ie we're going to just vote whether to possible drag an admin to arbcom to be desysoped. That's completely unacceptable in my book . Maxim_(talk) 01:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • Please don't wikilawyer maxim - just stick to the point at hand - is this acceptable or not? Ryan Postlethwaite 01:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

******* I certainly am not wikilawyering, I only believe that it is more appropriate to discuss this issue, not to vote on it. Maxim_(talk) 01:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - He can decline to entertain discussion on his talk page as long as he doesn't perform any administrative actions, and he can perform administrative actions as long as he doesn't warn off discussion. The problem lies in the combination of the "don't bug me" heading with use of admin tools, and this proposal neatly addresses that. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• (ec X several) Support - I still think his behaviour is desysopworthy, and that we shouldn't need to explain to him that using his admin tools and refusing to discuss this usage is abusive, but this is a step in the right direction. If it results in an end to the abuse, then it will certainly have been better than desysop-ing. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• I regretfully support this measure. Perhaps in some ways it makes us exactly what Mikka thinks we are, but when it comes down to it, this is a project - a group effort. Play well or don't play at all. ~ Riana ⁂ 01:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support as fair notice and an opportunity to for Mikkalai to reconsider things. Jehochman ^Talk 01:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Per Ryan, he put it best. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 01:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Puts the ball back in his court. MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support (but not voting here, and please remember I'm not an admin) as a final option, but I still hope people make every effort to get through to him, cheer him up, help out, etc. It's sad and a little peculiar that it comes to this. Wikidemo (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Big waste of time. Continue your witch hunts, please. До свидания. Maxim_(talk) 02:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Coming from the administrator who doesn't care for the blocking policy, that is saying something. — Save_Us † 02:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Witch hunt? Not quite. Just concerned community members because an administrator is completely disregarding the standards expected of a sysop. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have to Support He not following normal procedures and communicating with editors on his administration actions as he should be. He has been very unresponsive to these problems and his behavior may wind up getting him sent to Arbitration and getting him desysopped if he's not careful. Until he is willing to talk again, and without being incivil, he should be restrained from using the tools in the manner described above. — Save_Us † 02:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: Bring the matter to Arbcom or don't. Stop threatening that you will. If he didn't know before, he sure as hell knows by now. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose (ec) Mikkai has been part of Wikipedia for a long time -- as measured in years. By now, either he knows what is good behavior & what is not -- or he never will; I doubt that the second is the case, otherwise he would never have been given the Admin bit. While I wouldn't consider us friends, I do trust him to know what is the right thing, & not abuse this "vow of silence." (And if he surprises me & does something wrong, then we can discuss taking the Admin bit from him.) Putting this kind of restriction on him will only make him more alienated from Wikipedia, & either encourage him to do something unwise -- or give us all a vulgar gesture & quit. Let's treat him with some dignity, people! -- llywrch (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I'm not an admin myself, but believe there should be some accountability and responsibility from Mikkai. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support It is unfortunate to reach this point but an Admin that won't communicate cannot be an Admin in my view. -- Alexf⁴² 02:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support as final warning. Viridae^Talk 03:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support I agree with the message at the top of the section. To me, he is, or was, a tad uncooperative. He even kept removing the YouTube chronology section on the Smosh article, which he claims as "unreferenced fancruft". Personally, I think it should be there, as well on articles of other YouTube celebrities. With him being a Wikipedian for over 3 years, I don't think I've seen stuff like this from him; and I probably don't trust him. Is he trying to leave Wikipedia, or taking a break? If I were an administrator, I would not revert posts on my talk page if they were important; he is. Maybe I wouldn't de-sysop him, but this might be why I support this discussion. SchfiftyThree 03:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - It's just not tolerable for an admin to retreat into the bowels of internet oblivion in such a incivil fashion. Per the userabove me, yes, as a final warning. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  comment - Personally though, considering the other opinions and comments from other users, this should probably go to Arbcom instead of continuing down this road. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• "Oppose" - I think a lot of people are missing the point. We don't have to try to wiki-lawyer him into talking, when his silence is in protest of wikilawyering. Passing a "resolution" (what is this, the UN?) is just silly. Meet him on his level, because ultimately, he's right. If you think he's abusing his tools, just make a list of abusive actions, run the RFC, and then go to ArbCom if the perceived abuse continues. They'll do something about it. You don't have to "!vote" on and post some kind of official notice on his talk page, where he won't read it; that's so... it's like kids playing dress-up. This is a wiki. Just do stuff that makes sense. Get to that place of understanding, and you'll find Mikkai already there. He's communicating with his actions. If he screws up, desysop him. Some wikis don't even have talk pages, you know. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  Let me get this straight, Mikkai is the one in a place of understanding here?! I could not disagree with you more. He is persistantly incivil making comments, like last week, saying "Next time you start policing, please be advised than in some cultures calling someone "ass" will have your throat cut". After a fit, he makes a solemn pledge of muteness to not communicate with the community. He then spends a week making controversial actions (detailed in this thread and the history of his talk page), to only reply with a revert, every single time. And the pithy comment on his talk page "If you came here to teach or bait me, this is a proof that you are a jerk and I am right." with 'you are a jerk' pointing to the history of his talk page where he has reverted any message sent to him. That sounds like someone who is understanding to you? A notice sent to him saying that if he is performing actions anymore without talking, that he will be sent to arbitration, is not a stretch. — Save_Us † 04:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  Then just send him to ArbCom. It's right over there. You don't have to warn him; there doesn't have to be any red tape involved. We would all be better off if people stopped throwing red tape around as if we're using it as streamers to decorate for New Years. As for, "if you come here to teach me or to bait me," I'd agree that those are jerky behaviors in this context, although I wouldn't agree with characterizing any person as "a jerk". Just start putting the evidence together on a page. This "survey" seems to be a bunch of nonsense - not that anybody intended for it to be. That's why I said a lot of people are missing the point.

  I'm not claiming that Mikkai's attitude is right or helpful, but he is understanding correctly in this sense: Actions communicate. You can communicate back to him via actions, like starting the ArbCom case. These words are so useless. Making speeches and passing resolutions is a big waste of time, energy, bandwidth, etc. What's the point in making official, voted-upon pronouncements to someone who isn't listening? It just satisfies the crowd's desire to perform word-magic against a perceived enemy, and I have no interest in encouraging such desires. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  I supported above because I would have liked to not think an administrator would not have conducting in such a manner. The problem I'm facing now is whether to lend my good faith out anymore to this editor, and by supporting above I was essentially giving my last bit of good faith out to try and stop him from winding up at ArbCom having to deal with that, hoping that he listened to the warning. No extra hoop, no bans, no anything, but a reminder to please act in according to policy instead of ignoring them all, with very little benefit. To reply to you below, no, I'm not bothered by a 'bad' word, and fuck, I'm not bothered by his comment which can be seen as a personal attack. Know why? Because that little spat is only icing on the cake, i.e. it is the least of his problems right now. I'm beginning to feel talk is pretty cheap right now too, and what needs to be done is here. If no one starts arbitration within the week, I will. — Save_Us † 06:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  Look, I agree with you about Mikka's behavior. It's foolish and unbecoming an admin. This "vote", however, is silly. It's precisely like voting on whether or not to jerk off in the shower while there's a willing partner lying in the next room. "Within the week"? Why wait? "If you don't stop that, we'll agree to seriously consider voting on doing something about it!" You're trying to pass a resolution to leave a warning that will be ignored. Skip it.

  I'm not sure why you mention good faith, because I don't see that remotely being called into question. We're looking at perfect faith here, and terrible judgment. People aren't desysoped for having bad faith; they're desysoped for consistently displaying bad judgment. I suggest you extend your assumption of good faith to the grave - dropping it helps you not one bit, ever. The only thing not assuming good faith can do is hurt you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  Minor contradiction on your part: you said extend good faith the grave but then said stop waiting and go ahead and go to ArbCom. Well, I agree, I was going to stop waiting, but just a few minutes before I posted this I realized Ryan went ahead and posted on the RFAr page, so I will comment there later, when it isn't two o'clock in the morning. I could probably make an argument for his faith if I had to, because I feel most of his intentions here are not becoming of an administrator, but like you said faith doesn't get someone desysopped or even glanced at by ArbCom most of the time. Last thing I have left to say to you tonight is that my good faith is eternal and I do carry assumptions of good faith to the grave, but its not my grave in which my good faith ends. — Save_Us † 06:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. In my opinion, the user has already abused the user's admin privileges, by carrying out admin actions with a "vow of silence" on the user talk page and no alternative channels indicated for affected users to discuss or question the actions. One final warning like this before going to arbcom or community desysop seems reasonable to me; I don't see how it can hurt. Additional problems include the generalized insults on the user's talk page, and two admin actions with apparently insufficient explanation in the edit summaries during the time the vow of silence has been on the user talk page: protected Poon for 63 days , deleted a user subpage. In fact, the protection of Poon can be further criticized: Mikkalai reverted an edit just before protecting, and the edit appears to me to be (although perhaps unsourced and deletable, nevertheless) part of an ongoing good-faith content dispute, rather than vandalism. I sympathize with Mikkalai, and an hour ago I was planning to try to help by watchlisting the user's talk page, deleting personal attacks, attempting to reply to queries on the user's behalf, and attempting to get Mikkalai to allow a notice to be posted directing users to post their questions to my talk page. However, the action proposed here would save me the trouble and be better for those who might be affected by the user's admin actions, I believe, as well as helping to maintain Wikipedia's reputation and standards. (Assuming non-admins can participate in this discussion.) --Coppertwig (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  "I don't see how it can hurt" - It can hurt in this way: it encourages the idea that Wikipedia is some kind of rule-bound, formalized, moot-court ceremony, complete with subpoenas and "due process". Mikkai's point is that people are getting way too lawyerly around here, and he's absolutely correct. The correct response is not to get even more lawyerly at him. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. If you feel that there is a problem, and that a solution needs to be voted upon, Arbcom is that way → (otherwise just leave the poor guy alone). — CharlotteWebb 03:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose on the same bases as GTBacchus and Wknight. Also, I think if we leave this piece of WikiDrama(TM) alone it will go away by itself and pushing the point merely enforces people's resolve rather than fixing the problem. Orderinchaos 04:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support: After parsing through the user's talk page, I came across this message regarding poon. It was semi-protected for what was only simple, isolated vandalism (which I unprotected). No reply was given -- it was outright reverted -- and I feel that this is only becoming a more prominent issue as noted above. seicer | talk | contribs 05:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - what's the point? Its basically a way to bypass ArbCom, but since there's no precedent for a community based desysopping, we just say "don't use the tools ... or we'll ... go to ArbCom" I see we basically have 3 options here, and each of those has similar possible outcomes:
  1. This proposal:
     1. It succeeds, Mikkalai ends the vow of silence
     2. It fails, matter goes to ArbCom, likely desysopping
     3. Mikkalai never ends vow of silence, we're left with a de facto desysopping with an indefinite threat of ArbCom
  2. Straight to ArbCom:
     1. Mikkalai ends the vow of silence sometime before conclusion of case or even before it begins
     2. Full ArbCom case, likely desysopping
  3. Do nothing
     1. Mikkalai ends vow of silence voluntarily
     2. Eventually goes to ArbCom
     3. Vow of silence continues indefinitely
• I see no reason why this should not just go to ArbCom now. Mr.Z-man 05:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• And what happens right after you remove the inappropriate protection by Mikka: he replies in edit summary, "off my watchlist. you wikidrama lovers may keep bullshit off this page yourselves" — Save_Us † 05:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  Sounds like a win-win situation: it's off his watchlist. He said a bad word, too; does that bother you much? I guess "you wikidrama lovers" is a personal attack against other editors of the page. I recommend dealing with such a personal attack by ignoring the attacker, unless the problem seems to be chronic, in which case we've got a dispute resolution process involving RFC and ArbCom. I don't know why people aren't using it, but prefer instead to invent new procedural hoops to jump through before going to ArbCom. It's much easier to just walk directly to point B. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I am not an admin; if I were, I would tend to vote Support. But I'd like to make a friendly suggestion. When the smoke has blown over, the community should decide upon a policy to handle this type of situation in the future. Delineate clearly the kind of behavior expected from an admin, and state in clear terms what action(s) will be taken against someone who falls short of these expectations.

Someone wrote above (I'm paraphrasing), "Don't you people have articles to write?" While I feel that this discussion was necessary, it seems like a lot of time and effort have been expended to conduct it...all the more reason to make sure there's a policy to deal with this type of situation in the future, so the action to take (if any) will be cut and dried and the amount of effort expended by the community will be minimized. Thanks for letting a newbie have the floor for a minute. Jonneroo (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• We've got a policy to handle this type of situation. It's called the entire dispute resolution process. We don't need to write a creepy "Admins' Manual". Everyone knows what good admin behavior looks like: it involves using common sense and communication skills. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  By the way, this is nothing like a vote, and don't let anyone make you think you need to apologize for not being an admin. We're janitors; we exist to serve, not to rule. Your opinion in valued in any discussion on the wiki. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Nobody made me think that way. This is my first time posting at WP:AN/I and I wasn't sure whether or not my comments were welcome, but thank you again for your kind words. Jonneroo (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, per above, particularly per Wknight94 and GTBacchus. Either do something - go through dispute resolution, draft an RfC to measure the community's and Mikkalai's response or go to ArbCom - or don't. Drafting a teethless measure and asking people to vote on it (or "participate ... in a vote-style fashion") is a waste of time. --Iamunknown 06:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Taken to ArbCom - please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Mikkalai. Sorry guys, there's no way an RfC is possible given the whole idea is the subject should discuss concerns - I believe arbcom are the best people to solve this. Ryan Postlethwaite 06:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  They can always send you back to RfC if they want that to happen first. It wouldn't take long. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• GTBacchus, thank you for the explanation; I have only been a registered user for six weeks. I suggest you guys go through dispute resolution, and if Mikkalai declines to participate, his refusal to participate should be taken into consideration in deciding the matter. It sounds like you guys already have a means at your disposal to deal with the situation, so I would kindly suggest that it be utilized. Jonneroo (talk) 06:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  Yeah, I agree. This particular survey seems to have been set up to do some kind of pre-dispute resolution warning, which I've never heard of before. I can't see the point in it, but sometimes people like to invent procedure for the sake of procedure. Working against that natural tendency is part of life here. In this case, I think people are a little bit freaked out to see a long-respected admin melt down. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  I've had no dealings with him whatsoever, but if I were to take a guess, perhaps he has some off-wiki stresses and a wikibreak was overdue. It's a shame that perhaps he stayed around past the time he needed to take a sabbatical. Again, I am just conjecturing. But if he's a respected editor, contributor, and admin, it will be Wikipedia's loss if something happens to cause him to leave. It's rather a shame that things came to this. Jonneroo (talk) 06:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  There are a million reasons a person's relationship with a website might go south. Some disappear and never come back, some reappear with new names and a new outlook, some... I don't know what they do. Maybe ArbCom will recommend a WikiBreak, and maybe that will prove to be an agreeable and effective solution. Mikkalai has given years of great work to this project, and nothing is going to change that. It's nice when good things don't have to end, particularly not on a sour note. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  Even though Wikipedia is not a social networking site, people, and the success of one's interactions with those people, will be the main reasons why someone stays here or leaves here. I may be new, but I think that I've seen enough of the good and the bad to know this to be true. Jonneroo (talk) 07:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support These are not special conditions, part of using admin tools is discussing it with people when they have concerns. This is something we expect from every admin. _(1 == 2)^Until 07:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

EliasAlucard still posting anti-Semitic rants on Wikipedia

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

Blocks have been endorsed by a consensus of admins Avruch ^T 17:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Block 'em both. Nandesuka (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Despite a warning, EliasAlucard continues to post anti-Semitic rants on Wikipedia:

• In the talk page of a biography of Kevin Macdonald, he out of the blue refers to the Holocaust as the "Holohoax" [30]
• anti-Semitic and belligerent edit summary here By the way, it's an invalid source that he keeps insisting on putting in, apparently thinking anti-semitic rants are a substitute for WP:RS.

When can this hateful editor be blocked? Boodlesthecat (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked for 72 hours; if he persists after that, I think an indefinite block is in order. Wikipedia is no place for such bile. — Coren ^(talk) 05:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I don't think this was a good block. Bloodlesthecat has been basically attacking him non-stop for quite some time now, and I'm pretty sure he's misrepresenting what's been said here. Look at the first one:

• [31]; he's discussing the second one in the context of the views of Kevin MacDonald, which include the view that the Holocaust is used as a political tool by "Zionist" to great effect; one should not be surprised to note that these same views form part of Holocaust denial or the "Holohoax" argument.
• [32] The second quote is similar. Kevin MacDonald (and, indeed, many other individuals) view Israel "birthright" citizenship based on race/genetics as hypocritical; that is what the source in question discusses and I fail to see how it is an "anti-Semitic" or "belligerent" edit summary

This looks like a bit of a hit-job, designed to get him blocked for disagreeing. --Haemo (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, even though it has become obvious that both users have issues the information posted on WP:WQA seems quite troubling, the user was warned and he was aware that the alert's resolution concluded that he should be blocked if the pattern continued. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Then how do you explain that "Holohoax" was apparently used as a quotation of the subject of the article (Kevin MacDonald) and not by the user. This "evidence" does not show what is being claimed. Why is that? David D. (Talk) 06:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Read the thread in WQA, apparently this user has a tendency to make the comments in a manner that might hide some of its bias, but some are rather obvious attacks. The point is that he was warned and continued pushing the issue. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen enough to form an opinion yet, but this edit is problematic, even AGFing on the "holohoax" thing. --B (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok ... after continuing to go back over edits and seeing this edit, I've seen enough now. I endorse the block. --B (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and Jossi talked to him about avoiding inserting his own political opinions (questionable though they may be) into discussions on his talk page, and how to avoid it. Frankly, I think he's put up with quite a bit so far, being called at literally every turn names like "anti-Semite", "hate-monger", "racist", etc. --Haemo (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Haemo, here is another compilation of this editor's vile anti-Semitic rants and personal attacks. Your insinuation that my challenging this vicious, racist bile ia a "hit job," and your odd rationalization for this user to call the Holocaust the Holohoax is very, very offensive. Haemo, be so kind as to AGF and likewise desist from your insulting insinuations and apologetics for anti-Semitic rants and Jew baiting personal attacks on wikipedia and against its editors. thanks! Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm, I do love being called an "insulting" apologist for "anti-Semitic rants" and "Jew-baiting". --Haemo (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And I do love insinuations that my protesting Jew baiting abuse and anti-Semtic rants is a "hit job" that I concocted. Just another whiny Jew, eh? Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I apologize for the term "hit job", but I still don't think your links support your claims. And the "whiny Jews" in my ancestry are spinning in their graves. --Haemo (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat, you need to calm down. Your "holohoax" link was less than convincing. On the other hand B's links were quite revealing. David D. (Talk) 06:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hows that, David D? The "Holohoax" comment was entirely Alucard's gratuitous use--has nothing to do with anything in the article. Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, as someone who has no clue about the history it looks like he is quoting, or paraphrasing, McDonald. David D. (Talk) 06:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

trust me, he's not. Macdonald never uses phrases remotely like "holohoax." He's a bit more sophisticated and not about to get himself fired from his college (although he's halfway there). Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

All you had to do was post more examples, which should not have been too hard given "he posts volumes of anti-Semitic rants on Wikipedia talk pages". The one you chose to present was not as obvious as you thought. Don't shoot the messenger. David D. (Talk) 07:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I hear you--this is actually the 3rd time I've filed a complaint about this user--I should have referenced all the previous examples. The two I cited were examples of what he posted after being strongly warned. Boodlesthecat (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• We have to be careful with this. We cannot block people for not liking or disagreeing with someone's political or religious views. Igor Berger (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  This is my opinion here. EliasAlucard has some opinions which most people (myself included) find distasteful. This was brought up to him, and he was warned about it. Since then, he has not made any more comments of the type he was warned against — he has, however, commented on some sourcing for an individual who has similar views. In doing so, he has apparently brought down wrath since his discussion of the sources includes similar opinions. What are we blocking him for again? Because if it's continuing to "rant" after being warned, this doesn't cut it. If it's for his opinions, then there's precedent — but then why the warning in the first place? --Haemo (talk) 06:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Haemo here. This isn't clear anti-Semitism. The Holohoax thing could very well have been misconstrued at first glance. The second comment that B used to endorse the block also doesn't prove anything. Even if it were that he was anti-Semitic (when rather I believe he is anti-Zionist) I don't see why he should be blocked for it. What matters is whether or not he is violating WP:SOAP or WP:POINT and being disruptive. I'm not seeing that here - I'm seeing accusations being thrown around left and right from both sides that need to stop. --Veritas (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's just not become Crusaders. Igor Berger (talk) 06:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There is precedent in cases where the user posting ethnic based attacks was warned and continued to use the talk pages to soapbox, what happened? Jimbo himself banned him, this case isn't that extreme but a short block might prevent that it becomes. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

AGF only goes so far. I am often told that I have a poor imagination, but I have a hard time imagining someone who participates at stormfront being a serious contributor here. That place turns my stomach and we have blocked people for linking to trash there before. Disagreeing with someone is one thing. Obviously, most of us have a worldview of some sort and disagree with anything contrary to that worldview - that's the law of non-contradiction. But the comments I have seen from this user convince me that he is here to push a racist agenda. --B (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've documented his anti-semitic ranting at length. How can you misconstrue someone using the phrase holohoax out of nowhere? He rants endlessly about JEWS--how is this "anti-Zionism? The logic that he is just presenting his "views" would make a mockery of NPA--I can tell anyone to eff thmselves, because that's my "personal opinion".

But SERIOUSLY--why do some people seem to cut soooo much slack for vicous racists when the targets are Jews? Enquiring minds want to know. Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comments here have crossed the line from helpful to unhelpful. Please stop. --B (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, speaking AS a jew, I love it best when people are free to shoot of their mouths, and by opening, prove they're the idiots we suspected them to be, to paraphrase an old adage. (Speaking in general terms about free speech, not taking potshots as EA.) So long as they're just spouting bullshit, let them prove they're idiots. If it hurts the project, or could be liberally interpreted as incitement (or other legal crimes), then I'm all for community bans or calls to the police. Otherwise, free speech means distasteful speech too. (And remember, the sooner a Jew hears organized Nazism gaining a toe-hold in society, the sooner they can loudly protest, and move out of the area.) ThuranX (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So WP:TALK is meaningless, and we should allow racists to rant all over Talk Pages? Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Are we here to defend a group of people or to defend knowledge! We are here to promote NPOV not to take sides of history. Igor Berger (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point here, this user is repeating a pattern of ethnic-based soapboxing, a pattern that has led to at least one user being banned, and he is doing so knowing that it will inflame the situation further. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that Blood is not innocent here as he doesn't help to deescalate the situation. --Veritas (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the point that Blood makes apparent by his reaction is that certain comments can be disruptive to the project due to their divisiveness. I think that mediation is called for here in which EA agrees not to discuss personal opinions on ethnic groups. --Veritas (talk) 06:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm still confused as to why anti-Semitic rants are described as "personal opinions." Are Jews fair game for rants, without censure, in the name of "free speech"? Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree - if he wants to discuss his personal opinions on ethnic groups, there are plenty of outlets for him to do so - Wikipedia is not among them. A topic ban would be my first choice. --B (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If those opinions are relevent to the article and can be referenced with notability he would have a right to quote them, but if they are targeting an editor on a talk page than he has not right to be abusive. Igor Berger (talk) 06:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a message board. I can't imagine any serious encyclopedia having an editor on race topics who holds views that could only be described as racism. If he participates in stormfront and agrees with their views on life, I probably have a poor imagination, but I can't imagine him being a serious contributor here in that topic area. --B (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's been established that he actually agrees with stormfront. --Veritas (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What does it matter--he posts volumes of anti-Semitic rants on Wikipedia talk pages. Is that or is that not unacceptable? Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Very true, he would have to walk a fine line if he is serious about contributing. Igor Berger (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to bed - On that note, I support a topic ban, temporary or indefinite. --Veritas (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not having looked into this user, her's what I have to say... Per WP:NPA there is no justification for preventing him/her from editing articles just because his/her views are disgusting. If his/her edits to a particular set of articles are continually unhelpful then there may be justification for a topic ban, but not just because of his/her views. Indeed, dismissing someone because of their views is a violation of NPA. If he/she disrupts talk pages by continually posting OT diatrabes or quotes then there is probably justification for a block after an inappropriate warning. Even more so if those OT comments are likely to be offensive and it doesn't matter whether the target is Jewish people, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Arabs, Africans, African Americans, Asians, Americans, Europeans, women, men, homosexuals, heterosexuals ... And I've seen a lot of disgusting irrelevant comments on talk pages, Jewish people are by no means the only target or even the most common target from what I've seen Nil Einne (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice, Boodles, who I'm sure isstill rading, if not editing: As I said above, let a person open their mouth enough and they prove other folks' suspicions. EliasAlucard's long list of offenses at the WQA shows the problems. had we tried to block him immediately, there would've been lots of argument that it was a one-off affair or some such. Instead, let him dig that hole big, deep and dark, and then hes' stuck in it. that's why I don't mind letting any fool run at the mouth long. In such cases, be the pig in the argument. (you know that adage about arguing with a pig? 'Never argue with a pig. You're not gonna win and the pig doesn't care anyways'?) that's why some people think it's better to NOT overreact. Hope this helps you understand it. (And it's not that I thoroughly ignore such stuff, but instead, just wait, watch, and never forget - Old German truism "We get too soon old, and too late smart") another case of being worth the learning. ThuranX (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you read, Boodles? This is getting ridiculous. I told you in no uncertain terms to shut up and take the dispute off the wiki about 30 hours ago. Since then, you've been attacking and forum shopping on countless talk and user talk pages to get him blocked, using WP:TALK and Elias' political viewpoints as defence. This is getting tedious. Stop it. Will ^(talk) 09:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you read, Sceptre (Will)? a quick perusal of your talk page shows that at least three editors told you that your "Shut the hell up" response to Boodles was way out of line. Let this be the fourth. I think this edit of yours more than warrants some admin attention. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And just as many thought it was an adequate response. Will ^(talk) 12:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, though it was relatively restrained, given Boodles's troublemaking and self-control problems. Sometimes you need a two-by-four to get someone's attention. --Calton | Talk 13:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked by Coren

(e/c) (undent) For what it's worth, given the fuss, I've spend some time walking backwards in EliasAlucard's contribs to see if I had been too heavy handed. What I see is a long time pattern of offensive racism of varying subtlety, and such a pattern is highly undesirable— even if we presume those are beliefs held sincerely, they were nonetheless presented to offend or bait reactions. I stand by my block. — Coren ^(talk) 13:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Boodles may or may not end up getting blocked as well if he doesn't leave the soapboxing and ranting to other sites, but Elias's block was appropriate. Neıl ☎ 13:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse Coren's block, and future actions in this same vein if disruptive behavior from EliasAlucard continues. There are standards here, even for personal opinions, and relentless disparaging attacks against an ethnicity (rather than, say, a policy of a particular government) have no place. Having said that, if Boodlesthecat can't keep a lid on his reactions then he may find himself in a similar situation. Avruch ^T 15:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse per the three above. We're supposed to have a welcoming environment here, and hostility toward any ethnic group is inimical to that. At the same time Boodles needs to learn when enough is enough. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

with all due respect, I'm at this point more than confused and disturbed that I am repeatedly threatened with being blocked for the crime of reporting the incessant racist rants and anti-Semitic personal attacks of another editor. I am equally confused and disturbed at accusations of "soapboxing" "forum shopping" and the are leveled at me, especially since my valid (and subsequently confirmed) complaint about anti-Semitic ranting was met with a response of "Shut the hell up" by a sorta maybe admin who shut the case. and I am as well confused and disturbed by the insinuations that I am somehow stampeding on this rabid anti-Semite's "free speech" by filing this complaint. The first, bold faced instruction on WP:TALK is that talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. Does this somehow not apply if those personal views are anti-Semitic, Jew bashing racist personal attacks? Is that an exception to WP:TALK? I am simply not getting it here, and I am tired of the threats I am receiving, as well as the open season style nasty attacks by other editors and admins who don't even bother to read the case I've compiled. Please explain. Boodlesthecat (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? You two have done nothing but bait each other and disrupted Wiki and dragged most of AN/I into your personal feud. Your comments have been mostly unhelpful and nothing less than inflammatory. You have accused established editors of Neo-Nazi sympathy and been largely uncivil. Not to mention your constant messages on people's talk pages about their comments on this discussion rather than engaging them here - not like your messages were even relevant anyway to the discussion of whether or not EA is disruptive. --Veritas (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

BoodlesTheCat blocked by Nandesuka

I have blocked BoodlesTheCat for 24 hours continuing to insinuate that the admins and editors discussing this issue at AN/I are challenging him out of some latent or patent antisemitism, even after being asked, by multiple parties, to stop. I have left the block of EliasAlucard in place. Nandesuka (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. Going over the top in the way he did is right out of line. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Huzzah. --Veritas (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oy ve - It sounds like someone in this discussion is trying to do their best to portray (and maintain) a certain Jewish stereotype... they're doing a bang up job at it too! --WebHamster 16:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be a squabble based on off-Wiki activity, and I suggest when Boodles and Elias's blocks expire, they stay out of each other's way on-Wiki, as any further antagonism or baiting from Boodles, or anti-Semitism from Elias, and further, longer blocks would be necessary. Support 24h block for BoodlesTheCat, he was warned. I don't understand WebHamster's comment; it seems like he's suggesting Boodles is a stereotypical Jewish editor, but I'm sure it isn't - perhaps he could explain it? Neıl ☎ 16:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: "Jewish stereotype" not "stereotypical Jewish editor". No mention of "editor" in my comment. Likewise please note the inclusion of "portray" as opposed to "is an". --WebHamster 16:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Requesting an extension of Boodles' ban. It took him ten edits after his block ended to come right back here and push the issue more. He can't let it go, and I really think he needs another block to get that we don't need him agitating more here right after he gets back (see the indef block section below.ThuranX (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm with ThuranX, it seems every time someone tells Boodles to take it easy, he goes crazy and shouts "zomg secret nazi". JuJube (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

