Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive430

User:Korax1214 moving pages related to Black communities around the world

Resolved

 – User blocked indefinitely

Can somebody take a look at the recent contributions of a user (who seemed to have been retired but has just become active again tonight), who started moving pages related to Black communities around the world, namely User:Korax1214? The reason I'm asking is that the moves are quite similar to the moves performed by User:CanuckAnthropologist prior to his being blocked (for tendentious editing) yesterday, so there is always the possibility of a sockpuppet at work. A second opinion would be most welcome. Thanks!--Ramdrake (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It certainly appears to be the case, although I would like further input from other editors before sanctioning either or both accounts. I have removed the {{inactive}} templates from the accounts user and talk pages, for the sake of clarity. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it likely they are the same person (for instance compare [1] and [2] for consistent attempts to move articles beginning with "Afro-") and as such have blocked the account indefinitely. Trebor (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem user - 3rr, own, vandalism, copyvio

Ertert12345 (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email) is being difficult at the Oakamoor page. He/she claims ownership (multi-diff at my talk page and Alanmaher's talk page); is adding nonsensical information (several, but typically like this); has broken the three-revert rule (five edits in the last 30-odd hours); and has replaced the page with a copyyvio from about Britain. Anything I say just seems to wind him/her up. Could a third party have a look? Mr Stephen (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Stephen is claiming ownership of the Oakamoor page and vandalizing the site. As anyone can see who actually lives in Oakamoor, the information at the Oakamoor entry is correct. It is provided by the AboutBritain.com website under its Oakamoor entry. I submit that if Mr. Stephen continues to vandalize this entry that his access to wikipedia should be questioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ertert12345 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted back to June 4. Wikpedia is not a travel brochure. Additions such as "Nature lovers will enjoy a trip up Cotton Dell", are entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia article.--Atlan (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What is the copyright policy/attitude about copy-and-paste from UK government sites? Ertert has copy and pasted material from this site. Kosher or no? --EEMIV (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that he should be blocked for a week, with a warning that of this behavior continues after the block has expired, then he/she will be blocked perminantly. Chafford (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

To EEMIV: The page has "© Copyright Staffordshire County Council 2008" on the bottom. So no, it's not kosher to copy/paste from there. To Chafford: A block would be punitive now, not preventative. He has stopped inserting travel brochure-like info into the article after I notified him of Wikipedia policy against it.--Atlan (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Appletrees

Resolved

Both parties have been reminded to solve content disputes through dispute resolution. Participants are advised to continue resolving their dispute civilly elsewhere. No further administrator intervention seems necessary at this immediate point. Admins who disagree are more than welcome to re-open the discussion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

He clearly used wiki sistem to check me as he said, the other use of improvement of the account. Is it a gaming, isn't it? [[3]][[4]]. I wish I knew what I should do in this case. I think this is clealy destructive. Please response to him some. Jazz81089 (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what's going on, this isn't a very clear report, but is User:Appletrees implying User:EdJohnston has written or endorses the edit summary in the first diff?--Atlan (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I wrote same content before the User:EdJohnston's statement. But Appletree isn't comprehending of temporal correlation. By the way I put in question Appltrees conduct to use wiki system to check me. I don't want to reply his destructive plot as he wants. Wiki isn't Appletree's toy. Jazz81089 (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have notified Appletrees of this conversation. Perhaps he can help clarify this situation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I’m not sure what the complaint is, either, but it may have something to do with this accusation of sockpuppetry. —Travis^talk 17:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, FYI: I finally figured out where EdJohnston fits into all of this. —Travis^talk 17:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I already wrote same what EdJohnston wrote before he wrote, as I already write in my talk page [[5]]. I think that finally conclusion is the same as yours, EdJohnston's and mine about this item. What I put in question is Appltrees conduct to use wiki system to check me. He reverted the item only to check my opinion without no other reason[[6]][[7]]. Isn't it destructive? Appletrees conduct is too hostile attitude to wikipedia community and the wikipedia as a dictionary. Jazz81089 (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not the IP's, and not a suckppetry, as you would be ascertainable. So I would wait your testification. And CU Request was declined. But He will cleary repeat of the same act as he wrote below. I can tolerable of CU again, but I can't do that Appletree use the highly public wikipedia dictionary to check someone as he wants. It's wretched stupidity. Jazz81089 (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's wretched stupidity.? You made the clear personal attack to me at this public place. Surely, admin would not condone such the violation on WP:NPA by you. Of course, this is a Wikipedia, and you do not regard any WP:DR methods unlike me. You just repeat your insistence and you POV to the series of the articles in order to take out all Korean mention from articles that you care. --Appletrees (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Jazz81089, stay civil. Appletrees, please also try to assume good faith. The check-user request was not declined; it was problematic for technical reasons. I'm not quite sure what you're objecting to here, Jazz, as you indicate that you can tolerate "CU" but not "the highly public wikipedia dictionary to check someone". Appletrees has no access to any technical tools to check anyone; he can request it of an editor who has been trusted to discretely handle that function if it seems appropriate. I agree that it was improper for Appletrees to edit the article as he did after the block. I suggest you both pursue dispute resolution and edit war no more to avoid lengthier blocks or the full protection of the article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I do not understand that why his highly inappropriate personal attack is just mildly treated. The article was originally written as "Korean-manhwa comics", so his preferred version is a wrong version against previous consensus for long time. I've tried to have a good faith in the anon/Jazz even though I watched their/his continued vandalism on manhwa and others. I've done and waited him to response to the normal dispute resolutions but what he has done? Nothing except this.--Appletrees (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In the first place, I am not the IP's and sockpuppets, so it is no problem to me to CU more and more. I only want to stop to use the wikipedia system not to use to make a good dictionary but for other aim. With conducts like Appletrees, no one want to edit with the following the beat of his own drum to make the wiki as a good dictionary, and with the conducts the dictionary will be a mixed with what isn't a dictionary. It is cleary destuructive to the wikipedia commnunity. Jazz81089 (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're saying even though I'm writing broken Engrish. no one want to edit with the following the beat of his own drum to make the wiki as a good dictionary, and with the conducts the dictionary will be a mixed with what isn't a dictionary.????????? Just like your contribution history, you have nothing but edit warring anywhere with your 9 edit before you decided to return the article so deftly after your 8 month break. The sudden appearance of yours does not add up at all. I've been writing articles with reliable sources and produced many NPOV articles unlike your disruptive behaviors. I wrote over 400 articles with 7 DYKs. You have been here for 3 years, so that requires NPOV and writing ability with reliable sources. Tell me or show me what contribution has you done to English Wikiepdia? Your disruption does not give Wikipeida to develop furthure. Have you ever participated in my suggestion to resolve the issue? --Appletrees (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible disruptive sockpuppetry of Jazz81089 (talk · contribs)

• Manhwa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Blade of the Phantom_Master (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The comment at the edit summary is from admin User:EdJohnston at WP:AN3, not from me. Due to the limited space, I paste the partial of his comment not altering anything at all. Several days ago, a Japanese OCN ISP anon user vandalized manhwa several times[8][9][10], which has been a tendentious target by Japanese anons/ or banned Azukimonaka (talk · contribs).[11][12][13][14][15] They(?) with the same ISP anon(s) altered the lead section on manhwa, and tried it to look like a copycat of Japanese manga, with no source.[16]Jan.23.2008[17] That kind of disruption has been continued for over months or over a year by the same ISP user.[18][19] Due to the OCN anon, I checked out his/her contribution. He blanked the manhwa mention and nationality of Korean creators of Blade of the Phantom Master as well. As I restored it to the previous one from his blanking and recalled that a mention of Korean-manhwa comic in the lead section was completely removed by the same ISP user and Azukimoanak since the June of the last year. Whenever the info was restored by other editors, the same anon editor blanked the info over and over. Not surprisingly, Azukimonaka (talk · contribs) started the the campaign.

Regardless of my several warnings or suggestions him/her to participate in an open discussion[20] or their talk page, the anon did not care about the common WP:DR methods. I have not claim to remove Japaense anime/manga category or only include manhwa, but presented a compromised version like a cartoon and an animation series created by Korean manhwa artists......specializing first as Japanese manga published by Japanese magazine..... I think the description both contains mention of their job as manwha artists and and its first publication as manga written in Japanese. In addition, the work was later published in South Korea, of course in Korean. However, the anon/Jazz insists removing all Korean nationality and manwha and it should be purely Japnese manga, because it was directed by a Japanese magazine and published in Japanese. However, the work style and original draft written in Korean have nothing to do with manga style unlike his claim. Their fame already has established in South Korea and first introduced their works to the US and Europe. And the anon(s) (or one person) have been blanked the info to look the work like only manga work by Japanese creators.

So I also filed WP:RFC to get more opinions from third persons[21], but he did not seem to participate in any of them. and then, Jazz81089 (talk · contribs) suddenly appeared to do the same thing as the anon's after his long break; 8 months! So I went to WP:AIV, and heard that I should file either WP:ANI or WP:SSP. The total edit number of the new contender counted only 9 in 3 years before his reappearance to Wikipedia. To me, he is too obviously using a sockpettry just like Azukimonaka did. Anyways, two admins semi-protected the three pages[22] due to the anon's disruption. The former's edits are all overlapped with Azukimonaka's and shares with the writing style too. So I filed a WP:RFCU on him[23], however, due to his edit number in total is insufficient to judge the case[24] (once checkuser said to me that at minimum editing 50 times is needed to judge whether editor in question is a sock or not). He or she also did the same thing to other relevant page, which pertains to one of the manhwa creators too. I went to a couple of admins who looked at the case[25], [26][27] and semi-protected or has edited the article in question too[28] for seeking a help. In the meanwhile, the duo/or seemingly one person violated 3RR twice in a row, so I filed this to WP:3RR[29], but my plea was ignored and the obvious sockpuppeting did not be counted.[30] The both was blocked by admin Selket (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for edit warring, [31] although another admin, EdJohnston expressed his concern on Jazz's blanking.[32] I felt very unfair in this situation because the blocking admin did not even a common block sign as a courtesy and I was treated the same regardless of my all effort to resolve the issue. However, I still gave him another opportunity him to express his thought on the dispute.[33] Besides, I left a note to both of the WikiProject Manga and animation project[34] and Korean project[35] (manhwa is managed under the Korean pop culture task force). If he is really not the anon, he has not participated in any of the WP:DR. And now, he absurdly reported it with no logic but seems to believe that the first report here is advantageous for him. I will add the relevant links soon. --Appletrees (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with your attempting to ascertain if Jazz81089 is the same as the IP addresses making changes, given that the changes are identical. The "duck" test makes a connection seem likely. But can you explain what you intended by your edit summary? The text you modified today did not "remove the Korean mention", as those edit summaries would seem to imply, here and here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not remove the Korean mention by myself, but restoring it from his blanking. --Appletrees (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The Korean mention had not been removed. It was still in the text when you edited. Jazz's last edits before the block left the following: "is a Japanese manga series created by a Korean manga writer". Your revision changed it thusly: "is a cartoon and an animation series created by a Korean manhwa writer." In his last edit, the one you reverted today, Jazz did not remove the Korean mention, although he characterized the work as "Japanese manga" by a Korean manga writer, while you characterize it as "cartoon and animation" by a Korean manhwa writer. Jazz had not removed the Korean reference with his last edit, which makes your edit summary a bit misleading (even if you did not intend it so). Also worthy of note, Ed's opinion may well be relevant to reaching consensus on the removal of the mention of Korea, but it does not constitute permission to continue edit warring (please note that Ed also said that he thought the block against you for edit warring was correct). Reverting the article to your preferred version immediately on release from a block for edit warring on the article is not proper. I understand that the question here is whether the work should be characterized as manga (in preference to the publishing place) or manwha (in preference to the writer's culture). This is not so urgent a question that a reversion can be made without process. The thing to do here is neutrally seek additional opinions (you want to avoid canvassing) and reach consensus on the article's talk page, following which the version consensus prefers can be put in place. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My saying is encompassing all the changes by him/them. They are not Korean manga artists as to the artist, but Korean manwha artists because their work of art is not related to Japanese manga or learned its style in or from Japan at all. Comic critics said their work is more like graphic novel and they said as such. Besides, he removed category of manhwa over and over. Besides, after the block, why would I posted to relevant Wikiprojects to get more opinion? However he posted here to accuse me of gameing Wiki rule in a very bad faith. He has not participated in any WP:DR initiated by me. Besides, he made a personal attack against me "wretched stupidity" --18:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The Korean mention remained. What you're talking about is a content dispute. You had no consensus for reverting the article again and should know after having been blocked for edit warring that continued reversion is not the means of handling content dispute. Your posting to Wikiprojects is appreciated and is an appropriate means of gaining consensus (although the language you used is not neutral). I hope it will bring in enough contributors to help the two of you resolve your differences. Meanwhile, let me be clear that blocks do not exist so that you can do your time and then go back to reverting. This can indeed be interpreted as gaming the system and might lead to a further block. His comment about "wretched stupidity" above has no bearing on this at all. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