EliasAlucard indef blocked by Will Beback

Based on comments here, on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#anti-Semitic rants by EliasAlucard, on the user's talk page, as well as the user's long block record, I've extended EliasAlucard's block duration to indefinite. If any admin thinks that's excesive I'd be willing to talk. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly endorse this block (though I'm not an admin). Unrepentant Holocaust deniers and anti-semites are one step above pedophiles. Bellwether ^B_C 01:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That's not actually a reason to block someone. The disruption that normally comes with it is. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 02:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    • If acknowledged pedophiles are blocked, then so should acknowledged Holocaust-deniers. Bellwether ^B_C 02:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Sam is correct. We don't block people for being pedophiles. We do block people when they push a POV in a disruptive, aggressive manner, or are uncivil towards those who don't share their POV. That was the case here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Just to make it clear, I believe that the mere act of self-identification as a paedophile is disruptive. While I find anti-Semitism and Holocaust-denial revolting, self-alignment with this kind of thought is not per se disruptive in the same way. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 08:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse I was alarmed that the block was only 72 hours. This user is not worth the grief, nor the potential loss of editors who could not work with an editor who was unpunished or lightly punished for horrific behavior. IronDuke 02:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse; in view of the venom expressed in the unblock requests. In fact, I've blanked an pp'ed the talk page as it was used to spew further racist rants about the "zionized" administrators. — Coren ^(talk) 02:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse this block as per the above. Anti-Semistic and holocaust rants as well as personal attacks are not acceptable here on Wikipedia. Greg Jones II 02:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I as Jewish person having my father lose all his 7 siblings and his mother in Auschwitz oppose this indef block because we are being vindictive because the person does not agree with our views. He has not been disruptive and has not personal attacked an editor but stated his point of view on the talk pages. While Wikipedia is not the place to promote one’s point of view this does not justify an indef block to an editor who has been editing for a number of years. This should go to ArbCom at a least and if anything he should get a community ban of 30 days at the most but not an indef block. Also the provocateurs are just to blame of incivility as much as he is. Igor Berger (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  If permited I would like to submit an email that I received from EliasAlucard that will show that he is not a racisit and he cares about our community. Please let me know and I can post it here or forward it to an admin. I personally do not know him and just met him on this post and offer my defence for him just because of WP:NPOV. Igor Berger (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse In my opinion, this is not as much about anti-Semitism (even though I agree that his anti-Semitic remarks -- especially those in his unblock requests -- deserve a block on their own), but about an editor who has a tendency to attack other editors personally, and to talk about and to other editors in a condescending way, and has continued to do so after numerous warnings and blocks. Be it on the topic of neo-Nazism, anti-Semitism, or the Syriac people, this user has been uncivil incessantly. Also it should be noted that the user has been blocked indefinitely from the Swedish Wikipedia, for pretty much the same reasons. Personally, I believe anti-Semitic ideology in itself should not be a reason to block someone, lack of civility and a tendency not to comply with WP guidelines however is. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 10:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Again, it seems that he has been blocked for expressing a POV on a talk page rater than being "disruptive" (hardly more disruptive than many unblocked editors, and he more than makes up for it with positive edits), which is unfortunate. I say block him for 72 hours, and see what happens afterwards. He was already told that it was his final warning, so let it be so. Funkynusayri (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." - see WP:TALK. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Blocking both was clearly appropriate, but I am not convinced that indefinite blocking is necessary for EliasAlucard, for all that his POV is unappreciated by most of us, and his actions to support that POV have undoubtedly crossed the line in this case. He is right that he has created and worked on a number of decent articles. I'd suggest this might be an appropriate candidate for probation. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I respect your opinion and would support any strong editor who is willing to take a menoring position with his editor. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse this block as well - if Wikipedia is considered unreliable by someone who believes the Holocaust is a fraud, then so be it and I can't say it doesn't make me happy. (Previous edit was crossposting endorse comment from talkpage directed at EliasAlucard). Elias has demonstrated, in depth, that he holds opinions which are incompatible with the goals of Wikipedia and the principle of collaborative editing. Based on this, I support the indef block. Avruch ^T 17:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I haven't looked at this in depth, but it seems he has been editing since 2004. Had he just avoided behaving like this previously? Does this behaviour cast doubt on his previous edits? I note Guy said that he has created and worked on a number of decent articles. Carcharoth (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  I've deactivated the category on the indefblock, as even if the block sticks there is no need to have lots of signature links turn red. This is not a throwaway account, but one with history. Carcharoth (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: A month ago, I started a thread here regarding this editor's edits to AfDs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse based on his charming comments such as "in time, this Holocaust disease will disappear from peoples minds", "People are eventually going to realise and wake up that much of the so called Holocaust is a complete fraud", and "These are all pathetic Judaized admins". [33] We can do without that sort of racist nonsense, thanks, and trying to defend it in a cloak of "free speech" is enablement. Neıl ☎ 21:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Here's an an example of an article he started, where he accuses a Jewish author of "promoting miscegenation" (a phrase usually used by Nazis, segregationists and KKK-type racists.) Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: Perhaps if it didn't appear as though half the people invoved weren't wringing their hands and snickering in glee with this ban, I might change my mind, but this looks like outright vindictiveness: 'We don't like your opinion, so fuck off.' HalfShadow (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: I know the user on a personal level, and I am pretty sure he is not Anti-Semetic (is ironic calling him that since he himself is Semetic.) I think what he said was clearly wrong and does deserve punishment. But a ban I think is too much. Give him a long vacation to think about what he said, but he would be too big of a loss for Wikipedia:WikiProject Assyria, since he has carried the project on his back. I urge people to please take a look at his hard work before voting. His opinions on talkpages have bothered me previously as well, but it his opinion never gets in the way of his work (ie he makes sure things are neutral, etc.) His comments here [[34]] explains what I mean. An example of his work;Bahira. The guy's intentions are good, but he goes off on talk pages sometimes. He needs to learn to stop that, and perhaps a long suspension is a good thing for him, but just don't completely ban the guy. Chaldean (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - while I can't comment on Elias' actions pre-dispute, I find it hard to believe you've blocked the person who was at least trying to restrain himself in this dispute. Block the guy who's using his viewpoints as a platform for attacking him, and we'll talk. Will ^(talk) 00:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Neil, again, freedom of speech is important on Wikipedia talk pages, and even in articles Wikipedia includes content which offends millions (pictures in Muhammad article, so on), and no one has been indefinitely blocked for denying the Armenian or Assyrian genocides on talk pages either, which happens frequently. So unless it is actual Wikipedia policy to ban people who deny certain genocides and offend people through their POV, Elias shouldn't be banned. An indef block of Elias is a blow to Wikipedia's neutrality, more so than it would be if he wasn't blocked. Funkynusayri (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Commment: and no one has been indefinitely blocked for denying the Armenian or Assyrian genocides on talk pages either - Case in point [[35]]. If your going to ban him, ban everyone that denies the Assyrian genocide. Chaldean (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I endorse the block for two reasons. First, editors who promote ethnic or misogynist hatred can only serve to be divisive. Secondly, someone who truly believes there's insufficient evidence to show that the Holocaust occurred more or less as mainstream historians say it did, and who feels compelled to call it the "Holohoax," is unlikely to be of much use to an encyclopedia project. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse While I respect his rights to have his beliefs and opinions, I believe this editor has proven that he cannot do so in a non-disruptive manner. However, I strongly urge a similar block be given to boodles since he also seems to be a hostile disruptive editor continuously baiting others and forum shopping. --Veritas (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• I'd endorse this only if Boodles gets the same treatment. Having someone accusing everyone "against" him of being secret Zionists/Nazis is not productive at all. JuJube (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Huh? That made a lot of sense. Boodlesthecat (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: While I do not approve of EliasAlucard's views or edits in question, he has also made some positive contributions to Assyria-related topics, so perhaps he should be given a second chance. --07fan (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment EliasAlucard has made a number of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim comments too (see here for example.) Strange that his ire extends to all Semites. Strange too, that he's only blocked after supposedly questioning the Holocaust. I guess anti-Arab/anti-Muslim rhetoric is A-OK, eh? Tiamut^talk 02:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Exactly, it doesn't seem to be policy to block people indefinitely for questioning other genocides, or for being critical of for example Muslims. Funkynusayri (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. His many comments go beyond the pale. Tiamut's and Funkynusayri's comments confuse me; they indicate all the moreso that the banning is justified. The fact that those who do not edit the same articles as Tiamut might not have noticed his anti-Arab or anti-Muslim comments is unsurprising, and does not seem to justify Tiamut's bad faith question. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As I've stated before, I do not think having certain POVs should be bannable offenses, whatever group they might be directed against, and I've already pointed out that it doesn't seem to be policy. Funkynusayri (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

However, the issue isn't with "having certain POVs", but rather, as has been clearly explained by any number of people, with inappropriate behavior - which is against policy. Can I assume you will therefore now endorse the ban? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose indef. Wikipedia ought to be upholding the general principle of freedom of speech, and block not for having reprehensible views, but for disruption. And he has been disruptive here, yes, so a finite block and probation is what's called for now, not an immediate reach for the banhammer. --Calton | Talk 03:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, Calton, I'd agree if we could fill that position. Let's say that "indef" means pending a strong editor to enforce a probation. Who's that person? Probation requires enorcement, we've learned that much. In this case, several admins have had to block this user again and again. We've gone from reeated blows of the blockhammer to using the banhammer. If you've got a more effective tool then please use it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Maybe the user and actually both of them can use mentors. I have been going to Durova and Jehochman since I joined Wikipedia and that helped me a lot to adjust and learn about Wikipedia community. We all need guidance and a friend to turn to when something is bothering us. This way the two can avoid the cat and dog type of fights. Igor Berger (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose indef but support a one month block. Blocks are supposed to be corrective. Give the account a chance to correct the behavior. While you're at it, give Boodlesthecat a two week block for baiting Elias. Cla68 (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Exactly! It was i that made him spew hatred across Wikipedia for the past year, right down to his lambasting all you Judacicized "pathetic intolerant dipshits"--because i guess I have those magic Jew mind control powers! Boodlesthecat (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I have blocked Boodlesthecat for 48 hours for this comment, coming as it does on the heels of a 24 hour block for the exact same sort of innuendo and character assassination. I have informed him that I will consider an unblock if he apologizes to Cla68. Nandesuka (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Uncertain I need to get sleep, and this isn't time critical. Someone ping me if I'm not back here with an opinion in 48 hours (assuming this remains with an indefinite block.) GRBerry 05:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: You know, I only wrote what I wrote based on what Elias has said wrong. But now I'm starting to read some of User:Boodlesthecat provocative comments. I think this was just a bad battle between 2 guys that went to the extreme. Banning one or both, just doesn't seem right. Teach these guys a lesson, and emphisize to them that talkpages are NOT forums. I appeal to all again to please just take a look at some of his work. He is professional when it comes to Wiki pages, but just very opinionated on talkpages. Its obvious why they are at each others throat, and I will make it more clear now; in my time on Wiki (and forum sites), it is not the first time for me to see this Jewish-Assyrian youth battles. This new generation are perpously at each others throats, with Assyrian youths thinking Israel is reason from blocking independence, while some Jewish youths are still bitter about the past (backround of the story one two). I think it would be a great punishment for the two to force them to create something like this. Just a thought. Chaldean (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  I agree! What message are we sending to Israeli and Palestinian kids if we are to take one side over another? We need to be open minded and help bridge the two cultures back together and not isolate them through walls and barriers. Hatred creats more hatred and creates wars in real world. Wikipedia should help stop that hatred and give people a chance to come together and learn from each other. Blocks are ment to be preventive not punitive. I trully believe we need to help all sides with this and not slam the doors shot on these people and editors. Igor Berger (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse I've been aware of Elias Alucard as a tendentious editor for a long time (on various topics, not just Jewish ones) and he has acquired an extensive block log to prove it. He would have been banned sooner or later anyway so I don't see why we shouldn't do it now. I think the encyclopaedia will benefit. --Folantin (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. Not that I think adding the word string will treble my opinion count. But it does reflect my opinion of Elias, who has tirelessly contributed to numerous wikipedia articles. I won't let my friendship with him affect my professional opinion, so I agree that he should be "punished" - but into doing what? Thats just the thing, whatever punishment you wish to impose on Elias, he has already taken up that burden in his professional editting of wikipedia, which has been unfortunately tainted from time to time with strong opinions. Tourskin (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - I agree with Slim's assessment that anyone with such a loose grasp on historical facts is pretty much a lost cause; and if his bigotry extends to any other group, this only strengthens the case against him. --Leifern (talk) 03:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Indef is way too draconian for this. Holding a particular POV, no matter how distasteful some may find it, is not in itself disruptive. Tarc (talk) 03:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse I am temporarily interrupting a long wikibreak to respond here. I highly have a problem with (and am opposed to) racist/antisemitic editors, and think they need to be banned for the betterment of the community. I had no idea of this users antisemitism, and would have opposed this block any time, until I read through the diffs, which show clear antisemitism, violations of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and certainly justify a block. It also seems somebody may be canvassing for Elias, as all Elias' friends showed up here, as well as many of the editors who hold anti-Zionist views. Yahel Guhan 03:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  Are we supposed to believe that you interrupted your long wikibreak without being canvassed yourself? I don't find that at all credible. GRBerry 03:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• ^ Thanks for the bad faith. Funkynusayri (talk) 03:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What more do I have to say? [36] Yahel Guhan 03:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have to say what that has to do with this. If I reply to his talk page, I can see that he is blocked, so of course I investigate it further. Funkynusayri (talk) 03:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse per evidence at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#anti-Semitic_rants_by_EliasAlucard ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Could anyone explain to me why it isn't policy to ban people denying the Armenian and Assyrian genocides, which happens frequently on those talk-pages, while denial of the Jewish genocide is a bannable offense? Funkynusayri (talk) 04:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I can explain it. Read his talk page before it got blanked. An intemperate rant in which he calls editors dipshits and suggests they have "Judaized?" My God, he didn't even bother to fake an apology for his actions. And still there are people supporting him. I honestly wonder if all the "Endorsers" have seen the entire record of this user's appalling behavior. I find myself hoping they've not taken the time, which is sad in its own way. IronDuke 05:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're not answering my question. As for his record, I'd say the good outweighs the bad. But that's not the sole reason why I'm "supporting" him, I do not think people should be banned for their POV, whatever it is. Funkynusayri (talk) 05:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse based on what I see at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#anti-Semitic_rants_by_EliasAlucard. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, his comments on AFD convinced me that he lacks maturity but this comment 01:59, 27 February 2008 from just 2 days ago -- "Well what do you expect, Funky? These are all pathetic Judaized admins. They have no honour anyway and the sad part is that they think they're the good guys. By the way funky, I highly recommend you to read the Holocaust Industry. Don't worry though, in time, this Holocaust disease will disappear from peoples minds." -- , convinced me to support. I can't see editors with such inherent mal-intent becoming a contributive factor in the project. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• This demonstrates very clearly that "Funky" above knew well just how vile this user's POV and racism were before he contributed here. Bellwether ^B_C 12:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Which no one denies, remember? I've already explained that I agree with a long block, just not an indefinite one. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Talk pages are to discuss improvements of articles. We cannot let them be hijacked by people who persistently want to use them to publish their own editorials; it is aa consistent pattern of disruptive editing to make a point. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  We all have opinions and our own point of view. Even if we are a straight forward conservatist and a fundamentalist that is a POV as well. It is imposible to keep sterile as much as we aspire to WP:NPOV. Igor Berger (talk) 11:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Not all ignorant opinions are created equally vile. And not all people who hold these opinions choose to spew their hatred all over the project. Bellwether ^B_C 12:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• endorse net contribution to wikipedia is in the negative. Gzuckier (talk) 18:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abuse by User:Tvarkytojas User:T_bullshider PLEASE PLEASE HELP

This user account lay mostly unused for months, anad then suddenly has made hundreds of edits in a few days, in bouts lasting for a few hours with many edits within a single minute. There is concerne it's a sockpuppet but I don't know how to measure that effectively. Cleaning of the categorization mess is going to take a while. Many of the edits are identical to ones tried by ZZcon earlier this week. I don't know the procedures, and I'd rather work on cleaning it up than tracking down the procedures. Can you (all) DTRT? Tb (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lokyz&diff=192815984&oldid=192688463. Tb (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Again today, acting under what seems to be an IP address sockpuppet, he reverted the sock-puppet warnings on his user page. He is back again, every day, with his wild recategorizations. Can some admin please at least look at this and let me know? Tb (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Now there is a personal attack against me: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tb&diff=194632004&oldid=194553392. Tb (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And User:T_bullshider seems to be connected: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tb&diff=194633125&oldid=194632728. Tb (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Will SOMEONE at least REPLY? I don't know the proper procedure, and the abuse is only likely to get worse. Tb (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: This guy could really use some assistance. Everything I looked at looks like he's getting hit pretty hard for no real reason by these two guys and some anons. I'm uninvolved in this situation. CredoFromStart ^talk 17:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And today again, User:217.44.56.101 has removed the sock-puppet warning from User:Tvarkytojas. I haven't a clue how to go about tracking a sock-puppet, or how to ask for some response to the abusive comments this person(s) have made, and I'm distressed that this noteboard seems to get responses for every other incident and nobody is willing to actually help me. Tb (talk) 12:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism today, following the pattern (one very frequent change is to add Metropolitan Community Church to a putative "former Anglican Churches" category). User:217.44.56.101 has been used as an anon sock-puppet, I think, by this same person(s). There are also personal attacks left on user pages. Tb (talk) 12:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is definitely the same person as discussed in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive325#Persistent disruptive re-categorizing anon and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive284#User:Pionier. As I have already noted ([37]), I can't think of any good long-term solution... Warning him is rather pointless. Blocking only stops him for the rest of the day (although that is still better than nothing), for he will just create another sockpupet. Even noticing him is hard, for there are many potential targets (almost anything related to religions, Lithuania, Jews, communism, special services and martial arts), and many of the individual edits might seem rather harmless. It also seems that this user has created accounts in several other Wikipedias. As far as I know, his activity was confined to Lithuanian and English Wikipedias, but now there are accounts in German (de:Benutzer:Tvarkytojas), Spanish (es:Usuario:Tvarkytojas), French (fr:Utilisateur:Tvarkytojas), Croatian (hr:Suradnik:Tvarkytojas) and Dutch (nl:Gebruiker:Tvarkytojas) Wikipedias too... However, it is possible to decrease the damage a little - at least, the user page of Tb could probably be semiprotected to avoid edits like [38] or [39]. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Arsenic 99

People who deny the Holocaust are indef blocked. But its perfectly OK to deny and delete anything related to Armenian Genocide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_22#Category:Armenian_Genocide_deniers

Please point to anyone who has been indef blocked for "denying the Holocaust". Tendentious editing is a reason for blocking, but not beliefs. Corvus cornix_talk 22:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Um... HalfShadow (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, try again. Corvus cornix_talk 22:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone should defiantly investigate the canvassing and the spa accounts showing up for the vote. Not to mention the personal attacks. VartanM (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• This is the same VartanM who wrote to Arsenic99, the person about whom he now complains

"Comment I don't know what they teach you in the Turkish schools, but in civilized count[r]ies ... VartanM (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)"[40]

VartanM owes an entire nation of people an apology for shamelessly promoting the idea of ethnic superiority and expressly setting forth his own contempt for an entire nation of people--and, meanwhile he so vociferously condemns genocide deniers-people who commit crimes against humanity based on the same sociopathic sense of racial/ethnic supremacy. To the Admin this is nothing more than a spurious witch hunt by a gang that has done everything it can to provoke the user they now complain about because he had the "audacity" to suggest a topic they are enamored of be deleted, and in the process they, specifically VartanM, impuged the integrity of everyone who posted an opinion contrary to his own. If any behavior requires investigating, it's that engaged in by VartanM. Pebblicious (talk) 02:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• See the Hrant Dink article to see what happens when a citizen of your country talks about the Armenian Genocide in your nation. Can you show me one diff of Arsenic99 being provoked. Take a look at his contributions, see how many times he insulted users, based on their nationality. VartanM (talk) 06:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Are you trying to insult me now too by presuming you know what "my country" is? The issue is your derogatory comment regarding people of one nation of origin which is something you unapologetically do here again. You do not even apologize for the crass racist remark you previously made. The issue you raised here is the behavior of a Wiki user that you intentionally continue to provoke by insulting what you believe to be his ethnicity. What is becoming clear is that you want to have banned all you think are of a certain nation of origin against which you harbor prejudice by provoking them with racist insults and then complaining about them. Pebblicious (talk) 14:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Hrant Dink was killed by a 17 year old, maybe someone didn't like him or whatever, maybe he was assassinated maybe the kid did not like him, but also remember that Armenians use to criticize him as well. Once he died, they now use him as a reference for whenever they wanna talk about how "uncivilized the Turks are", which you so shamelessly used again. Why don't you talk about how THOUSANDS of Turks marched the streets with "We are all Hrant Dink" "We are all Armenian" posters to protest how he was murdered. Why don't you wanna talk about the ethnic cleansing of Armenia from anyone that isn't Christian which is why Armenia is 99% ethnic Armenian Christian. You pick and choose what things to talk about, and you pick and choose what citatations to use and you use them to promote an Armenian POV and in the side promote how Turks are "bad". Your comments have personally attacked me and even though I even left you a nice message on your talk page complimenting you, you continue to stalk me and persecute me for disagreeing with your "infallible" opinions. Admins will see through you, and your continuous edits of Armenian Genocide related articles will be seen for what it is, Propaganda. Tell me, were you in the Armenian Revolutionary Federation youth groups, be honest (it doesn't mean you're bad, I'm just curious, so WP:AGF)? — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 06:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• VartanM is totally one sided and closed minded, he is also attacked me in personal level and deleted my posts in a discussion board. These sort of actions should not be tolerated. In the end as Wiki contributors we are trying to share the information to build the most accurate resources for our users to get information. otavilog (talk)
  • Otavilog, since you contributed very little outside of İstemihan Taviloğlu article. Can you tell me how you learned about the category discussion. Thanks for your honesty. VartanM (talk) 06:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • VartanM, my contribution might be little compare to yours (which I dont have enought time to go to your account to see your contributions, I am more mature than that, this is not a comparision on who contributed more or less, more contribution does not make you right) however; every information I have entered are not bias and does not represent only one side, in addition everything I have contributed are proven. So, I would rather contribute less and truth instead of contribute a lot that only shows one sides opinion and be against any idea that challenges your belief's.When it comes to your question, when there is a smoke it doesnt take to long to locate the source.

• Everything should be investigated defiantly. Definitely. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious editing you say?

Just as a separate note, but long unorganized complaints tend to be ignored fairly quickly. Personally, I'm not going to read all that nor really respond to it. It would be helpful if you focused and gave specific arguments (pointing to "deleting a section here", "removing this here", etc. are really complicated to review). If you think an article should be deleted, head to WP:AFD and make your point. If it is really complicated (not that AN/I tends to archive within a few days), follow the dispute resolution procedures. Now, if you have a focused point or two, I would be willing to review here. Otherwise, I'd say that saying "people who are against my view should all be blocked" isn't going to work particularly well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

When I made the complaint, a user was blocked because he made anti-semitic comments and denied the Holocaust. And I found odd that there was nothing being done not only to Arsenic99, but also to a number of other users that have systematically made anti-Armenian remarks and were genocide deniers. Corvus cornix pointed out that the user was blocked for making tendentious editing is a reason for blocking, but not beliefs. So I just showed him the tendentious editing of Arsenic99, who has called for the Armenian Genocide article to be deleted because its POV, removed categories and links to the article. Removed entire sections from articles. Radically changed the Taner Akcam article, the same kind of change that got him arrested before. Personally attacked users based on their nationality. Nominated the category to be deleted, then canvassed about it to other Turkish members and then SPA accounts appeared out of nowhere to support the delete vote. His POV and purpose here in wikipedia is clear, is to delete anything Armenian genocide related. So far he made very few edits outside of the Armenian Genocide topic and most of those edits have been reverted because of the strong POV by Armenian or third party users alike. Click around his contribution list and you'll see what I mean. VartanM (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree, that is why anti-semitic users and especially anti-Armenian users should IMMEDIATELY be banned and blocked. But I have never ever been anti-Armenian, I simply do not want POV in articles that shouldn't have POV which usually push an Armenian nationalistic agenda.

If you follow through the list of "Tendentious Edits" you'll find that they are usually me presenting opinions in talk pages, and sometimes removing one or two point of view statements from an article not related to the Armenian Genocide. They are all very justifiable, and VartanM is exaggerating it like as if I committed a crime for presenting an opinion.

I can also follow VartanM's contributions and find that he's added Armenian-Genocide related comments to almost any article that even remotely deals with Armenians or Armenia. If it's a Turkish author, there is a comment about the Armenian Genocide, if it's an American who doesn't support the Armenian Genocide, such as Dr. Justin McCarthy then a magical "criticism of his work" appears on his biography violating many policies. I have never personally attacked you, and you may look at VartanM's talk page to see how nice I am to him. Many reverts by me are very justifiable because I deleted Armenian POVs. However, many reverts against me are usually by known Armenian editors. VartanM has a long list of incidents of harrassment against me and disputes with other Turks as well, and his contribution list of POV edits, is much longer than mine. He finds me a threat to his recognition of the Armenian Genocide POV so he has always been watching me and following me around wikipedia re-adding POV points. I removed some edits where he had citations but were unreliable sources or unrelated comments about the article. Such as in Murad Gumen's article, VartanM insists on adding a "TallArmenianTale.com" section, because some guy in America said that TallArmenianTale's writer is probably Murad Gumen, and he put this there with citations to that guy, and basically ruined Murad Gumen's (a Walt Disney cartoonist btw) biography. Since when did declaring someone as a possible author of a website become a fact that wikipedia required? I have mentioned that I wanted the Armenian Genocide article to be deleted yes, but things don't always go the way I want. I know that since there is much dispute on the issue, I cannot simply say "delete" or nominate it for deletion, since it is an article that many nationals watch. In that article, I've simply made 2-3 edits, which were always removed, and unsourced, unverifiable POV sentences were re-added and my edits reverted by nationalists. I don't think VartanM is a nationalist, but I think he is obsessively trying his best to prevent anyone from disagreeing with his point of view. I think he's a smart guy, but can sometimes be wrong about certain things, and sometimes doesn't realize his own POV edits, and that's understandable, I have my own POV edits as well, I use talk pages a lot before editing or maybe never editing (such as in the Nagorno-Karabakh article) but blocking me is just a little extreme. VartanM is also known for canvassing, but secretly using IMs and emails, and the SPA accounts that he mentions in the CfD, is an exaggeration, I only noticed 1, and don't know who it is, but if you suspect me, please check IPs or do whatever you can to prove it. But I don't think I should be blocked based on suspicion. Why was [73] deleted but this [74] is kept? Are they both not political labeling of people of differing views? If you said publicly well I think there is a God, and someone slapped a "Atheism Denier" or "Anti-Atheist" label on your wikipedia page, would you enjoy this? This is like me going up to John Edwards page and slapping a "liberal" category on his page, while it may be true, this is the danger of speculation and political labeling. This Category of "Armenian Genocide Deniers" was violating: Wikipedia:BLP, WP:Categorization of people,WP:OC#OPINION, and WP:NPOV, and yet people just fall over themselves and play it safe to appease the Armenians in wikipedia, why? It seems that the wikipedia I love is continuously falling under the power of nationalism and becoming a place where differing views are rejected simply because of seeking the truth. I admit I am new, and I admit I sometimes have made mistakes, but to label me away as a denier or a minority is simply un-Democratic. All one has to do is take a look at this page, VartanM User Page and scan around the history to see the nationalistic views and his primary focus on adding Armenian Genocide related comments on any article in wikipedia. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 20:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh and, denying the holocaust is wrong (because it's proven by Nazi archives unlike the Armenian Genocide, where Turkish archives contradict the genocide thesis), but apparently VartanM doesn't think so, he seems to think the Armenian Genocide is the only genocide in the planet:

::*Comment Whats your opinion about Category:Holocaust deniers. VartanM (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

and it is apparent, that he is simply trying to compare the Holocaust and the Armenian Massacres, when there are Holocaust victims (or sons of) who denounce the Armenian Genocide label. Such as Guenter Lewy and Bernard Lewis, labeling respected historians and citizens of the world as deniers for something that is yet to be proven is simply wrong. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 20:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not going to answer this, sine its pretty much self explanatory. VartanM (talk) 05:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes it is self-explanatory, but if you aren't going to answer, why leave a comment? — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 07:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't indefinitely block or restrict the voice of people, when at least one country, with 70 million population, disagrees with one-sided branding of these massacres (unlike Germany which unilaterally accepts the definition of Holocaust). I am not sure why it has been so difficult to conduct an international tribunal alike Nuremberg and review all historical accounts on this heated issue, used and overused for political purposes across the world. But I don't believe it's up to Wikipedia to determine right or wrong in this controversial and serious issue. Considering that many hundreds of thousands of civilian Turks and Muslims perished on that same front at hands of Armenian and Russian units as well, perhaps, both sides stories need to be listened to. Massacre as much as accusation of it, is a very complicated issue which has to do with dignity and spiritual healing of descendants. So only understanding of that will help to bring about recognition and solution, not just blocking one side's voice and imposing outside decisions. Atabek (talk) 02:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Who told you that I want him indef blocked? Indef blocking someone with 0 blocks is a little harsh don't you think. Now to your point, I don't see your name mentioned anywhere on this page, so why are you stalking me? And unlike Arsenic99 here, who still doesn't know the rules, you were a veteran user when you did this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive282#Armenian_Genocide_being_removed You didn't forget about this did you? Also your above comment is nothing more then one big WP:SOAPbox. VartanM (talk) 05:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment You sure act like it, and I wouldn't be surprised with the amount of edit wars you've attacked me with. What rules, I haven't violated anything that might be considered violation o Wikipedia Policies (you even dared to claim I was canvassing, after-which I read the WP:Canvass and found out that I can contact Turkish editors that might be interested in a CfD, since them and Armenians are usually the only ones ever interested in this issue)... You on the other hand, your whole contrib list is a WP:SOAPBOX of how indisputable and undeniable the fact of the Armenian Genocide is, with minor exceptions here and there, so please don't take offense, you've done some significant work in other places as well, I hope as have I, but you do primarily edit articles and push an Armenian POV and no one can deny this. You're acting like I violated a rule by nominating a biased POV category for discussion.
  • On the one hand, I have tried discussing issues with you and even complimented you by using your talk page, but you on the other hand, have led a campaign to keep the Category, made incident reports about me for simply expressing some facts of which the interpretation did not agree with your opinion, and didn't even have the courtesy to warn me about this ANI. I really haven't seen anyone break so many wikipedia policies and get away with it so easily. Since you seem to be in good relations with many many wikipedians that think like you and have been a member for a while, I guess it's realistic for you to be so bold, sadly I don't have such an advantage. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 07:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Clem32 and User:Mario scolas

User:Clem32 is an account clearly opened with the aim to create a confusion with the account User:Clem23 (sysop on :fr as fr:Utilisateur:Clem23), who has been for several months if not more a favourite target of a disruptive and obstinate user known (among other accounts) as "Mario Scolas". See m:Vandalism reports/BogaertB for details. If you read French, see also detailed comments about recent developments on this week sysop's bulletin on :fr.

This week, we have got numerous attempts on :fr, by the use of false quotations, to try to discredit Clem23 as a racist (see for instance [75], in French -among many others). The only intervention of "Clem32" here on :en is obviously part of the same game, and the speedy reaction of User:Mario Scolas is not suprising and typical of his several personae play.

Certainly User:Clem32, only created as a disruptive account, should be immediately blocked Has been done through a parallel request on WP:UAA, while an administrative inquiry should be launched about User:Mario scolas who, though careful here on :en, has been disruptive enough on :fr and :nl to justify a strong treatment here also. French Tourist (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC) (sysop on :fr as fr:User:Touriste)

As noted, I've blocked the account for a Username violation. It's interesting that the account's two edits were to add a comment in favor of deletion of Boubaker polynomials, and then to reinsert the comment when Mario scolas (talk · contribs) removed it (calling it harassment). I've also warned Mario Scolas for removing the comment, and would not object to a block if disruption continues. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

We are currently facing some really serious issues on fr:, related to Mario Scolas AND to the Boubaker polynomials. A summary of the issues can be found here in French :

In short, the community decided to delete Boubaker polynomials, and as a result, several sock puppets and IPs spammed articles and user pages of admins and entourage of Clem23 (40+ and counting), insulting Clem23, and related sysops and users, mostly claiming that the deleting was a consequence of racist behavior. (Boubaker is Tunisian) Legal threats were raised, the number of affected pages is impressive : We are taking this problem very seriously.

There are no proved links between Mario Scolas and these issues, but a fact is that Mario Scolas immediately backed up on en: the boubaker controversy.

Now, about the situation here, I'll bring these diffs to your attention :

• (very bad English to French translation :) [Clem23's full name] [...] you'll eventually end up with slaps in your Nazi face
• [76] & [77] : it will be the first slap in your racist face
• Mario Scolas is reverting Clem32 : Please don't get fooled : Drama and disputes between two of his sock-puppets is definitely part of the modus operandi of Mario Scolas, as stated on the meta page (Creating conflict with 2 of his accounts)
• The AfD page of Boubaker polynomials is a mess : sock-puppetry, canvassing, and so on.
• Please take a look at the en: contributions of the French vandal IPs : they are all related to Boubaker polynomials.

We are currently investigatins IP ranges, as 196.203.x.x, 41.224.x.x and 41.226.x.x might also be involved in some related but undetected yet vandalism, but we'd really appreciate some help down here...

Thanks...

NicDumZ ~ 22:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, and my apologies for this intervention out of the blue.

About that last part, to clarify, in The IP list, 196.203.x.x, 41.224.x.x and 41.226.x.x belongs to the true Boubaker (193.95.x.x does too, likely), whereas 70.85.16.16 & 64.131.83.138 are impersonations (supposedly Scolas), as I kinka doubt Boubaker know how to use proxies.

A Dual CU on en: and fr: (comparing with IP history) might help putting things to light, but this will be heavy ; really heavy to do.

Darkoneko (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Update : a few minutes ago, three new disruptive impersonations playing with Boubaker polynomials : User:Tonton Bradipus, User:Pere Cormier, User:Olmec23. Don't hope things to settle by themselves without strong sysop interventions ! French Tourist (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A bit of clarity, again :

• the names refers to fr:user:Bradipus, fr:User:Hégésippe Cormier, fr:user:Olmec & fr:User:Clem23 respectivly, which are all frwiki sysops.
• The edits of all accounts were made straight at AfD/Boubaker's polynomials at random places of the page. He also took liberty to delete some comemnts statings which other votes were likely to be sock (see diff). I took the liberty to revert them "en masse".

Darkoneko (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Shell Kinney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has hit them all with {{usernamehardblock}}. Lara❤Love 14:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. But what about the (99% sure) main account ?

Darkoneko (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Just as I was writing this, another (pretty obvious) sock appread : user:ClemClem32 [78]

As Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boubaker polynomials (2nd nomination) is becoming a war zone due to all that commotion & sock-puppetry, does enwiki's policy allows to put the page protection at "autoconfirmed" level in that kind of cases ? (ever since the creation of the page 3 days ago, every single non-confirmed account & IP edits have been pov-pushing from Boubaker, and socks) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkoneko (talk • contribs) 17:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Darkoneko (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's usually just tolerated on AFDs themselves. As has been my frequent observation, single purpose accounts never actually affect the outcome of the debate, and 95% of them never edit again once the article is deleted. As such, admins here usually don't consider page protection necessary. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the answer :) Darkoneko (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mario scolas has been a very painful issue for fr:WP (260 socks) and nl:WP (over 30). I hope the vandalism does not spread too much here, at this time he is mostly focused on fr: admins (see the history of my talk page) but knowing him I doubt he'll restrict his vandalisms in the future. I hope you can do something about that, at this time he is only gaming the system, playing with his socks and proxies while trying to play the victim with his main account. Clem23 (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Last time the m:Vandalism reports/BogaertB case was really noticed here, as far as I know, can be seen in this noticeboard section (death threats and the like). Bradipus (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, of course User:Tonton Bradipus is a direct reference to me. Interesting links between User:Tonton Bradipus and User:Mario scolas:

• Post in a french spreaking chat signed Tonton Bradipus and linking to a blog of Mario Scolas (his signature i all over the page)
• Post of Mario Scolas in a chat starting with a texte referring to Tonton Bradipus. Bradipus (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And, if I may, these death threats refer to you as "Tonton Vincent le Bradipus". Even if no links were proved at the time between Mario Scolas and these threats, serious doubts got raised. This makes a lot of coincidences... NicDumZ ~ 09:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I've seen enough of this guy. Indef-blocked User:Mario scolas. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Great ! Thanks. DocteurCosmos (talk) 15:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Fut.Perf., I bless you till the 5th generation  ;-) Bradipus (talk) 20:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Sarah777

I request an uninvolved admin take a look at this. I blocked Sarah777. She persisted in removing my post which was relevant to her unblock request and answers a significant accusation she has made against me. As an emergency measure I protected the page. Her unblock has been declined. No doubt she will appeal again and will again remove my post. Tyrenius (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ty, I'm not uninvolved here, but I seriously think you should have asked another admin to block that time. Because it came from you and because both of you have a certain history, well ... You could have kinda predicted how this was going to go, too. Note to others: I blocked Sarah777 for 24 hours, just three days ago - Alison ^❤ 00:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no history with Sarah777 to speak of. The only significant contact is at Wikipedia:TER#User:Sarah777, and I think it's established there we do not let people violating policy establish "no go" zones by making accusations aganst admins. (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm no admin, but it certainly looks as if that block was justified. It doesn't matter how much an editor contributes or how good those contributions are, if they can't deal with problems civilly, they should face sanctions. --clpo13_(talk) 00:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. Incivility is bad. Don't do it. If you need to do it, join an unmoderated forum like Usenet or the like. Simple. --John (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Aye, nothing wrong with the block, though Alison is right that it'd probably have been better for someone else to do it. I don't think you'd have found a shortage of takers. Black Kite 01:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason why another admin should have done it. I am not in any editing dispute with the user. I have no history with the user, apart from warning her not to make abusive posts. The precedent otherwise is that an admin warns a user, a user makes some accusation against the admin, and the admin is then not allowed to interact with the user any more. This is asking for abuse and gaming the system. Tyrenius (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but she was blocked a few days back for telling you to "sod off" [79]. You're right though, I don't think it's a big deal to be honest. Black Kite 01:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'd like to see this block lifted. Sarah777 was commenting on the block of another user that she felt was unfair. She said something like "trust the fascists to come up with an excuse" (not a quote, but words to that effect), and was blocked for it. That seems like overkill. There are far worse things said every day by people (including admins) whom no one would think to block for them. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• A quick look at User:Sarah777's contributions reveals that the exact quote is "Admin-power abusing fascists like friend Ty". That looks like a clearly unacceptable comment to me. --Conti|✉ 02:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think that comment was after the block, Conti. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I just noticed that, too. Did you mean another comment by her, then? Either way, that comment isn't really a good argument for the removal of the block. --Conti|✉ 02:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if there is a legitimate problem, it should be handled civilly. Name-calling exacerbates the problem. --clpo13_(talk) 02:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• (EC) - I'm not necessarily "uninvolved" as I declined the unblock request for this user, however, I believe that the block needs to remain. This user has a clear civility problem, as evident from prior blocks, and this comment that she left today while blocked. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think this was the comment that attracted the block:

• "This is getting more and more like some institution run by a cult of abusers. 40k edits in "main"; not a single cross word ever uttered - and you get blocked. At least I put myself about as they say; there is simply NO valid excuse for blocking you no matter what self-serving rationalisation the fascists come up with. Plus, the block is totally illegitimate as you are using an undeleted system of categorisation." Sarah777 (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• It was inappropriate, for sure, but I can't see that it was worth a block in itself. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You might like to check out Sarah777's long term history of abuse. Wikipedia:TER#User:Sarah777 is a good starting point. Editors should not be subjected to her insults. Tyrenius (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If we were routinely blocking users for those kinds of comments, it'd be fair enough, but we're not, which is the problem here. This seems to have become something of a self-perpetuating thing, whereby she makes an inappropriate comment, gets blocked, is pissed off, makes a snide remark, is blocked, gets even more pissed off, says something else, and on and on -- where each comment in itself wouldn't normally attract a block. I recommend an unblock as a show of good faith, which might turn things around a little. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

We do (or at least have been recently) routinely blocking for those sorts of comments in this particular subject area. The problem with Sarah, is that when an admin makes a decision not to her liking, it is always an example of fascist abuse, Anti-Irish abuse, Anglo-American abuse, and she is not shy in telling anyone who will listen. In the already politically fraught subject areas she occasionally edits in, her comments are particularly inflammatory. Its difficult enough to keep editors working together on the Irish/British issue, but when editors regularly throw accusations around like that, it quickly degenerates into edit-warring, sock and meat puppetry, legal threats, off-wiki threats of violence and we all end up at ArbCom again. I'm being a little dramatic, of course, but all those things listed have happened by editors in this subject area over the last year. Most of the participants put their actions down to being insulted or goaded. Hence the zero tolerance policy on civility and personal attacks on this subject, especially since everyone has been warned countless times already.

Now, Sarah is certainly not among those who have indulged in the worst behaviour I have listed above, but she does, for want of a better phrase, "have a mouth on her". We can continue to discuss issues with her (as I have done many times before) and ask her time and again to stop calling people offensive names, but she resolutely refuses to stop. If asking doesn't help, perhaps blocks will. Though I doubt it, to be honest. Rockpocket 03:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarah777 made the comment above, was warned by Rockpocket that is was likely to get a block and then endorsed her comment:

Sarah, please don't refer to other editors, named or implied, as "fascists". In addition to being wholly incorrect, it is also gratuitously offensive and likely to earn you a block yourself for WP:NPA before too long. How many times do you need to be asked - make your point without resorting to name-calling, please. Rockpocket 23:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd have thought it was a pretty good description. Don't you? And if some goon can block Ardfern then we should all be proud to be blocked, don't you think? And I reckon we'd be rather more interested in your take on the Ardfern block than on my civility (yaaaaaawn!) Sarah777 (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

She continues to insult editors whenever it suits her. Fine, if she states she will desist from making abusive personal comments, I don't object to an unblock, but in the past she has stated quite the opposite intention and there is no sign of her attitude changing.

Tyrenius (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Per this comment, and per lack of a clear consensus to endorse this block, I have left a comment on her talk page suggesting I will unblock if she states she willd desist from making personal comments. See how it goes ... - Alison ^❤ 03:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No, there is a clear consensus to endorse the block, but I'm prepared to show good will. Tyrenius (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My comment is in the below section- basically, a slightly longer block, but don't go mad and block for long, or we would have to block numerous individuals. Special Random (Merkinsmum) 03:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If there are numerous individuals with long term incivility problems, then that needs to be addressed. ArbCom rulings show that it is not acceptable. Tyrenius (talk) 03:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Tyrenius, please see my comments below at #Sarah777:_there.27s_more_to_this_than_meets_the_eye. But I note from your comment above that you even think it was a blockable offence for her to call the admin who blocked Ardfern a "goon". Sorry, but I think that given the outrageousness of that block of a highly productive and respected editor, an expression of outrage was well-justified. "Fascist" and "goon" are not exactly parliamentary terms, but nor are they a completely unjustified or disproportionate response to a very bad block.

In effect, Sarah was blocked for objecting to another block, and that's a form of victimisation. If you can't see it that way, please recuse yourself from further use of your admin powers towards Sarah. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No, she was blocked for how she said it, and other ways she expressed herself- swearing etc. Special Random (Merkinsmum) 12:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Community ban

Initiating this straw poll as a neutral party. Sarah's conduct is way over the line. The whole "Brilliant means block" section and the edit summary "get off my page you twat" is just the latest I can see in a row of gross incivility, and I think enough is enough. We don't need this, especially in such a contentious area. Ramp the block up to indef community ban. Will ^(talk) 03:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I certainly won't endorse that and I feel you're "ramping up" the issue here just a bit - Alison ^❤ 03:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this really acceptable? Will ^(talk) 03:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this, please stop rocking the boat all over AN/I. David D. (Talk) 06:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No, but neither is a community ban. If I show you an admin that called someone a "cunt", will you campaign to have them community banned? - Alison ^❤ 03:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Was in a contentious area such as The Troubles or Eastern Europe, where opinions don't need to be more inflamed then they already are? Will ^(talk) 03:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Strongest oppose. Look at her block log- they've all been short, she could be given a slightly longer one, say a fortnight, to reflect. I agree with SV on the other issues- I think there should be a block, but not a ban, because there are plenty of others who swear etc. on site and they haven't been banned.Special Random (Merkinsmum) 03:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The word "twat" is used much more lightly than "cunt". However, there is a long term problem with her incivility, not just an occasional mishap. Community ban would be an answer. If not, then there needs to be some other arrangement in place to contain it, and to prevent her from excluding any admin who tries to address the issue. Tyrenius (talk) 03:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A longer block would make her consider her actions more. In that regard, an analogous case would be User:TharkunColl, who after a two week (I think) block and warning that he would next face one of 3 months, has been comparatively well-behaved. :) Special Random (Merkinsmum) 03:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ty, there are also cultural differences to be recognized here, too. Profanity in Ireland (where myself and Sarah are from) is treated a lot more lightly than in, say, the United States. Thus in her own view, her transgression may not have the same weight as it does to others. Seriously - Alison ^❤ 03:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Incivility is a problem on Wikipedia these days, but I don't think that community banning everyone who's uncivil is remotely the right answer. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

We'd only be left with about 5 editors. Nandesuka (talk) 05:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think there's been any gross profanity as such. It's the ongoing ad hominem posts like "Stop talking complete arrogant bull. YOU have imposed "criteria" that nobody bar your pompous self accepts. You abuse of power is passing the point of annoyance and becoming nauseous".[80] That needs to stop. The only question is how it can be stopped. Tyrenius (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think Merkinsmum's suggestion is sound. Sarah is a productive editor with a volatile temper. A period of disengagement might help defuse some of the recent drama, and drive home the point that wikipedia is a collaborative effort, which means sometimes agreeing to disagree without launching into nationalistic attacks. Horologium (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

From an observers view - she seems to carry a big chip on her shoulder, and grudges against certain admins. I agree with Will (talk) in that somethings need to be dealt with firmly, and not just swept under the rug with a wink and a nod, and don't let it happen again. Its gonna happen again. Modernist (talk) 04:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to remain in the middle ground here; no community ban and no unblock - sit out this block, and we'll go from there. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with User:Rjd0060. If we're going to community ban for this level/frequency of incivility, there are a lot more bans to be given out, including some to admins. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree that a more comprehensive approach is needed. I think the proposed actions, e.g. long-term blocks or bans, are not in line with the way we have approached similar issues of late. Such actions would be viewed, correctly, as capricious, and the consequences of this might be worse than the problem we are trying to correct. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree a ban is excessive at this stage. My concern is that the issue is addressed and not just ignored. As Rockpocket has pointed out, such behaviour impacts considerably in an area where there has been a lot of trouble. It would be a good start if Sarah777 were to recognise that attacks on others are not the way to address differences. To date she has asserted that she is justified in making them. Tyrenius (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A ban is way to harsh at this stage, especially considering the leeway we have given to other editors for incivility. Rockpocket 04:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think I see a clear consensus against a ban. Including by one of the admins that has previously blocked her. For the record, having reviewed this, I agree with the consensus above that a ban is inappropriate. If we were going to issue bans for incivility, there are multiple admins we'd need to ban before we got down to Sarah's level of incivility; I've seen so much worse from others. GRBerry 05:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarah has agreed to make a "supreme effort" not to repeat this if at all possible and has also apologized to Rockpocket. Per discussion above (esp. per blocking admin) I have unblocked her. I'll try to mediate over the next few days and try to address everyone's concerns here. I think BHG makes some excellent comments below and I'm largely in agreement. There is a lot more to this than meets the eye and I think amongst all of us us who are familiar with the situation here, we'll work something out. Unblocking - Alison ^❤ 11:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That's great, as long as Sarah777 delivers on her promise to make that effort. We have to assume good faith and I would love to see Sarah continue to edit - yet it seems her incivility has been increasing in both frequency and magnitude of late, and there is simply no place for that kind of behaviour on this kind of project. Hopefully there will never be the need to block Sarah777 again, but should that need arise, I don't think a short term block would prevent any future occurrences. I'm against a community ban at this stage, but if Sarah's behaviour does not change, that stance will. Waggers (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarah777: there's more to this than meets the eye

The suggestion of a ban is a terrible proposal, and I'm glad to see that there is a consensus against it. Yes, Sarah does have an ongoing problem with her short fuse, and her responses exacerbate the situation. However, the latest block was a very bad one, by an involved admin whose objection was to the removal of his comment from her talk page, and traditionally we have given editors a lot of leeway in removing stuff from their own talkpages.

Furthermore, the issue that triggered Sarah's outburst was the rapid and unjustified blocking for alleged "disruption" of Ardfern (talk · contribs)}, who is an incredibly productive and uncontroversial editor who has no history of trouble, by an admin who had made a dodgy closure of a related DRV. I was shocked at Ardfern's block and had intended to raise the issue here later today, but while I don't use her colourful language I fully share Sarah's dismay at that block. I happen to be a lot better at biting my tongue, but I am starting to get very concerned at the way that Sarah now feels that she is be being "targeted" by a group of admins who were involved in "The Troubles" arbcom. The issues here have very little to do with that arbcom case, but some of the admins (notably John (talk · contribs) and Tyrenius (talk · contribs) who were involved in that case now appear to be running into regular conflict with Sarah, and I think it's time to ask them to step right back from dealings with Sarah, because whatever their intentions (and I assume good faith), they are not helping to calm things, and on the contrary they are consistently provoking the worst reactions from Sarah; they have become part of the problem. I would like to contrast this with the calm and balanced approaches of Alison (talk · contribs), who as usual seems to remain calm and to retain the trust of all involved; the contrast is important, but it demonstrates that this is not simply a case of any admin who confronts a miscreant being demonised.

There are several serious issue behind all this. The most visible cloud is the set of issues considered at The Troubles Arbcom case, a huge and long-running mess which still rumbles on 4 months after it was closed, and which now turns out to have been in significant part to have been underpinned by a bunch of sockpuppets of a banned far-right British politician (as well as the antics of Vintagekits (talk · contribs), whose misconduct continued after more "last chances" than North Korea has been given over its nuclear weapons). That arbcom was supposed to draw a line under everything, and to say "no more misconduct", but that didn't really happen: the far-right sockpuppets were only recently uncovered, and Vintagekits eventually turned out to have been sockpuppeteering too. So there is a long history of trouble here, and considerable post-arbcom evidence of some nasty stirring by banned editors.

One of the ongoing problems is cultural difference in what constitutes civility. I have lived in England for over years and understand how more of English people conduct themselves and can play by those rules, but as Alison (another Irish exile) pointed out above, social norms in Ireland are very different: raucous outspokenness and swearing are much more acceptable.

And one of the reasons that this comes to the surface so often is that Irish editors routinely find themselves outnumbered by British editors, and end up at a severe disadvantage in the formation of consensus. I have watched too many instances where Irish editors and British editors polarise on different sides of a dispute, and where there is no shortage of British admins ready to condemn the culturally different conduct of Irish editors, and thereby exacerbate a difficult situation.

It's far too simplistic in this mess to simply condemn the "wild" Irish editors; there's a lot more going on here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind me saying, in the words of Ali G, "is it because I is black?" :) (joke). There are English, American, all sorts of people that swear, and people can't have licence to swear at other people and in other ways be incivil, just because of their country of origin. You do the irish a disservice if you say they don't have it in them to be as well-mannered as the English- any one I've met has been, more so if anything as they have a reputation for being friendly. On the other hand, it did seem weird to me that people were discussing a 'community ban.' Special Random (Merkinsmum) 12:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

May I offer the following poem by a pal of mine from Dublin, by way of explanation?

"Terms of Endearment"

Two Irishmen meet.
They like one another.
They are friends.
"There ye are ye bollix."
"Fair play to you you cunt."
"Ask me arse you tit."

Very shortly they will be best friends.
God alone knows how they will express
This extra closeness.

— Pat Ingoldsby, "Terms of Endearment"[81]

- Alison ^❤ 12:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

But as the poem said, they are friends already. It would be like me calling TharkunColl a drunken old c**t.:) I'm allowed because I'm his mate lol but people don't tend to in a formal situation such as wiki. Also Sarah777 wasn't talking to a friend, but to one of her wiki 'rivals', so her words weren't meant in a joshing way, you big !*^!er.:) (joke) :) Special Random (Merkinsmum) 14:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice try BHG and I appreciate you for sticking up for her. I am from an Irish family, and have spent a lot time in Ireland, North and South. Any contention that Irish people are unable to follow conventional rules of formal civility, though, is laughably inaccurate. Yes, in the pub, old friends will use terms to each other that would make a maiden aunt blush. We Scots are the same. However Wikipedia is not the pub and Sarah's ongoing incivility does need to be addressed. I did not (yet) support the idea of a ban, but that is the way this needs to head if Sarah demonstrates that she is unable to follow our norms, and we need to be clear about that and not make excuses for her on the basis of her nationality. She is not stupid and knows very well what she is doing. --John (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Point I'm trying to make here is that there is a certain cultural aspect to this, and that I feel people may be focussing on her language and delivery rather than looking behind it and seeing the frustration it stems from. Thus the root of the problem never gets fixed and she remains ignored (or worse, reprimanded). I've stated this a few times already - she may indeed have genuine grievances here about certain matters, so let's try to find out what's behind it all so we can all move on and get back to editing - Alison ^❤ 20:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. It's a fine line between cutting people slack and allowing for cultural differences, and making it carte blanche for certain users to be abusive. Let's hope Sarah takes all the advice she has been given on board as I do value her contributions. I approve the unblock but it needs to be clear to this editor that we cannot accept abuse from anyone here. --John (talk) 02:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

People can express legitimate frustration without resorting to swearing etc. Most can, anyway-- except maybe certain admins. :) Special Random (Merkinsmum) 17:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Response to BrownHaired Girl

You were in the minority in opposing this block, which was endorsed by clpo13, John, Black Kite, Conti, Rjd0060, Rockpocket and Special Random. I haven't mentioned or alluded to the word "goon", and I wasn't even aware Sarah had used it. Sarah was not blocked for objecting to another block, something she is quite entitled to do through the proper channels. She was blocked for a personal attack, namely calling someone a "fascist". Several of those who endorsed the block have no prior connection with the situation.

You state that I am an "involved" admin. The attack by Sarah wasn't made against me, and I wasn't involved in the conversation about it. I have had very little to do with Sarah777 previously, apart from very recently, when my only involvement was to address her incivility at Wikipedia:TER#User:Sarah777 and remove offending comments about John, which Alison said she was just about to remove,[82] which Sarah then reinserted and which I removed again.[83] In the meantime Alison, not I, blocked her for her response to my warning about that removal. That is the extent of my supposed involvement. According to your rationale, if an admin warns a user and the user is uncivil in return, the admin should then refrain from dealing with that user over any other issue.

You say I am running into "regular conflict" with Sarah. I have only had dealings with her for 5 days, since removing the posts mentioned above. Apart from John, I note she also objected to Fram, Ioeth and SirFozzie, all of whom she wished to see de-sysopped.[84]

You have also got your facts wrong, when you state my objection was the removal of material from her talk page. That happened after the block and was not the cause of it. She was not entitled to remove this, as it responded to a statement she made concerning the unblock which was incorrect, though that was an understandable mistake: removal of my correction was not.[85]

You have previously said the accusation that John is partisan "is not without some reasonable basis",[86] failed to provide any evidence, then apologised, [87] but still thought John should not intervene, because he had been accused of partisanship, regardless of whether it was just or not.[88] (In that post SirFozzie was one of the acceptable "calming" editors, but it seems he as now lost that status.) User:Lar said, "what I see as an outsider is John trying very hard to be helpful in the face of others applying the bias label unjustly."[89]

Your assertion that this is a nationalist issue is inappropriate, objectionable and false. Regarding "British admins ready to condemn the culturally different conduct of Irish editors", I have not stated my nationality, so you should not presume, Fram is Belgian, Ioeth is American, and SirFozzie is, if I recall correctly, of Irish extraction in America. You have also said Rockpocket (American) should not intervene because of what you perceive as "victimisation" and being "trigger-happy" (although he has never blocked Sarah),[90] and no doubt the "fascist" Fram is not welcome, so with John and myself, we are now up to 7 admins. It strikes me they cannot all be the problem.

Most "Irish editors" are not uncivil, and editors of any nationality can be.[91] Nationality is not the issue: WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are the issues, for which I have previously blocked "British" editors, David Lauder,[92], Astrotrain,[93] (twice, as well as lengthening a block for continued incivility while blocked), and Counter-revolutionary,[94] (for "Derogatory implication based on another user's nationality"). In the Troubles ArbCom Astrotrain accused me of "bias and harassment" on behalf of "Irish" editors.[95]

The only admin that is allying themselves nationalistically is you:

Yes, once again, Irish editors have been stitched up, and wikipedia's coverage of Irish history has been impeded, but ... big but it's really important to remember that however much we are provoked, incivility or pparent WP:POINT violations won't help us undo the damage.[96]

I am surprised that you take this stance, as I have not noticed it previously, but it indicates that you are the one who should recuse yourself from this issue. I see no reason to recuse myself.

Tyrenius (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Point of information: I'm not American (though I live there). Neither I am Scottish, English, Irish (though I have lived in all three countries) or Welsh. I find the fact that we are even discussing the nationality of our admins utterly depressing and demonstrative of how much the false accusations of problem editors have influenced us. It doesn't matter what nationality you are from to recognize POV pushing, personal attacks and name calling.

I too take exception at BHG's accusation that I am involved in "victimisation" of Sarah by being "trigger-happy." My relationship with Sarah, from my own POV, is entirely cordial. I have never blocked her and I very much enjoy interacting with her. I don't think Sarah would dispute that either (though I could be wrong). If you have an issue with an unfair block, then I suggest you address that through the proper channels, BHG, but leave me out of it. All I did was ask an editor to stop calling another offensive names, which is about the least "trigger-happy" response I can imagine. Rockpocket 18:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The last time I remember the "Its ok to call people cunts if you're Irish" defence being used was after an (admitted) drunken tirade by User:Vintagekits against an admin, where threats were made. It didn't wash then, it doesn't wash now. Anyone who disagrees with Sarah777 ends up being accused of being anti-Irish Anflo-American-centricism - no matter where they're from or what their politics - even the likes of User:OneNightInHackney, for God's sake! The bottom line is Sarah777 needs to accept that WP:NPA is a policy that applies to everyone on WP, including her. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to add my ha'penny-worth, but here it is anyway: (1) there is now a general mood to tighten up perceived incivility, and if that means hauling people up for what would have been allowed in the past, so be it. Sarah777 certainly wasn't the worst offender; she's now promised to calm down; a line has been drawn and we all know now where it lies. She, or anyone else, will cross that line now at their own peril. (2) I notice that David Lauder is described as 'a banned far-right British politician', which, as I understand it, is an assumption rather than a fact. Even if correct, it's a (pejorative) description of him rather than his editing interests, which lay in medieval Scottish history rather than overtly political subjects, and he, by-and-large, kept his nose clean in the issues surrounding 'the Troubles'. Whilst I certainly don't approve of the foolish politicking through sock-puppets, his contribution to WP deserves more respect than the casual reference to his politics and lumping him in with another editor with a considerably worse record.

A propos of posting here, it's my belief that posting on WP:AN/I, or even reading it, reduces your intelligence rapidly. A warning, similar to those printed on cigarette cartons, should be posted at the top of the page and someone should draw up a User box for everyone to 'lead us from temptation'. --Major Bonkers (talk) 02:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't think everyone should be encouraged with the "this user loves wikidrama" userbox then?:) Special Random (Merkinsmum) 17:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandals flooding RfB with self-noms!

Vandals have flooded RfB with self-noms! They appear to have taken a cue from WT:RFA, and look what has happened:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Ryan_Postlethwaite
• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/RyanGerbil10 3
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Riana
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Mr.Z-man
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Maxim
• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Majorly 3
• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Wizardman
• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Neil
• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Acalamari
• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/The Rambling Man
• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham

Come watch the inevitable fireworks? Avruch ^T 03:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• "This is MADNESS!" нмŵוτнτ 03:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  Open season! seicer | talk | contribs 03:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  Sorry, Seicer, you still have about 70 minutes more to wait before you can join in. Ronnotel (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  My gun fell out of the holster. seicer | talk | contribs 03:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Madness? THIS IS WIKIPEDIA! Rebelyell2006 (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Never rains but it pours. Ban 'em all!!!! :D - Alison ^❤ 03:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least some mandatory checkusers? You never know, might be a troll trying to slip through ;) Ronnotel (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Suggest rangeblock on 0.0.0.0/0 until checkuser results are in. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously all one user.... :P Tiptoety ^talk 04:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggest mandatory mentorship from stewards and that they are required to add themselves to Category:Bureaucrats open to recall. MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I consider this canvassing. x42bn6 Talk Mess 04:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That Neil guy waited for the Ryans to fall by the wayside before diving in for the win and great justice. I don't like him. Proto (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I'm fond of his alter-ego, Proto either. Especially since that guy quite possibly has a worse username than Neil. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Loathe as I am to spoil the party, my application was forced upon me by Dweller and Andonico. No dirty self-nom for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

:D I'm not one for abbreviations, but laught out loud. Rudget. 21:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes TRM, your lack of self-glorification has now forced us to create a template for prodding people into the hat race. What shall we do with you. MBisanz ^talk 18:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

RfBs are supposed to be self-noms. Prodego ^talk 22:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Block review: Eleemosynary

Eleemosynary (talk · contribs). This request is procedural since the block ends fairly shortly, but since he intends to post a complaint against me here when it ends (by which point I'll be asleep and unable to respond), I believe I should get my word in before I go.

3RR violation

Eleemosynary is claiming that I "admin abuse"-d him by blocking him for WP:3RR violation on Matt Sanchez. First of all, please note that the article is subject to an article probation, and all of the article's consistent editors, including Eleemosynary, are aware of this. My block message was as follows: You've been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three revert rule on Matt Sanchez. Your reverts were as follows: [97], [98], [99], [100]. You were warned of your pending 3RR violation here and referred to it as "officiousness", and you are aware of the 3RR as you have been blocked 4 times before for it. Continual disruptive editing will not be tolerated.

Eleemosynary contends that his edits were not 4 reverts, which even if it were correct is irrelevant because the 3 revert rule does not entitle users to revert 3 times per day. From the policy: Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.. However, his edits were indeed 4 reverts. A revert, per the policy, "means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content..."

His first revert, [101] was a removal of this edit made on the 21st. His second revert again removed the text "writer". His third revert removed the text "writer" from a different place in the article. Eleemosynary contends that this is not a revert, however, clearly states A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time so in fact it is. Revert 4 is clear.

Note, that he was warned after his 4th revert that he violated 3RR. He deleted the warning as "officiousness." I then blocked him for 24 hours for the violation.

tendentious editing

As I have shown above, there were 4 reverts within 24 hours, a violation of the 3RR. Even were there not to have been, Eleemosynary was clearly edit warring on the article. Just a few days before that, he had edit warred over the bad faith removal of images of Matt Sanchez, justifying his removal of a freely licensed picture under the assumption of bad faith that "Matt Sanchez had lied before about the ownership of pictures, he must have lied about this one too."

You may note from Eleemosynary's extensive block log that he has been blocked 7 times for violating the 3RR, or edit warring. He's also been blocked for legal threats, and blocked twice for violating WP:OFFICE. Eleemosynary should know better than to edit war on an article, but even after being blocked, he insists that he was right, the blocking admin was wrong, and this is harassment against him, and that I have a grudge against him (more on that later).