With all extra due respect, they are no relation with Korean manga artists. Just like there is no Japanese manwha artist unless a Japanese learns the art in South Korea and keeps publishd his/her work in Korea. Besides, does his version have a result from any consensus or discussion with me or others? Not that I know of and your saying sounds like I should bear the too transparent sockpuppetry. If the anon is truely unrelated to Jazz, he should've already appeared with his legimate account. Who else appeared at the page with the same editing pattern? None but Jazz. I do not do gaming the system, but simply restored it to near original version. I don't have any capacity to hold his mockery such as that. Besides, how well would he know me from his previous 9 edits and this edit warring? --Appletrees (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not relevant. Even if the other editor in a dispute content with you is, in your opinion, flatly wrong, you still must resolve dispute through consensus. You may not return to edit warring after a block. Restoring it to the original version is no defense. (Consensus can change.) The administrator who made that comment did not himself choose to revert Jazz's last edit; there's no justification for you to do so on his behalf on the basis of his comment. Meanwhile, as regards your concerns about sock puppetry, the article has been semi-protected; further IP edits to the page will not happen until that expires. You have recourse to the usual steps at WP:SOCK if you believe sock puppetry is an ongoing concern. You've already reached out to others to participate in your content dispute. Handle it through process, not through brute force. At this point, I don't personally believe further administrator intervention here is necessary. You'd both be well advised to go resolve your dispute at the article's talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your spending time and effort to resolve the case although the result is not what I expected. I will look into the policy of (Consensus can change.) to acknowledge it thoroughly. However, I did not report this case here, but Jazz81080 did. If furthur disruption or suspicious sockpuppetry would happen at the talk page of the relevant articles, that would be really necessary of administrative actions to one or both of us, but I hope not. Thanks. --Appletrees (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

←I understand that content disputes can be highly frustrating, particularly when you feel that the right answer is obvious. I've been in that situation myself. I hope that the two of you will be able to come to terms. If you don't get a response from the Wikiprojects and it only involves you two, then perhaps WP:3O would be another place to look. Remember to post your request neutrally. Good luck. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Sick of this user

Resolved

 – Red4tribe to be hit with a stick for this pointless ANI thread, Trip Johnson blocked for being obnoxius. Now go edit the bloody encyclopedia and stop with the drama Nick (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

I'm very sick of this User talk:Trip Johnson.He is very uncivil and I am only one among many editors who he has argued with. See talk:Battle of Harlem Heights for a sample.
Take a look at the lovely name he called me here(end of my paragraph). He has recieved many warnings in the past, but has a tendency to delete everything on his talk page every time he gets a warning. Just look at past versions. [36] Red4tribe (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a school playground, we are trying to build an encyclopedia here, have you tried speaking to him? if so, admin action is required, if not, please go and do so. Chafford (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Tried talking to him!!?? Absolutley! Look at past versions of his talk page! Look at the talk on the battle of harlem heights. Look at this talk:Battle of Barren Hill. He does not listen to me whatsoever. If you would like me to go back and dig up every name he has called me I will. Red4tribe (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

And this talk:Battle of Princeton
talk:Battle of Trenton or even on my own talkpage. Red4tribe (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, my bad! Chafford (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Red4tribe (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Trip Johnson for a period of 24 hours before every reading this thread. But now I must say that it appears you two are bordering on harassment or stalking yourselves and ultimately added flames to the already large fire. Sitting here and talking about how much you hate a user and all the shitty things he has done is in no way constructive and while I stand by my block, I can understand the frustration that Trip Johnson may have been going through. Since he is now blocked I ask you to stay off his talk page and stop trying to pick a fight. Tiptoety ^talk 18:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Trying to pick a fight? I am just tired of him. I asked him to stop and he calls me an "asshole". I just want him to stop making disruptive edits. If he does that, he can go out and edit the world. That was my first post by me on his page in probably a few months anyways. Red4tribe (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"I'm very sick of this User talk:Trip Johnson." could have been better phrased "I am having communication issues with User:Trip Johnson who is continually calling me names and referring to me as a asshole." I guess the whole exchange above: "Tried talking to him!!?? Absolutley!" seems a bit un called for to me. Tiptoety ^talk 19:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Xxhopingtearsxx-- a little too trusting

Resolved

 – Userpage deleted, Tiptoety ^talk 19:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, this user ... has a lot of personal info on his user page. I would not be comfortable with my nephew having that much personal information out on the internet. Should he be gently ensouraged to be a lot more discreet? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 17:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't even think we should say that here. I've edited your comment just in case anyone wants to oversight the preceding versions. Perhaps user should start over with a new account without disclosure to begin with. It's hard to put the genie back in the bottle. Cool Hand Luke 18:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the content per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy, as simply removing the information would still leave it in the page history. I have left a note for the user explaining why the information was deleted and offered to provide them a copy of the deleted material via email for them to alter and place back in their userspace (without the personal info of course). Tiptoety ^talk 18:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks y'all. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 18:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User: Cush - Unapologetic hate speech

I tried to have a reasonable discussion with user Cush about his use of the phrase "Jew Crew," explaining myself in full, but it seems he has no respect for the point of view that Jews should not be universally grouped as nationalist fanatics. See the Jerusalem talk page as well as Cush's talk page. I'm not a fan of the kneejerk approach to blocking, but given his obvious lack of concern over the fact that his language has been interpreted as hate speech, would like to see him blocked until he gets the message. Thanks much to any who get involved in this, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have copied the discussion on his user page, BELOW:

Offensive remarks

Please do not use phrases such as "jew crew" as you did here [37]. It is incredibly offensive, and you can get blocked from Wikipedia for using that kind of terminology. Thank you for your understanding. IronDuke 15:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

How is that offensive? Jews are using it all the time. Cush (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I don't know which Jews you mean who use it "all the time." I can say that I have seen no editors on Wikipedia describe themselves in this way, and given that your post was generally disparaging, your use of that phrase could plausibly be construed as antisemtic. IronDuke 16:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we all know how much wikipedia is ruled by political correctness. It's a shame. But thank nogod we don't live in wikipedia. Cush (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I put this on the Jerusalem talk page, and thought I'd add it here:

Cush, to quote you from above:"That's the common expression on internet fora for followers of Judaism and citizens of Israel who push for certain issues to be seen their way." I'm assuming you mean by 'their way' a Palestinian-disappearing perspective. I should not have to explain to you that "Jew Crew" implies that all Jews share the same perspective or are in cahouts with each other working always towards the same aims coming from the same perspective. How ridiculous can such an implication get? Do you have any idea how different Jews can be from one another? (I, for example, am a follower of Judaism and a citizen of Israel, yet most of my efforts involve re-inserting legitimate Palestinian history and perspective that has been omitted or deleted, to balance out an exclusive Jewish perspective {which leaves us with inaccurate wiki entries}). "Jew Crew" not only suggests that all Jews are the same but points quickly to 'world Jewish conspiracy' theories (which I should not have to mention led to the displacement of the Jewish population of Europe and directly impacted Palestinian national aspirations in turn).

May I refer you to the cartoon on RolandR's page: "Nazis, Palestine don't need you." —Preceding unsigned comment added by LamaLoLeshLa (talk • contribs) 17:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as the shrug: "that's a common expression" - really, don't you think your 'logic' is a bit lacking? I just worked quite hard to 'explain' to administrators that 'Arab Israelis' may be in common usage, but it is not accepted by Palestinians in Israel. Many of the Israelis who were opposed to changing the term used your same 'logic.' (We finally managed to get the category "Arab Israelis" changed, through efforts to conduct a respectful discussion which assumed nothing of people's views based on their baqckground). The 'N-word' was also once in common usage, but this in no way justified public acceptance of the term. You can be dismissive and charge we over-sensitive Jews with political correctness, but don't you think the same charge in reverse (i.e. dismissing Palestinian efforts to change terminology and language on wiki as PC) is equally illegitimate?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Further, in addition to being offensive, you're also implying that everyone who is in support of the original, succinct phrasing is Jewish. Not true. -- tariqabjotu 18:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

WTF do you want from me? There are (Christian) folks who think they hold the monopoly on issues such as god, morals, and Christendom as such. And there are (Jewish) folks who will do everything to control issues such as Judaism, Israel, Palestine, and parts of ancient history. The latter are called the "jew crew" on fora that I have been on and I don't know or care whether that targets all Jews or all Israelis or who may feel offended by that. I did not invent the term nor do or will I give it a second thought. I, for one, am offended by religious fanaticism and nationalism (which both are reasons to present Jerusalem as the undisputed capital of Israel), and by folks who present biblical tales as accurate history (and derive political claims from that). And, does anybody care? Cush (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: I am a Jew offended by racism towards Palestinians. And obviously I'm going to be offended at racism towards myself as well, or what good would I be to anybody. I really could care less about the context of your use of the term, I didn't even read the discussion. There is no justifiable context for such language, towards any group of people on the planet. I was gloing to give you a chance but given your response to my attempt to reason with you respectfully, think I may report this as hate speech, after all. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 02:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC) LamaLoLeshLa

END of discussion thusfar (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I support LamaLoLeshLa's complaint. The editor was approached politely with requests for retraction and was hostile to feedback. Durova^Charge! 06:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What is this really about? I was indicating that those who edit articles to depict Jerusalem as the undisputed capital of Israel (although not internationally recognized) are following a political and/or religious agenda. And I was using a term (without much thought) that targets those who push that agenda at all cost and who edit articles to force their perspective on everybody else. And now I get bashed for it as racist, antisemitic, and whatnot. So really, what is this about? Cush (talk) 07:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What this is really about is your using anti-semitic language. You appear here to be implying that it is about your stance on Jerusalem. Well, if you look at edits of mine such as [38], [39], [40], [41], [42] etc, you'll find that I have been active both in supporting the inclusion of material divergent from the Israeli stance on Jerusalem and in challenging the equation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism. However, I find your stance here offensive. The more you argue against your edit having offended people, the more it looks to me that you really are antisemitic.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In an attempt to put this into perspective, the complaint is about a single use of the disputed terminology in an edit summary. From there, this little anthill of minor incivility (real or perceived) has turned into the huge mountain of a mess we have now. WP:AGF indicates that we should take Cush at his word that he did not intend to be offensive. I have no problem with that and can accept it. At the same time, it should also be assumed that at least one user did find it offensive. The bottom line is that Cush can't really "undo" the edit summary and while an apology from Cush would be nice, there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that requires him to do so. Cush asked "What...do you want from me?" The answer, I believe, is simple: simply refrain from the use of that term in the future. If Cush can agree to that, everyone lives. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 08:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The complaint is about Cush being unapolegitic about this use of language. People did not come straight here but raised it elsewhere. It is only when Cush himself failed to WP:AGF and accused others of having an agenda in complaining about his antisemitic language that I and others have come to this page. Things have gone sufficiently far for your contribution to strike me as naive. There certainly are policies and guidelines that have been violated here.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need to discuss this? The offence is lacerating, and the offender is unapologetic. That Cush should be banned is self-evident. The only question is that of the duration of the suspension. I leave it to administrators, but they should not wait for consensus on matters like flagrant, to use an ugly word characteristic of people who employ this hate-cant, 'Jew baiting'. People who come to I/P articles with that sort of mindset are not wanted and should be blocked, at least remonstratively, until they come forth with a sincere apology.Nishidani (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

As a starting point, I have blocked User:Cush indefinitely, but plan to lift the block after 1 week on three condtions:

1) that the one comment is the extent of the inflammatory comments made

2) clear willingness demonstrated that any like comments will not be made/posted by this user again

3) appropriate conduct during the week off

I am sorry that the user in question normally participates in forums where that type of language is deemed acceptible. . . it is not. If civility is to mean anything, it has to create an environment where people can particpate amicably together to produce an encyclopedia --The comment made by Cush stands directly opposed, or in contradiction, to that idea. Once again, this is a starting point, I will of course go with the consensus here. Thoughts? R. Baley (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)I thought about putting a disclaimer here, but suffice it to say, I have no conflict of interest in this matter.

In other words, you're not Jewish? :-P Not sure that its relevant, but OK! Cush' participation and comments in the Israel/Palestinian conflict subject area makes him subject to the remedies of the IP arbitration case. Sanctions against users in this area should probably be logged here. Avruch^T * ^ER 16:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It really isn't :-) As for the "Log of blocks and bans" area, I'm not sure that this applies, because I wasn't using the remedies from that case. Also, it states there that the remedies are to be enforced after a warning about the sanctions (I didn't see Cush's name on the notification list). In any case I think this block stands on its own. R. Baley (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

An appropriate response. If nothing had been done, it would have become open season for all sorts of misbehavior on I/P articles. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow; this is really an excessive response. As I noted on Cush's talk page, I agree that the statement was offensive and presumptuous, but this comment does not appear to reflect a ongoing trend, insofar as I have seen. He's not apologetic, but he sounds more naive (a la "I've seen this term used on other fora") than truly anti-semitic. Thus, an indefinite block here is just beating him into the ground for something that ultimately was not a big deal, as long as he doesn't continue to use such inappropriate terms. A refusal to provide an apology does not equal a refusal to stop; some people are just unwilling to say "I'm sorry", for a variety of reasons (some more valid than others). So, if he doesn't appear as if he'll continue with the inappropriate remarks, the block is not preventative, but punitive. -- tariqabjotu 18:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Right now, he's only blocked for a week assuming the conditions are met (not a pattern, assurances it won't happen again). This can be lengthened or shortened depending on what happens here. I didn't want to set a definite date in the block, because not enough people have weighed in here, and I thought it better to just change once rather than racking up the block log if consensus should change. Also note that I do not require an apology (not that one wouldn't be helpful). R. Baley (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

First off, I think the way Baley has handled this could be used as a template for similar incidents. Cush has used an extraordinarily offensive phrase, and shown zero remorse/sense that it was wrong, or willingness to abide by policy in the future. I think a no questions asked indef would have been okay as well, but this leaves the door open to the user reforming. And tariq, I have every expectation that this user will exhibit this behavior in the future unless and until he says he won't. IronDuke 19:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's important to point out that the expression "Jew crew", by itself, is not inherently insulting or offensive. It's how it's used that's the problem. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

R. Baley made a good call here. Several editors had already tried to engage Cush in dialog without success. The ball is in Cush's court now: if he makes it clear that he gets it he can come back. Durova^Charge! 19:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

At one point in time, the first hit for Jew on Google was to an anti-Semetic site, and Google defended it, in part, by pointing out that Jew was much more likely to be used by anti-Semites then others, who tend to use the adjective form. So it's inherently more offensive than, say, "the Jewish crew", would be. And phrases like "the Christian crew", "the atheist crew" or "the Jewish crew" would annoy me, and using them in any but the most limited sense would be horribly stereotyping. I think "Jew crew" comes pretty close to inherently offensive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's being used to verbally attack Jews, then it's offensive. I'm just saying that the words themselves are not necessarily offensive. It could even be used affectionately if it was used in the right way. It's not the words, it's how they're used. For a trivial comparison, when Billy Crystal had his spring training at bat for the Yankees, another comic said he was the DH - "Designated Hebrew". Is that offensive? Not the way it was used. I think the comic who said it was also Jewish, and that makes a major difference. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree that R. Baley's response was a good one and closely echoed what I suggested above (even though I was called 'naive' for it). I, personally, wouldn't have gone indef as this was his first "offense" in 2 years. He certainly doesn't show a pattern of this kind of behavior and I think that this may well be an isolated incident. This incident went from him saying it to it coming to ANI in just a few short hours. He could have just been having an off day. Perhaps that's just me being "naive" again, but based on his spotless editting history since 2006, I think that giving him the benefit of the doubt in this case (and a chance to improve) is fully justified. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 00:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to add my agreement with Baley's response - I think that Cush should get the message that 'casual' use of such language followed by a dismissive attitude to people's considerately expressed concern, does not fly on wikipedia....AND that he should have a chance to show that he gets the message/will not go down that road again. Thanks for your involvement, Baley and Durova. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

CONCACAF Champions League 2008-09

I'm having a problem with SuperSonicx1986 (talk · contribs), who has been involved in content disputes and ignored my attempts to discuss the issue on his talk page. In the interest of full disclosure we were both blocked for edit warring about a week ago, though my block was appealed succesfully because it was ruled his unwillingness to discuss the issue justified my reversions of his edits as vandalism, thus the 3rr didn't apply. He has come back again, and it appears that he is attempting to sock his way around the issue by logging out of his account, though he used the exact same edit summary, so I don't see the point. Maybe it's a case of mistaken identity, but all the same please, someone look into this. -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please take a look at this, before an all out edit war begins again? -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Grawp

Some of his sockpuppets have included in their edit summaries links to pages that make your Internet window move around, have pictures of sexual organs, and a voice saying "Hey, everybody! I'm looking at gay porno!" Could someone please take down those sites? Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 07:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course we can't, we neither run the websites or manage the ISP they are connected through. Chafford (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

And to be honest it isn't a terribly good idea to go to a website linked to in an edit summary by a pagemove vandal. We could blacklist the link but I don't think that affects edit summaries. Hut 8.5 09:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, someone was dumb enough to actually visit the sites Grawp links to? LOL. And the prize juggins award for the day goes to... Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, that comment was uncalled for. For anybody reading this thread, remember that Grawp's edits (including edit summaries) include links to a shock site with malware. --Kyoko 17:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I know, I know. Apologies. Just couldn't resist...Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Getting back on topic, it seems to me that it wouldn't be difficult to fix this particular attack vector. Would it not be possible to ensure that hyperlinks in edit summaries aren't clickable? I seem to recall that the clickability was a fairly new feature anyway. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen any of the links hyperlinked. They're just the urls that you copy and paste.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A request has already been filed to expand the blacklist to edit and other summaries - see bugzilla:13599 and bugzilla:13811. I'd suggest commenting and/or voting on those bugs to get the devs to work on it, although it appears that second link is getting some attention. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 01:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

User:White_aasian vandalism

Resolved

Fooling around with McDonald's and Burger King pages. I reported him on WP:AIV. Some pages will need to be fixed, possibly by an admin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 19:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

He's repeatedly removing the warnings against vandalism. At this point, that's the only thing he can edit, so maybe it doesn't matter, although I thought that was against the rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't. Removal of a tag is only further evidence it was read. MickMacNee (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

He can remove what ever he wants from his talk page, as long as it is not a {{unblock}} request while he is still blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 19:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware there's no general rule against removing stuff from one's talk page, beyond etiquette. However, when a user has been indefinitely blocked, the general rule also is that the only thing he should be doing is requesting an unblock. Doesn't much matter, as he's toast. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we care way too much about that. Provided a user isn't making serious personal attacks, I see no need to prevent them ranting on their talk page if they're banned, or deleting stuff, or whatever. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Let him rant, revert any personal attacks, and otherwise leave him be and he'll go away soon. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Zarbon unblock request

Zarbon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Indefinitely blocked user Zarbon was indefinitely blocked in December 2006 and is requesting an unblock. The blocking admin (MrDarcy) no longer edits, so I am bringing it here without prejudice. From the block log, it looks like he may not have intended an indefinite block (he said that the last block was not showing up in the log - if that was a caching or refresh or some such problem and he was referring to Deskana's 3-month block, then it may have been his intention only to block for 3 months). Anyway, Deskana hasn't edited in 2 weeks and MrDarcy has had 2 edits in the last 7 months. So I'm bringing it here without opinion for consideration. --B (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblocking at this time. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser first to find out if he's been socking to evade his block. He WAS indefed for that in the first place, after all... Jtrainor (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Checkuser first. There have been some recent socks floating around Dragon Ball related pages including some vandalism on my user page that has been suspected of being from this user by members of WP:DBZ. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 00:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblocking, indef seems a bit long for a user who violated 3RR (even with socks). Tiptoety ^talk 20:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• I oppose unblocking for the moment. All the above seems fine but this user had a MAJOR problem with revert-warring, and didn't express an understanding of that in the unblock request. I'd like to see him address that at least. Mangojuice^talk 20:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Checkuser shows nothing but him on his self-admitted IP (User talk:72.229.48.178). --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Mangojuice, FYI, please see his latest comment at [43] where he says "I am going to try my best not to edit war". I have no strong opinion either way, although I would quote Master Yoda on this one - "do or do not, there is no try". When you are going to "try" to do something, that means that there may be circumstances beyond your control that would cause you to be unable to do it, but barring that, you will comply with the request. But there's no circumstance that could ever force you to edit war - so there is no "try". I may be reading too much into this, though ... I freely admit that. --B (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Based on [44], I have unblocked him. Feel free to review or whatever. --B (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

More MascotGuy

Back today as User:Technovision, blocked indef, all edits reverted. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> Tiptoety ^talk 03:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

3rr in Afd

Resolved

User:BurpTheBaby has broken the 3rr (by many edits) in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pioneer Conference. I think a notice from an admin would be more helpful than a notice from me. Thanks for your time! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 04:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Frank Anchor has broken this too, please be fair Step. --BurpTheBaby (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Frank Anchor did nothing to violate the rule. He was reverting what he honestly thought was vandalism to the AfD page. And the rule specifically lists reverting vandalism as being exempt from the rule. Ben1283 (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR noticeboard is this a-way Q ^{T C} 04:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I already got my warning without the user putting it on that page. Can you just write him a note please. He's the elder user who should know the rule. --BurpTheBaby (talk) 04:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

>>>>my talk page is over here>>>> Gwen Gale (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The involved editors appear to have resolved this on their own. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory and BLP issues - eyes requested

• Muhammad al-Durrah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Israeli-Palestinian wikiwars have flared up again on the article on Muhammad al-Durrah (and tangentially Charles Enderlin). A number of Internet activists and bloggers have been promoting a conspiracy theory asserting that the latter (a French TV journalist) had faked the death of the former (a Palestinian boy) in a shooting incident in 2000. This has been the subject of a recent French libel trial, one of several libel actions over this matter. The outcome of the trial two weeks ago has led to a number of apparent SPAs (Julia1987 (talk · contribs), Southkept (talk · contribs), Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs)) and some existing editors (Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs), Gilabrand (talk · contribs), Leifern (talk · contribs)) trying to revise the article to make it state that the conspiracy theory is an established fact, or to give the conspiracy theory equal billing with the mainstream viewpoint. However, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources on the case do not mention the conspiracy theory at all, although there is a legitimate and widely documented dispute concerning who fired the fatal shots.

Because of the ongoing libel case - which is not over yet, as it's being appealed - I've been keeping an eye on this article for some time. There are obvious WP:BLP concerns over how to report a conspiracy theory that accuses living high-profile people of professional fraud. There are also major WP:NPOV issues about attempts to present a tiny-minority POV as being just as important (or more so) as the POV expressed by the vast majority of sources. It's pretty much the same kind of issue as we've experienced with 9/11 conspiracy theorists, which led to the outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories.

I've raised the issue at WP:BLPN and WP:FTN and I've tried extensively to explain on the article talk page what's required by [NPOV, BLP and V. However, to put it bluntly the SPAs and conspiracy theory advocates are not listening and are attempting to edit-war their view into the article. There is some very blatant soapboxing going on (see e.g. [45]). This is despite the fact that the article is under arbitration sanctions per WP:ARBPIA#Remedies - I've notified the editors involved of the sanctions but it doesn't seem to have made any difference to their conduct.