Furthermore, given the article probation that affected the page (and he was well aware of such probation) he should have been on notice not to edit tendentiously on the article. Therefore even if his block was not for 3RR violations, it would have been appropriate for disruptive editing.

allegations that I have harassed him

Until this block, I have not dealt with Eleemosynary in months. I've blocked him once before, in August 2007 if memory serves right, for another 3RR violation. Just a week later, some of you may remember, was User:Crockspot's RFA. I don't remember the exact details, but it was disrupted by allegations that he was a racist, showed some off wiki forum posts of an off-wiki user with the same name saying racist things. At that time, a Digg user named Eleemosynary made a digg post about Crockspots RFA to try and disrupt it. It naturally failed. Our User:Eleemosynary was just coming off of his block from me. I can't remember exactly what it was for, but the block log says "multiple 3RR vios". He was blocked for a month by Isotope, which was later overturned by Theresa Knott. Eleemosynary here (who is a vocal opponent of Crockspots) maintains his innocence that he is not the Eleemosynary from Digg. I did not and still do not believe this, and at the time I wrote a post on my blog about it. Eleemosynary believes this to be my "harassment" of him. It should be very clear, however, after reading it that it is nothing of the sort.

His responses to this latest block are snarky, claiming that I have a grudge against him, and that I have harassed him and continue to harass him. This conveniently ignores that I have had no contact in months with him, and that a 16-entry long block log would imply that perhaps he is the one doing the harassing. As evidence of his hostile behavior, please see these diffs: "remove impotent rantings of utter disgrace" (referring to Matt Sanchez...yes there's evidence that he had good intentions for that article), [index.php?title=User_talk:Eleemosynary&diff=next&oldid=194538800 Well, this dishonesty isn't surprising, coming from "Swat."], (in that same diff accusing me of admin abuse, accusing me of lying, etc.) accusing me of editing on behalf of a banned editor, and again, and again, accusing me of working on behalf of a banned editor, harassment, and abusing my admin privileges, alleges that I've threatened him off wiki (!)(?), while maintaining that he has not been hostile at all, etc., alleges that I am interpreting policy "tortuously", which apparently means "deceitfully",

I've warned Eleemosynary that if he continues to make these allegations against me, I will block him for gross incivility, and that here is the appropriate place for him to bring any complaints he has against me. Since I expect to be asleep by the time his block expires, I wanted to post this now, before any facts get distorted. I believe that Eleemosynary should be article banned from Matt Sanchez, this is a remedy that any administrator can enforce since the page is already under article probation. I further would like to see this block endorsed, and possibly a community ban on Eleemosynary. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

My recollection of the "Digg-post" and Crockspot's RfA: I remember the Crockspot nom, and when the Digg posting went down. At the time the only evidence that they were the same person was that it was the same name, and I think a trivial bit of location info, which I was able to find --on wiki. At the time of Eleemosynary's block, I sent an email to Administrator Isotope, inquiring as to whether there was any off-wiki evidence that he was privy to, but not available to the average wikipedian. He said there was none. It was my impression at the time that someone used his name to stir up extra drama here. And I believe that before he left (?) Crockspot and Eleemosynary were behaving civilly with each other. This lack of acrimony between the 2 of them led me to believe that, at some point, Crockspot decided that Eleemosynary did not make the Digg post either. R. Baley (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly right, R. Baley. Crockspot and I had a very contentious relationship here. But, after contacting me, and (as I recall) checking the timestamps of the posts in question, Crockspot dropped the issue of the fake off-site posting in my Wiki name. The only person who kept that canard going was Swatjester, here, on his off-site blog. (Swatjester could never get away with such an unfounded personal attack on Wikipedia.) I never even voted on Crockspot's RFA because 1) Swatjester blocked me during most of it, and 2) there was no way I could render a neutral judgment.

During that RFA, a number of admins came to my defense when talk of extending my block -- based, again, on no evidence whatsoever -- came up. However, Swatjester pressed for a significantly longer block, evidence be damned. Thankfully, cooler heads and good faith prevailed, and the block was quickly reversed. But I have to wonder if Swatjester's activities over the past few days are "spillover" from several months ago.

--Eleemosynary (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Eleemosynary has demonstrated aggression on this page before and I remember warning him about incivility. I think Eleemosynary generally means well, but I think he has trouble controlling his temper. Ronnotel (talk) 11:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably true. However, I think the same could be said of Swatjester. --Eleemosynary (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to support that statement with evidence? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a troubling example. I would also point anyone interested to your recent fight with Guettarda, which resulted in your being blocked. But as this isn't an arbcomm case, I'm not going to compile an evidence list just yet. --Eleemosynary (talk) 01:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A non-neutral summary from SwatJester?

It seems to me that the principal question in issue here is not the block itself, because SwatJester is not really asking for a review of the block. If SwatJester really wanted a block review, he wouldn't have waited until shortly before the block is to expire to ask. Further, the blcok has already been endorsed by John Vandenberg in a post on Eleemosynary's talk page. What is in issue here is SwatJester's actions, and I am concerned by the summary with SwatJester has offered. Some things I find worrying:

The block was not contested until shortly before it expired. As well, one endorse is hardly a general opinion. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your action was questioned by a third editor 19 minutes after you notified Eleemosynary of the block. You chose not to post here until near the end of the block, when it seemed likely that Eleemosynary would post here at AN/I about your actions. I understand that you wanted to pre-empt - which is ok - but to present that pre-emption as a request for a review is dubious, in my view. And, for the record, I think Eleemosynary did technically breach 3RR, and I told him so when he dropped by my talk page. Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

1. SwatJester stated that Note, that he was warned after his 4th revert that he violated 3RR. He deleted the warning as "officiousness." I then blocked him for 24 hours for the violation. It is interesting to note that no diff was provided. I wonder if that is because the warning was not that Eleemosynary had already violated 3RR, but that he was in danger of doing so. Now, the full discussion between Eleemosynary and Philippe is not all that constructive (it is preserved on Philippe's talk page), but it does make clear that Philippe believed that Eleemosynary's "next action may result in blocking". SwatJester is correct that Philippe's post was removed as "officiousness" from Eleemosynary's talk page, but I find SwatJester's mischaracterisation of the warning interesting.

   As I understand it, the warning was that he had already violated WP:3RR. Regardless, it's even more damning if he had been warned before violating 3RR. This is a semantical point. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Your understanding is in error - look at the diffs. "Please be sure to not revert the same content 3 times in a 24 hour period" is not a statement that 3RR had been breached. Nor is "<shrug> OK, but... well, you've been warned. The next action may result in blocking." Since a technical breach had already occurred, this would be semantics as you suggest, had you not relied on the warning in justifying the block. Your suggestion now that the warning was before the breach - which you must know to be false - makes your objectivity in this matter appear very doubtful. Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

2. My concern is heightened by that fact that SwatJester knew that no action was taken after the warning. His block notification states that Eleemosynary was "warned of [his] pending 3RR violation". R. Baley pointed out shortly after that Eleemosynary had not edited after the warning, which Swatjester dismissed as irrelevant. SwatJester also noted that Eleemosynary "should have been using the talk page".

   I dismissed it as irrelevant because it was. Either Eleemosynary violated 3RR, was then warned, dismissed it as officiousness, and was subsequently blocked for it by me, or he came within 1 revert of violating the rule, was warned, continued, and then was blocked for it by me. Either way, it is a non-issue: he still violated the rule, undeniably. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   You know that the second option is not true, and trying to use it to bolster your position is questionable. As for the former, an objective response would be that the rule breach justifies a block. Nothing further needed saying - yet you keep bringing up a response to a warning which you state is irrelevant. I suggest you ask yourself "Why?". Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

3. Looking at the talk page for the Matt Sanchez article, there is a thread on the issue, started by Eleemosynary here.

   Which he did not actively participate in until after the 4th revert, as was noted on his talk page. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   He began the relevant thread - and you only noted anything about using the talk page in your dismissal as 'irrelevant' of R. Baley's concern that no edit was done after the warning. Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

4. It takes at least two to make an edit war, and in this case the two parties are Eleemosynary and SatyrTN. As noted by SwatJester, the material on Matt Sanchez as a writer was added around 21 Feb, so either adding or removing it is part of edit warring. Here are the diffs, times, and edit summaries:

   Eleemosynary - 2323 26Feb - [102] - Changed "writer" to "blogger." He's not a writer in the traditionally accepted use of the term (as in, published by something other than a vanity press)

   SatyrTN - 0211 27Feb - [103] - The New Republic isn't a blog, therefore he's also a writer.

   SatyrTN - 0212 27Feb - [104] - +writer

   Eleemosynary - 0428 27Feb - [105] - He's never written for The New Republic. Beauchamp did. Check your facts before you revert.

   Eleemosynary - 0428 27Feb - [106] - fix info box

   SatyrTN - 0436 27Feb - [107] - Sorry - I meant NY Post. Writer.

   Eleemosynary - 0440 27Feb - [108] - He wrote one, single guest column in the New York Post. That does not meet the threshold of a "writing" profession. Please take this to the talk page.

   SatyrTN - 0530 27Feb - [109] - per talk page, please reach consensus

   Note that the edit summaries show an on-going discussion - not in the correct forum - but nonetheless a discussion. If Eleemosynary deserved a block for vilating 3RR, surely SatyrTN violated the same rule. Note also that Eleemosynary initiated the talk page discussion at 0442 27Feb - 2 minutes after editing requesting to take the discussion to the talk page. SatyrTN performed a final revert 48 minutes later, in the same minute as joining the talk page discussion. In such a circumstance, wasn't that reversion provocative?

   Perhaps it is. But that's not relevant to the block of Eleemosynary. You are more than welcome to request a block of SatyrTN on WP:AN3 if you'd like. I'll even make the block myself, if another admin recommends it.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   The point is not whether there was a 3RR violation, it is that there were two of them - and you sanctioned only one editor. Again, is this consistent with the action of an objective, unbiased, and uninvolved admin? Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

5. Did SwatJester simply not notice the other side of the edit war? It seems unlikely in collecting diffs that he would have missed this fact. SwatJester commented immediately after SatyrTN in the talk page discussion, announcing the block. SatyrTN then thanked SwatJester for acting, and SwatJester didn't even mention SatyrTN's own 3RR violation. It is interesting that SatyrTN asked "Please let me know if I a) overstep or b) understep - I feel like I might be getting too close sometimes, and I feel like I'm too new with the mop to know what and when to clean up. SatyrTN has been editing the Sanchez article, debating sources (on user talk:Benjiboi, for example), and using his admin tools: [110] - a full protection that ended less than a day before this edit war was up and going. Even if SwatJester didn't notice SatyrTN's role in the edit war, shouldn't he have responded to SatyrTN's request with advice to not use admin tools when he has been editing the article? His actual response was an offer to help if needed.

   My response was an offer to help teach SatyrTN how to properly use the admin tools. I'm not convinced that SatyrTN has done anything wrong, and even if he has, he's certainly in better standing than Eleemosynary, who has been blocked multiple times for 3RR. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Are you serious? SatyrTN, an admin, has been actively editing the page, discussing changes on its talk page, and debating issues in other areas of WP; he fully protected the page and then become involved in edit warring within a day of it coming off protection and violated 3RR with 4 reverts in 3 h 19 min. And you are still not convinced he has done anything wrong? Your judgement is way off here. Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

6. In the above discussion SwatJester, cites as evidence of hostility that he removed a talk page comment from Matt Sanchez as "remove impotent rantings of utter disgrace". Note that the comments from Matt are abusive - he has called Eleemosynary "a crappy editor", described him as "a total sham masquerading as a legitimate editor", "pathetic", and "a worthless whore", called him "a rabid idiot" contributing "nothing but supercillious commentary" and with "a gay-hate agenda", and stated that he will "probably commit suicide once they throw you off of the article. What else would you have to live for?". All of this is in the last four days. "[I]mpotent rantings of utter disgrace" doesn't seem that unreasonable a summary to me - although I should admit a bias in that Matt called me "unprofessional and childish" and a "fellow traveller" of "homosexuals and sodomites". SwatJester's evidence of Eleemosynary's hostility towards Matt Sanchez based on his decision to remove abuse from his own talk page is pretty thin.

   The comments by Matt are indeed abusive, and uncalled for. Matt Sanchez is a banned editor because of it. That does not give anyone permission to personally attack him. Do not feed the trolls. Civility does not cease to apply to interactions with banned editors. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Eleemosynary's comment was in the edit summary on his talk page edit removing abuse from a banned editor. Which of the words Eleemosynary used are untrue? Given the blocking of IPs everytime he pops up, Matt is (metaphorically) impotent, his comments are rants, and they are utterly disgraceful. WP:CIVIL is absurdly overused on WP, and this is a good example - Eleemosynary was calling a spade a spade, and acting having been subjected to homophobia again. Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

7. SwatJester notes that Eleemosynary accused him of editing on behalf of Matt (a banned editor) but interestingly chooses not to mention that Matt asked for help on SwatJester's talk page, nor that Matt asked for Eleemosynary's topic ban: [111] [112]. Since the Sanchez posts were removed by Benjiboi, I can't prove that SwatJester read them - but I can show he edited 10 minutes after Matt's second post was made to SwatJester's talk page, and that benjiboi didn't remove the comments until nearly two hours later. Isn't this a relevant fact given SwatJester is calling for a topic ban?

   It's relevant how that an IP has edited my talk page? One that, you may note, I did not respond to. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   It's relevant because that IP editor is Matt Sanchez. The diffs make that absolutely clear. The IP was blocked as a Matt Sanchez sock, and this is recorded on the Bluemarine ArbCom page. Matt asked you to topic ban Eleemosynary - he even did so civilly, which is unusaul for him. You are now asking on this thread for that topic ban. I find that highly relevant. I also find it interesting that you state that you did not respond to him (which is true) but don't deny having read the requests. You would have got a big orange bar around your either before making this edit or after pressing the submit button. Are you denying having read the requests from Matt? Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

8. In the SwatJester / Eleemosynary talk page interactions during Eleemosynary's talk page, SwatJester states: "If you want to allege harassment, you need to do it in the appropriate forum, which is AN/I" - which is difficult for him to do when he is blocked by SwatJester.

   His block expired within an hour or two of that edit. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   True. But, before coming to AN/I, aren't you supposed to discuss concerns with the admin? Where else was he supposed to discuss them whilst blocked? Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

9. This is SwatJester's last post on Eleemosynary's talk page. Wasn't SwatJester required to post a notification of this thread for Eleemosynary?

Eleemosynary was aware of it here, as I had directed him to take his complaints to AN/I, and he indicated that he would do so.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you have apologised to Eleemosynary for not notifying him: [113] This would surely have been a better response here, wouldn't it - to say "yes, I should have notified him". Also, I find it interesting that you posted the above comment at 1809, and made the apology on Eleemosynary's talk page at 1947. Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that SwatJester's summary is seriously slanted and leaves out important facts; some of this actions (notably around SatyrTN) are also questionable. Are other admins really comfortable accepting that SwatJester has acted objectively in this matter? Jay*Jay (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My summary is entirely factual, aside for a couple debatable points which are irrelevant to the broader issue that the block was valid for a 3RR violation. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your summary here is incomplete, with significant omissions. The tone of your responses is defensive, in my opinion. I have serious doubts about your ability to act with objectivity with regard to Eleemosynary - and that, not the 3RR violation - is the issue here. Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• The only issue I see here may be a conflict of interest with SwatJester (blocking admin) and John Vandenberg (endorsing admin) per this at Commons and maybe SwatJester's own involvement at the Matt Sanchez article including a previous revert and warning of Eleemosynary. There's other edits at Matt Sanchez as well per SwatJester's contribs. It's just highly unusual that they somehow both seem to be watching Eleemosynary here on WP too. That being said, I don't see any harassment per say by SwatJester but he isn't an "uninvolved" admin and probably shouldn't have been the one to block for 3RR. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 15:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  My edit to that picture on Commons was a result of an OTRS ticket, as was the edits involving the removal of the pictures. I've no idea who John Vandenberg is, nor if he is even an admin. That's hardly an evidence of a conflict of interest.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't have a lot to add to Jay's excellent work above. I hope admins will look at the whole story, and respond accordingly. I would like to add that, judging from Swatjester's final paragraph, what he's after is getting me permanently banned from Wikipedia. He'd also like me banned from the Sanchez article, even though my edits have been constructive. (Despite the reverting between SatyrTN and me, I think one will find I've improved the article.) To lobby for these bans, Swatjester has constructed arguments on this page of half-truths (again, many thanks to Jay for providing the full story.) I would ask that, in the future, Swatjester defer to other, neutral admins if he has a problem with my edits. I think the guy has the capacity to be a good admin, but he's been very contentious of late, and I don't think he's capable of neutrality when it comes to me. --Eleemosynary (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  You think an edit war is exemplifying constructive editing? Again, I object to your characterization of my summary as half-truths. Calling people liars in any shape and form is simply uncivil, especially when it's not true.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, I think my many edits to the Sanchez page that were not part of the exchange between SatyrTN and me were constructive editing. And it is true that your summary is rife with half-truths. Further evidence posted above has shown that. Pointing out half-truths in not incivility, and I wish you would stop claiming "incivility" whenever your tactics are criticized. You were also wrong yesterday, when you threatened to block me for making my case. "Incivility" does not translate to "anything you don't agree with." --Eleemosynary (talk) 01:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

My intentions with regards to this editor

As has been rightly pointed out above, I issued a warning to this editor. Because the editor is a "regular", rather than using a templated warning, I chose to personally write a warning, which this editor seems to believe was "officious". As I said before, I regret that response from him.

I initially intended to block him for 3RR. Given that Satyr and he were engaged in what might tentatively be called an edit war, and I didn't know the facts of the situation well enough to judge "writer" versus "non-writer", I chose, instead, to warn Eleemosynary, who has had some brushes with 3RR in the past. At that point, my intent became simply to warn him away in hopes that we wouldn't need to issue any blocks.

Frankly, I was annoyed by his response to me and decided to walk away, because I didn't want my temper to get the best of me. Actually, I chose to (for real!) go brew a cup of tea.

It is my belief that Eleemosynary is one of those rare editors who, because of natural disposition, chooses to push buttons to see how far he can stretch the system. I think that Eleemosynary thought I'd block him and he could raise a stink. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that SwatJester fell into the trap that was set for me.

I find Eleemosynary's attitude to be abrasive and abusive. In my opinion, the Wiki was not a worse place when he was blocked. I endorse SwatJester's actions, but not for the reasons he stated. My poorly worded personal warning did, in fact, say that Eleemosynary could be blocked after the "next" action. I should have stated that the article was on article probation and he was already on thin ice. However, since that's at the top of the article talk page, I didn't do so. I regret that.

SwatJester did the right thing by blocking Eleemosynary. I probably would have done it for violating article probation and not 3RR, but since I chose in my clumsy warning to reference 3RR and not article probation, SwatJester probably felt that he needed to act on that. Regardless of the wording, SwatJester's actions protected the wiki. - Philippe | Talk 19:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

At the time of the exchange between Philippe and myself, Philippe had actively taken sides about the article in question. I don't believe his warning to me came out of good faith, but was a slight way of bullying. (And, yes, an officious one.) Had the warning come from a disinterested editor, I would not have dismissed it so readily.

I also note that, like Swatjester, Philippe issued no warning to SatyrTN, who was just as deserved of one as I was. I haven't checked the policy pages in a while, but I doubt that 3RRs are only be issued to editors with opposing viewpoints from the admin. --Eleemosynary (talk) 01:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Dismissing warnings because they are "officious" is never a good approach. As for your last para, this is about you, not anyone else, and "But he did it too." usually doesn't fly as a defense. It's something worth looking into perhaps, but doesn't get you off the hook. ++Lar: t/c 02:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking to be let "off the hook." Nor am using "he did it too" as a defense. I'm pointing out that two separate admins -- I'm assuming Philippe is an admin -- actively involved in a contentious article, both issued 3RR warnings to only the editor whose edits they disagreed with. As a matter of fact, Philippe left a very supportive message on SatyrTn's page, which I linked to above. Indeed, that bears looking into.

And no, your statement "this is about you, not anyone else" is incorrect. This is also about Swatjester, who chose to come here pre-emptively during my block, and not notify me until almost a full day later, and who I feel has a serious conflict of interest here. It's equally about Swatjester. --Eleemosynary (talk) 03:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, I took sides in a BLP dispute on this article unrelated to the one you were involved in. The BLP issue in question was around the word "escort", which did not involve the writer/non-writer dispute. I was un-involved in that dispute. I do not apologize for taking sides on a BLP issue. I also DID NOT block you; in other words, I did not take administrator action against an editor that could even - by the BROADEST reading of policy - have not been a neutral action. I remind you that I issued you a polite warning. I do not appreciate your attempts to create a straw-man argument. For the record, I will no longer engage in this discussion because I have presented all the arguments that I have to present. Should new information be required, I will happily do so, but it is very clear to me that this editor is attempting to bait me, and I choose not to engage in that. The editor is welcome to open an RFC should he so desire. My actions are defensible, and I stand by them. - Philippe | Talk 06:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Outside view

This matter came up for discussion on the CU mailing list. 3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. Endorse block on those grounds. The article is on probation. Endorse block on those grounds as well even if the block itself was mistagged. I don't always agree with Swatjester about everything but his action here seems eminently reasonable to me. Eleemosynary seems to be a bit disruptive in his apparently tendentious challenge of this matter. Further, this [114] revert ascribes the reverted edit to Matt Sanchez himself. I can see why someone might conclude that, but it's almost certaintly not correct, and I think the record should show that, as it may have bearing on future matters relating to Matt. ++Lar: t/c 20:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Within the limitations of the privacy of that list, would you be able to expound upon why this is a checkuser matter? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Another checkuser ran a check, for what I consider good and valid reasons, to determine what the story of the IP was, and asked the list for advice about how best to handle what he discovered. We are trying hard to reveal the minimum about the IP possible here, and yet not unjustly let an accusation of Matt stand for something it seems almost certain he did not do. That's all I would prefer to say. ++Lar: t/c 21:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Lar, leaving aside the block itself, are you saying that none of what has been presented above raises concerns? Not SatyrTN violating 3RR? Not SatyrTN using admin tools on a page he is editing? Not SwatJester continuing to characterise a warning not to violate 3RR as a notification that 3RR had already been violated? Not describing a block as uncontested when it was challenged by a third editor 19 minutes after it was announced on Eleemosynary's talk page? Not SwatJester apparently not noticing the 3RR violation of the other side of the reversion war? Not SwatJester still maintaining that his presentation here was balanced?
I have no idea what the CU issues are here, and I understand that you must be circumspect in that area - but is that really the only issue here? Jay*Jay (talk) 00:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Lar commented on SatyrTN, but he has endorsed the block in question on two grounds. Given that he endorses the block, the description in later discussion of a warning given prior to the endorsed block seems irrelevant. As to the rest, I'm not sure what you're asking Lar or anyone else to do. If you agree that the block was warranted, on the grounds given as justification by the blocking admin, then all the other problems are secondary. Do you think that the block should have been reversed, or a notation about it entered into Eleemosynary's talkpage? Do you think that, long after the fact, SatyrTN should be blocked as well? Lar commented on the CU issue because he is a CU, and the relevance of CU is that an edit in question that was apparently ascribed to Matt Sanchez was not actually made by him. What I'm asking, basically, is for you to explain what you are looking for with this discussion. I agree that SwatJester's summary and conduct is not entirely above reproach, but the action itself was justified and the relevance of the rest is questionable. Avruch ^T 00:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That pretty much sums it up, thanks Avruch. Jay*Jay ... "all the other problems" or at least a lot of them, seem like you're complaining the paperwork wasn't executed properly. Sorry, that doesn't fly here, this isn't a moot court. I'll add this, if SatyrTN was edit warring as well, then yes, some sort of action may need to have been taken regarding that as well. (c.f. my comments in the IRC RfAR where I took Phil Sandifer to task for singling out one editor for edit warring while ignoring all the rest) But it is not necessary that the action taken be exactly the same. If we have one editor who has a long and checkered block log including multiple 3RR blocks, and another editor who has never been blocked at all except once in error, it seems to me that blocking one and merely warning the other is not an unreasonable action. Should Swatjester maybe have found someone else? Maybe. But I also don't buy the "as soon as an editor voices any sort of opinion once, they're no longer able to take any admin action at all in any remotely related case" theory that some subscribe to. ++Lar: t/c 02:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps all the admins involved in the blocking and supporting of such could be encouraged to enlist outside/uninvolved editors next time around. It seems like the block was warranted but given they were all involved parties it smacks of less than impartial handling especially given the contentiousness between Swatjester and Eleemosynary. Benjiboi 02:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

How many months of no interaction would be enough, in your view? Again, I don't buy the "only previously uninvolved people can say anything" angle. ++Lar: t/c 02:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That's an exaggeration of the "angle." How about we limit it to admins who don't have off-site blogs attacking the editors they're trying to block? --Eleemosynary (talk) 03:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Amending my statement. I'm not convinced the block was warranted at this point and to me seems quite troubling that Swatjester was involved at all. In my understanding we're aiming to be impartial and that includes admins who by all accounts should know better. Although I don't agree with Eleemosynary on the issue that was being revert-warred I've found them to be pretty spot-on on most issues and frankly someone who's contributions far outweigh snarkiness. I think Eleemosynary would have done much better to simply engage the very active talk page on this and would have quickly realized there was little support, however, this does not also excuse and admin blocking them for what easily can be seen as a personal conflict. Benjiboi 03:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be an issue about Eleemosynary receiving an inadequate warning about 3RR violations. Checking his block log I see he's been blocked for 3RR or edit warring on about six previous occasions. He has also reported at least one other use for a 3RR violation.[115] The user has been on WP for years and can be expected to be familiar with major policies, and he's certainly aware of WP:3RR. There's no need to keep reminding experienced users. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

David Shankbone

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
David Shankbone's attitude toward authors who don't like the photos he's taken of them is bossy and bullying. He takes disastrous photos of authors. Taking more unflattering photos could hardly be possible (See Edmund White, A.M. Homes, Francine Prose, Kathryn Harrison, Mary Gaitskill). It's gotten to the point that authors he hasn't assaulted yet with his camera are afraid to go to readings for fear he'll be there, waiting for them. I don't spend much time on Wikipedia, but when I come upon an author's page with a terrible photo, I now know it's been taken by David Shankbone. I became curious about how these authors felt about the photos he'd taken of them, so I went and looked back in the history of a couple of them. First I checked in the history of A.M. Homes, and sure enough, someone tried to take down the Shankbone photo (possibly even A.M. Homes herself or someone close to her), saying it was not a good photo, and he repeatedly put it back. I also looked in the history of Sharyn November, and she herself had an exchange with him on one of their talk pages saying she preferred another photo of herself instead, but he would not let her have her way, and I don't remember the details, but his attitude was unpleasant and bossy. She quickly backed down sweetly. A few days ago I came upon yet another disastrous author photo by David Shankbone and decided to Google his name, because I've been thinking that sooner or later an article will inevitably come out in the print media about authors' frustrations with this offensive photographer. I wanted to see if any articles had been published yet about it. I didn't dig very deeply but did find that on February 18th, 2008, lots of Wikipedia editors wrote about their frustrations with David Shankbone (in a section called: Does Wikipedia want David Shankbone or should we just tell him to leave?), to the point that he promised he'd leave Wikipedia (he shouldn't make promises he won't keep-he didn't even leave for one day, as far as I can see from his list of contributions). All those posts from upset people have been deleted from Wikipedia, but I was able to find them by going into the history of the page: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Authors are not the only celebrities Shankbone has upset. I came upon discussions (on Wikipedia) about the actor Mike Farrell, who was upset by the photo Shankbone took of him, but Shankbone insisted his photo stay up on Farrell's page (it has now been replaced by a much better photo taken by someone else). And I'm sure it's happened to countless other “notables”. Many notable authors who are distressed by their photo will just remain quiet and try not to look at their Wikipedia pages, either because they don't know how to take down photos and post messages on Wikipedia, or because they fear that fighting David Shankbone will be futile and will only increase their distress. Authors are often shy and insecure about their physical appearance. Why make it worse? And why be stubborn and nasty about it to the few authors who do muster up the courage to request that an unflattering photo be taken down? As with any contributor to Wikipedia, David Shankbone should have no right to assert that his photos take precedence over the photos of others, especially when more appropriate pictures are available and copyright free. He claims that he has allowed better pictures to take the place of his, but this is clearly not true in many instances, given the way he fights to retain his pictures even in instances when any reasonable third party observer would agree that another picture is either better or more appropriate for the article. David Shankbone might be using Wikipedia to try and make a career for himself, and maybe that's okay, but he's hurting a lot of people along the way. I am an author, with a few published books, and there is a page on me on Wikipedia. That's why I care about this issue. I'm appalled at what David Shankbone is doing to authors. As I don't know the best place to post this message, I'm posting it in three places: David Shankbone's talk page, Jimbo Wales' talk page, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Anonymous 374 (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Long personal attack multiple-posted (from an editor hiding behind a different account) compressed. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 12:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything of substance to the statement? --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've certainly encountered situations where David edited vigorously to keep an image of his that was, on even casual inspection, markedly inferior to the alternatives into an article (most recent example I'm aware of: [116] [117]). Extending good faith to David, there are also times when he has reverted to his images when they are superior (eg, here). My experiences with him in this regard -- well documented here on AN/I -- is that he is not terribly detached when it comes to evaluating his own work, and is fairly quick to attribute bad faith to editors who are simply trying to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. I can certainly see how a less tenacious editor might be intimidated by this. I have no comment on the issue of authors being unhappy with photos taken of them by him, because I haven't been involved in any of those discussions. David is a valuable contributor with thousands of high quality photos here, but I don't think that those contributions entitle him to any presumption of quality for any specific photo, any more than those of us who have written thousands of words deserve to have our words protected from good faith editing by others. Nandesuka (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Harassment of DS continues, multiple postings to multiple forums, disparaging and insulting subheaders, nothing new here. This thread should be nuked, it's really getting tiresome. R. Baley (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I hate to find myself agreeing with a SPA account, but I do see a kernel of valid complaint in there among the hyperbole and ranting. The accusation that authors are "afraid to go to readings for fear he'll be there, waiting for them" is ridiculous, and there's no cause to assume Shankbone's contibutions aren't wholly in good faith: as has been pointed out, he's contributed many, many quality images. But some of those cited above are unflattering past any bounds of reasonability. Compare our Francine Prose with an official portait (and yes, I know we can't use it): it's barely recognisable as the same person, and in "our" picture she's clearly distracted and caught offguard. Compare our Kathryn Harrison and a press photo. Again, barely recognisable, seems annoyed and/or startled. Our Mary Gaitskill vs. press photo. Again, I stress that I don't consider any of these to be bad-faith contributions, but I feel extremely unflattering portraits, especially of BLPs, can be worse than having no photo at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's probably quite difficult to get a good picture of an author at a reading. They don't really have the time to pose if they're busy signing autographs or speaking about their book. --clpo13_(talk) 21:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Plus, if any subject doesn't care for the best "free use" photo that Wikipedia has, they can always freely supply one that is better. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Been there, done that, printed the crap photos 'cause they were all I had. It's not really easy to compare a photo shot under studio lights with great makeup and perfect conditions to one shot under fluorescents after the subject has been signing books or talking for some time. Most of the time, people don't look like they do on TV or in the magazines, and these pictures reflect that. As Agne27 says, if the subjects want to supply a free use image to work with, they're free to do so. I can't really speak on the accusations that David Shankbone is scaring people off (though I doubt that's the case without firm documentation of it), but the level of hyperbole involved in these continuing complaints seems to be really overboard at times. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Studio photos are quite often virtually unrecognisable as the person you meet in the street, it's a bit strange to suggest that the everyday look is somehow less "correct" than the studio portrait. The repeated insertion of the baseless Michael Lucas dispute doesn't help, either, especially since the anon ios block evading to do it. I searched OTRS and found four threads that might be construed as complaints about David Shankbone. Two were people who sent in better pictures to replace ones they didn't like, one was a fact-free rant about some editing dispute on Wikinews, and one appears to be a complaint from a PR firm that David Shankbone wouldn't let them whitewash the article on a client (my heart bleeds). If the problem were anything like as it is being made out here, I think we'd have seen a lot more than this. Guy (Help!) 08:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Actually this SPA IP admits to being the same person who posted obscene and graphic insults against David Shankbone in the recent past.[118] I know this person has been blocked before on previous roving IPs. When the person approached me, I found myself assuming good faith and supposing there might be meritorious concerns and a little trouble adjusting to site standards. Then I saw the personal attacks. Intolerable. If the behavior doesn't cool down then a community ban might be in order. Durova^Charge! 21:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If any specific individual has a problem with what photo we are using there is an easy solution; release a better photo under the GFDL or appropriate creative commons. Can we move on? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Might I also point out that the title of this thread is rather unfair to David and somewhat inflammatory--especially since it is so unsubstantiated. I know we wouldn't tolerate a similar claim in a BLP article and I see no reason why we should in an AN/I thread about a fellow Wikipedian. At the very least the title should be refractored and shortened to just David Shankbone. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Done. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• it makes a discussion rather hard to follow when sections get blanked. DuncanHill (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support ban as proposed by Durova — It seems that every two or three days, the same IP editor posts incessant personal attacks against one of our best contributors. This has happened on the administrators boards, on WT:JIMBO, and on just about every other page this attacker can think of. I don't see why we should continue to put up with this and I think this individual should be regarded as having exhausted our patience and be banned by the Wikipedia community. *** Crotalus *** 02:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • To give examples of how bad the problem is, see these diffs.[119][120][121][122][123][124] The article talk page has been semiprotected ever since then. Durova^Charge! 02:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban as proposed by Durova et al. Bearian (talk) 02:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban as an effective deodorant for Durova et al. Move ova Durova. Charge! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.115.156 (talk) 04:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban per Durova. seicer | talk | contribs 04:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban against said IP editor continuing to harass one of Wikipedias best editors. Lets help David out here, he has done little to deserve this... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban - This is starting to get ridiculous. Even though I haven't actively participated in the related discussions, my patience is exhausted just from following them. --jonny-mt 05:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban. It gets tiresome really. R. Baley (talk) 05:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record: I posted the original post in this thread and I am not any of these other IP addresses or people I'm being accused of being, and I don’t know any of them. I am an individual who has never before written anything about David Shankbone. The topic of his awful author photos is the first time I’ve written about him. I’d been thinking about it for a long time, but kept trying to talk myself out of it, not wanting to waste the time. The urge became too strong when I saw yet another awful author photo taken by David Shankbone. I’m sorry that he seems to coincidentally be having problems with other IP addresses. I have now seen some of the insults that were directed at him (I hadn’t seen the insults over the topic of the porn star when I wrote my first post) and I completely disapprove. But even though I am sorry he is going through this stress, I feel even more sorry for all the authors he is hurting, many of whom will probably never even speak up about it. But you can be sure they’re not pleased about what he’s done. As I mentioned in my original post, I witnessed two of them on Wikipedia object to photos he insisted to put on their pages (and I wouldn’t be surprised if many more authors objected, too, to his photos of them, but I didn’t dig very deep). He acts like a tyrant. He should be a little more sensitive, a little more human, and not ruthlessly use the following arguments I’ve seen him use: but my photo is bigger, my photo is more recent, my photo is better than your photo, the fact that you are even writing here is questionable regarding neutral point of view so don’t you dare object to the photo I took of you or you may not be allowed to write at all (I’m paraphrasing this from memory, but he gave this kind of argument to Sharyn November (she's an editor at Viking and has a Wikipedia page on her), which seemed to scare her because she immediately backed down). Perhaps his arguments are valid according to Wikipedia rules, but if an author prefers a more flattering photo, or no photo, rather than a hideous photo that Shankbone took of them, it seems right that their feelings be taken into account. These are living people, and they are being made miserable when they are told: no you cannot use your preferred photo, I will use my hideous photo of you because it’s a little bigger, or a little sharper when blown up to gigantic size, or a little more recent, or whatever… Thank you to the people who have posted message here or on my talk page saying they agree with me. I hope I will not feel compelled to keep writing about this because I didn’t intend to spend much time on this (I also didn’t realize I wouldn’t have free-speech on Wikipedia and that my posts would be erased (as it was on Jimbo’s page, and as it was here, partially) or altered (as my title was) as soon as I’d posted them). But if I keep seeing terrible author photos popping up, I may be unable to resist voicing my distress again. I know many of these authors personally. Perhaps that’s why I feel sorry for them. It pains me to see them portrayed at their absolute worse. But most of all I’m sad about how it makes them feel.Anonymous 374 (talk) 08:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And I'm sad about how cowardly you appear to be be in not using your real account here; hiding behind this SPA account in order to make attacks on a good editor (and great photographer) is disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself. I wonder why anything to do with images on Wikipedia is always poisonous? What is it about images that brings every troll and sociopath out on the noticeboards? ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 08:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