Moreschi (talk · contribs) has commented on the matter on the FTN (see [46]) and has requested more eyes to review the article. It would be helpful if some uninvolved admin(s) could take a look and advise on what can be done to resolve this matter before it ends up in arbitration enforcement. (Perhaps it should go there anyway?) -- ChrisO (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I’d welcome some new, uninvolved editors’ eyes on this. Just to set the record straight, though, it would help if those joining the discussion note that the statement currently in dispute (“reportedly been killed”) has been the consensus version in this article for over two years, and that contrary to User:ChrisO’s one sided presentation above, it is actually ChrisO and friends (User:Tarc; User:Nickhh; User:CJCUrrie) who are trying to change this long standing consensus, and replace it with a new statement introduced just 5 days ago with this edit, after they had agreed to the previous wording for a long time.

The overwhelming majority of reliable sources on the case published since the recent French court’s ruling have either labeled the incident a “likely hoax”, or at a minimum, treat the theory that he was killed as being very suspect. ChrisO did indeed notify some participants of the ArbCom sanction – but curiously all those notified happened to be holding a viewpoint different than his, while his fellow editors named above received no such notice, and unsurprisingly, alongside Chris (who has already been reported for violating 3RR on the article), continue to happily edit war over this statement, some of them (User:CJCurrie, User:Moreschi) blindly reverting without bothering to participate at all on the Talk page. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As has been mentioned by ChrisO before, the notification was made only to users not registered/notified at the time of the ArbCom case - and thus to the SPAs. (The SPAs all happen to be on one "side".) This point has been made by ChrisO so many times that at this stage making the above statement is practically sanctionable. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, ChrisO has given that "explanation" several times, but the problem is that it is false. I am one of those who received the notification - but I was registered at the time of the ArbCom. Not only that, but I had already been notified of the case, months before, as was clearly evident to ChrisO becuase it's still on my Talk page. It is also evident that he knew this because when he went to log his notifications, he somehow forgot that he had notified me, and logged only the notification of Tundrabuggy and Julia. Please cut out the nonsense that criticizing a questionable act by ChrisO is itself sanctionable - This is Wikipedia, not Stalinist Russia or Cuba, and we are allowed to question authority without fear of retribution. Canadian Monkey (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

oops! here we go again with the accusation that I am a SPA! Will nobody check out my contributions to see if there is any truth to this before making these accusations over and over again? My reputation at wiki has been damaged by ChrisO's assertion [47] which is being repeated by others who repeat it without personal verification. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Will nobody check out my contributions to see if there is any truth to this...? Okey doke. Let's see: 93 total edits, 45 of them to Muhammad al-Durrah and its talk page, plus 5 to BBC claiming that they're biased against Israel. Knocking off the 17 edits to your own user space, then yeah, it's pretty much a textbook case of single-purpose account and not an "assertion". I'm certainly not seeing what reputation you have that's being "damaged" here. --Calton | Talk 14:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I checked out CM's contention that "reportedly killed" has been consensus for some time, and that's just a fact. Since we are accusing those of us currently editing the page of 'promoting a conspiracy theory', perhaps some of these other users who have argued the point that this is a legitimate controversy and not a conspiracy ought to be notified that their position is now being relegated to 'conspiracy-theory' 911-conspiracy theory dustbin, subject to sanctions: 66.81.115.85 [48], bibigon[49], Humus Sapiens [50], Jayg [51], [52],KazakhPol [53], Slim Virgin[54], Netscott[55], Viriditas [56] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundrabuggy (talk • contribs)

After Tundrabuggy was informed of the sanctions, the user edit warred, and so in my humble opinion, a ban / block could be applied. Stating the blindingly obvious, that doesn't apply to the editors listed above. PhilKnight (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please put up the diffs demonstrating that I initiated an edit war. I argued my point (I have considerably more edits on the talk page than on the article) and was not the one that began edit warring, nor did I try to "finish" it. Please look closely. Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you initiated the edit war. Nor does it matter that you argued your point. You edit warred after being notified of sanctions, and in this context a ban / block could be applied. PhilKnight (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please demonstrate with diffs. The use of the word "reported" had been established through consensus over the years. To suddenly rip it out without consensus is wrong, whether it is done by an admin or not.Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV cannot be superseded by editors' consensus, as WP:NPOV states. If a previous consensus (and I'm doubtful whether this was really a consensus as opposed to going by default) reached a conclusion that violates NPOV, it can't be sustained. In addition, consensus isn't immutable. If a consensus was reached two years ago as you claim, don't you think it's about time it was reviewed? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What you are doing is trying to justify your position by wielding one wiki "policy" after another as a club when others have disagreed with your POV. I certainly do not object to reviewing a consensus but as the WP:BOLD policy states

substantial changes or deletions to the articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or abortion, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view.

The article had carried the word "reported" or "reportedly" for something like 2 years before you apparently changed it. It had been hammered out "after long and arduous negotiations." You have been adamant that you would not accept the previous consensus view under any circumstances, despite the fact that the latest verdict makes the "reported" tag more appropriate today than ever. Your means for achieving consensus was/is to knock off all the users who do not accept your POV, by logging warnings, then shopping for "uninvolved" admins in forums such as this and the WP:FTN who would apply a ban or a block on other users. Basically it is the politics of intimidation, some might call it "bullying." Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If you consider changing the article was 'wrong', then ok, that's your opinion. However, it doesn't justify revert warring. PhilKnight (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here about the use of the word "reportedly." That word has been in the article for a couple of years, as I recall, and it seems to be the most accurate rendering — the boy was reportedly killed (i.e. was reported to have been killed) during the incident. There is actually no evidence that he died: no forensic evidence was offered by either side, and in fact evidence was destroyed, which is why there is a dispute. Having said that, most reliable sources accept that he died, with just a few notable dissenters. That is why "reportedly killed" was felt to be appropriate. It casts less doubt on the killing that "allegedly killed," or "claimed to have been killed," but it also does not imply that the killing is an undisputed fact. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 03:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Reportedly" seems to be the better word choice in this case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"reportedly killed" indeed casts less doubt. Given the new doubts that now emerged does "allegedly killed" seems appropriate ? --Julia1987 (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would say "reportedly killed" is still appropriate. There are indeed new doubts emerging, but it's nevertheless the case that the boy's death was widely reported, and so far as I know, most reliable sources would stick by those reports. I feel "allegedly" signals more skepticism than most reliable sources would say was appropriate. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 04:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As I've said on the article talk page, "reportedly killed" still gives far too much prominence to the conspiracy theory viewpoint. We do not say that the Apollo astronauts "reportedly" landed on the Moon or that the World Trade Center was "reportedly" destroyed by hijacked aircraft, even though there are some prominent skeptics on those issues. I did some research a few months ago to determine the relevant prominence of the POVs on this particular issue, using Lexis-Nexis and other databases, and found that (1) the overwhelming majority (thousands of works) state definitively that al-Durrah is dead; (2) there is no general agreement about who killed him; (3) a small number of articles (a few dozen works) describe a conspiracy theory that he is not dead and attribute it to two particular activists; and (4) a handful of articles (less than 10), mostly op-eds which we cannot use for statements of fact, endorse the conspiracy theory. This is clearly a situation where the undue weight provisions of NPOV apply. As WP:UNDUE says, "Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." The problem we are having is essentially the same as with the 9/11 articles: a number of editors have a strong personal belief in the conspiracy theory and do not accept either that it is a tiny-minority viewpoint among our sources or that policy requires tiny-minority viewpoints to be treated differently from overwhelming-majority POVs. These principles were very recently endorsed by the ArbCom in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Principles. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris, it's a while since I've looked at this page, but my memory is that mainstream newspapers were reporting the doubts that he had died, and were discussing the video where he appears to have moved after the shooting. That he didn't die is still a minority view (so far as I know) but not a tiny-minority one. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 17:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

A Lexis-Nexus search "a few months ago" would have been done before the France Appeals Court saw the available evidence in relation to the hoax theory, and said that it was not libelous to claim that Charles Enderlin & France 2 "knowingly mislead[ed] the watching world about the death of the Palestinian child Muhammad al-Dura in the Gaza Strip in 2000." [57]Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that, given the reliable sources on this issue and their respective prominence, the words "reportedly killed" reflect a fair and neutral compromise. On the one hand, we have some sources (including linked video footage, which I have viewed) telling us that the boy was not killed, and that it was all an act. On the other hand, we have many other sources who tell us he was in fact killed. Overall, it seems to me that there are more sources supporting the "killed" version than the "faked" version, so it makes sense to use the term "reportedly killed", as opposed to "claimed killed" or "allegedly killed" as suggested above. Crum375 (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"More" sources? Try "nearly all". In fact, try "all" really reliable sources, judging by a cursory look. We don't push fringe viewpoints like this, particularly not in the first sentence of articles. Whichever 'consensus' arrived at "reportedly" was absurdly mistaken, or perhaps dated to before WP woke up to the problem summarised in WP:FRINGE. "Reportedly" is precisely the kind of weaseling fringers and truthers like to introduce, and its as unacceptable here as elsewhere. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right, it's exactly the situation envisaged at the start of WP:WEASEL: "Weasel words can imply that a statement is more controversial than it is. For example, saying "some people claim that The Beatles were a popular band" unnecessarily raises a (false) question about the statement's truth." To be fair to the people who arrived at the earlier consensus, they may not have done the kind of detailed research that I recently undertook to determine the relative prominence of the various POVs on this issue. It took some time, required some specialist databases and cost a fair bit (good thing I wasn't paying for it!) so it's understandable that not everyone would be able to do that sort of thing. But having now done it and obtained some firm empirical data which we didn't have before, we need to ensure that the article reflects it. By the way, when Crum says "there are more sources supporting the "killed" version than the "faked" version" he's understating it - the former outnumber the latter by a ratio of at least a hundred to one. The latter is a tiny-minority viewpoint. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Although what really happened there is unclear, the strongest source is the complete and uncensored video footage itself, which appears to show fakery, including in related incidents shot on the same day. The other sources are mostly interpretations of that footage. Crum375 (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely that's original research from a primary source? The fact is that reliable mainstream media sources all count the boy as having been killed. When the media report someone as dead, we have to take that as read. In virtually every case there is of course no "video evidence" of their death. The problem here is that precisely because there is some video evidence in the public domain, people with an agenda have taken it upon themselves to offer the world their own personal interpretation of those images, and to claim there is doubt as to what they show. However no source - even an unreliable one - has provided details of how the supposed hoax was carried out, or located where the boy is now happily carrying on with his life. This really has to stop, it's getting silly now. --Nickhh (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't. The video I saw was primary, but it was accompanied by a POV source making the point while showing the footage. So you could argue the POV issue, but all sources have some POV, and that doesn't rule them out as sources. Also, in this case the footage speaks for itself. Crum375 (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The Australian Rationalist magazine has published an interesting piece on the background to the conspiracy theories - see http://www.rationalist.com.au/archive/78/p38_AR78.pdf . It's worth a read. The bottom line in this case is that some political activists are trying to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for promoting a fringe hypothesis. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a one-page Op-ed, written by a work colleague of now-discredited FT2 freelancer Talal, written before the most recent court verdict. Why we should rely on this dated, partisan opinion piece rather than on current German TV reports calling the incident an "alleged murder" is for ChrisO to explain (unless of course, he succeeds in banning all his opponents as he is threatening to do) Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't advocated relying on it, as you very well know; all I said was it was worth a read. Please stop deliberately misrepresenting what I say; it's getting very tiresome. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Some sources who report doubts about the killing:

• A Reuters story reporting that a court has supported a critic who claims the French tape of the reported killing may have been doctored.
• An International Herald Tribune story reporting the doubts over the tape.
• A Los Angeles Times report (reproduced by Jewish World Review).
• The Esther Shapira documentary, "Three Bullets and a Child: Who Killed the Young Muhammad al-Dura?", shown on ARD television in Germany, which contains the extraordinary interview with the original cameraman who shot the footage, who laughs when asked why no bullets were recovered.
• A Wall Street Journal Europe opinion piece (reproduced by Isranet; scroll down to see it).
• Then there is the original footage itself, which anyone can view, and from which the correspondent/cameraman clearly cut out a scene at the end, where the boy appears to move.

These are just some of the reliable sources who have published doubts about the mainstream view. We have to report those doubts dispassionately. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Come now, SlimVirgin, you're an experienced editor; you know what WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR require. Your first and second sources are neutrally worded reports on the conspiracy theorists, attributing claims to them without endorsing them. Your third, fourth and fifth sources are all opinion pieces, which we cannot use for statements of fact. Your sixth source is a primary source and your comments about it are bordering on original research; it's not our job to analyse grainy videos on partisan websites. ("All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." - WP:NOR). The article does indeed report the conspiracy theories (in rather too much detail, to be honest) but the key point is that any such reporting should be in proportion to the prominence of those views, as WP:UNDUE requires. That means we do not give tiny-minority viewpoints as much attention or weight as overwhelming-majority ones. But you know all of this. Why do I have to repeat this so many times? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote this article a few months ago to make it more neutrally worded, and I think the end result was okay. This is roughly the version I'd stand by. Since then, it's been battered back and forth by both sides, so I don't know what the current issues are. What I do know is that it's a statement of fact that the boy was reported to have been killed, and that several people -- including non-partisan, responsible people, such as the independent French journalists who investigated it -- have disputed the France 2 version of events. Some of them believe the boy is dead, but that he didn't die the way France 2 claimed, and others believe he didn't die at all. Their views have to be included, and the presentation of the views shouldn't serve to undermine them. Having said that, there are also some non-reliable sources claiming the boy's alive. This is why it's a difficult article to work on, because it needs cool heads to evaluate the sources fairly, and the back and forth reverting doesn't help to achieve that. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Difficult or not, the vastly overwhelming number of sources state as fact that he was killed, and saying anything other than that is unacceptable weaseling. SV, you know better than to inject that into articles. We report conspiracy theories, we never give them credence or support through our language. How many articles have been written about 9/11 truthers? How on earth does that mean we do not "undermine" their statements in our presentation? (After all, it is also a statement of fact that "allegedly" Al-Qaeda did 9/11.) We present the mainstream facts, and then the interesting point that a tiny fraction of sources dispute it. We do not say "allegedly" and "reportedly" and "supposedly", which is doing the fringers job for them. Relata refero (disp.) 22:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It's worth also pointing out that we have a standing presumption against using such language as words to avoid, for precisely the reason that you suggest. See WP:WTA#So-called, soi-disant, supposed, alleged, purported. As that page says, such terms "serve the function of casting doubt upon an assertion." -- ChrisO (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• "overwhelming number of sources" - all before the new verdict and all of them based on the single false report by France-2. --Julia1987 (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't second-guess what causes the overwhelming number of reliable sources to form a conclusion, thanks. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

However, we must take into account new information as it appears and this is the crux of the issue now: court have heard expert testimony and ruled. You and ChrisO are as disruptive as people who would still cling to the theory of "flat earth" after a voyage around the globe have been completed.--Julia1987 (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: when there are sufficient reliable sources reporting your novel interpretation of the court decision as fact, we will certainly change the article. May I suggest you find anonther article to improve till that time? --Relata refero (disp.) 07:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This has been repeated time and time and time again, to the point where Julia's actions may be crossing the line into simple disruption. One cannot synthesize one's own opinions into what a source states. There's no wiggle room there. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA known to be pushing this case

Can I draw everyone's attention to the fact that CAMERA, known to be trying to infiltrate Wikipedia, are taking a special interest in this case, with a massive 33 articles devoted to it.

CAMERA's director, Andrea Levin makes their intention clear: "CAMERA has taken some cautious steps into the non-English-speaking arena. One subject of particular interest is the Mohammed Al Dura issue. ... We, like many others, do not consider this a closed chapter. The more so as the journalist who made the report, Charles Enderlin, and his cameraman are still employed by France 2." Under these circumstances, new SPAs should be treated not just with caution, but with suspicion.

It's important to recognise that this article does us no credit in the first place, being written to a one-dimensional "Israel suffers unfair allegations" narrative, when this incident (whether true or false) is much more important than that. It's closely linked to the Second Intifada, particularly to the lynching in Ramallah of two Israeli soldiers 12 days later and the beheading of Daniel Pearl in Pakistan 4 months later. We're even specifically informed of this linkage at the CBS article we're citing 7 times - and yet, this real historical importance has been edit-warred out. (The obverse has happened too, the article on the Ramallah lynching is aggressively patrolled and all mention of Al-Durrah edit-warred out of it). As an Israeli newspaper story reminds us "no other case in which Palestinians ... hit a Palestinian child" and "even if there is some doubt, it is certain that the IDF has killed and is killing children ... [at] a frightening pace". Haaretz continues: "Al-Dura became a symbol because every struggle needs a symbol" - and that's largely what we should be aiming to document. This article was quite severely compromised before these un-labelled SPAs arrived, demanding that a fringe theory be high-lighted and BLP be broken. (I have no problem with documenting the real doubt about the origin of the shots, perhaps we should give this element some prominence and as much as 1/6th of the entire article).

Can we also take note that there have now been several examples of established editors carrying out deliberate cheating, often behaving as if they had complete impunity. In (all?) cases they seem to have been on good (even exceptionally good) terms with other established editors of a "similar" POV. This is another factor we should be worrying about, since it is dangerous indeed. PR^talk 10:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The "CBS News" article you're linking seems to be something else entirely - an outfit called Cybercast News Service, which I've never heard of before. I have no idea whether this is a reliable source or not. If you think it's worth quoting, I'd suggest taking it to the reliable sources noticeboard for verification first. Second, I don't think there's any evidence that CAMERA has been involved with our al-Durrah article, so I wouldn't want to point the finger in that direction without proof. The recent court verdict has been widely reported by conservative bloggers - it wouldn't be a surprise if some of them have linked to our article. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, please take a more conservative approach with potential CAMERA-Wikipedia connections. We also know, for instance, that in early 2007 Microsoft attempted to hire a blogger to edit a Wikipedia article. This does not mean Microsoft attempts to manipulate Wikipedia content at every article that relates to its business. Durova^Charge! 16:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I may be paranoid. But we've now seen a number of really long-standing cheats caught out, and in each case they seem to think they've both got, and should have, impunity (in general, but in particular to sock-puppet abusively). Furthermore, each of the ones I've noticed seem to have been treated in an almost excessively collegiate fashion by editors who, IMHO, are themselves genuine but should definitely have known better. I fear the same thing is happening here, very suspicious behavior is being AGF'd well beyond the point where it's reasonable to do so. PR^talk 18:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There have been many more organizations, including highly partisan ones, pushing the view that the boy was killed, than the view that he wasn't. We don't ignore either view just because one or another side is particularly enthusiastic about it. We just report what the reliable sources have said, on all sides. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just so, in proportion to the prominence of each significant published viewpoint. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris, do you have any significant recent reports that reject the doubts about France 2's footage? My memory of the sources is that the ones supporting France 2 are all very early sources, written around the time of the incident, when almost nothing was known. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't operate like that about extreme minority viewpoints, for good reason. Conspiracy theorists are not engaged by mainstream sources. See WP:PARITY. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but just why is this content issue being discussed in an ephemeral forum like WP:ANI. I move that the whole thread be relocated to the article's talk page. Kelly ^hi! 18:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, there are two important policy issues (interference by outside bodies with a special interest in this particular case and excessive AGF to editors apparently determined to trample policy), along with a general grouse about the content of the article. I have struck through the latter, I agree it doesn't really belong here. PR^talk 20:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I realize that was a rhetorical question, but the answer is that it is here because the administrator who started the section (not this subsection, which is a different issue) thought that this was a more effective place for him to troll for people who would agree with the POV that he is trying to push into the article. 6SJ7 (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm, that would be everyone? This isn't WikiProject Pallywood, you know. Hardly canvassing! --Relata refero (disp.) 22:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Only one person started this section. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

6SJ7's assumption of bad faith is tiresome but predictable. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I’m choosing to write this here instead of on WP:SSP because this is a more difficult case. A couple of weeks ago, there was made a CheckUser request, for which the reason was vote fraud. On no.wikipedia, he has come clean, and the community has decided to give him a second chance, but here he got blocked. Of course he has created another account here, no surprise, User:Alive Would? Sun (confirmed on no:User:Superunknown). What should be done? Should he get another chance here too, or should he be blocked? — H92 (t · c · no) 21:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Since he's evading his block, no. The unblock procedures are well-known and if someone won't follow them, then they can stay blocked. Jtrainor (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If he re-establishes a good record on no.wp after some considerable time, then a proper unblock request here should be given careful attention. DGG (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd second DGG's proposal on this. Orderinchaos 07:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Disruption by User:FreedomByDesign

Disruption by FreedomByDesign (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At the article est and The Forum in popular culture, a WP:GA-rated article:

20 April 2008 - FreedomByDesign (talk · contribs) removes large chunks of highly sourced subsections from this article - [58],[59], [60], [61].

At that time, I had added a note to the article's talk page to initiate discussion with the user [62]. There was never any response. Now, over a month later, the user comes along and removes the material again, and again with no discussion - [63].

This user's actions are disruptive and are putting the WP:GA status of this article at risk with his disruption. I would appreciate it if an administrator could look into this and take appropriate action. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I would have tried to engage the user on their talk page with something other than a templatized warning first. The user appears to be acting in good faith, I think, so engaging in a dialogue is paramount. I understand your frustration that they did not respond on the Talk page, but maybe they just didn't see it.

Let's see what FreedomByDesign does next. I hold out hope that this can be resolved through dialogue alone. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Like I said, it has been over a month since I added a note hoping to have discussion on the article's talk page at that time [64]. Hopefully the user will cease the disruption and engage in discussion, however if not more action may be required. Cirt (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I know, but the editor may not have seen that, especially if he/she doesn't user their Watchlist. It's okay, you didn't do anything wrong, I'm just pointing out that you could have been a little more aggressive in catching the user's attention. No worries though! :D --Jaysweet (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Cirt (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Raul654 and indefinite full protection of 10 global warming related pages