With crowds like these at the Brooklyn Book Festival (or a Barnes & Nobles, or whatever) authors look the way they want the public to see them. WP:NPOV should apply to photography, not just edits, and I see no need to have photos that whitewash what a person looks like, especially if they are going to big events looking that way.

The argument by the Anonymous 374 above is so stupid, I wasn't going to address. First, Sharyn November and I did not have a bad exchange, she actually asked me to send her the other photos I took of her, and deleted the one that she had up.[125] In the end, writers and authors are not starlets and celebrities. They typically do not care what they look like because they are not "sold" by their looks, but by their thoughts and words. But if they are concerned, then why is Francine Prose, or A.M. Homes, or any other author appearing at one of the largest literary events in the country, the Brooklyn Book Festival, looking the way Francine Prose does in that photo? Because she didn't expect to be seen or photographed by the press at a gigantic event with over 200 authors? Yeah, sure. And yes, just like we don't take into account that subjects don't like some of the things that are found about them on their Wikipedia profiles, some subjects may not like that a photo might look like they really look in real life. My heart bleeds. So we shouldn't have NPOV in photos? We should hide what people really look like? Should we do the same for our text then, or will the Anonymous user next be complaining aboutBut we have an Anonymous user, most likely the IP range (can someone please perform a WP:Checkuser?) upset and sad that a site full of volunteers don't hire out studios to do our photos. Next, Anonymous will be "sad about how it makes them feel" when we report things that are unflattering and bother the subject. Perhaps we should whitewash the whole site, and not just the photos, ay Anonymous? --David Shankbone 08:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, some sites take my photos and make comic strips out of them. --David Shankbone 09:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Those illustrations are laughable. Aren't there child labor laws in this country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.12.139 (talk) 11:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing unusual about that cartooning style, and it's a funny cartoon. Keep in mind that cartooning standards have dropped a tad since the days of Prince Valiant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, accept mediocrity and low-brow content because things have gotten so mediocre and the culture has been dumbed down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.12.139 (talk) 12:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a funny cartoon that effectively makes fun of its subject while citing a time-honored joke. Its style doesn't matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Note, in case it hasn't been pointed out somewhere that I'm not aware of, the IP two comments above appears to be another sock of the accused vandal. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That figures. I'm at a loss as to what the real issue is here. It sounds like some folks don't like some of David's photos. I'd like to know what the issue is with, for example, the crowd shot just above. What's the problem? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

B-Bugs, it takes something from nothing and makes something mediocre out of it. Style doesn't matter?? -- man you are a card-carrying member of this culture! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.12.139 (talk) 13:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting for you to call it "sophomoric". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's been blocked, so he can't say anything just now. So I'll respond anyway: "'Sophomoric' is an elitist code word for 'funny'." Paraphrasing P. J. O'Rourke. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Bugs, you jumped in front of Will. Did you say "excuse me?" I don't hafta 'cuse myself, 'cuz I'm a Noo Yawker, oh, I mean, a Newarker (accordin' ta Shankhead). I don't know about your contemporary take on "elitist code words" -- sounds more like resignation to mediocrity on your part. The "comic strip" is more soporific for me. Kisses all around, Ban this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.227.212 (talk) 13:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he found another IP to use, not blocked yet. And an obvious troll. See ya. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Support ban of Anonymous, agree that the subject can always provide a better picture. Will ^(talk) 13:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That should always be made clear to them first and in the most polite manner possible. I'd like to direct everyone to Talk:Martha Nussbaum for a revealing conversation on the subject. Relata refero (talk) 19:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Disregard for blocking policy

Resolved

On the 28th of January, I was blocked [126] by William M. Connolley, with whom I was involved in a content dispute at the time. I pointed out [127] that he had breached blocking policy, specifically:

"Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved."

On the 5th of February, I asked for an undertaking that this breach would not be repeated, and then on the 8th I asked again. I'm still waiting. This is the second time I've become involved in a content dispute with a block-happy administrator, and it's not getting any more pleasant.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want it to happen again, I suggest you cease inserting content without sourcing, and heed administrator warnings. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

William M. Connolley did not breach the blocking policy and was not involved in a content dispute with you. Just because an admin reverts you does not automatically make you untouchable. You were blocked because you continued to repeatedly revert and insert unreferenced text despite having been warned several times. Nothing wrong here. Shell ^babelfish 13:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. This request is ridiculous. Shell ^babelfish 13:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's see... block expired a month ago. No one is seeing a blocking policy violation here. I don't see a need for urgent administrative intervention, and as the red type at the top says, "This is not the Wikipedia complaints department." I'm going to mark this resolved. MastCell ^Talk 20:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Althought the block happened a month ago, as stated by the respondent, this notice was posted only a short while ago-- an hour?. Since I have been blocked by this admin myself, the claim is not intrinsically absurd to me, and I would have wanted to look at it. So I object to summarily marking it resolved. Pete St.John (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been looked at, both on William's talk page and now by 3 admins in this forum, and in both cases no one seemed to see a violation of the blocking policy here. In any case, this is a forum for incidents requiring urgent adminstrative attention - even assuming the block had been out of process, it's not clear what resolution this board can provide for a block that expired 1 month ago. There is a forum for raising concerns about abuse of administrative tools (RfC or, in more pressing cases, RfArb) - if there is a real problem here, then those fora would be the appropriate ones in which to address it. Nonetheless, anyone is free to remove the "resolved" tag if they'd like - I won't replace it if you decide to do so. MastCell ^Talk 16:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

SPA User: Anthon01 and similar accounts on homeopathy and WP:FRINGE alternative medicine articles

A long standing discussion on the homeopathy talk page about the meaning of WP:NPOV has now spilled over to the talk page of Neutral Point of View itself: [128], for example. I went there to try to explain further NPOV as requested: [129], as best as I understand it. However, part of the difficulty is that these SPAs (or near-SPAs): User:Anthon01, User:Whig and User: Levine2112 have become adept at gaming the system and wikilawyering and charging that any disagreement with them is violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, so techniques that could have been used in the past, like disagreement and confrontation, are no longer useful and in fact quite dangerous. So after realizing that I could not explain NPOV to them (after trying for 6 months or more and dozens if not hundreds of times), I gave up and told them I would not further oppose them or disagree with them (given the current environment on Wikipedia where disagreement over such issues with WP:FRINGE elements is discouraged): [130][131] I repeatedly invited them to suggest new wording for NPOV or the homeopathy related documents as they saw fit: [132].

I did this since disagreeing with these SPAs is used as an excuse by these SPAs to charge an editor with violations of all kinds of WP policy. However, even when I said I would no longer disagree, I was still charged with violations of WP policy. User: Anthon01 and the related SPAs involved have now accused me of violating WP:COI, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL: [133][134]. It would be helpful if someone would offer some advice, since we are no longer allowed to disagree, even politely, with POV pushers and WP:FRINGE elements. And now even declining to continue to disagree is viewed as a violation of WP policy by these SPAs. So what are we supposed to do?--Filll (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also include User:DanaUllman as another of the SPAs, although this is highly dangerous to suggest since he is under administrative protection from any and all charges of misbehavior, although he has engaged in some outrageously disruptive behavior on these articles over and over and over.--Filll (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I might also include User: Arion 3x3 and User: Area69 and several others. It is highly likely that we are entertaining a few sockpuppets and meat puppets on the page, as User: JzG has previously suggested.-Filll (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your frustration with civility seeming to be valued over NPOV contributions - and I admit that I don't have the solution to that - but I have to say that you're not really telling the whole story, here. Your repeated response of "Unfortunately we have to abide by the principles of NPOV. I am afraid some of what I am reading here on this talk page is in direct opposition to the rules and principles of Wikipedia. Please realize that there must be a good strong dose of mainstream content in this article, whether some like it or not. Thanks." could probably be seen as stonewalling. Aside from that, I don't see any problems with your activity on the talk page. I do think some of your comments are a little melodramatic, though; are you aware of any editors being sanctioned for civil disagreement?

As a more general warning to the community, I have to say that we need to somehow make sure that WP:NPOV is being valued on as high a level as WP:CIVIL, because the actions of the editors to whom Filll refers above and others like them - all of whom I believe are acting in good faith - are presenting a very real threat to the quality of Wikipedia's articles on pseudoscience. I think we need to take notice of that before too many more contributors are driven off. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I repeated myself by cutting and pasting because it became too tedious to rephrase the answer after answering the 500th time in slightly different wording. With all due respect, what I take from your response is that we should abandon NPOV. Ok, fair enough. I should expect to see the policy pages rewritten accordingly then?--Filll (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What you should take from my response is that I am in wholehearted agreement with you that we need to make it harder for SPAs to attack NPOV in a good faith manner, but that I'm frankly bereft of useful proposals in this regard. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you feel you have to say 10 or more times this is dangerous? I don't see any reason why you have to repeat what you have said more than once or twice? Anthon01 (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The situation is, an SPA like User:Anthon01 is allowed to ask the same question 500 times over 6 months and keep asking if he does not like the answer and venue shop until the cows come home, but he now charges someone who gives him the same answer more than once with uncivility. Does anyone notice this? He is allowed to of course since he is an SPA with few edits and a newbie and a FRINGE promoter so of course we have to be fair blah blah blah. Ok so be it... We are creating a hellish environment because we have to cater to SPAs like Anthon01 at the cost of reducing productivity. DanaUllman also has spammed the page with the same material hundreds of times over and over and over, ignoring the discussion before and rebuttals of his arguments and then spamming again and again and again with the same material since we have to be fair to the FRINGE and avoid WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. --Filll (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't ask the same question 500 times. I'm sorry but you are grossly misrepresenting what has gone on here. Anthon01 (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

are you aware of any editors being sanctioned for civil disagreement? The slightest disagreement or hint of problem is used as an excuse from these SPAs and POV pushers to charge someone with a violation. Some days ago, even calling someone a "homepathy promoter" was used as an excuse to demand administrative sanctions against some editors (more than once) and this received considerable support including from admimistrators. It was only though extraordinary means that this complaint was thwarted otherwise there would have been administrative sanctions for using the foul uncivil curse of "homeopathy promoter". And since then, things have escalated where even milder affronts have lead to charges of uncivility and violations of WP:AGF. What is happening is that in the frantic efforts of the community to remove all disagreement and incivility, you are handing an immense set of weapons to POV pushers and socks and SPAs and trolls. So be it. You want this, you got it.--Filll (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

But no actual sanctions were handed out, correct? This is why I find your assertions that answering people's questions is "dangerous" a little hollow: nobody's been sanctioned for civil disagreement.

That aside, though, I agree with you that we need to find a way to enforce WP:NPOV as diligently as we enforce WP:CIVIL. Unfortunately, enforcement is done by uninvolved admins, and, while it's really easy for an uninvolved admin to swoop in and recognize civility violations, it's much more difficult for one to recognize POV-pushing, especially good faith POV-pushing as is going on there.

I hung around Talk:Homeopathy for a while some time ago, in the hopes of finding a core of moderates on both sides who could work out content disputes while isolating the extremists on each side. I found several such moderates on the science side. I found none on the pseudoscience side. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

One problem is that uninvolved admins are not a renewable resource. Consider this: If I notice an edit conflict, I will read the arguments and form an opinion. I can then either hand out blocks out of the blue sky, or I explain my opinion and warn the parties - ups...now I'm suddenly an involved party. In many of these discussions, especially on the science/pseudoscience border, most educated and sane neutral observers will choose a side and stop being uninvolved. For an excellent example, see talk: Waterboarding, where one editor has complained (paraphrased) that "all admins who come to this page support one side! We need a neutral admin to handle the issue!"--Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am acutely aware of that problem, and indeed it's more or less why I'm not handing out any article bans. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see what you mean. Yes User: Whig has been sanctioned more than once. User: Anthon01 as well I believe. User: DanaUllman has as well. Some others have as well. Some others are listed here. --Filll (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

These spurious accusations of incivility are a serious problem. Anthon01 has hit me with these several times. When called to account he apologizes[135] but the sincerity of his apology is undermined by the fact that he keeps on doing it.

This behavior is damaging in several ways. It inhibits debate because (as Filll says) one never knows when honest and civil disagreement will bring a charge of incivility. Even if there ultimately is no sanction, it's draining to have to respond to the accusations. But far more importantly it undermines respect for WP:CIV as a policy when people see it being used speciously as a way to hound others. Editors have learned that flinging meritless accusations of WP:CIV wears down their opponent and carries no cost to themselves. We need to stop that.

Again, this is not about civil behavior, which I fully support. It's about gaming WP:CIV through a constant drip-drip-drip of empty accusations. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am gaming WP:CIV? I believe this happen twice between us and I apologized soon after without any reservation. I even invited you back to the discussion. IMO, I don't think two mistakes make the case that you are trying to make. Anthon01 (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Those are only the two examples where I was the target. There are lots of other examples involving other editors. I'll leave it to those involved to supply diffs. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not receive any mention on my talk page that I am being discussed. I will make comments later. Anthon01 (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is not about you personally but asking for general advice for how to handle a group of which you are just one member allegedly. Of course, clearly I am at fault. And perhaps my account should be deleted and I should be permanently banned from Wikipedia? I will volunteer to leave immediately since I have offended so many and violated so many rules by suggesting we follow WP:NPOV which of course is a deprecated policy and I was stupid to think we should follow it.--Filll (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You've made it personal by placing my name at the top and mischaracterizing some of my statements. Anthon01 (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this another ad-hoc invented rule that we now have to follow? "No using people's names in subheadings on discussion pages?" I have never heard of such a rule. Does this apply to all the spurious civility complaints you and your compatriots have opened against me? Can I complain about how you "made it personal" when you placed several baseless "civility warnings" on my page? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Filll insist that his POV on NPOV and minority subjects is the right POV. I went to NPOV to get feedback from univolved editors. The key term here is interpretation. Does anyone here believe that there is only one interpretation of NPOV and minority subjects? Anthon01 (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

His interpretation includes, that the article could be 98% criticism! Would anyone like to vouch for that? Anthon01 (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Filll. What did you mean here[136] and here.[137] I think you should respond. You accused me of quite a bit here (without notice), and now are afraid to respond to my defense? Anthon01 (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Raymond suggested you back off a little. You responded Nothing succeeds like excess.[138] What did you mean by that? And why did you delete that suggestion and statement from your talk page? Anthon01 (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a prime example of what we've been talking about. I suggested that Filll tone it down a bit; he responded with a good-humored remark that maybe he was being excessive. And now Anthon01 wants to take him to task for it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I made no assumptions. I asked him what he meant? You took it as a joke which is fine. I don't know that it was. He quickly deleted your suggestion and his response that you call a joke. Another editor considered his involvement on the NPOV page in this issue to be melodramatic and possible stonewalling. Anthon01 (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is one big pile of unrelated users with similar POVs on the subject of homeopathy in particular and alt med in general: Whig (talk · contribs), Anthon01 (talk · contribs), Peter morrell (talk · contribs), DanaUllman (talk · contribs), and so on. Going further afield, we find more users with eccentric beliefs as far as science is concerned, such as Martinphi (talk · contribs).

I would suggest that the first batch of these are classic tendentious editors. I haven't looked at Martinphi's contributions recently, so no comment there. Singly, these chaps aren't too hard to cope with: their incessant POV-pushing is relatively harmless, as you can see by the result of Dana Ullman's brief attempts to insert homeopathy into Beethoven; as a group there is more of a problem. I actually don't have an easy solution here. Whig and Peter morrell should have been banned long ago, or at least topic-banned, but the truth is Wikipedia has no easy way of coping with the user who pushes one POV all the time in a civil manner. Moreschi (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so as a starter why not topic ban them both? Can we get a community consensus for that? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban who and for what? Anthon01 (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no cause for topic banning me whatsoever. —Whig (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would favor at least temporary community topic ban for both of these SPAs and maybe a couple of others. It would calm things down tremendously and allow several articles to be returned to productive editing after they have been mired in a slow decline for months on end. I have received even a private communication from a pro-homeopathy editor who is so disgusted with the antics of these SPAs that he wrote me "I don't think I will be doing any more edits to the homeopathy...there is very little wrong with it but folks just keep pounding away at minutiae...not happy with the direction it is heading in and have better things to do with my time <expletive deleted> it...its just a big waste of time and who cares wikipedia is not respected anyway..." (with permission). Now when not just the pro-science editors but the pro-homeopathy editors are losing heart, you know we have a problem.--Filll (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And what of your stonewalling and melodrama? Anthon01 (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree - not that I pretend to be an uninvolved admin (I'm about 90% uninvolved, but I realize that that's not sufficient). There are quite a few topic bans I'd like to hand out, and neither side would have a monopoly on them. But there are a few anti-homeopathy editors who aren't being totally intransigent; if things haven't changed since I was there (I've only taken a cursory look at most of the more recent stuff), the same can't be said of the pro-homeopathy types. No, wait, I think User:Smith Jones was interested in achieving a reasonable consensus, if memory serves. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

How does any of this have to do with a cause that I should be topic banned? Do you have a specific complaint with respect to my edits and will you provide diffs? —Whig (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please provide diffs if considering a topic ban. Anthon01 (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a similar problem with Wndl42, who apparently believes that disagreeing with him is automatically a violation of WP:CIVIL. Kww (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the consequence of deciding that WP:CIVIL is more important than any other policy on WP. As you sow, so you shall reap.--Filll (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Moreschi and JoshuaZ, if you want to topic ban them, my understanding is that you don't require any further community consensus, because the articles are under probation, and the editors in question have been notified. You probably would have to add your names to the list of admins here though. Addhoc (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Topic banned for what? Anthon01 (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm a friend of Anthon's and he mentioned this at my Talk. I totally disagree with him about the content issues (particularly, a central precept of homeopathy, dilution to zero percent, is definitely bad science. It's simplistic, however, to dismiss all homeopathy as currently practiced as mere fraud). However, it's important to me that we dispute ethically, even when we are in the right, and my experience (unsucessfully attempting to mediate some of the dispute at some of the contentious pages, e.g. Quackwatch) has been that the "pro-science" camp, perhaps out of frustration from experience longer than mine, is often distinctly uncivil. That is, I answer the above complaint "[t]his is a consequence of deciding that WPCIVIL is more important than [...Undue Weight]": CIVIL would not be such a problem if the pro-science camp could be more civil. For example, right here: "Sorry, I guess you do not understand that you have won and are therefore correct in all respects and are free to change NPOV policy as you would like and any articles as you see fit.--Filll (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)" (from the NPOV talk). I don't mind sarcasm, myself, but these reactions don't propel consensus. I don't doubt that Anthon has been pig-headed about some things, but his obstinacy is overwhelmed by the relentless incivility (such as calling him an SPA, which is worse than simplistic). Anthon may lean to PoV pushing, but the "pro-science" group pushes back quite hard, and relentlessly. To which I can attest, because they regard my attempts to seek consensus (unwelcome by either side, mostly) as hostile. Both sides stubbornly resist me, but to my great annoyance, the pro-science side is frequently uncivil. There is definitely more heat than light in this. Pete St.John (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was not being sarcastic. When I have explained NPOV repeatedly and my explanations are rejected, I have very little choice except to escalate, which is uncivil, or to give up. Rather than take the uncivil choice, I gave up. What is wrong with surrendering?--Filll (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You said Although the "in proportion" phrase gives us the right to make it 98% or more critical of homeopathy, I think that makes for a less useful article. You think because I don't agree with you farout interpretation of NPOV that I should be banned? What is going on here? Anthon01 (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with most of the above. I definitely favour continuing to take action against uncivil editors and, frankly, those seem to be more commonly found on the pro-science side than on the pro-homeopathy side. I don't think most of the pro-science editors even object to enforcement of WP:CIVIL. The concern is that people are being banned for incivility, while the friendly, good faith POV pushers (who are also found on both sides) get mostly a free ride. We're doing a good job of enforcing one Wikipedia policy, but a piss-poor job of enforcing the other. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason for that is extremely simple. 99% of people who care about pseudoscience, are True Believers. Which usually leaves the defenders of NPOV in the unenviable position of explaining policy to a never-ending succession of new (and often "new") users; couple with that the fact that the most determined proponents of [pseudoscience have learned to game the system by never-ending querulousness and you have a recipe for meltdown, eading to situations like the present hoeopathy problem where the article is repeatedly hijacked by people who apparently believe that concentrations of less than one molecule per bottle of a product somehow have an effect, an extraordinary claim if ever one were made. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Guy is completely correct. That is the reason we have a mess. And recently I have had people lecturing me about how 20% constitutes a majority, and something practiced by 2% of the people does not constitute a FRINGE practice etc. Oh well. We cannot do a thing about it because it would be unfair to tell someone that 20% does not constitute a majority..--Filll (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not accurate. —Whig (talk) 03:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Consider that this AN/I was sparked by a discussion yesterday on the NPOV page regarding the interpretation of NPOV in minority topics. Anthon01 (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A root part of the problem here is WP:COI, so maybe this should be taken up at the WP:COI noticeboard, Several of these editors are identified as professional homeopaths and are viewing this as an opportunity to promote their profession and whitewash any mainstream views or negative views of their profession. Now Peter Morrell is a world famous homeopath but is quite able to accommodate the rules such as NPOV and RS of WP. Others are less able to, and so their WP:COIs start to interfere with their editing of these articles.--Filll (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion at WT:NPOV was posed by Anthon01 "in order to get POVs that are not from pro or anti-homeopathic editors and not from the pseudoscience group", and quickly seemed to turn into a pile-on by pro homeopathy editors, accusing others of being anti-homeopathy and discussing Filll's reaction rather than focussing on the topic. It does look like forum shopping, trying to get outside support for disproportionately small representation of the mainstream medical view on the homeopathy article. There does seem to be an idea that NPOV can be treated in isolation, where as I see it the answer is in an integrated view of the relevant policies and guidance. If that can be clarified in principle it might help, but that requires restarting the NPOV discussion and avoiding getting into excess detail like the claimed percentage of Indians using homeopathy. Either way, the issue is going to have to be sorted out on the talk pages of the relevant articles, and that's a wearying process as has been said above. .. dave souza, talk 22:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a RS/N that helps editors flesh out RS. Like RS/N, my reason for asking the question at WT:NPOV was to get a more informed opinion besides the 60/40 formula proposed by some editors, including Filll. The use of word counts and percentages to reflect NPOV, although workable as a framework upon which development can proceed, seem too simplistic a method and may not effectively reflect NPOV, WP:STYLE, WP:LEAD and other guides and policies. Consider that in some cases one sentence can balance 10 others. I perhaps mistakenly expected expert feedback by editors not involved in homeopathy pages on the WT:NPOV talk page. On the Homeopathy talk page, Filll, has recently, on several occasions claimed to be an authority on NPOV. He would like me to accept his explanation of NPOV. Unfortunately, with the caveat that I might be misinterpreting his statements, he has made statements in the past that make me question his neutrality. Anthon01 (talk) 03:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

All suggestions made in response to questions from Anthon01 and other prohomeopathy editors, most of whom are SPAs, about what NPOV policy means, were summarily rejected by the pro-homeopathy editors. The pro-homeopathy editors seem to be sure they know better than experienced mainstream editors what NPOV means, what FRINGE means, what UNDUE means and so on. So I guess the question is now in their court; they have to tell us what NPOV means according to them, or at least propose some meaning of NPOV, because after 6 months of trying to explain, I and most of my fellow editors are basically repeating ourselves over and over, and all of our suggestions are being dismissed, often with extreme prejudice. So, I challenge any and all pro-homeopathy editors, why not write a document describing what you believe NPOV is, or what the policy means, that you feel would meet your needs, beliefs and biases, and present it? It is easy to just say no no no to everyone else, but why not present your own ideas and defend them? The ball is in your court.--Filll (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the above, I think there is another big problem in Talk:Homeopathy. It would not be appropriate to insert it here, but I will mention here that I have created a page on the issue HERE.

Feedback there would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 08:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And so it goes round in circles, descending in a tight spiral into cloacae overflowing with the fecal detritus of the benighted. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

I've done the bold thing and created Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, which was the last core/major policy whose implications seem to get fought over all the time and lead to no small number of edit wars. Lawrence § t/e 16:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems like the "in thing" is to create more and more noticeboards these days - is there enough volume that this can't be handled on one of the other noticeboards, or at WT:NPOV? —Random832 18:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally like the addition, it will help lower the case load here at AN/I and help direct requests to specific user who enjoy working with POV violations. Tiptoety ^talk 19:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I support its construction without a doubt, per Tiptoety. Also, it only stands to reason that, logically, we should have a noticeboard for all three core policies. However, it may need a fleshing out. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And the fringe board can probably be merged into the NPOV board. Lawrence § t/e 21:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a good idea. WP:FT/N also covers nonsense (== beyond fringe), where NPOV is irrelevant. rudra (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose What constitute NPOV violation? It is just going to make it confusing and hard to follow, being that we will have a complaintents running around from board to board. ANI is not Arbcom and we should not just dirrect users from one board to another but try to help diffuse the situation. Igor Berger (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI and AN specifically are not for content disputes. NPOV disputes can be very specific, and very intense, and often lead to (to my eyes) a disproportionate number of RFARs. This would lead to RFAR case deflection, making life easier for everyone. Lawrence § t/e 23:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well we all work hard on article talk pages and user talk pages to enlighten the community about NPOV. I do not know how comfortable will editors feel if they are sent to NPOV board. And also will the board achive enough attention to give full consensus to an issue at hand? Will their be enough editors looking at it to be able to adjudicate rationally? Will their be a enough community attention to resolve the problems at hand without making it look as one or two admins telling the editors how to behave. Igor Berger (talk) 00:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea. Issues of NPOV are properly handled through dispute resolution, not through a noticeboard which I strongly suspect (let's hope I'm proven wrong) will degenerate into a sniping ground for disagreeing editors and factions. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not that I think this is a bad thing, but I would think most of the issues would be taken care of at the COI notice board. I know there are other NPOV issues, but COI is the big one, and I'm not sure what's left over that can't be discussed/clarified on existing talk pages. -- Ned Scott 04:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with WT:NPOV is that editors often bring specific content disputes there, phrase them in bland generalities which lead people toward the response most useful to them, and then return to the content dispute saying: "Removing NY Times article per discussion at WT:NPOV." It may be more useful to have a forum where specific NPOV issues can be discussed, as a shortcut to getting the sort of outside opinions that 3O and RfC provide. Of course, it may turn into an auxiliary battlefield for the usual problem areas. I'd suggest we give it a month or so of "probation" and then assess how well it's working, whether informally or at MfD - that would be my preference. MastCell ^Talk 16:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly bogus/vandal edits

Could someone please check the contributions of the following:

• ArmadilloPadding (talk · contribs)
• LetsDoThisRight (talk · contribs)
• Spirikitik (talk · contribs) - see nothing wrong here
• SeekFind (talk · contribs) - see nothing wrong here
• Mfriedrich9 (talk · contribs) - see nothing wrong here
• JMVanDyk (talk · contribs) - see nothing wrong here, fixed one Wlink but that's all
• Jimtrue (talk · contribs) - see nothing wrong here

Thanks. Thatcher 18:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking a look at these as time permits. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm being impersonated...