Global warming pages have had a recurring issue for many months now with sockpuppets of a banned user: User:Scibaby. In response to the following two user accounts which are allegedly two more sockpuppets (here and here, whose edits aren't even disruptive), User:Raul654 took the step of fully protecting all pages global warming. He intends for this full protection to last "until we know he's lost interest," which seems to indicate an indefinite duration. This step was taken with no discussion before the fact, and after the fact discussion at global warming talk, which includes several editors, has overwhelmingly opposed this action in favor of continued vigilance against these sockpuppets and potential indefinite semi-protection. The blocking admin refuses to budge, though, so I figure this is the next place to go to get these pages unblocked. Oren0 (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I would support indef. semi-protection, but full protection is excessively too much, unless of course, a full-scale edit war or something of that scale broke out. If Raul654 is refusing to budge, it sounds like he's attempting to create disruption and make a point with this protection. Seeing as he is using admin tools "to his advantage" it could be said, maybe a WP:RFC is warranted here to see if he has abused the tools with this. In any event, I think his protection should be reverted as many people are disagreeing with him. D.M.N. (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite full protection seems excessive. Edison (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Though not necessarily agreeing with this, I can at least understand why Raul made the full protection indefinite as any limited time frame would only likely cause the sockpuppeteer to wait for expiry before resuming their crusade. It's a shame that there isn't some way of only allowing more established users from editing certain articles. Maybe in future some way could be found to allow only those with rollback rights to edit these high vandalism target articles, or would that be to difficult to implement? RMHED (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-semi-protection. I like this idea. Cool Hand Luke 15:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Oren0's description is both biased and factually wrong. The articles in question have been under attack by one determined banned user (Scibaby) since december. I semi-protected the articles several months ago, but that was ineffective at stopping him from editing them using sockpuppets. (He's the most prolific sockpuppeteer on Wikipedia, ever -- he's used 500 of them, and dozens/hundreds of IPs across many ranges. All of which have been blocked). Full protection is the logical next step. And contrary to Oren's description, discussion on the talk page has been mixed - everyone recognizes that this is a problem, and that full protection is the only thing not yet tried. Raul654 (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree that full protection is inappropriate. I assume the articles are pretty heavily watchlisted, semi-protection should do the job just fine. Kelly ^hi! 19:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps you'd care to explain why we should expect semi-protection to start being effective when we've already tried it for two months without success? Raul654 (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"And contrary to Oren's description, discussion on the talk page has been mixed - everyone recognizes that this is a problem, and that full protection is the only thing not yet tried" - At the time I placed my initial notice here, not one editor who had replied endorsed your protection by my interpretation (since then User:Stephan Schulz has). I agree that Scibaby is a problem; I've reverted his edits in the past as well. But I still maintain that this is entirely overkill. Vandalism comes with the territory on Wikipedia and if we're going to have a freely editable encyclopedia this is just something we have to deal with. Nobody is requiring you to monitor and continuously block IP ranges if you don't want to. We can undo the edits and get the users blocked when they become nuisances. And I'm not convinced that even your full protection will stop these socks. Another suspected sock has been editing hockey stick controversy and global climate model today. Do you want to fully protect those too? Where does it end? Oren0 (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's highly unlikely Raul654 wants to keep these pages fully protected for very long. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The way you say that it sounds like Raul654 owns the article. D.M.N. (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess so but I didn't mean to make it sound like that. Core, controversial articles nettled by sockpuppets are tough to handle, hence he's done something bold. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a hard call. There are repeated and annoying socks on these pages and the socks have tried lots of means to waste everyone's time deliberately. I see the alternative to protection would be blocking more aggressively and assuming good faith less when each batch of new accounts with 20 edits comes back and starts vandalising these pages. But that would have more risks in terms of damage to Newbies falsely identified and is more in the face of WP policy, which does accept protection for some things. Page protection isn't that much of a catastrophy on fairly mature pages, although no one wants it. Perhaps it is for the best for a bit? Alternatively don't blame Raul blame Scibaby. --BozMo talk 19:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, what is the reason for assuming all of the "dozens/hundrend" of individual IP's are this scibaby person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirwells (talk • contribs) 19:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't assume anything. Their behavior from account to account is the same (inserting global warming denial propaganda - often using verbatim text and edit summaries), combined with checkuser results. Raul654 (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it's obvious (he likes to insert the same bit about cow flatulence causing global warming on multiple pages). But some of them (like, in my opinion, the latest two linked above) are hard to identify sans the checkuser evidence. Oren0 (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd never heard of Scibaby, but I'd been struck by the similar way of working of the two you mention (as well as 3 others) on the global warming pages recently: small changes to intensifying adverbs, epistemological modifiers or modal verbs, which quite change the sense, marked as m(inor) without further explanation. The last one's preserved on the frozen Global Warming page. I didn't do anything, because i) the changes all got reverted and ii) I didn't know if it mattered that one person was running several accounts, if they weren't supporting each other on talk pages or the like. N p holmes (talk) 09:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My previous comment was overstated: similar way of working of one of the two, compared to 3 others. N p holmes (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

We have had endless socks on these pages. Lets not get hung up on asking Raul about CU evidence - thats pointless. I trust him on that, without question, and urge Oreno not to worry about "alleged" socks. The issue here is what to do about these socks. My opinion is fairly close to what Bozmo said: There are repeated and annoying socks - buts thats all they are. They make minor, trivial, easily reverted POV edits. Global warming will suffer from these forever, whether scibaby exists or not. As soon as they do anything non-trivial, they can be recognised and blocked. Full protection - especially over so wide a range of articles - is overkill. A minor level of trivial vandalism is the price we pay for freedom, and we should be prepared to pay that price. Several of the protected pages weren't even semi before. Please can we have those, at the very least, restored to an editable state William M. Connolley (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Protecting these pages seems a bit overzealous to me. The edits themselves are easily handleable and you are always going to get those kind of edits on a highly emotive topic such as global warming. Sure, we may not have the same powers as Raul here, but there are enough people watching these articles to revert any small POV or whatever by Scibaby and his many socks. Blcoking the IP ranges is fine by me, that's up to those in the know so to speak, but I definitely think these pages should be unprotected if they aren't already. Deamon138 (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But also, the 'regular editors' should watch thier behavior as well. 'Undo's' need to at the very minimum come with a fair reason (preferably one that does not show a double standard.) Otherwise it's no different than what this scibaby is doing. Raul and others should respect that AGW is controversial. I personally have noticed a little vandalism, but not this huge amount being described. Raul should ask himself is this is really not just an attempt at justifying the blocking of others' opinions. This move looks to me like a serious abuse of power. And that's putting it lightly (Trust me, I'm being tolerant here.) I suspect others will see this as pure information control and the articles being protected will lose credibility as a result. --Sirwells (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

We cannot and must not institute systems of full protection on high-visibility articles as a matter of course. LaRouche-related pages is pushing it, these (and Names of China) are absolutely unacceptable places to do so. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of course - it's being done specifically in response to a sustained campaign by a resourceful banned user to disrupt the article. Every other method has been tried, and this is the last one in the cupboard. Raul654 (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said "as a matter of course in articles targetted by resourceful banned users." And as for "last one in the cupboard" - I've checked the article, it looks fine. Are you sure the other processes weren't working? Or were you taking on too much of the load personally? --23:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks fine because I'm spending an inordinate amount of time with checkuser hunting down his socks (an average of about two per day; about one hour per week on my part) and blocking them before they ripen. After 6 months, it's *quite* clear that is not tenable. And when I don't hunt them down (like earlier this week when I was traveling) nobody does anything about them. Raul654 (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Do less, then. Behave like the rest of us when dealing with the resourceful banned users we know something about. When a particular edit that bears their hallmark turns up, check contribs and run rollback, and then apply for (or run) a CU - only if you think you haven't got everything. It works well with Hkelkar, who has a much larger set of target articles than scibaby. You might also want to write a summary of scibaby characteristics on a subpage and spam the link to users with those pages on their watchlist. There are many ways to handle this without abandoning our basic principle, the one on the top of every page. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

When you didn't pre-emptively deal with the socks, what did they do that required protection of the article? There's also a question I've asked down below about where the decision to apply full protection was discussed, if it was. And since when was Checkuser used to find and pre-emptively block socks? There are some Checkusers who, in my opinion, push the boundaries of the Checkuser policy. I think pushing the boundaries of policies can be good, but not a policy like Checkuser. Carcharoth (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at the page histories for the pages in question. You'll see that just about every day, a new Scibaby sockpuppet pops in to vandalize the article. And for every account that he manages to ripen, I block about 5 or 6 more before he can use them. That is *perfectly* acceptable - and in fact, desirable, versus letting him use each of them to vandalize before blocking them. Nor is it pre-emptive, since he's been going after these articles since december, long before I started actively hunting for him with checkuser. More to the point - the usual pattern is that he shows up with one account, and I'll checkuser it to find 5, 10, or even 20 more socks ripening. (So again, not pre-emptive) That's the reason for the protection. It's clear that semi-protection combined with blocking his socks, IPs, and IP ranges has not been suffecient to stop him. And for all the backseat driving on this page, nobody has suggested a solution other than page protection (Relata's suggestion of let-him-vandalize-and-block-him-afterwards is a big step backwards from the status quo pre-protection) No, I did not ask anyone about it beforehand - page protection has always been used to deal with high levels of vandalism (main page FAs not withstanding). Less so since the advent of semi-protection, but that does not obviate the need for full protection in cases like this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raul654 (talk • contribs)

Semi-protection is the solution that has been offered. Even if full protection had been left in place, you would still have had to keeping checking for his sockpuppets, wouldn't you? Carcharoth (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The article were already semiprotected by me months ago. And, I'll say again for perhaps 6th time in this thread (and maybe some people will start to listen) - semi-protection was ineffective. The people "offering" to semi-protect the articles have failed to grasp that. If the full protection goes forward, will I keep checking for him? Yes, if I see him popping up again. Which I don't expect will happen. Raul654 (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and while I'm on the subject - if these articles aren't fully protected, then I will no longer be doing anything to deal with Scibaby. I have better things to do, both on wiki and in real life. All of the people who think it's not a big deal can deal with him themselves. Raul654 (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What people were saying is that semi-protection was working, despite you saying it was ineffective. And I thought your checkuser runs and blocking of the socks was dealing with things? Why is full protection needed on top of that? Are you saying that full protection is being used to discourage Scibaby and make him go away? Finding out how he can produce so many sockpuppets (more than one person?) would get to the root of the problem. The message being sent here is that enough disruption of an article will lead to full protection. Why not try short periods of full protection instead? And I completely fail to see why dealing with Scibaby should be in any way conditional on the full protection. Full protection, checkuser, and ANI discussions are not bargaining chips with which to get the result you want. Carcharoth (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can see how people who haven't actually lifted a finger to deal with this problem could see how it doesn't seem all that bad. Even with the semi-protection, and the unacceptably large amount of time I have spent hunting him with checkuser, he still vandalizes the pages every day or two. Speaking as the person who has spent an inordinate amount of time on this issue, I say the situtation is untenable. And, to be frank, nobody is in a better position to know that than I am.

Are you saying that full protection is being used to discourage Scibaby and make him go away? - Yes. Finding out how he can produce so many sockpuppets (more than one person?) would get to the root of the problem. Be my guest. The message being sent here is that enough disruption of an article will lead to full protection. Yes, that's how both semi and full protection work. Is that supposed to be some kind of surprise? Why not try short periods of full protection instead - That's an acceptable first step. And I completely fail to see why dealing with Scibaby should be in any way conditional on the full protection. Full protection, checkuser, and ANI discussions are not bargaining chips with which to get the result you want. - I will not, under any circumstances, continue to spend the amount of time I have spent dealing with him. And if people want to continue with the semi-protection instead of full protection, then they are choosing to deal with Scibaby on terms unacceptable to me, and I will not be doing anything more to deal with this problem. If they don't value the time I've spent dealing with this problem to consider it sufficient to warrant full protection, then I'm not about to continue throwing in good money after bad - I have better things to do. Raul654 (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Still, this is a big decision to take. Was it just you that took this decision, or did you ask others? Carcharoth (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree absolutely. Full protection should be used sparingly and with caution. Too much protection can end up introducing bias through lack of free editing of the article, and more to the point, discourages people from editing Wikipedia. Admittedly, some article are not good places for newbies to start editing, as they may get bitten or blocked by a grouchy admin trying to "protect" the article and losing sight of the bigger picture. Carcharoth (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that Raul654 has been a vocal opponent of full protection on high-visibility articles. He is the author and main proponent of Wikipedia:Don't protect Main Page featured articles, despite perennial proposals for protection. Though I note that of the ones protected, only Global warming can be considered highly visible (at ~25,000 hits per day). This protection appears to be the result of extraordinary circumstances, not a protectionist leaning. --maclean 00:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the history of some of these articles and we seem to be doing a decent job of keeping the problem under control through use of rollback/undo/etc. I don't think full protection is a helpful measure here unless normal patrol techniques are shown not to be keeping up. Obviously it would be nice not to have to watch articles for this sort of vandalism, but that is the price of working with a wiki; at some point the measures taken to prevent vandalism can become more disruptive to our standard operation than the vandalism itself and I think that may be happening here. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the past 30 days history of edits on the global warming page. There's only 15 counts total of vandalism. That's only 1 every other day. --Sirwells (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not for lack of trying. Raul654 (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

As Maclean notes, Raul is strongly opposed to protecting the main page FAs, despite the utterly torrential vandalism those articles receive, so it's very surprising to me that he is pushing for full-protection here. It seems like something of a contradiction to expect admins (many, many admins) to revert vandalism (constant, horrible vandalism) on the main page FA, but feel that such a solution is inadequate in a case involving only one user who apparently is merely adding POV material ("propaganda")—as opposed to, say, the images of genitalia that often greet those who visit an main page FA. The only way I can make sense of this is to suppose that Scibaby is so vexatious to Raul that Raul has made it a mission to stop him by any means necessary, even though this isn't consistent with his usual philosophy.