Hello all, [139] this user appears to be making comments with my signature, notably at User_talk:Crystalclearchanges, a user I have filed a SSP for relating to banned vandal user:iamandrewrice. They have also been adding to and altering my comments at that SSP, notably here. Can someone take a quick look, as SSP has a backlog and I can be dealing with tracking down impersonators right now. Thanks Whitstable 21:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Who is it that "impersonated" you at my talk page then? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

IP:88.108.106.86 Whitstable 21:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What is your IP address then? How do I know it was not you?? I dont understand what is happening here. Will someone please explain this?Crystalclearchanges (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That IP has been blocked for 1 month. They are obviously not a new user, and thus deserve no quarter. If another IP address continues this, please let us know, and they will be blocked as well. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a dynamic IP so a month block will serve no useful purpose. Polly (Parrot) 21:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What does that mean?! Look it is me that is the victim here so why is no one explaining to me? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Can urgent action be taken here because we do not want the whole iamandrewrice farce starting again. Whitstable 21:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And oh no-one is still explaining to me what is happening. Can't you "scan" my IP address or something to make sure I'm not the same as the IP since apparently Whitstable thinks I was talking to myself between an IP and my account somehow? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Does anyone else see a similarity in MO here? --WebHamster 21:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do. It is very similar to the situation before. Whitstable 21:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure whether this situation would qualify for checkuser. Hasn't this already been resolved anyway? Rudget. 21:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If Crystalclearchanges is yet another sock of banned user iamandrewrice then it would seem they have managed to return. The edits are broadly similar, especially when iamandrewrice's Simple Wiki edits are looked at (before he was indef blocked from there, too!) and the disruption soon after I pointed that out - as mentioned on the SSP - suggests something is happening Whitstable 21:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the history of disruption from the Iamandrewrice account and the strong indication that the ban is being evaded at least through the IP a checkuser is entirely warranted. This needs to be dealt with early or we get in the same situation as last time. EconomicsGuy (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even going to bother asking anymore then, as apparently, Whitstable is not talking to me for some reason. I am just going to get back to my editing, and this time, please do not interrupt me with taunts of me talking to myself or whatever you come up with next. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I havent been doing anything! look at all my edits and not a single one has caused purposeful disruption. Why are you assuming bad faith on me? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

By your second edit, you all but admit you were previously banned, not just blocked, then you start working in ianandrewrice's pet areas - fashion, Malta, Latin Europe. So it's hard to AGF Whitstable 21:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

But have I actually done anything wrong? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are banned user iamandrewrice, and I take it as you are accepting you are, then clearly yes. Whitstable 22:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Please tell me what I have done that is "wrong"? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your second edit heavily suggests you are a banned user. In which case you should not be here. And I agree with EconomicsGuy (II) below Whitstable 22:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If anyone involved here is Iamandrewrice I have no problem with contacting Alison and making sure that we do as we threatened last time. Absolutely no hesitations about doing that. EconomicsGuy (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What am I doing that is wrong??? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What you MAY be doing wrong, and I am saying this to Crystalclearchanges so that it is clear I am talking to you, is that you may not create a new account and resume editing if you are a person who has edited under a different account which as since been blocked. The accusation is that you are a blocked user Iamandrewrice. Do you deny this? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Add to that, based on their contribs, it looks like WP:CANVAS is a possibility too. --WebHamster 22:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't even understand what the content of the email to EcoGuy was about so please do not assume any kind of canvassing here. I can assure you for one thing that it is not what you think, but he can tell you that if he chooses to afterwards. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Crystalclearchanges has denied being Iamandrewrice, and has also expressed a willingness to undergo checkuser. I think that is the next logical step to take. I shall be filing a request myself soon. Ayla (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

actually i was reffering to scanning my ip address to compare with that of the IP impersonator of Whitstable that was posting on my page. Buy yeah thats good too... Crystalclearchanges (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Strange how both iamandrewrice and Crystalclearchanges both spell consistency as consistancy, as a quick look at their edit summaries show, pure coincidence I'm sure... Polly (Parrot) 22:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If poor spelling were indicative of being the same person, there would be exactly two people on the Internet: me (along with my millions of sockpuppets), and the other guy (along with his millions of sockpuppets). "Consistancy" returns greater than one Google hit for every 30 Google hits for "consistency", an awful lot considering it is a patently incorrect spelling. CCC has indicated he is willing to undergo a checkuser -- let's wait for that before we start analyzing spelling and grammar. - Revolving Bugbear 22:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remind me why that user is banned anyway? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What happens with my IP address once you scan it though? Surely the person who sees it will then know my IP address and could go do anything (like fraud) with it. I will happily enter a user scan as long as it is automated and no human eyes see it at all... otherwise I refuse. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No, knowing your IP address does not mean that anyone could perform fraud. Every website you visit on the Internet "knows" your IP address. Every single one. And chances are good, every time you send an email to anyone, that person could know your IP address. --Yamla (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer it to be done by a machine... but if you can guarantee that no one will use it for bad purposes. Can I have some kind of written guarantee for it? (You may know more than me about IP addressi so please do not mock me if i am wrong) Crystalclearchanges (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be possible to use it for bad purposes. You are at no more risk by having a Wikipedia admin look at your IP address than you are every time you visit another website or any time you send an email via your ISP or via hotmail or the like. However, if it makes you happy, I can personally offer my guarantee that having a Wikipedia admin run a checkuser on you will absolutely not lead to fraud. --Yamla (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia has a very rigorous privacy policy [140] which is enforced by the Ombudsman [141] to ensure that the very few users permitted to access IP data do not use that data outside of the policy. MBisanz ^talk 00:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence posted at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Iamandrewrice. Ayla (talk) 00:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And the checkuser result is in thanks to Alison. As predicted this is Iamandrewrice evading his ban but no socking it appears. In response to Ayla, please see this. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked as user evading ban. Can post to talk page or email unblock list to properly appeal. MBisanz ^talk 08:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Per [142] this banned user did many page moves that will require an admin to move them back. I'm signing out for the night, so could someone else please tag this as done when they do it? MBisanz ^talk 08:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think I got them all, but I wouldn't mind a double-check. MBisanz ^talk 15:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Need someone to delete/clean up an AFD naming - easy admin work

 Fixed Can someone move Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Shell (second nomination) to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Shell (2nd nomination) for me, so that the naming/list on the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Shell (3rd nomination) doesn't show an extra AFD? Thanks! Lawrence § t/e 22:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oo! Oo! Pick me! I like the easy stuff! Consider it done (because it is). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Can you solve the US Sub-prime financial crisis and NPOV issues with nationalism on Wikipedia next? :) Lawrence § t/e 22:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, that broke a number of links and transclusions...Someguy1221 (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I only found one broken link, and have since fixed it. Thanks for the heads up. As to the more important question posed by Mr. Cohen. Er, I don't know. The Sub-prime financial crisis and NPOV issues with nationalisim, if I'm being honest, are unfixable. Go buy a house, though, the market is friggin fantastic if you're looking. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

<me blinks in puzzlement> So Keeper's fixes to the US Sub-prime financial crisis and NPOV issues with nationalism on Wikipedia didn't break a number of links & transclusions? Glad to know fixing those won't break any articles. -- llywrch (talk) 22:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing and disruption at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael L. Vincent

Per this message on Gregg Potts (talk · contribs) talk page, it appears that outside users are being recruited to disrupt the AFD discussion referenced above. Their method appears to be blanking the talk pages of users who !vote delete. In addition, they are creating multiple copies of the article in question, mostly with extra periods. See Mi.ke L. Vin.cent‎, Mi.k e L. Vin.ce nt, and Mi.k e L. Vin.c.e n.t, all of which were copy-pasted. I and a couple of other users have tagged them as implausible redirects for speedy deletion, but I see this as disruptive meatpuppetry. Concerned users appear to be:

• Gregg Potts (talk · contribs)
• Mainquick1985 (talk · contribs)
• Unitdealt1987 (talk · contribs)
• Storyrates1987 (talk · contribs)

Since there is evidence of off-wiki canvassing, I wouldn't be surprised if more show up. Help please? // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 23:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps protect the AfD page, as Docg did on the Iseman AfD? Eusebeus (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There's been some other socks too:

• Yeargyro1987 (talk · contribs)
• Clubtaken1985 (talk · contribs)
• Wasfou514 (talk · contribs)

One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The following users:

1. Unitdealt1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Mainquick1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Clubtaken1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. Girlgirlgirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

have been indefblocked as confirmed sockpuppets of Storyrates1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Perhaps someone could do a checkuser on the others. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed - add the following as socks of the same editor:

1. Yeargyro1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Also, the main troublesome IPs have been blocked ACB, so that should help - Alison ^❤ 23:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've retagged these. Am I understanding correctly that all of these accounts are related, including Gregg Potts (talk · contribs) and those listed at the top of the thread? MastCell ^Talk 17:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'd like to clarify here that Gregg Potts (talk) is  Unrelated here to the other accounts - Alison ^❤ 17:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Shite. Looks like I picked the wrong day to quit sniffing glue. My bad; I misread. I've offered a very strong apology to Gregg Potts (talk · contribs), whom Alison has unblocked. I'll fix the tags up to point to the actual sockmaster. Man, I feel awful about that. Thanks for the quick response and for clearing up my confusion, Alison. MastCell ^Talk 17:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wasfou514 (talk · contribs) is also claiming to be unrelated - did I screw up there by blocking as well? MastCell ^Talk 00:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ummm - I'm afraid so :( Wasfou514 was never implicated as being one of the socks. I'll unblock now - Alison ^❤ 00:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

User:David Fuchs

I've spent the last 24 hours trying to decide if I should really blackbox it and leave the project. I wrote this to be a summarry, but maybe someone else would like to examine it.

Having spent two months revamping the hulk article, and getting it up to Good Article status, to have another editor blank repeatedly what I and others had worked hard on, was frustrating. To be the third editor to revert his edits, and the first to invite him to use the talk page, I was shocked by his response, which attacked me for violating WP:OWN, and having failed the GA. The refusal of an admin to use the talk pages, and to continue to attack me is bad. That he's been dismissive of consensus is worse. When I offered a simple starting place for consensus, his reply was plain. I was no longer welcome on the article. As such, I delisted the article, and will be moving on. I am not sure where I went wrong, that after two others reverted him without comment, it was I who was attacked. I do care about the article, and given how much I put into it, I feel justified in watching over it. But it has been edited by others since (4K in added material), and I've been open to other improvements. I do feel that having hit GA, I was also justified in making sure newer edits added value, not just bytes and hype, to the article. To have all my work repudiated is bad enough, but to have it all come under a pile of attacks is enough for me to leave the project. When admins model that sort of behavior, it's not hard to understand why so many people leave.

Am I right that his actions were poor, if not outright wrong? ThuranX (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Um. Not a particularly impressive example of collaborative editing, at first glance. I need to look closer into this. Oh, and FWIW don't leave, we can't do without good editors like you. Black Kite 00:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

i agree. this other guy is acting like a rela prick but its important to assume good faith and continue to try to colelaborate with him. i have seen many instances of users who seem kind of unhelpful when they first join but grow to become incredible editors who later even become admins or even presidents. his behavior indicates that he is at least interested in editing the article Hulk so i would recomend that you back off him for a bit and wait here for an administrator to interveine. sometimes engaging someone can be helpful but toehr times disengaging and letting the soul struggle work itself out for the fate of your wikipedia editing careres to be a far more rsafer alternatronive. Smith Jones (talk) 00:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

David is an administrator, not a new user. Your comment "Acting like a rela prick" is a personal attack, and you should be warned that violating that policy on this page often leads to a block. Please - try to make your comments here constructive, and use "Preview" before you save in order to correct the other errors that have pointed out to you many, many times. Avruch ^T 00:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I should also point out Thuran that you didn't need to strip the article of GA status just because I voiced the concern it may not have met the requirements. That's what WP:GAR is for, and I'd rather improve the article rather than going through that process. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, I do hope you will stay with the project. Thank you for developing a great article. Staying calm and keeping your own behaviour top-notch will produce the best chance of getting calm, reasonable behaviour from other editors, in my opinion. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"Staying calm and keeping my own behaviour top-notch" didn't get me anything but hostile responses and accusations of policy violations. I was polite, invited him to use talk instead of just reverting. Three editors say no to the changes he makes, one says 'come talk to us' and he yells at that one. I really wish I'd started a revert war. It would've been simpler.

As for David Fuchs, he was absolutely clear, not that he had "the concern it may not have met the requirements", he stated that it should never have passed. So I delisted it. When an article no longer meets the standard, it is stripped of the status ,and returned to a lower status. David Fuchs made it clear on the talk page that he does not need consensus to do anything on Wikipedia, and so I am simply enabling his no doubt incredible rewrite, making sure that everything is smooth for him. I am troubled though, that having promised a great rewrite, he dropped all efforts on the page once I left it.ThuranX (talk) 21:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Can some other respected editors please stop by the Talk page in question and weigh in on recent activities and actions? Things are getting quite...silly. :) --ElKevbo (talk) 23:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

74.225.169.82

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:74.225.169.82 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/74.225.169.82

I saw this user posted at AIV and someone had already posted a note that it was an AGF edit rather than vandalism, however a few other editors dogpiled the anon and he ended up in a 3RR situation. I realize he broke 3RR, but should the other editors have dogpiled him accusing him of vandalism when they appear to be attempting to simply add information that the "senior" editors don't want in the article? Perhaps asking him to come to the talk page would have been a better idea? Just because an established editor decides someone is a sock or a vandal without proof/checkuser it seems that newbies are getting trashed and that makes WP a bad place to hang out. Can someone uninvolved take a look? [[143]] [[144]] [[145]] Thanks Legotech·(t)·(c) 23:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

While Id like to assume good faith here, you may want to take a look at the conversation going on right up here regarding this sockpuppeter and the IP range his is using, which is very close to this IP. Wildthing61476 (talk) 00:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute as to whether to list Epcot Center as being in the City (Orlando, FL) or County (Orange County, FL). I'm unsure as to actual Wikipedia policy on locations (couldn't they compromise and list both?) but it looks like a really silly debate that both sides just want to blow out of proportion. And as a content dispute, I'm 100% sure this doesn't qualify as "vandalism."

As a side note, I agree that accusations of "sockpuppetry" and "vandalism" are thrown around far too often in what are simply content disputes, and blocks based on the accusations made too often with a very itchy trigger finger. M1rth (talk) 00:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocks were made because of a WP:3RR vio. and for evading said block. seicer | talk | contribs 00:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Coolies, I'm wrong, thanks for the info! Perhaps there should be more info on the block/users page? As it stands it looks like a bunch of editors dogpiled him because they didn't like his edits and then he got blocked because "senior" editors didn't like his edits. Look at it as a noob...there are a lot of complaints about WP being "run" as the playground of just a few editors and admins, if we aren't careful to fully document stuff like this, we give those people confirmation of their already biased attitude. I'm not horribly new, and I couldn't find the info that showed that this was anything more than a playground argument, enough so that I felt I should bring it here to find out whats up. Legotech·(t)·(c) 00:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Their edit warring was pretty obvious, but I had left a note on the respective talk page, and protected Epcot. The IP address has since migrated to another IP. seicer | talk | contribs 00:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The same editor is being discussed elsewhere on this page. I think it's inaccurate to dismiss this as a content dispute. The editor is hostile, abusive and rejects all appeals to consensus, policy and procedure. A close read of his or her edits from at least 15 different accounts or IP addresses shows an immediate pattern of personal attacks ("idiots" being the most frequent insult) and a refusal to abide by consensus. This is not someone acting in good faith (example, example, example, etc.). &#151;Whoville (talk) 01:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm not an admin, so I'm sorry if I'm butting in somewhere I shouldn't, but I've done a little research and found that this appears to be a pattern for this user. It seems like whenever a change he makes gets reverted, he gets personal, as shown here and here. To add gravity to the point, these are for an article completely unrelated to the current situation. I've attempted to start a discussion on consensus, only to be personally attacked. Other users have had the same experience. Nobody has disputed the content the editor is attempting to add, only that it goes against the consensus that has been established, with no explanation or attempt at a dialogue to explain them, or why consensus should change to support the edits. Thank you for your time. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 02:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Some background on the situation, for those who are merely looking at it from the outside. (and I apologize in advance for not providing all links here; they have been posted in various talk pages already, such as on the Disney's Hollywood Studios talk page). Back in 2007 the decision was made by consensus that the category "visitor attractions in orlando, florida" would be used to encompass the greater orlando area. In fact, the "visitor attractions in greater orlando" category was merged into it and then deleted. Last week, a user decided that the "orlando, florida" portion of the category meant that it was only applicable to the physical city limits of Orlando, rather than the general area that the category has come to represent. An attempt to discuss the matter took place on the DHStudios talk page, but it was ignored and those involved were told that we were idiots because we couldn't read a map. We asked for previous policy and examples (as that was what was being quoted to us) and none were provided. This user then proceeded to change all the Disney-related articles (both parks and individual ride articles) to say that those parks were in the city of Bay Lake and/or Orange County florida. (In reality, WDW covers two counties, and Bay Lake is not the parks' official mailing address or city of residence). The user became uncivil and posted rude comments in edit summaries and on people's talk pages, earning them a temp block... and that's when the sockpuppets began. We got admins involved to help monitor/maintain the situation, and this is where we are a week later. Today, when the category this editor created to replace the "attractions in orlando, florida" category he didn't like was officially deleted per CFD, the category was recreated and the edits and reverts started anew. So in a nutshell, aside from all the article edits and reverts, we also have an editor that is creating new categories, having those categories deleted per CFD, and then recreating them after consensus was already reached. It's obviously more than just a little content dispute, as all the regular editors are trying to do is maintain the article content -- we've even gone so far as to remove location information that shouldn't have existed in specific articles at all so there shouldn't be a reason to say the info is right or wrong, only to have the too-detailed and some say incorrect location info put back in. All in all, it's been a fun few days, but admins have been involved (on and off) all along the way so it's not been entirely the non-admin editors doing the work. SpikeJones (talk) 03:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you muchly for the history...I'm desperately trying to learn my way around here and appreciate being "read into" the history of this sock drawer. I'm sorry if I caused any trouble with my post here. Legotech·(t)·(c) 03:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The user appears to be at it again. To make matters worse, when asked politely to discuss, he blanks his page and replaces it, as shown here. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a royal mess. Until someone figures out a way to block this individual, I'll continue to revert changes as needed. I guess I can add a 30-60 day protection on these articles in the hopes that things will calm down. I am not following these discussions, so if you need to clue me in drop a link on my talk page. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not like we haven't tried, as indicated here. He just blanks the page and ignores the requests for an explanation or a discussion. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oy,I'm on the job as well....ick. Legotech·(t)·(c) 03:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have another question...will I be breaking 3RR if I'm fixing this stuffs? Legotech·(t)·(c) 03:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

My reading of 3RR says no, because you are reverting edits created by an account being used to bypass a block on another account (i.e., a sock puppet). Of course, the admins and higher-ups have final say. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of the articles have been page protected against IP addresses and new user accounts for one month. If there is one that is experiencing heavy IP vandalism or is protected for 3 days (I reset my original 3 day protection to 1 month to coincide with other protections), let me know. seicer | talk | contribs 04:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The contribution pages of the socks point mainly to the Walt Disney World and SeaWorld articles, even the individual attraction pages. I know that's a lot of pages to be protected. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

All relevent pages protected

Also see the related thread above. I hate to have had to do this, but it look slike we have had to protect all of the various orlando-related articles. Much thanks to Seicer and Vegaswikian, who apparently reached the same conclusion as I did at around the same time, as it looks like we kept running into each other. Anyways, since blocks were UTTERLY ineffecitive at stopping this person, who is a banned user using a drifting IP address to edit agains consensus see [146]), I think we had no other choice but to protect the whole lot of pages. Not sure what else to do. If any unprotected pages pop up on anyone's radar, let us know here, or on my talk page, and we'll add them to the list. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Not an admin solution, but maybe the Orlando participants should define a template which emits at least the desired category. Documentation of the template would explain when it is to be used (city or greater Orlando). Other editors would then have a chance to find that info. Orlando-editors might find some other info for an Orlando template, such as links to City and County articles. -- SEWilco (talk) 07:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, but Miamiboyzinhere is no longer blocked, he may go back and vandalise the articles that are under protection from the IP addresses that vandalised them. Momusufan (talk) 20:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Tom Bates consensus violation

Multiple IP addresses, most likely the same person, continues to violate consensus on page Tom Bates concerning sourcing of his military record. I'm not sure where to post this issue, so I've posted it here.User:calbear22 (talk) 01:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd try communicating on the various talk pages of the anons, or start a thread on the article's talk page. If that fails to get their/his/her attention, I'd attempt a dispute resolution starting with WP:RFC. If the POV pushing continues despite this, a temporary semi-protection on the page might be order - but approach this with caution. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I left another two messages on two of the user talk pages. I left another message on the talk:Tom Bates. This incident has been going on for some time now with a long history of exchanges on the article talk page. RFC has already occurred.User:calbear22 (talk) 05:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I took a closer look and noticed that. I'm not sure WP:RFPP would be appropriate as these users are actually constructively discussing things with you (more or less). This would effectively destroy their ability to edit the article. Are there blatant WP:3RR violations? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No. The back and forth has gone slowly. I counted about 23 back and forth. We had a constructive discussion early on when I added a second source, which was unnecessary but done to appease the IP contributor. But, the contributor has refused to budge since even after 3 editors joined me in consensus. Maybe if you were to weigh in on the article talk page, that would help. Thanks.User:calbear22 (talk) 08:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Super-spam?

On the Superman music page, a red-link editor has taken a fair amount of time to add track listings for an 8-volume CD collection of soundtracks from the Christopher Reeve films. I have several issues with this, and I would like for someone who understands the rules better than I do to comment on it:

• The editor is the producer of the CD as well as the author of the information he posted, as he made the point of saying and which started some frustrating dialoge: [147]
• Despite his denial of shameless self-promotion, he has made a point of it being a limited edition, so we had better order it before they run out. [148]
• It's not actually available yet, although it will be "imminently" and they are taking orders.
• It's not going to be in real stores at all.

So I'm seeing self-promotion as well as original research. What say y'all to this? Is this all proper, or should it be reverted? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

He added a great deal of valuable information, cleaning up the entire article. Any consideration of WP:COI problems, if found, should be careful to only pare dow nthat which is a true conflict ,and not the entire series of edits. ThuranX (talk) 03:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

To clear up a few issues with the above: 1) COI issues are for the sake of keeping it /neutral/, not keeping it off. 2) So, it's limited, so what? Countless items go in and out of print all the time. 3) It's available, and in fact has started shipping 4) What's a 'real' store? Again, countless items can't be bought offline. WHY does that matter? 5) It's NOT original research, it's research. Yes, the person who added it happened to do the 'original' research, but once it's been published, it's perfectly valid for use on WP (at least according to all rules I've read). It shouldn't make a difference who adds the info. Yes, any 'shameless self promotion' should be deleted, but if there's any, it's maybe a few unnessesary mentions of the set itself, and certainly not all the factual info. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Every word that red-link has written, in both the articles and the talk pages, has been for the express purpose of drumming up sales. The external links he added amount to testimonials for his product. The page is now essentially a protracted advertisement for his product. All of that supposed to be against wikipedia policy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are refering to Film Score Monthly could it be that they hold an exclusive license to the Superman score? Sorry I do not know enough about the industry, but if you look on Ford article you will find links to different Ford model cars. Igor Berger (talk) 10:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

They probably do. I can get a Ford without buying it over the internet, sight unseen, and having to depend on testimonials that the one writing the article has cited. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is all part of the game and the marketing machine. I am sure if you go to Star Trek, Marvel comics, etc. you will find the same patern. Igor Berger (talk) 10:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously. I can see exactly what they're up to. I wasn't born yesterday, I can see a sales pitch a mile away. And they are welcome to do it on pages where it's OK. It's not supposed to be OK on wikipedia. I'm just trying to get an admin to comment on it, yea or nay, as opposed to unilaterally doing a complete rollback of that red-link's self-serving entries. I've asked several admins already, but apparently they have larger issues, since they won't answer the question. That's why I posted here, hoping someone would think this might have some importance. Wikipedia is not supposed to be amazon.com. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) This diff shows all the efforts by the editor in question. Among them, I see the questionable track listing, which can be argued as promotional, since it details a product morethan the actual subject, but I also see extensive editing to expand on the topic, including the addition of years, names, musical techniques and rhythms used, detailed explanations of the various musical themes and so on. I note the linked inclusion of the record company name, but I checked, and this editor apparently hasn't touched that article, at least not in the past 50 edits, which go back a few months. This seems to be a case of the expert coming here and pouring out a great deal of knowledge which otherwise would only be available to 3000 folks(or less), and doing so freely with his time. That a portion of his edits seem to have a level of COI (and not an outright totality) can be discussed, but Baseball Bugs needs to AGF here. He keeps levelling accusations, but the editor in question uses the talk page and seems to want to fix the problems. This needs a careful looking at, not broad accusations of malfeasance. ThuranX (talk) 12:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

One point to remember is that track listings are pretty much the standard on WP. I certainly see no reason not to have them in this case -- as you can see, they were there before on the page for other releses. And again, I'll point out, that just because something happens to have a KNOWN (and I stress known) limited run doesn't mean we can discount it. I guarantee that many book sources used in WP have sold well under 3000 copies before they went OOP. And in this case...it may not even be that limited. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not about track listings being accurate or not. That's a diversionary argument. Every word that red-link user entered in both the article and in his comments on the subject have to do with selling his product. In fact, I was "assuming good faith" until he went onto the talk page and laid down the sales pitch. He is also the author of the book he's quoting. Does that book have verifiable citations in it? As far as "giving freely of his time", well, he's the producer, so it's in his best interest to promote the product and bring money in. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Since I can't get a straight answer from anyone, I have decided to invoke the "be bold" rule and have reverted to February 23, the day before the red-link began laying the groundwork for using wikipedia to sell his product. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As expected, there is now an edit war initiated on that page. WILL SOMEONE PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTIONS??? Is it valid to use one's own book as a source? Is it valid to use wikipedia as an agent for selling one's own products, including the book that's being used as the source? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The obvious answer to your question is "No, it is not alright to use Wikipedia to sell one's own book." You have been asked to remove the content that appears to be promoting the book. You have also been shown that some of the user's edits have absolutely nothing to do with his book. The phrase that comes to mind has something to do with baby and bathwater. DCEdwards1966 (talk) 19:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

My test is whether or not I can tell what they're trying to sell by reading the page. I can't. Add reliably sourced material to an article, which happens to be sourced to a book you wrote is a very mild conflict of interest, and the promotional aspect is very minor. I can't see any promotional tone in the article as it stands. A good litmus test would be "Would an unrelated editor, with the same resource, add similar material in a similar tone." The answer here is yes. --Haemo (talk) 20:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

By adding the track listings of his own CD's to the article, he is trying to pique interest. He coveniently adds external links with testimonials. Then you look into buying it and find that this "major release" is limited to 3,000 sets of CD's. Then you go, "Oh, I better get one before they run out!" That's what's going on here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What's actually going on here, and what you're ignoring now, is that unrelated editors (as Haemo pointed out above) have evaluated the listings and added them on their own - regardless of the claim you made on the article talk page that anyone disagreeing with you was trying to sell products along with the original editor you disagreed with, this information was going to get added to the article eventually. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I fully intended to go back and re-add legimitate edits NOT made by that one red-link who's trying to sell his CD's here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is against you. No one else finds the sum of his edits to be wholly bad; many find nothing wrong, and a few find some parts questionable. However, it has been pointed out (either here or o nteh article talk) that CD track listings are commonly found throughout wikipedia. A track listing for a holistic collection of Superman music is better off at an article which examines, in depth, the music, than at a separate page, which would certainly be SPAM or COI or both. However, the editor, to my eyes added one section of potential COI, the track listings for a collection he helped produce. given that there's precedence, and that he added a wealth of good fact to flesh out the meat of the article, I cannot support any injunction against the editor, nor any removals on the page. He made an article that if I'd found it before, I'd have thought "this is a thin article with lots of spec and maybeish based writing", into an article that makes me think about the production of the scores and music for the various media themselves. I only considered the marketing because I read it with an eye towards that. While he did add the name of the company releasing the compilation a few times, that company has an article he didn't work on. This is a non-issue to me, and your continued intractability on the matter makes this become a waste of time, too.. ThuranX (talk) 21:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And your blindness to what that guy is up to is extraordinarily frustrating. It's supposed to be against the rules to use wikipedia to sell stuff. If "consensus" overrides that rule, then it's hopeless. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You keep acting like he added a great big section that screams "BUY MY CD NOW!!!" - but that's not what happened. He added factual listings of a released product that would have been added anyway by other editors as it directly relates to the page question - he also fleshed out other sections, without editorializing or specifically pimping the CD he contributed to. I think you need to step back here, as your insults and snipes at anyone who disagrees with you (and you do appear to be alone in this) is getting tiresome. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You know what? You're right. I'm blind to what's going on on Wikipedia. I can't see that when editors work hard, its' meant to be ripped to shreds and insulted at length. Now that I know that such attacks and hostility are the new normal, I can see it all clearly. Anyways, this was the last thing I was involved in before retiring anyways, given how my own dissatisfaction with the project and unilateralism has grown. This is just another thread of the same 'only I can see what's going on and save the article' attitude that's driven me to leave, only this one's grounded in paranoia and hubris, not just hubris. ThuranX (talk) 22:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The guy produces a CD and a book about the CD's; he posts information from his own products in the article; he posts links that amount to testimonials for his products; he makes a point on the talk page of saying that he produced the CD and that it's a limited quantity so you better get 'em while they're available. Original research, spam, huckstering. And that whole scenario is perfectly OK with everyone. I am very impressed. NOT. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up

Resolved

 – ahh, the clutter is gone

WP:UAA is kinda backlogged at the moment. Cheers. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not worth announcing here. John Reaves 13:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

When WP:AIV and WP:UAA are severely backlogged, yes it is - and I'm not the only user who thinks so. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Self admited sockmaster needs additional eyes...

See User talk:Colleenthegreat. She admits to changing IPs and usernames to dodge a block. I have no idea where she has gone to, but one should check her contribs history carefully and block any relevent socks as needed. I am off to bed myself, but someone else should keep a close watch on this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I just reblocked with autoblock on IP addresses. I protected the talk page (she deserved it) for only a day (at least a little time off) so she can try another unblock tomorrow and see if someone else is interested then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, I think that should help. I'm going to bed, too. Useight (talk) 07:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

IP admits to being an open proxy

Resolved

 – Ryulong blocked it, two years. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 12:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[149], looks like he just openly admitted to being an open proxy, looks like he may also be User:LBHS Cheerleader, and has recently been released from a block. Tiptoety ^talk 05:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Colleenthegreat - disruptive editing and threat of sockpuppetry

I would appreciate comments on this.

Background: User: Colleenthegreat has a long history of silly and disruptive edits.

• If you read her talk page, you will see that virtually every comment is a warning to stop making silly edits. I have gone through her edit history and I have discovered no meaningful edits to articles - only silly edits that were eventually (usually immediately) reverted.
• On one talk page she proposed an edit that would be a clear violation of NPOV and V; one editor told her this was a bad idea and her response was that this was just "islamic propaganda" [150]; then an editor warned her that she should read those policies and her response was, in essence, that she refuses to abide by NPOV and V [151].
• I warned her - and to repeat, mine was just the last of many such warnings - to stop making such edits [152].
• Later, I checked her contributions and discovered that in one day she made dozens more silly edits; for what it is worth the last straw for me was when she changed the word heroine in an article, with a link to hero, to heroin, with a link to the article on the drug [153], and I finally blocked her for one month.
• She appealed the block and Mangojoice declined her appeal [154] and [155]
• She appealed again and Jayron declined her appeal [156]
• And NOW she has simply declared that "I have renewed my IP address and created another account from which to edit and bypass my block."

User:Ricky81682 reblocked her for a month - thus adding two days to my original block - but it seems to me that at this point it is clear she is a troll trying to game the system and I believe she needs more sever action and monitoring, monitoring I cannot do all by myself. By the way, her excuse for the heroin edit is that she is not a native English speaker. Now, even if this were true, I would not give it any weight because (1) many of us are not nativee English speakers and we make good edits and (2) someone who is conscious of their limitations with English would have checked a dictionary and the different links before making the heroin change. Frankly, I think she is lying and if you read all of the stuff she has written protesting the block you will see that - native or not - she is fluent in English; there is no excuse for the heroin edit it is just vandalism. Her refusal to accept NPOV and V in one discussion, her refusal to stop making silly edits after many editors have posted numerous warnings on her page, and her refusal to accept a one month block after two other admins have rejected her appeal, all add up in my mind to vandal/troll. I hope others will review this and at least keep an eye on her as I am fairly certain now that she will do something to evade Ricky81682's most recent attempt to deal with her. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 11:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I really don't endorse the block that strongly, especially not for this duration. I only left it in place because of the very odd proposal at Talk:Jesus; the "nonsense edits" for the most part look like reasonable but not verified edits, although there are one or two strange ones. This user never got a "final warning" template, and the first block was for a month. This just seems overly harsh. Mangojuice^talk 15:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And her assertion that she will resort to sock-puppetry to evade the ban does not give you pause? This does not make you even more concerned she is a troll? Anyway, would you propose to lift the block, or reduce the amount of time? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with Mangojuice. One month seems excessive for a first block. I only just did a "one month" block again but since it had been 3 days since Slrubenstein's block, that ended up adding three days to the block. That's why I put a 24-hour protection on the talk page. I wanted her to sit it out for 24 hours and if she gave a good unblock reason, I'd lift it. However, it seems that she instead decided to post another long, similar unblock request on my talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Longer block requested

Resolved

 – User blocked

217.44.56.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - IP was previously blocked for vandalism and personal attacks. Now he/she is back after the previous ban and making personal attacks again: 1, 2. The IP is removing WP:SOCK notices from other user pages: 1, 2,. IP is removing categories with no explanation: 1, 2. IP is vandalizing user page (in addition to the personal attack on my page): 1. IP is adding categories without explanation even after being asked to explain numerous times the reasoning behind it. 1. IP is adding WP:SOCK notice to a user page that I believe has not been accused of sock puppetry. 1 I'm asking that the user be blocked, this time longer than 31 hours because evidence shows the IP is not here to contribute to WP in a positive manner. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for a week for the personal attacks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

New user User:Tom.mevlie

This is totally unacceptable. And this was the user's first post. I have left a message on the user's talk page - however, I feel this behaviour is so strong that it is unlikely that the user would enjoy being a Wiki editor, and it might be in the best interests of all if this user was encouraged to disengage from the project at the earliest opportunity. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 12:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Although I may be somewhat biased in my favour, a better way than straight out banning me, would possibly put me on a probationary period, or look at some of my other posts, all of which, were, in my view, productive and helpful to each of the causes in which i donated my opinions to. But the descision rests with the administrators, not with me. --Tom.mevlie (talk) 12:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This editor has made some good contributions, including creating the Woodstock Nation (novel) article. I would counsel some consideration of WP:BITE, even in light of the above incidents.скоморохъ 12:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The user has apologised to the people he attacked, which we can take at face value. A block now would be punitive, so it would be best if he got on with editing, with a stern note warning that deviation from "productive and helpful" in this manner again will lead to a block to prevent disruption in future. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 12:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If necessary, I'll oversight his contributions and pull him aside if this happens again. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm a bit less inclined to assume good faith given that as near as I can tell I had never interacted with the editor prior to his leaving this message on my talk page. (It seems he must have encountered my name when placing this edit, unless he knew me in another life.) His first edit was vandalism; within minutes of his first edit, he's requesting an assessment from a wikiproject, and then he's off to village pump proposals? Unusual, for a new contributor. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Also, his above comment implies he knows the difference between a block and ban. That's peculiar for a new editor. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, I thought it was very clear that he's just here to troll. But the evidence is circumstantial, so we can only give him the usual miles and miles of rope before we escort him of the premises. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 12:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Quite true. :) I'd support the warning, pending further disruptive editing or more substantive evidence of puppetry. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• The remarks I left on the Depiction of Muhammad discussion were purely to prove a point, and to gesticulate the fact that we shouldn't depict muhammad, lest someone get offended. Although, i am not the first person to talk to about offending people. Moonriddengirl is correct. I have never met her before, nor had any prior contact, i wrote on her page to see what i could get away with, but also to show that, although wikipedia states that there should be no line drawn between admin and non admin users, it still is rampant amongst the community, i am not trying to shift the blame from me to her, i am merely stating my rationale for saying what i said, and again, i am sorry to anyone who i offended. --Tom.mevlie (talk) 13:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I think there may have been better ways to learn about the community than by posting the comment you made to Moonriddengirl. It may be difficult for some to assume good faith in your edits when you admit to having ulterior motives in making them. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Tom.mevlie, I suggest you review the WP:POINT guideline. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Of course you are correct, but may i say, that i have apologised for my actions, and i have tried to make up for it by posting well in all of my recent posts, i think what people should do, is instead of looking at the mistakes of people, you should look at where they did okay.--Tom.mevlie (talk) 13:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• I believe that you are mistaken if you think that a message like that would have been acceptable on the page of any user, administrator or not. While the first line of defense against incivility is to ignore it or to provide better counter-examples, there is a distinction between petty incivility and gross incivility. Please note that WP:NPA indicates "Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical or legal threats) should not be ignored". As for considering your recent posts, I suspect that posts made four hours ago still technically fit within the definition of "recent". :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

St. John's University - UConnStudd

On February 29, User:Uconnstud made a major revert to the St. John's University (New York City) artilce despite it being semi-protected, and without discussing the changes on the Talk page. The version he reverted to caused many contructive additions to be lost, and constitutes vandalism. See version prior to revert [157], and then version UConn reverted and edit too [158]. This has been an on going frustration, and many less experienced users, like myself, are having a hard time dealing with this individual. Please take a close look at the content lost, and the actions of UConnStudd. He is using the article to degrade and misrepresent the university. See talk page for past discussion on his additions and reverts. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 13:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute, which administrators cannot help you with. Were you looking for dispute resolution? ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 13:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not just content. This user continously reverts so that content is lost, and tries to report other users for vandalism each time they try to resolve the dispute. We have been warned not to revert the article, and now that I have corrected the situation, I am sure he will turn around and report me for reverting, however, the revert was necessary to restore pages of content that was lost when he reverted the article. Bottom line, I'm frustrated. This user continues to use the system to manipulate this article, and though it is partly a content issue, the manner in which he is adding content is absurd. He will not discuss issues on the talk page, and adds every negative item he can find while removing other additions of substance. Please help in some way. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 14:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry/abuse on Council on American-Islamic Relations

Editors:

• 71.210.253.167 (talk · contribs)
• 71.17.164.88 (talk · contribs)
• Kahmed (talk · contribs)

These appear to (possibly) be the same user edit warring. Additionally, Kahmed appears to be an abusive account; established to create a single page in 2007, a single edit in January, and then does not appear until edit warring today. Immediately, Kahmed has threatened someone with "banning" and is characterizing a conflict dispute as "vandalism" repeatedly, as well as removing material that has a citation. I have preemptively reminded ForeverFreeSpeech (talk · contribs) to be calm about this, to prevent things worsening. M1rth (talk) 13:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have reported this case to WP:SSP, but can someone look at the page creation code? When I clicked the "first entry in the "Open cases" section (here)." link (actual link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets&action=edit&section=4) it put me into the "Archive" section rather than the "Open Cases" section. Thanks. M1rth (talk) 15:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

AIV is backlogged

Resolved

 – Empty as at this moment ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 14:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone please handle it. It's a real pain having to revert a user 10 times since he was reported 16 minutes ago. The Evil Spartan (talk) 14:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

RFR - Not Done

Resolved

 – Have discussed this amicably with User:Bpeps on my talk page. ➔ Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback has its fans - but its probably here for good. I've applied 5 times now and been beaten by a hedgerow each time [159] [160] [161] - Can just a single sysop say no and be done with. Whats the point of count and contribs if nobody ever bothers to look. I agree I was a little fresh this time but still shouldn't a couple of sysops decide before RFRbot sweeps editors away? Dunno bpeps (talk · contribs · count) --- BpEps - t@lk 14:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this single sysop says no. While I would consider granting rollback to some editors with two months' experience, I would only do so to people whose edits during that time have been calm, civil and collaborative. Please take a couple of months, work quietly on vandalism reverts and prove you need the tool. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Not being calm, civil or collaborative isn't a good reason to deny, having a fundamental misunderstanding of what rollback is is a good reason. John Reaves 16:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually John, if you have bothered to read my comments on the rfr page, I do have a good understanding of Rollback and its downfalls. want diffs - just ask. -- BpEps - t@lk 16:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you mean the comment when you said "Anyway, Ive done good now, give me candy."? 5 people have declined you, stop wasting our time. John Reaves 17:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User Goth and Throbb99

Not really a vandal so much as clueless, so I thought I'd report it here. Has uploaded slews of copyrighted pictures, has had a slew of contentless stubs on the television show "Silverwing" deleted, has been blocked for disruptive editing before and has returned with yet another contentless stub based on this TV show. Hasn't shown any willingness to cooperate with other editors. Thought you should know. I left a message on the talk page which I hope will alert him to the fact that this isn't a fansite. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• PS: Just checked his history. No history whatsoever of editing a talk page. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely based on the lack of communication. Any other admin is welcome to unblock without contacting me if the user begins to communicate towards resolving the various issues with their editing. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Users Soccermeko and Infostorm

Despite numerous attempts to resolve editing conflicts on the Nicole Wray page and a couple of subpages including Nicole Wray discography and Template:Nicole Wray which have included page protection, the suspected sockpuppets User:Soccermeko (also see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Soccermeko) and User:Infostorm continue to repeatedly add misinformation to all of the pages. Please can someone look into this. Since Soccermeko has received a warning, all edits have been made on the other account. Cloudz679 (talk) 16:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty blatant to me. Certainly quacks like a WP:DUCK as far as I'm concerned. User:Infostorm indef blocked as a sock. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

TiconderogaCCB

Individual has been Stalking me as well as forum shopping [162] . Has been warned many times for personal attacks and uncivil behavior reported to AIV [163] [164] [165] [166] [167]

Editing while blocked [168] Uconnstud (talk) 16:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:St. John's University (New York City) for the truth. User is a vandal, and is attempting to block people instead of editing contructively.- --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Has been edit warring, and stalking. He follows me around in articles and tells people to act against my constructive edits. 3rr violation [169] Uconnstud (talk) 18:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This user is trying to use Wiki system to get his way when all else fails. He is reverting a semi-protected article, and causing significant content loss. He is a vandal, and needs to be stopped. All it takes is a quick comparision of the articles to realize his intentions, and he refuses to engage in meaningful disucssion on the talk page. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 18:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Has a history of edit warring and not working with others.

06:43, 8 August 2007 Seraphimblade (Talk | contribs) blocked "TiconderogaCCB (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Abusive sockpuppetry to edit war) 15:14, 9 June 2007 Tariqabjotu (Talk | contribs) blocked "TiconderogaCCB (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Three-revert rule violation: on St. John's University (New York City), again) 11:59, 8 June 2007 Tariqabjotu (Talk | contribs) blocked "TiconderogaCCB (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Three-revert rule violation: on St. John's University (New York City)) Uconnstud (talk) 18:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

All these blocks are a result of HIM, before I realized he was doing things exactly like this. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 18:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's the result of you acting poorly and not being an asset to wikipedia. Please stop edit warring. Uconnstud (talk) 18:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If attempting to constructively edit an article with meaningful content while trying to prevent vandals from destroying and misrepresenting facts makes me a bad asset, then I'm guilty. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 18:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Both parties are working with J.delanoy (talk · contribs), who is providing a third opinion at TiconderogaCCB's request. I have cautioned both parties that any further reversion or shenanigans will be grounds for a block. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest at DRV

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 29. User Kim Bruning (talk · contribs) prematurely closed a DRV over an MFD that she also closed (that being Wikipedia:Delegable proxy. Now, this is highly irregular, and her involvement in the initial MFD should have kept her from closing the DRV as well. The whole point of DRV is to bring in additional, uninvolved editors to review the situation, and Kim Bruning is essentially refusing to allow others to comment on this. Now, I have voted in both the original MFD and in teh subsequent DRV, so I will not change this, but could an uninvolved admin please look this over perhaps reopen the DRV, since it was closed by someone who was involved in the initial DRV? While it may not have been her intention, by closing the DRV, Kim Bruning looks to be attempting to prevent discussion for some reason. I have no idea why, but this entire sequence is highly unusual. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The original MFD was contrary to process. You're not really supposed to have MFD's on policy or policy proposals. I closed the original MFD and to be nice I also marked the proposal as rejected, as a kind of compromise. Perhaps I should not have done so, and merely sanctioned the person who made the MFD listing.

At any rate, the person who had made the listing then went to DRV. DRV allows one to endorse, relist, or overturn an earlier deletion discussion. In the case of this MFD, relisting would be inappropriate (original listing was contrary to policy), endorsing would keep the target page rejected, and it seems rather unlikely that there would be a consensus to overturn. So I closed the DRV, and warned the person making the listing to please reread wikipeida deletion policy carefully.

As the page has already been rejected, there's really very little left to do here. ^^;;

--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the closure was incorrectly done and should be reversed. I also note that Kim has been unreceptive to a fairly clear consensus that the review closure was out of process. There is an issue of making an end-run around WP:AFD. Ronnotel (talk) 17:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not entirely sure how an end-run around AFD could have been made, did you mean MFD? I have been applying the MFD rules in a fairly gentle fashion, as a fairly neutral participant. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant AFD. The intent of the authors appears to be promotion of a fringe idea - Delegable Proxy. Since that page seems destined for the ash heap, I believe they see the essay on the same topic as a way to avoid AFD. That MFD policy doesn't recognize this possibility is a major loophole. Any kind of claptrap - personal attacks, hate language, spam, could be dressed up as an essay and, by your reasoning, be immune from deletion. Ronnotel (talk) 18:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's an interesting theory. However, wasn't Delegable proxy originally written by different authors than the people making the policy proposal? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I created the article as Liquid democracy, which is a name I did not invent, as one of my first edits on Wikipedia, basically as a stub, in 2005. I was blissfully unaware at the time of WP:COI. However, I did not since edit that article, and many editors did come along and add material to it. User:Sarsaparilla, later becoming User:Ron Duvall and then User:Absidy, (obviously without intention to conceal or deceive, given the edit histories, and, in fact, explicit connections made, such as with the account creation for Absidy, -- some here seem to have great difficulty with WP:AGF) quite recently expanded it, and it is beyond me why he used, shall we say, "nonstandard sourcing," though I could speculate. Yes, he was interested, as was (and am) I, in trying out delegable proxy here, not as a voting method -- DP for voting is of little interest to me, though some election experts consider it an ideal voting method -- but rather as a method for creating efficient communications networks, capable of efficiently *creating* consensus -- real and measurable consensus -- on a large scale. This is not the place to debate DP, but the point is that the proposer was sincere, and believed that this would either help Wikipedia or would be harmless, and I have the same position. The vehemence of the opposition shocked him, indeed, it shocked him right off Wikipedia. He's young, and did not expect this. I'm twice his age and knew it was possible. The proposal is not a Rule 0 violation, but it implies some Rule 0 violations, particularly when not understood. I would not have proposed it at this time. But I'm not God. User:Kim Bruning is. I'm probably the world's foremost student of delegable proxy, though James Armytage-Green gets more google hits. There have been many other independent inventions of it, around the world, but my own particular vision is DP within what might be called consensus democracies, and, while I'm politically progressive, this idea has attracted quite a few libertarians and anarchists. It is almost as if it was designed for Wikipedia, but I'm not holding my breath. What was proposed here was only the creation of proxy files by users who cared to do it, and a central proxy table where these would be transcluded, and the proposal was explicit that it wasn't for voting, and that proxies did not represent clients, but might be considered by some to reflect a projection of how their clients might vote. If that was found, by experience, to be reasonable. No policy change was proposed, and most of what was feared about the proposal would be policy violation, easily detected and addressed. Go figure.--Abd (talk) 06:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, you can't really say I am being unreceptive: See [170] for a typical response. I do tend to insist on not acting hastily, however. I hope that that's ok.--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There is checkuser-proven sock-puppetry as work, which is why the whole affair has become somewhat tainted. WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. But how can we even determine the proper course of action if the debate is closed before it begins? I apologize for calling you unresponsive and I accept that you are acting with good faith. Ronnotel (talk) 19:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The ABF is blatant. Stop it, Ronnotel. There is now what might be called sock puppetry, caused by the block of Absidy, who has essentially been made into an outlaw by block policy violations, and who, contrary to my personal recommendations and requests, continues to post (not disruptively, by the way, except that it does cause some fuss due to the very determined efforts to detect his posts quickly, something that was never done with even a determined and disruptive puppet master as James Salsman), but prior to that, there were no violations of WP:SOCK. Look, I've seen a certain administrator be extraordinarily blase about real sock puppets and IP editors massively reverting an article, while here, someone who isn't editing abusively, who isn't running a puppet theater, but who, for various reasons -- pretty stupid if deliberate attempts to deceive, and he's not stupid -- dropped accounts and continued under a new name, twice in the relevant period. Only one of these shifts was not accompanied by an explicit notice of continuing identity, which did not stop checkuser requests being filed to confirm what was already openly -- and promptly -- admitted. The sock puppetry charges appear to be designed to claim bad faith in the proposal, thus adding fuel to a "disruption" charge, thus justifying deletion rather than mere rejection. The implied argument would go, if these were sock puppets, they must be concealing the puppet master, who doesn't want to be caught for intentional disruption. But that's not what happened here. There was no puppet master, because there was never an account used again after being abandoned. Check the history. In further process, which is likely to ensue, diffs and all the full panalopy of evidence will be provided, but, one step at a time. I have not even filed warnings on the Talk pages of involved administrators yet, requesting rectification of improper actions, except for one, the indef block of Absidy for what should at most have been a 24 hour block. First offense. No prior problems at all for well over two years of very active editing (under the three names above plus another which can be found with little effort -- but I'm not going to give the name directly. Many here know it, but when a user abandons an account, it's offensive to expose it unless there is abuse involved. Which there was not, period.--Abd (talk) 06:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Well, Kim we do need to remind you that admins should not be closing DRVs for XFDs that they also closed. One of the purposes of DRV is to bring an end to discussion of deleted closures, and that purpose is defeated when someone closes a review of their own work. Heck, we even prefer that if the series is XFD1, XFD2, ... XFD(N-1), XFD(N), DRV, any admin that closed any of XFD1 to XFDN shouldn't close the DRV. If something is terribly out of whack, give one of the DRV regular closers a nudge. Admittedly, we've mostly been busy IRL or distracted lately, or we wouldn't have let closures get to be 6 days overdue... though we are currently down to 4 days overdue... so we might actually need a nudge. GRBerry 17:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec some more) Be glad to. (nudge) Please review my closure of the DRV! Also check my talk page as some people have left messages there. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec x 3, reply to Kim's first statement) Actually, the point is that reasonable editors reading and interpreting the MFD criteria disagreed that the MFD was contrary to process. Editors clearly felt that the page was eligible for MFD and felt that your initial premature closure of it was wrong. Now, the initial closure of the MFD was not a big issue, since Deletion Review exists to allow further scrutiny of that closure when reasonable editors disagree with it. The closure of the Deletion Review by the same person that closed the MFD is problematic, since it is essentially YOU closing off discussion of your own actions. A conclusion has NOT already been reached on how to handle the page, as you note above. A discussion was underway at MFD to decide how to handle it, you closed that. A deletion review was started, and you closed that. How can anyone reach any conclusion on the discussion if you refuse to allow discussion to continue, based upon your singular interpretation of the MFD guidelines, where other editors have a different and reasonable interpretation of said guidelines... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, once such a page is deleted, it's just gone, hence you can't do that for proposals, right? I think some people have been trying to go for a rather idiosyncratic interpretation of the MFD rules (hey, I helped write 'em, I'm pretty sure we didn't mean for proposals to be deleted, but this doesn't stop people from trying. ;-) ). Anyway, most of the time, the correct action is to tell people off. The remaining situations typically end up with the listed page being rejected, which it did here. I'm slightly less handy with deletion review, so I've just asked a DRV regular to review my approach to the DRV process. (see above) Will that do? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is obviously inappropriate for a whole host of reasons. I had no notion that Kim Bruning was not an admin - non-admin closes can be reverted by any admin to begin with. Kim, there is overwhelming agreement that the proposal is inherently disruptive and disruptive proposals can be deleted. I have no idea why you are making an issue of this or why you feel it is appropriate to "warn" me, but your conduct here leaves something to be desired. I'm reopening the DRV as an inappropriate non-admin close and I would encourage any uninvolved admin reading this to consider speedy overturning and reopening the MFD. --B (talk) 18:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Kim is a former admin who retired voluntarily in 2005. (Wikipedia:Former administrators#Other #11) As far as I know (it was before my time) there was no controversy. So she can ask for the mop back at any time, and in XfD closings I feel she should be treated as an admin - except that she obviously can't push the delete button unless she asks for it back first. GRBerry 18:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

B: Well, if your interpretation of the MFD guidelines were to be correct, it would be permissible to list even WP:NPOV on MFD at any time. That's obviously not quite correct!

Perhaps we can clarify the MFD rules. Do you at least understand why it is such a bad idea to delete policy proposals?

In other news, why are you attempting to delete the page in the first place? You may have provided reasoning other than "policy", but I haven't quite seen it yet? I'm quite willing to accede to WP:WIARM based reasoning. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If you provide evidence that WP:NPOV was created by a farm of sock puppets looking to cause trouble or make a WP:POINT, then I would say yes, it could be deleted. --B (talk) 19:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You really shouldn't ask me things like that, you just might get an answer ;-). NPOV is probably rather more dubious. It was created by a meat-puppet of an editor who had been paid to create such pages in the first place (so a meat-puppet of a meat-puppet). Said editor has since left wikipedia in not-so-good-standing. The rule has certainly caused most of the conflict on wikipedia, so we could assume bad faith and say it was intended to be disruptive.

Getting back on topic, it has since been brought to the attention of the community that said "sock farm" possibly was not in such bad faith as you'd initially assume, at which point any perceived MFD loopholes (either way) are rather much cut off. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've read a bunch, and can now clearly comment as a DRV regular closer on the merits of the specific case. As I said above, one of the purposes of DRV is to review disputed closings, allowing those in disagreement to be heard but still eventually reaching cloture absent a decision that the original closure was incorrect. To allow those in disagreement to believe that they have been heard and fairly judged, it is necessary that the DRV closer not only be unbiased, but also to be seen as unbiased. So it is just wrong for someone to close a DRV of one of their own XfD closes (or speedy deletions).
• Reviewing Kim's talk page, I see five people who had already expressed concern with the close prior to B's notice of taking it to DRV. In theory, he should have become a sixth voice asking Kim to revise/explain the close, gotten rejected by her, and then taken it to DRV. But, since it was reasonably clear that she had already explained the close and wasn't going to be revising it, it wasn't terribly wrong to skip the first two pointless steps and just take the discussion to DRV. Thus I don't think the warning issued to B was appropriate.
• That half a dozen editors were concerned with her close meant that the DRV should have run. Kim, will you undo that closure and let the DRV run or will you let me do so? I want explicit clearance here... because I intend to offer an opinion in it if reopened. That opinion is that we should in the end do is relist the MFD with clear instructions to the participants to distinguish between whether this is so inherently disruptive that an unchanging archive is inappropriate (thus delete) and non-viable proposal that should be marked as rejected and become unchanging thereafter. GRBerry 18:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and proceed as you see fit at DRV. On the MFD side of things; as there is (obviously) no exception for disruptive listings (even DRV sanctioned) on MFD, I guess the correct action in this case for any further MFD listings without at least clear WP:WIARM reasoning is now to block the lister. :-/ I hope people won't decide to place an admin in such an undesirable position. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC) MFD listings of project namespace pages cost you way too much time if you try to both follow procedure and be nice about it. I recommend that the future procedure be to close the mfd and block the nominator immediately.

WP:MFD#Prerequisites says, "However, if a proposal is not serious or is disruptive ... it can be nominated for deletion." How do you get from that to a decision that listing a disruptive proposal for deletion is cause for blocking? --B (talk) 19:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's the risk you run for trying to use that rule that way. it's really only meant for fairly obviously disruptive stuff, not for serious proposals that people happen to have a strong dislike for. If anyone comes along at any time and says "wait a minute, that proposal wasn't actually disruptive", you're SOL, you see. Editors in good standing have actually said so, and that's where we are right now. Does that make sense? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A finding of "disruptiveness" is not something that a single person can veto. The consensus view is that the proposal is disruptive and that it should be deleted and a minority viewpoint that it is not disruptive doesn't change that. --B (talk) 20:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If there is a minority viewpoint at all, then there is no consensus in the strict sense (at best there's a rough consensus). In such a situation, you want to be very careful, as things may yet turn around. As a very recent example: we had a "consensus minus one" to keep the page as rejected, after all. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Kim, thanks for allowing the DRV to run. We'll see what the community thinks of the decision you made, and at the least those who disagree will believe that they have had a fair chance to be heard. GRBerry 19:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I still think it's crazy, but you may well know better than I do. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Can a Deletion Review decide to delete an article that was not deleted by prior process? Suppose this were an article, an AfD, instead of an MfD. If an AfD is closed as, say, no consensus, or keep, in spite of most editors voting for Delete, because the closer does what is suggested by WP:NOTAVOTE and considers that the arguments don't support deletion, is DRV the remedy? Has anyone ever imagined so? Why would MfD be any different? Deletion Review is for reviews of deletions! Not reviews of "deletion debates." Is there a tag for articles that says "This article was kept in an AfD that was closed as Keep, but you should now go to DRV and participate if you want the proposal not deleted? Just how much complex procedure do these editors want to create? Simple. If an MfD was closed to keep, improperly, there is an obvious, clear, and in-process remedy, another nomination. Is there ongoing harm from the article's presence? The only disruption here is being caused by concerted efforts to delete the proposal! Is there any evidence presented yet for ongoing disruption other than that? I added some comments to the Talk page. If there is any disruptive aspect to them, it would not be related to the presence of WP:PRX. Rather, it would be that I've clearly expressed intention to pursue dispute resolution, by the book, carefully, and non-disruptively. Which takes time, and which starts with simple discussion among editors. The time is not ripe, as far as I'm concerned, for the next step up that ladder. But if anyone wants to accelerate things, I'd certainly be responsive. --Abd (talk) 07:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

THUGCHILDz again

User:THUGCHILDz ignores again this consensus for wording Australian rules football, rugby league and cricket are all claimed to be the national sport by various people in national sport#list of countries' national sports and pushing cricket as most popular Australian sport but cricket is certainly not most popular Australian sport!!!! I inserted Australia and South Africa in national sport#countries with various most popular sports citing 3 sports but THUGCHILDz removes it always. THUGCHILDz likes cricket but pushing this sport in all corners!!!! He is a POV warrior against consensus of other editors and against evidence: may you stop his absurd edit warring? I report him for second time in this page.--PIO (talk) 17:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

May be you should be the one that should be reported because if anyone looks into it, they will see that there was no consensus but the closest we got to a consensus is not what you are saying. And I'm not the one that fights against consensus of other users, you are. Just have a look at it and you guys will know who's at fault. PIO is being like I'm right and everyone else that disagree with me is wrong. Here's an example. There's been numerous cases of that happening. I'm not the one at fault here and most people involved would back me up on that. I was tryning to be nice and see if we could have resolved the issue on the talk pages but PIO is really difficult to communicate with him/her. Should just write a complaint against him?--THUGCHILDz 19:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend to PIO that he produce version diffs of THUGCHILDz removing valid content. Also, I was the mediator at the above case. I closed it as being at an impasse. Therefore it should not be IMO cited as a consensus (otherwise I would've closed it as such). Uninvolved admin review is welcomed. MBisanz ^talk 19:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is intolerable. I've been involved in this one, and anyone who cares to look at the diffs will see that if there's a "troublemaker" who stubbornly insists on having his own way above and against consensus it is PIO. PIO has fixed views and a modus operandi that is opposed to discussion, agreement, compromise or consensus. It's not in his nature. This complaint is just another attempt to get his own way. If anything should be brought to the attention of ANI, it's PIO's canvassing and edit warring. Have a look at your leisure: [171] AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

NYRofBooks BEANS

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#New_York_Review_of_Books_article_on_Wikipedia points at an article about Wikipedia which gives examples of vandalism on specific articles. Here's a list of named beans; some are redlinks and should be until someone writes some good stuff. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Diogenes of Sinope
• turnip
• Crazy Eddie
• Bagoas
• quadratic formula
• Bristol Beaufighter
• squeegee
• Sanford B. Dole
• Pierre Varignon
• Diogenes
• aging
• Colletotrichum trichellum
• aardvark
• bedbugs
• elephant
• Pop-Tarts
• James Bryant Conant
• Archimedes
• culture jamming
• David Pogue

• Larry Sanger
• Jimmy Wales
• John Broughton
• Wikipedia: The Missing Manual
• bovine somatotropin
• Sleepless in Seattle
• hydraulic fluid
• cobbler
• periodization
• Daily Planet
• Taekwang Industry
• Vladimir Narbut
• Sara Mednick
• Pyro Boy
• Arifs
• Card Football
• Paul Karason
• Jim Cara
• Owen King

• Whitley Neill Gin
• Michelle Leonard
• Henry Fonda
• Twelve Angry Men
• Isles of Shoals
• PartiallyClips
• Pokemon
• Mzoli's
• Cape Town, South Africa

Redlinks at time of this message:

• Richard Denner
• Jitterbug telephone
• Plamen Ognianov Kamenov
• Empress Alamonda
• Whirled News Tonight
• Ragnarok Wisdom
• Wikimorgue
• Deletopedia

these are articles mentioned there--most of them in other contexts than as being vandalized. Nonetheless, they all would bear watching now. DGG (talk) 18:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made a shared watchlist at Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:Random832/watchlist/NYTimes. —Random832 19:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, The New York Review of Books has nothing to do with the New York Times -- except that they are both published in the same city. One is a high-brow, literary publication, the other is a newspaper. I suggest this mistake be corrected quickly. -- llywrch (talk) 22:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed here. Wouldn't want to confuse any NY Times reporters. -- SEWilco (talk) 23:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User:EliasAlucard indef blocked by User:Will Beback

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

• From the discussion archived and closed ANI EliasAlucard_indef_blocked_by_Will_Beback it is clearly can be seen that there is enough opposition for Will Beback indef block of EliasAlucard. It also looks that the decision to make the original block of 24 hours by Nandesuka into an indef block by Will Beback in the first place was done without measuring and achiving consensus. This is against Wikipedia policies of doing an indef block in ANI and should have been decided by a consensus first or brought to ArbCom for a decision of community ban.
• I would like to ask Will Beback to rescind the indef block and come up with some sort of a probation for EliasAlucard or let's bring this issue to ArbCom for evaluation. I would like to hear what other editors have to say about this. Because this is about preserving Wikipedia process of NPOV and not about taking sides of who is right and who is wrong in the whole matter at hand. Igor Berger (talk) 18:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Will, at the previous discussion you said , "I would support any strong editor who is willing to take a menoring position with his editor." Does that still hold? DGG (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Should EliasAlucard indef block be taken to WP:RFAR

Support The indef block by Will Beback of the EliasAlucard editor was done without a consensus. Igor Berger (talk) 18:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: EliasAlucard, like any banned user, may appeal his block to ArbCom directly. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No - it was done with the overwhelming consensus of admins who commented, which is the requirement for a community ban. No admin who disagrees has decided to reduce or remove the block. While some non-admins have disagreed with the basis of the ban, the consensus among administrators (the purpose of this page) has not changed. Avruch ^T 18:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Will had originally said that he would lift the block if one other admin said it should be lifted. I am an admin, and had said that I needed more time to decide and that it wasn't urgent. I don't mind closing that thread, as what was there was noise, not signal... but unless Will has changed his mind, this may well be lifted at some point in the future. I don't think it should be taken to RFAR until either an admin definitely decides they want to lift the block themselves, or they discuss it directly with Will and are in disagreement, or the blocked user makes an appeal. But, it may end up there... GRBerry 18:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

GRBerry I agree with what you said. This thread can now be closed and archived unless someone else objects. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 19:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TiconderogaCCB

Individual has been Stalking me as well as forum shopping [172] . Everywhere I go he follows me and edits right after me. What was he doing at the Stony Brook article? what was he doing here [173] Uconnstud (talk) 18:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

IP revealing personal info

Resolved

 – Blasted into space.