If this vandalism is really such a serious problem as the proposed solution would indicate, I'd tentatively suggest instead that Scibaby be granted the right to engage in civil discussion on the article talk pages in exchange for stopping the vandalism. I don't know if he is capable of demonstrating the necessary restraint, but offering him an incentive to stop seems like a better tactic than this. Scibaby could always take his campaign to other articles if we protect these, since apparently he has limitless IPs, and this would mean we'd have to protect everything he decides to attack, ironically putting ourselves at his mercy to a greater extent than we do by having the articles unprotected. Everyking (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I am frustrated by this sock. I mean, look, once again here we are wasting time. We should go harder on those exhibiting the pattern. The good thing about Raul using CU is that he can catch them in bunches, which makes it more costly in terms of time spent to the villain than to the project. The bad thing is that the burden of time spent chasing the villain ends up on Raul. Perhaps if after running the cu other admins helped him with the blocks (Raul could provide a list)? That way we distribute the task of blocking and templating among many users. Brusegadi (talk) 05:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What about more CUs? Has the number of CUs kept up with site growth overall? - Merzbow (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

We currently have 29 Checkusers. As far as I'm aware, logs are kept of every Checkuser action. The current situation is that the Checkusers can see those logs and keep tabs on each other's activities. My impression (and it may only be an impression) is that some Checkusers are more active than others, or to put it another way, two Checkusers that I see frequently popping into discussions to point out socks, or carrying out blocks, in many cases without a suspected sockpuppet or request for checkuser being filed are User:Raul654 and User:Thatcher. I'm not saying that anything untoward is going on, but I do fear that some Checkusers are more willing to use Checkuser than others (off their own bat and without being asked), and that does worry me a bit. I am aware that sometimes checkusers can and do need to be run without a formal request being made, but what I would like to see made available, to provide some sort of public check on this, is the activity of each checkuser. Simply a puiblication of the number of checkuser actions made each month by each checkuser. That would also help answer Merzbow's question about whether some checkusers are overloaded and trying to do too much, while others are mostly inactive (some only need it now and again). I'm going to start a separate discussion at Wikipedia talk:CheckUser and notify Raul and Thatcher on their talk pages to see if they have an opinion on this, and whether either is prepared to say exactly how much Checkuser activity they engage in. Notifying the other 27 en-CheckUsers might be an option, but I'll wait and see what response I get to this first. Carcharoth (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser stuff moved to Wikipedia talk:CheckUser#Activity levels of individual Checkusers. Checkuser stuff should be discussed there or at Raul's talk page. This thread should go back to discussing the protection issues for the Global warming pages. Carcharoth (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I just counted. I've used checkuser 54 times in the last week, and all but 10 of those were on Scibaby. Raul654 (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection for now

I think that in the first place this protection is procedurally defective. Raul is not an uninvolved user. If the request was made to RFPP, it probably would have been rejected due to insufficient activity. 15 vandalisms per month (and most of these articles are vandalized much less frequently) is par for the course in some topics. The protection—implemented by an admin with strident views on the subject—sends an uncouth signal of ownership. Indefinite full protection is a breathtaking response to this problem.

I've scanned this thread, and most of the minority users in favor of it appear likewise involved. Accordingly, I've kicked everything down to semi-protect. Please get an uninvolved admin to reset them, assuming it's really necessary. At this point, you have apparently not made your case. Cool Hand Luke 15:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Your understanding of policy is wrong. Uninvolved admins issue protection during edit wars between established users. Vandalism protection does not have to be done by an uninvolved admin. Ditto for those supporting that protection. Raul654 (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you and Christopher Parham are right; I just saw a lot of reverts done by you. At any rate, there's no understanding of WP:PROT that can support indefinite full protection in this case, and the consensus is against it. Cool Hand Luke 16:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Again your understanding of policy is wrong. In cases where semi-protection is ineffective, we do use full protection. Raul654 (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection was simply not ineffective. The pages appear to be more stable now than in the past. They're well-watched, and there's no known reason to issue such a protection. Only one other case like this has been cited: LaRouche. These articles are not even in the same league as Lyndon LaRouche, where edit wars explode every time full protection falls off. Unilaterally implementing an idiosyncratic reading of policy against fairly clear consensus seems like wikilawyering to me. Cool Hand Luke 20:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's truly amazing to me that people who haven't lifted a finger to deal with this problem are so quick to proclaim that it's not so bad as to warrant protection. Unlike you, I have been dealing with this problem, and I am in a much better position to judge what is and is not effective - and I say the semi-protection has not been effective.

The articles have suffered from vandalism "only" every day or two because I have been spending an unaccetapbly large amount of time blocking his sockpuppets. For everyone account you see vandalize the article, there are 6 or 7 I block before they ripen. I will no longer devoting this kind of time to this problem. (In fact, if they go back to semi-protection, I will no longer spend any time dealing with this problem. As far as I am concerned, the people who dismiss this as a small problem unworthy of protection have volunteered to deal with it). Nor, as you claim, are they well-watched. While I was traveling earlier this week, Scibaby registered a dozen new accounts and made two dozen edits. And not a single person noticed, let alone block him.

As for policy, I'll say again (since you seem to have ignored it the last time I said it) that policy does support full protection where semi-protection doesn't work. In fact - shocking as it might seem - there was a time when semi-protection didn't even exist. We used full protection to deal with vandalism then, too. So your false claims about the protection policy not withstanding, yes, we do use it for vandalism, and we do use full protection where semi-protection is not suffecient. Raul654 (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"Nor, as you claim, are they well-watched. While I was traveling earlier this week, Scibaby registered a dozen new accounts and made two dozen edits. And not a single person noticed, let alone block him." - Assuming you're talking about the two editors you've linked us to previously, those edits were barely disruptive. From the point of view of editors without checkuser, none of them were obviously Scibaby and without already being him none of them were blockable or even really warnable. There's nothing the rest of us could have or should have done given the knowledge we had until he stepped up to more divisive edits, at which time we'd deal with it. Oren0 (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't "ignore" you. My answer was direct. In case you didn't see it: "semi-protection was simply not ineffective." Indeed, in some cases, semi-protection was not even previously tried. I didn't snap to this judgment. I looked through this whole thread and the talk page. Virtually no one agrees with you. I don't edit on this topic, but I can read a talk page.

If users are not making disruptive edits, it's not clear why it matters. If, for example, Wordbomb turned out to secretly operate a very productive admin account, I honestly don't care. I think your preemptive blocking strategy is a bit wrong-headed in this regard. You've made this workload yourself, and it's no reason to lock everyone from editing the page. Let's instead ban disruption as it emerges.

The policy does not support full protection where there is no consensus for it. Full stop. Cool Hand Luke 21:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the changes appear to be misguided attempts to improve the encyclopedia, which is not vandalism. If this actually was vandalism, you wouldn't have to resort to checkuser to ban the accounts. This is a POV war being conducted by a determined banned sock puppeteer. That's why I supposed your involvement was relevant, but I see now that there was no ongoing content dispute. Cool Hand Luke 16:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure he appreciates your attempt to wikilawyer for him, but yes, getting yourself banned and then using sockpuppets to disruptively edit articles and push a POV is vandalism. Raul654 (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no content dispute at issue so involvement is irrelevant. That said, consensus here seems to lean toward semi-protection. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is the indefinite nature of the full protection that is not supported by policy. Full protection for a limited time would be acceptable. Carcharoth (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the policy says much about when full protection can and cannot be used, and I don't think you are correct that full protection here would be in violation of the protection policy. Specifically, the policy makes no significant distinctions between the use of expiring and indefinite protection; only between temporary and permanent protection. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Then all Raul needed to say was that the protection was only temporary, not permanent, preferably in the log entry when he did the protection. It might have been obvious to him, but it seems it wasn't to others. Carcharoth (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't expect it to be permanent, but I do expect to leave them that way for weeks or months until we know the coast is clear. Raul654 (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Fully protecting a range of articles from editing when they've been under assault for a long time is standard, and has worked well in the past e.g. with the LaRouche articles, which were similarly under attack from multiple sockpuppets. "Indefinite" simply means that the timeframe isn't known; it doesn't mean permanent. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. The LaRouche articles are a he-said she-said advocacy-source disgrace, and nobody can fix them because they're permanently full-protected in violation of every policy written and a few unwritten. That's exactly the worst example to bring up. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Tell me you're kidding, please. You think it is at all reasonable to pre-emptively FULLY PROTECT a dozen articles (some of which are only "potential targets for vandalism") for MONTHS, just to see if the "coast is clear"? Please, show other articles where such a level of response (draconian, IMO) is warranted and justified, because I'm not seeing it here. Achromatic (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go against apparent consensus here and say that I think in this case full protection is warranted. To those that say that it's not "fair" that this article gets full protection when the FA of the day doesn't... I think the vandalism is different, that vandalism is more easily automatically reverted. Also the load is spread among more people (I know that when my one and only FA so far SS Christopher Columbus, makes the front page (hopefully on Columbus Day 2008, :) ) I will be watching it as closely as I can). These articles are watched by a small set of folk, day in, day out. Further, maybe not full protecting the current FA is wrong, not right!!!... but if we are doing thing A wrong it is not an argument for doing thing B wrong too. ++Lar: t/c 01:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Fully-protect the main article and create an unprotected copy at Talk:Global warming/Draft article. Then transfer good edits from one to the other. This worked reasonably well at evolution, using Talk:Evolution/draft article to deal with the similar problem caused by User:Tile join. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR concern

As a sort of tangential issue, some editors have expressed concern that when this protection lapses we'll run into WP:3RR problems dealing with Scibaby. If he has 10 accounts he can theoretically run many regular editors (I'd say the pages are well watched, but there's still a finite number of us) into their revert limits using several accounts and then have his way with articles. Is there anything we can do regarding 3RR when dealing with suspected sockpuppets? Oren0 (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR does not apply to reversions of this type (i.e. of vandalism). Christopher Parham (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR excepts "simple and obvious vandalism." This is the kind of edit we're talking about. I don't think that qualifies under 3RR. 3RR also excepts reverting blocked users, but if we only suspect sockpuppetry can we still justify reversions? Oren0 (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it's not vandalism, but if an edit war is underway, preventative short-term blocks can be issued based on the suspicion of evasion. If CU confirms it, the blocks will be made permanent. Cool Hand Luke 22:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

To the extent that we are talking about edits made by sockpuppets of Scibaby, they are not made in good faith since he is evading a block, and are excepted from the 3RR. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

When a user uses multiple accounts to evade the 3RR, they're breaking both the 3RR and WP:SOCK. The simple and correct solution is to block them all. Cool Hand Luke 22:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Coolhand, I've been watching this thread and respect your opinion (especially as a non-involved 3rd party to the AGW sites.) I think there may be a bit of hypocrisy at play on the global warming sites. Would you mind looking at [this] edit war, which began with Cone of Silence at 06:54, 10 May, 2008. Allegedly Cone of Silence is one Scibaby's sockpuppets. Although this particular edit was clearly not a case of vandalism. I tried to preserve scibaby's/cone of silence's edit and an edit war instantly broke out. I made 4 changes, 3 were 'undo's, one was simply providing a better citation at Count Iblis's request. After edit number 4, I received a harsh [notice] on my personal talk page giving me my 'final warning' about 3RR. Please read the reasons provided next to Raul's and Raymond arritt's reversions on the edit war. In my opinion, they don't seem to make much of an effort at justifying or explaining the reversions. Would you consider this to be 'meatpuppetry'? Note, this happens very frequently and I suspect many potential editors on the skeptic side of the global warming controversy have perhaps been discouraged from participating because of this situation. --Sirwells (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Two points. First, Raul is a checkuser. If he says someone is a sock of Scibaby, I believe it. I wouldn't be too surprised if more than one user was at work, judging by the number of IPs Raul has blocked. That doesn't mean that the blocks are incorrect. If you still doubt his findings (which I don't), maybe you could ask another checkuser to review a block you think is questionable.