This anon editor has revealed personal info in 3 different places (last 5 edits). Can an admin delete these, and should they go to RFO? Thanks. Franamax (talk) 18:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI - I checked a lot of this anon's edits. All were vandalism. (It's an alleged educational institution.) Wanderer57 (talk) 19:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've sent an e-mail to Oversight-ers. They should handle it. The account has stopped since the last warning, but keep a close eye on it. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 19:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's done. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 19:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Followed up with friendly email to school administration. Should I just go straight to RFO next time? Franamax (talk) 21:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

For getting p-info removed, generally a good idea. For blocks or such (if needed), probably still here or WP:AIV. Thanks for bringing it up for attention, all the same. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

School has now replied with thanks and promise of investigation and immediate action. Extra rosaries all-round this weekend kids! :) Franamax (talk) 23:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Blatant Vadalism

Resolved

 – Stale

I would suggest that the IP Address 71.212.60.4 be added to the block list for the blatant and vulgar vandalism to the Kurt Angle and Christopher Daniels articles as seen in the respective articles histories. JakeDHS07 (talk) 19:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)JakeDHS07

IP was blocked for 31 hours yesterday and has not vandalised since. In future, reporting to WP:AIV will get a quicker response. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Can there be a block that does not appear in the block log or user talk page? Just wondering how this works. Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 19:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, looking at the wrong IP; however, the one cited has not edited in 3 days, but was warned at the time. Anybody could be using it by now, so there's no point blocking it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for block/disclosing personal information

Requesting a block on Willdakunta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and suspected sockpuppets per Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Protection "disclosing personal information" (see also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Willdakunta)

Suspected sockpuppets

NHguardian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Freeskier328 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.168.80.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.181.62.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.181.51.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
47.234.0.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.181.48.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Reason: has attempted to post personal information about other users on Wikipedia when users disagree with his edits; see recently [174].

Other socks of this user have engaged in similar behavior, for example: [175]. This user was previously blocked in the Nhguardian incarnation for edit warring with User:Jrclark; in fact, this user's entire purpose here on Wikipedia seems aimed at disrupting the edits of that user. See edit edit histories of socks for details. This has been ongoing for many months now with small periods of inactivity between. Originally reported earlier this month Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive368#Vendetta_account. Thanks. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

REPOST: RYNORT returns

I am re-posting this request for assistance, since it was overlooked previously with no responses. If it is deficient in any way, please let me know how to improve it.

A while back User:RYNORT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was indefinitely banned for multiple incidents of massive incivility, personal attacks, and generally reprehensible behavior. A coordinated effort came from 69.244.181.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which was also banned by several admins for the same sorts of behavior. I filed this ANI report back in January regarding some malice from RYNORT, and in this earlier ANI report I pretty much laid out the idiosyncratic behavior that linked the two. This IP has been trolling and making personal attacks, most recently on my talk page. RFCU may be appropriate, but based on the IP's own gross incivility I think the case is made for blocking the IP entirely. Thanks for the help. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 month (same duration as previous block) as an obvious IP sock of RYNORT, used to continue same disruptive behavior. Edits and block log indicate this is a fairly static IP, and there should be little to no collateral damage. - auburnpilot talk 04:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this a legal threat? Advice requested

Background: User:Harlempanther187 repeatedly created the article Tony Accardo Jr, which stated nothing other than birthdates, parentage, and that the person was a member of the Chicago Outfit. No sources. I repeatedly deleted per WP:BLP, and gave the appropriate warnings and advice. The author got mad, started vandalizing, and redirected his talk page to Fuck NawlinWiki, so I eventually blocked him.

Today, I got this comment on my talk page from User:192.203.136.247, an anon IP registered to DuPage College. Its previous edit was to add Tony Accardo Jr to the Chicago Outfit article. The message purports to be from a law firm in Chicago that represents Tony Accardo Jr, and demands that I contact them (giving an email address and a phone number). I blocked the IP for 55 hours for legal threats, and posted an explanation to the IP's talk page (including pointing out that all they need to do to reinstate the article is write one that complies with WP:BLP). User:Zsero wrote and said that s/he didn't think it was a legal threat and that the block was improper. I think that the IP is, in fact, User:Harlempanther187, making a crude attempt to intimidate me. But I would appreciate some second opinions. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 20:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would just ignore it. If its a threat, its pointless. You could try an RFCU/IP, if course, but is it worth the effort? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Checked ABA and Illinois directories of lawyers, none by that name who are admitted to practice. Phone number resolves to an address in Illinois, but with a different name than either the corporate or individual name in the diff. And google maps doesn't reveal a law office by that name in the vicinity of the address the number links to. And when was the last time you saw a real lawyer with that style of email address. I wouldn't contact it or engage them in on-wiki conversation. If their serious (and I doubt they are), they'll contact Mike Godwin at the Foundation. MBisanz ^talk 21:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a phone call or an e-mail to DuPage's abuse address is in order? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I won't and I'd tell Nawlin not to either, but maybe someone whose more involved with foundation stuff (read: Comm Committee/Meta) would want to. I'm any event, I'd agree it was a good NLT block. MBisanz ^talk 21:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

How is it a good block? It's not a legal threat at all, or a threat of any kind. It doesn't matter who posted it or why, it's not grounds for a block. -- Zsero (talk) 21:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Zsero. It wasn't a threat, legal or otherwise. --Kbdank71 21:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that there was not an explicit threat... why else would a lawyer seek an editor's real name, except for legal proceedings? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A lawyer contacts you on wiki, saying they represent someone, someone whose topic you've in some way been involved in editing, and they wish to get in touch with you off-wiki for your real identity. What WP:AGF reason could they have for doing so? MBisanz ^talk 21:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ultra and Mbisanz. "Legal" is subjective. If a "lawyer" asks for my real name, or Nawlines, or any Wikipedian, I can see how that can easily be construed as a threat. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter. If a threat comes in, then block. Otherwise, it's a request, which anyone can make. Just because a person is a lawyer doesn't mean squat. Unless we're now pre-emptively blocking. --Kbdank71 21:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"Will you start paying me 50% of your income, or should I get someone to break your kneecap?" No, not a threat, just a harmless question... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If the request ended with "...or I'll sue you", then block. But if you just asked me "Will you start paying me 50% of your income?", my answer is no. --Kbdank71 22:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to missed the entire point of WP:NLT in favor of bureaucratic waffling: the intent is to allow intimidation-free editing, and this was clearly a fairly crude attempt to intimidate. As for the example given, threatening physical violence is okay, but threatening legal action isn't? You need to recalibrate your reality meter. --Calton | Talk 00:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting) Are we overlooking the fact that whomever purports to represent the law offices has (a) a pretty awful grasp of grammar, and (b) a web-based email address? Leaving aside whether or not the block was right, given that the IP is registered to a college, isn't it more likely to be a hoax? _GB^T/C 22:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, much more likely. If we knew that for sure, then even an actual threat would not be blockable as such. But even if we were to take her at her word that she is a lawyer, the fact remains that she did not make a threat. She simply asked someone to contact her, as is her perfect right (just as that person has the perfect right to ignore it) -- Zsero (talk) 22:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

...s/he didn't think it was a legal threat and that the block was improper. I think that the IP is, in fact, User:Harlempanther187, making a crude attempt to intimidate me ← Are you aware of any incident involving a "legal threat" that was anything other than a crude attempt to intimidate another user? — CharlotteWebb 04:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Arisedrink

I believe the user to be a sockpuppet. There was an edit war the other day on Maddox (writer) and I got 3 different vandals (and possible suspects of each other) banned at WP:AN/3. Now Arisedrink is making the same edits as those vandals as you can see here. Even if the user is not a sockpuppet I think a block or ban is in order. That user has only existed for about a week andf they've only edited the Maddox page. The user has also blanked their talk page numerous times after being warned again and again to stop vandalizing the page and citing rules which do not fit. I'm almost 100% sure it's a sockpuppet of one of those vandals, however, at the very least, it's a vandal and should be blocked. Thank you. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Since you can't be sure, report the user for WP:3RR. Banning wouldn't be the right course of action - and a temp block would come from the report. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, best thing to do is report to WP:3RR like said above. Tiptoety ^talk 01:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, (and this is just an aside - not assuming anything), try and avoid referring to them as sockpuppets unless you have near incontrovertible evidence or strong suspicions - enough to open a sockpuppet case. In other words, don't tag their user/talk pages as suspected sockpuppets. Not saying you would, but just wanted to mention this. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Long time abusing Wikipedia by Japanese editors from 2channel meat/sock puppets

I should've raised this issue as soon as I found out the above matter two weeks ago. I have reported several RFCU files on suspicious editors who vandalized Japanese-Korean related articles. Even before submitting RFCU files, I've been stalked by several Japanese editors such as Mochi (talk · contribs), Kusunose (talk · contribs), Amazonfire (talk · contribs) since last December.[176],[177][178], [179][180], [181]

Recently, editors set up for a poll for naming title of Sea of Japan. As the poll was getting stale, a lot of new users suddenly came to to vote for oppose after Feb. 14th. So I googled my name and found out the 2channel's plot for the poll. It is not one time project, it has been going on since 2004. ウィキペディア (Wikipedia)英語版に挑む 04/05/28

• Talk:Sea_of_Japan#Rename the Article
• Talk:Sea_of_Japan#2channel meatpuppets from 朝鮮人のWikipedia（ｳｨｷﾍﾟﾃﾞｨｱ）捏造に対抗せよ 21
• User talk:LordAmeth#Need a guideline

http://academy6.2ch.net/test/read.cgi/english/1085704624/

On 2channnel, Japanese editors who involve in Wikipeida have posted and discussed which Korean editors to stalk, which admins to watch, which articles the Japanese need to watch and revert, which Japanese editors to support.

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Azukimonaka

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/KoreanShoriSenyou

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Yuan.C.Lee

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Saintjust

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Opp2

These are the RFCU files on some of them and I have also a list of 2channel's threads. I think to resolve Japan-Korean related issues and to prevent misconducts from meat/sock puppetry, more admimi's watch is appreciated for for long time. Thanks.--Appletrees (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, Endroit is trying to turn the issue from admins' attention with several blatant lies. That is sad. --Appletrees (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

How am I related to all of this? As I made it clear here, I do not condone canvassing by 2channel users, and I am not related to 2channel. Please cease your personal attacks, Appletrees.--Endroit (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make personal attack on me just like you have done so. Switching links and altering my comment is a big no no. Well, I saw your name mentioned at 2channel. And you're the one who makes series of bogus RFCUs per your history and accused me of being a socks of Appleby or others with just your assumption. --Appletrees (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Did not I ask you why you keep silence about the big meatpuppetry incidnet from Japanese 2channel unlike your past experience at ANI? I think I gave too many times to Japanese editors to stop disruptions.--Appletrees (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Template:JaChallenge to English Wikipedia (2004-05-28)
• Template:Ja Chosenjin's Wikipedia Fight against the fabrication 15
• Template:Ja Chosenjin's Wikipedia Fight against the fabrication 16
• Template:Ja Chosenjin's Wikipedia Fight against the fabrication 17
• Template:Ja Chosenjin's Wikipedia Fight against the fabrication 18 Vote for Liancourt Rocks
• Template:Ja Chosenjin's Wikipedia Fight against the fabrication 19
• Template:Ja Chosenjin's Wikipedia Fight against the fabrication 20
• Template:Ja Chosenjin's Wikipedia Fight against the fabrication 21
• Template:Ja Watch out on Chosenjin's fabrication part1

These links are achieved and stored at 2channel which are only partial and as you see, the number in the title says about it is series of discussion for meatpuppetry plots. The 18th is for naming change of Liancourt Rocks. They said about a lot of admins, some of which is against Japanese side such as User:Nihonjoe. --Appletrees (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Appletrees is abusing the system

At Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/2008FromKawasaki, Appletrees (talk · contribs) added myself (Nanshu) and others to the list of checkuser.[182] I've asked him/her (actually I asked Thatcher), and it's now clear that his/her excuse[183] doesn't bear the criteria of checkuser. Endroit and others are the victim of Appletrees' abuse of the system.

That checkuser has been processed by a couple of people. And they even use personal communication [184][185]. I think we need third opinions. Thanks in advance. --Nanshu (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if you are not a sock/meat, but I thought you were because your history of biased edits on korean articles[186][187][188], your stalking me[189][190][191],[192] and your knowledge of 2channel. You strongly urged the admin, LordAmeth to forget about the meatpuppetry from 2channel and not to believe Korean editors. And you said the same story of what 2channel editors plan to accuse me at ANI. Please see the table.

Excerpt from 2channel 英語版Wikipediaでの朝鮮人工作を監視せよ　part1[193]

449 ：マンセー名無しさん：2008/02/09(土) 03:03:23 ID:2PVW7dwd 相変わらず訳の解らん垢が沸いてるなあ。('A`) >>441 ﾊﾟｰｿﾅﾙｱﾀｯｸというよりは、ｹﾞｰﾐﾝｸﾞ･ｻﾞ･ｼｽﾃﾑに見えるけどね。 >>443 依頼系の乱用なんで、ｱｰﾋﾞﾄﾚｰｼｮﾝなんだが…はてさて。 490 ：マンセー名無しさん：2008/02/14(木) 00:34:44 ID:VknGi0g7 さうすこりあであっぷると合戦してる人、頭にくるだろうけどともかく人形 作りだけは止めろよ。編集の内容はあっぷるのリバートはソースあり記述の 削除、Factタグの削除、であんたの編集の方が正しいのは一目瞭然なんだからさ。 だけど、ソック作ってリバート合戦したら絶対にあんたが一方的に悪者にされるよ。 532 ：マンセー名無しさん：2008/02/27(水) 04:46:52 ID:qBcGh3Mo 今度はさんじゅすとにCU出してる。 円泥さんといい、おっぷといい、CUの乱発になると思うんだけど この辺って常連から見てどうよ？ 罰則とかってないの？ 555 ：マンセー名無しさん：2008/02/29(金) 00:37:25 ID:lyEmtCBi 確かに最近のCUはレターコードのどれにも該当してないのに CUされてるなあ。 556 ：マンセー名無しさん：2008/02/29(金) 00:56:15 ID:7o+C4DiI >>555 それはひどいね。管理人お知らせボードでりんごの行為をまとめて議論した方がいいのでは。 558 ：マンセー名無しさん：2008/02/29(金) 10:39:42 ID:H/sTmUhZ cuのリクの濫用ってどこに投げればいいの？ checkuserの人じゃなくて。 563 ：マンセー名無しさん：2008/02/29(金) 23:22:14 ID:7o+C4DiI >>558 アドミンのーてぃ酢ボードでしょ。 566 ：マンセー名無しさん：2008/03/01(土) 09:58:08 ID:wuGmOPRW >>563 投げてみた。計画なく動いてるんで この先どうするか考えてない。

I also welcome 3rd opinion, or more admins watching articles like Sea of Japan, Liancourt Rocks, South Korea, Koreans in Japan, Asuka period and so forth that were discussed on 2chan and edited by socks. --Appletrees (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

p.s You said I unreasonably included Mochi (talk · contribs) in my RFCU file[194], but here is an evidence that Mochi is a 2channel meatpuppet and stalker.[195]

Original texts	Translation
473 ：米製品：2008/02/09(土) 13:52:10 ID:WJ8ywzm6 >>472 あの人は突込みどころ満載で面白いんだよ。 ストーカー呼ばわりされてるけど、「だってお前間違い多いじゃん」と開き直ることにした。 韓国国宝の話題について朝鮮日報（日本語記事）をソースにしておいたら、「韓国語版や英語版記事がなくて、日本語版だけなら日本人が書いたかもしれない。そもそも朝鮮日報は俺らみたいな若者は読まない産経みたいな新聞だから、ダメー」と無茶な主張を繰り広げたときはどうかと思ったけどｗ
473 : Rice product He is very aggressive but looks funny Although I am considered as a stalker from him, I decided to keep a straight face as saying "You wrote a lot of wrong info".

How do you think, Nanshu?--Appletrees (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia. Posting on public pages in other languages is rude. Corvus cornix_talk 03:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for posting the original Japanese sentences with translation but I didn't have much time to translate them and Nanshu and several Japanese editors said about my poor translation ability. I will translate it as soon as I can. --Appletrees (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

In the aforementioned checkuser report, Appletrees gave a false statement suggesting that I was involved in editing the Hoe (dish) article using these diffs (in a completely unrelated article).[196] Since that particular request was unanswered, Appletrees did another report, which looked like yet another fishing expedition. Who knows whatever other bogus accusations he's got cooked up.

To be fair, I believe that there are signs of sockpuppetry on BOTH sides, reminiscent of the old Appleby vs. Kamosuke rivalry from 2006.

Appletrees (talk · contribs), though, has a buddy system of his own, cooperating with the POV-pushing IP range 75.6.x.x thru 75.7.x.x. When I posted a {{3RR}} warning for 75.7.8.176 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [197], Appletrees was quick to remove it.[198] (If any admin is interested, I can provide further proof of disruptive revert-warring (including a few recent ones) by the IP ranges 75.6.x.x thru 75.7.x.x.)--Endroit (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Endroit (talk · contribs), make RFCU file on me as many as you want because I have nothing to hide. :D I joined in Korean Wikipedia first which 2channel people already catch and mentioned at 2channel. Could you guys explain why you try to covering 2channel? Not both side, just Japanese side. You must not mislead the thread again. --Appletrees, Endroit, watch your language. The result is likely from evidences I've provided. If the case is fishing, checkusers might've declined. As for fishing expedition, you have such experiences[199] You proved that you filed several bogus files on Korean editors like these as well. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lions3639 during the poll of changing name of Dokdo and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Odst. You must speak of truth. --Appletrees (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The part of that checkuser report including Endroit and other users was archived without a decision, not "likely" like you say. Who's not telling the truth here?--Endroit (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You're so persistent to move my edit down. You obviously lied as switching Saintjus't case above with the case of From2008Kawaseki who was banned regardless of RFCU.

Appletrees did another report, which looked like yet another fishing expedition. Who knows whatever other bogus accusations he's got cooked up.

You just prove that you're fabricating your own comment. Besides, filing the case again was warranted per admin, Spebi.--Appletrees (talk)04:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Appletrees missed the crux of my statement:

• In the aforementioned checkuser report, Appletrees gave a false statement suggesting that I was involved in editing the Hoe (dish) article using these diffs (in a completely unrelated article).[200]

--Endroit (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Endroit, you keep lying. When did I say you make edit wars on Gaijin? I said to Thatcher that dion user did so on the article at Saintjust's RFCU case.[201] I also surely said, the latter who is Nanshu editing Hoe (dish, not you. Please don't make further untruth. --Appletrees (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Appletrees Please have some Ocha Igor Berger (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If the Hoe (dish) edits are unrelated like Appletrees now seems to be saying, there was no evidence submitted in this checkuser report showing any suspicion of sockpuppetry between myself and the other editors. In other words, that part of his report was bogus.--Endroit (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You're very poor at fabricating information to turn attention from 2channel Japanese sock/meatpuppetry for a long time. (over 4 years). You must tell me why you intentionally lied about the aformentioned links and my comments? The hoe diffs are to say about how Nanshu edited in contrary to his urge to LordAmeth. The result on FromKawaseki is not satisfying because they're too many meatpuppets going on and I already prove my speculation on Japanese sock/meat puppetries with several RFCU. So don't lie anymore. Your bogus RFCU file on me is really bogus. --Appletrees (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Appletrees' inclusion of myself in his RFCU was done with ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE, hence bogus.

My inclusion of Appletrees in my RFCU was valid, at least under criteria E for revert-warring:

• In Kofun period (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):
  • 1st revert: 05:06, 8 January 2008 (Ecthelion83)
  • 2nd revert: 22:13, 8 January 2008 (Appletrees)
  • 3rd revert: 22:20, 8 January 2008 (Appletrees)
  • 4th revert: 22:36, 8 January 2008 (Ecthelion83)
  • 5th revert: 00:51, 9 January 2008 (Ecthelion83)
  • Version being reverted to: 22:19, 7 January 2008 (Appletrees)

--Endroit (talk) 06:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I was listed on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Amazonfire by Appletrees. Appletrees insisted the evidence were in So Far from the Bamboo Grove, Kofun period and An Jung-geun. I wrote in Talk:So Far from the Bamboo Grove one year ago, but did not touch the other articles. What is evidence ? Before the Requests for checkuser, I and Appletrees were having conflicts at several places. That's why I was listed, I'm sure. I agree "Appletrees is abusing the system". The first conflict was at Talk:Lee Myung-bak#Lee Myun-bak is Zainichi, or not?, User talk:Appletrees/Archive 1#朝鮮人, and User talk:Mochi#Ilbonnom in September 2007 about what Korean people were/are called in Japan. I thought he/she is a Koeran point of view pusher. I got interested in his/her behaviour and keep checking since then... Everybody has a black list in Wikipedia in his mind, doesn't he?--Mochi (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have another comment. Appletrees's account in other projects are Applebee(Japanese Wikipedia), Applebee(Korean Wikipedia), and Applebee(commons). The name Appletrees resembles Appleby, a blocked user. Interests of both are similar. So I also suspect they are same person, though Appletrees is denying.--Mochi (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

As I posted your comment at 2channel, you left that you're stalking me to do meatpuppetry. According to the 2channel, you and 2channel members share a black list on Korean editors, monitored them and access to IRC to discuss English Wikipedia. So don't make a bogus allegation on me. As I said to Kusunose or you earlier, I included you in the file because you begun suddenly wikistalking me ever since our last encounter at our talk page. I thought you connected to Amazonfire or Kusunose. Not for the listed articles. You hit knock the wrong door. Can you tell me why you did not comment about your activities at 2channel? --Appletrees (talk) 05:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Do I have to explain my activity outside Wikipedia? Actually, I participate in the 2ch forum. There are many forums about wikipedia in 2ch. If I get interested in the topic of the forum, I get involved. If I'm not interested in or do not know well, I ignore it. I write in Wikipedia with my sense, not others'. So calling me meatpuppet is nonsense. 2ch is an open anonymous forum, so I'm not surprised if you are also participated in because you seem to understand Japanese. I'm not sure who is Amazonfire or Kusunose in 2ch because of anonymity, and even uncertain they participated in 2ch. In 2ch, showy person becomes a topic, and you are such a person. I think talking about Wikipedia, and Wikipedians outside Wikipedia is no problem. I don't discuss with IRC, email or other messengers. I don't know other people doing or not. Are you doing such communication with somebody?--Mochi (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I already past the absurd allegation filed by Enroit, and please make a file on me if you need so. :D The RFCU file on you is inconclusive because of my lengthy file and Baru (talk · contribs) begun to chase me just like you. --Appletrees (talk) 05:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment on this whole affair: This is evidently a sad case. I am quite convinced that Appletrees is on to something here, the meatpuppeting threads evidently exist and document a pattern of serious abuse from some Japanese editors. I would definitely want to see us getting rid of half a dozen editors as a result of this. But in all these reams and reams of discussion, documentation and accusations, I have yet to see a single actionable bit of concrete information that would implicate identifiable individuals. Previously, Appletrees was flooding RFCU and SSP with sockpuppet reports until he was told off for disruption, each time accusing a different subset of Japanese editors of socking; each time the sparse but very real indicators of actual socking were hidden under heaps of vacuous accusations. Appletrees, I know this is a difficult situation for you and you have been up against a very demanding and important task, but you definitely need to get better at presenting your stuff in a brief, matter-of-fact way, or you're only shooting yourself in the foot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of User:Miamiboyzinhere

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

The user above has behaved in a most unseemly manner over the past few weeks, and it is my belief that the time has come to discuss the manner of a potential community ban. Here is a rough chronology of events:

• • Against consensus, and without discussion, he began to edit numerous articles relating to Orlando, Florida area attractions, changing the location of said attractions from "Near Orlando" or "In the Orlando Area" to the specific municipality, and often in doing so cleansing the name "Orlando" from the article entirely. While technically correct, it has been determined by consensus of other editors that the specific municipality name is less helpful to the reader than the term "near Orlando". Even compromises, such as including the specific name of the municipality alongside "near Orlando" have been attempted, but he continuously ignores even such compromises and pushes his version of the articles to the point of WP:OWNership.
  • He was blocked for disruption 1 week ago, and rather than ride out the block, he began to edit via rapidly changing IP address, creating a nightmarish situation for admins, as first a "Whack-a-mole" series of blocks chased him around for several days, and ultimately resulting in the mass semi-protection of all of the relevent articles (see two prior threads at ANI above). Some of these sock-IPs and atleast one suspected sockpuppet account, can be found at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Miamiboyzinhere and at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Miamiboyzinhere.
  • Immediately upon release of his block, he resumed the same problematic edits as the first blocks, and engaged in harassment of another user, but continuously refusing to allow that user to archive their talk page as they saw fit. He reverted that users talk page 18 times (18RR anyone) in less than 20 minutes, leading to his most recent block, a 2 week block.

Based upon these behaviors, I propose a partial community ban upon the editing of User:Miamiboyzinhere subject to the following terms.

1. Upon release of his block, User:Miamiboyzinhere is banned from editing any articles related to Orlando, Florida or any of the amusement parks or attractions from that area.
2. Upon release of his block, User:Miamiboyzinhere is banned from reverting any talk page of any other user
3. User:Miamiboyzinhere is restricted to using a single account to edit

How does this sound to everyone? Yeah or nea? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've seen him misbehaving in my patrol, and if his behavior is typical, then yes, a ban would be best. JuJube (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed, the same with Jubube. I have seen this user popup during patrols..though I am never fast enough to get him. His behavior has shown he deserves a ban.I am hoping that non-admin have a voice here. Rgoodermote  01:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Non-admin here. Sounds good to me; I've yet to see much evidence that this person plans to make any meaningful contributions or will respect the community. I just wonder what admin tools will prevent future edits from new IP addresses. &#151;Whoville (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• I would definitely support this ban as detailed above. This user is just causing too much trouble. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - seems reasonable. This user is just being too disruptive. Tiptoety ^talk 01:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Off topic, but pertains to user..some one needs to confirm what I am seeing take a look at the suspected socks of the user here, then look at the Ws. Rgoodermote  02:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The double-yous? I don't follow? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The user is suspected of using WP:ANI as a sockpuppet. It was removed. Rgoodermote  02:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I seen the IP's during patrol. And Disney World Resort in Orlando category was changed from amusement parks in Orlando to amusement parks Florida. This is eventhough the offial Websites states Orlando in its title. This user definetly has something against Orlando. Igor Berger (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Za'atar

There seems to be some disagreement over whether or not the article Za'atar should retain referenced information concerning Israel. A few days prior an edit war broke out over similar Israel/Jewish references in the article Hummus and since that died down, its moved over to Za'atar. I'm not real sure how to proceed on this, I did leave a notice on one of the editor's TALK pages as well as a pose the question asking for input on Za'atar's TALK page. -- Nsaum75 (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrestling and Olympic Games

Resolved

 – Semi-pp

I think that these two articles need to be semi-protected. For a long time, day after day all they get is vandalism. --David Broadfoot (talk) 02:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Magnets for the less mature editor. Both semi-pp for a month. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha... "less mature" is such a nice way of putting it. And you've chosen April Fool's Day for them to start back in! --David Broadfoot (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice the date. I'll get me coat... --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Amazing cow

Resolved

 – indef blocked --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Amazing cow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to add an admin userbox to their User page. They've already been blocked for 24 hours for vandalism and their Talk page protected due to repeated disruption there. The User page needs to be protected, or the User indef. blocked. Corvus cornix_talk 04:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I indefed them before you even posted this... But thanks for your alertness and diligence! Keep it up! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sneaky vandal "Jerk, Beefy!"

"Jerk, Beefy!" is the very reason that the "sneaky vandalism" definition is included in WP:VANDAL. Some examples:

• Keratoconus - added suggestion that obese people are more likely to be afflicted with keratoconus, citing article that does not contain any such statement.
• Flowers for Algernon‎ - using an edit summary of "removed duplications", one duplicated statement was removed along with another, not duplicated statement. A possible error, but acknowledged as deliberate in this diatribe.
• Crepuscular & Julian Barnes - repeatedly added "Crepuscular is the favourite word of novellist Julian Barnes". Also in Julian Barnes, added unsourced assertion that a novel was being simutaneaously published in Romanian, giving Bulgarian name of novel.
• Cal Henderson - repeated addition of assertion that Cal Henderson is colourblind, with reference to a web page related to colour vision, but containing no indication that Henderson is colourblind.
• Max Miller - unbelievable assertion that "For ceremonial occasions, Miller's [statue's] outstretched hand is adorned by a large boxing glove", with invalid (page not found) reference.
• Rachel Robinson - asserts that "Author Judy Blume name-checks Rachel in her book Here's to You, Rachel Robinson", which is a book about a fictional teenage character named Rachel Robinson. Interestingly, the assertion in the Rachel Robinson article that it is actually about the real life Rachel Robinson was added by blocked user HappyUser (sockpuppet of blocked user Kitia), who seems to share "Jerk, Beefy!"'s interest in Judy Blume articles.
• Dark Star (brewery) - addition of list of beers, including "Beefy Bitter", which is not listed on the Dark Star site. This was also added to the Evening Star (pub) article with the claim that it won an award for best ale.
• Teletext - some plain old vandalism here
• Don Black (white nationalist) - slightly cleverer vandalism here, added category "Black People"
• for added fun, see Chris Parkinson a complete nonsense article, to which "Jerk, Beefy!" contributed the image. Note the overlap of articles edited by other contributors to Chris Parkinson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delicious carbuncle (talk • contribs) 05:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Concerning the last item, why don't you AfD it if it's nonsense? JuJube (talk) 07:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe the user needs some guidence from a more experienced editors on what is Wikipedia and how do we edit it. S/he should try to get input from others before actually making an edit to build up confidence of what should be added and what should not be. Igor Berger (talk) 07:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)