Second, edit wars are bad. Three reverts should not be seen as an entitlement, so this wasn't exemplary behavior on either side. Cool Hand Luke 01:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A fair response. Thank you.--Sirwells (talk) 02:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

complaint about a ADMINISTRATOR -> User:R._Baley

Resolved

 – User has decided to leave Wikipedia

Chafford (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

user wrote "At least he keeps the same account, some users manage to get into an edit war, find their own way to WP:3RR, and edit their monobook --all on their first day! It's enough to make a person wonder, what did your block log look like before you used the SomUsr account? R. Baley (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)" diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AStephan_Schulz&diff=217841025&oldid=217839611

false accusations of WP:SOCK and falsely claims that i've been blocked under another acc (only "evidence" is that i edited my monobook the first day...)...and this user is a ADMIN! i hereby file a complain against this user! SomeUsr|Talk|Contribs 23:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read the head of this page carefully, in particular the part that says this is not the Wikipedia complaints department in bold red. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

i thought that this might be the right place to do it. this is a ADMIN and not just a normal user. SomeUsr|Talk|Contribs 23:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

you are somewha tmistaken sir this is for place swhere you need administrators to conduct immediate intervetinons such as in a major vandalism case or other immeintaly threanteing violation of the ruels and regulations of wikipedia. it is nto ga genral place to complain about the behaviors of other behavirosits. Smith Jones (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones, as usual, you took the worms right out of my moth. --Rodhullandemu 00:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

ok, then show me the place where i can file such a complain against a ADMIN. SomeUsr|Talk|Contribs 00:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

First you should take it up with the admin on his talk page; if that doesn't work out, you could seek a third opinion, or start a request for comment, and if that doesn't work, open an arbitration case. --Rodhullandemu 00:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• ok, first of all your last comment perfectly fits my needs. thank you. and i already tried the talkpage thingy..which...of course, was totally fruitless. i think i might have to step this up a lil' bit. thx for your answer then. SomeUsr|Talk|Contribs 00:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

try not to go directl y to arbcom. i would reocmend trying the first recommednations by Rodhullamdeumu first then go to arbcom if everything totally fails since arbcom cannot see every minor complaint made by every minor person on wikipedia so try to work your way up to arbcom before starting there first with your complaint. Smith Jones (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite right, in a nutcaseshell. Arbcom is the last resort and a case is unlkely to be accepted unless all other possibilities have been exhausted (as am I). But there is no such thing as a "minor person" on WP really; we are all equal and deserve equal respect. --Rodhullandemu 01:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this has absolutely nothing to do with this case, but if that’s not the most bling signature I’ve ever seen, it is certainly in the top ten. :/ —Travis^talk 01:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

8| Gwen Gale (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I note from the top of the page "If you want to discuss the possible misuse of administrative powers, you can do so here" Not that I've looked into this matter in the least, or think it necessarily has merit. DGG (talk) 02:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: User:SomeUsr has invoked his right to vanish and has left Wikipedia. Tiptoety ^talk 04:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh good. User posts on here, in accordance with one of the notes at the top of this page about a valid issue, is admonished repeatedly by different sources, without anyone paying any attention to the validity of the issue whatsoever, and the end result, "resolved", the user, somewhat unsurprisingly, feels that it is fruitless to continue with the process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achromatic (talk • contribs) 17:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope. No abuse of administrative powers has taken place or even been alleged. Discussions with a user are not a restricted administrative power. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

To Achromatic, I think people did look at his complaint, find it completely groundless, but thought it might be more productive to tell the user "Why don't you speak to the person you are annoyed at before making a federal case?", rather than to just say "Get lost, whiner." (which would have been very tempting) --Jaysweet (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• I echo Jaysweet's comment - I came to the exact same findings specified. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Repeated incivility and bad faith of User:Mareklug

Mareklug (talk · contribs) has repeatedly been incivil toward me despite my requests to stop. He also refuses to WP:AGF and questions my motives without justification. See these diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. I would appreciate administrator intervention. Thanks. Tennis expert (talk) 05:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note to admin dealing with this: as this was a request for admin intervention, I referred it here and dismissed it from-WQA. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors, please help me defend my freedom of peach! I seem to have incurred the vendetta of Tennis expert. All this, because I dared to question and oppose his employing advanced quasi-artificial life wikiswarm techniques to effect a mass move by means of replicated individual move discussions, all with identical boilerplate rationale -- why is this being individualized, if The Song Remains the Same -- if not to avoid scrutiny of experts who happen not to be editing in tennis? To effect policy decisions in the background radiation noise, as it were? -- in oodles and oodles of biographies of living persons who happen to play tennis really well, a proposed move from articles with correctly spelled titles (real living people's names -- their human dignity is protected especially acutely per Jimbo's directives!) to proposed corrupted versions, made so by omission of correct glyphs. Tennis expert now apparently wishes to silence me in retribution or as part of this Wikipedia improvement, and given his exhausting (well, me, anyway), clinically singleminded pursuit of the distributed divide and conquer-engineered proposed move (instead of properly introducing the thorny idea of corrupting persons' names for arcane purposes -- to a general forum, where this vexing onslaught on human dignity of biographed living persons can be discussed by many and many an expert, and if found (gack!) necessary, applied in a principled, guidelined fashion to all subjects of biographies, not just people who play tennis really well, who surely are not unique as diacriticly afflicted?), I fear for my ability to further contribute to Wikipedia. My potential silencer highly dedicated! Furthermore, his edits despise and do not detect humor (far be it for me to make an ad hominen conjecture -- I am talking strictly about his edits, which have this quality.) Wikipedia and physicians everywhere say, first, do no harm, but harm is being massively distributedly proposed. Methinks, I am the next item on the harm's menu... --Mareklug ^talk 08:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly incivil here; I don't think this warrants administrator intervention. Both parties should take care to debate the issue at hand, and stay away from personal comments about motives. Trebor (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• I echo Trebor's comments. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Genesis vandal

Resolved

 – Indefblocked by NawlinWiki. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please block this recrudescence—Ymbeb (talk · contribs)? Deor (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Taken care of by NawlinWiki. Deor (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Rollosmokes

Ongoing revert war regarding various US broadcast television articles. Currently involved in ongoing reversion here regarding WIS-TV and has been repeatedly removing information (contribs) on final digital TV channel assignments from dozens of articles, as well as making personal attacks and baseless WP:SOCK accusations. Has already been given WP:3RR warnings by user:onorem and user:dustihowe for 3RR violations on {{Infobox Broadcast}}, but appears to be largely ignoring them and taking the current full protection of that page as an endorsement of whatever version he was reposting. WP:RFPP itself was briefly protected sysop-only to stop his disruptions there [65] [66] [67] [68]. He seems to be trying to keep just under the 3RR threshold (technically, reverting to repeatedly remove info from a hundred pages once doesn't trigger 3RR as long as the reversions don't hit the same page thrice) and is trying to recruit others to his cause.

The content issues have been placed on RFC here but an attempt to raise the endless reversions as a question of wikiquette here was closed with the advice that the matter had gone beyond a simple question of wikiquette and was therefore more suited for one of the incident noticeboards. Might be worth keeping an eye on this one as issue is ongoing. --carlb (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I and others have had run-ins with Rollosmokes over content matters. However, in the case of WRAL-TV, for example, which is where I noticed your little battle with him, you might be on firmer ground if you supplied a source, rather than just changing it and opening the door to him changing it back. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that Carlb has attempted to get around a consensus on WP:TVS regarding changes to Template:Infobox Broadcast, which is currently under semi-protection due to changes made by him without any consensus, by creating Template:Infobox DTV and inserting it into articles without letting anybody know at all, period. These are the changes RS is currently making because Carlb is trying to insert his 'right version' by avoiding the semi-protect on Infobox Broadcast and avoiding the cool-down period altogether. He is also categorizing digital television stations into separate categories, also without letting anybody know and discouraged as over-categorizing.

Finally, consensus on our project has been to adjourn discussion of changing infoboxes for DTV purposes for now because the transition isn't anywhere near close to here yet, but Carlb has ignored our pleas to step aside.

Current discussion on TVS Nate • (chatter) 20:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources for most of this would be FCC database lookup, {{TVQ}}. There's also a fair amount of info on W9WI.com, but FCC is the primary source to verify these. As for being "not anywhere near close to here", we have at most eight months to sort through 1800 full-power TV stations and determine where four or five hundred of them are moving. No small task, and not something to leave to the last minute on Feb 2009. As for {{Infobox DTV}}, this was discussed on the WikiProject page here as far back as June 1... long before user:rollosmokes started his infamous revert war on {{Infobox Broadcast}}. The idea behind a separate template is to allow "analogue" and "temporary" fields to simply be removed on February 17, 2009 without this affecting non-US stations or low-power broadcasters, both of which will still be free to transmit analogue TV. There have been various changes made to the infobox in response to discussions, such as having the "digital" field as the final channel assignment after this is over and hiding "post-transition" info from display until later in the DTV transition. The template was designed to appear similar to {{Infobox Broadcast}} by design - the final channel assignments are there, but they're revealed and the old info removed only after we are closer to analog shutdown. All of this was explained and re-explained. Keep removing all information as to where the channels are moving, and there will be plenty of just-plain-wrong information in the encyclopaedia come 2009. It's no small task to track down all the FCC data, and it won't be correct if all attempts to add it in time for digital switchover were unilaterally reverted by whomever WP:OWNS Wikiproject Television Stations. It's unfortunate, but them's the breaks. --carlb (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

We never approved a separate template and it never entered into the discussion. I'm sorry, but creating a different template to round the consensus and a semi-protection is not the right way to go. We have all told you to stand down and you have ignored our pleas to do so. There is no need at all for a different template at all. Please, cease trying to find end-arounds when it is clear that we are fine with status quo as it is until we can come to an agreement later. Nate • (chatter) 00:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

He wasn't maintaining any "status quo", he was repeatedly changing {{Infobox Broadcast}} repeatedly in such a way as to cause many, many channels to appear with listings like "Analog: 8 (VHF) Digital: 8 (VHF)". It was made quite clear as far back as June 2 that this is not a valid way to do this [69], yet he continued until he had WP:3RR warnings from two different people and had caused enough disruption as to cause not only the template but also WP:RFPP at one point to be full-protected. Not semi-protected, big difference. How is "Analog: 8 (VHF) Digital: 8 (VHF)" the result of any consensus and not merely disruption by one user with an axe to grind? --carlb (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What Rollo is doing is reverting everything back to what it was originally was, since your changes were not brought up at WP:TVS before they were made. If you would've asked us first before you went ahead and made the changes, none of this would've happened. We as a team decide what should and should not be used in the articles. You failed to consult us first and, apparently, you refuse to consult us. While he might've violated WP:3RR, he was doing it because you were making changes that were contrary to TVS's opinions. Personally, in the whole, Rollo did nothing wrong; it is you, carlb, who's at fault. -- azumanga (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Were that true, I wouldn't have had to spend most of yesterday trying to repair pages that were broken because of his tampering with templates. He's done more than violate WP:3RR... --carlb (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This incident should never have been filed. I've been watching this discussion at the project page, having been a longtime active member of the project, but have remained largely uninvolved. There was a clear consensus, on which I concur, and which carlb has tried to circumvent because he doesn't agree with it. Rollosmokes' activities have been in support of the project consensus. Carlb needs to abide by the consensus and stop trying to impose his will on the rest of the community and stop changing broadcast templates or creating new, unnecessary templates. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Response from Rollosmokes

First of all, there is no incident to be discussed here.

Please pardon me if I sound redundant, but Azumanga1 and Nate have correctly stated what I was doing: simply reminding Carlb of the importance of consensus and discussion, and reverting changes he made that were not first discussed. There will be lots of changes to television station articles in the coming months, and those of us who edit these article should all be on the same page when the time comes to make the changes. Without consultation, Carlb decided to do things on his own, and utilized two unregistered IP addresses -- "66.46.167.154" (talk • contribs) and "72.140.46.227" (talk • contribs) -- to shield accountability away from him. But he got sloppy, and got defensive when he was confronted, then outed as a possible account abuser. Last time I checked, that's sockpuppetry. I blew his spot up and now he's taking it out on me, trying to bully me much like CoolKatt number 99999 did when I first came here.

Finally, there is also no "incident" when it comes to the WIS-TV article. Carlb has nothing to do with that, and he has no right to include this in his "argument" against me. Rollosmokes (talk) 04:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There is an incident, as you have taken it upon yourself to remove valid information from large numbers of articles, break templates in such a way that information does not display correctly, spam allegations of sockpuppetry with no evidence (one or both of the IP's you name aren't even on providers serving my area, yet you continue to claim that anyone who tries to revert the damage you've done is me?) and cause various WP:3RR problems in an attempt to make a WP:POINT and WP:OWN a series of pages. Because of this, any attempt to get the correct information as to where four or five hundred TV stations are moving as part of a huge digital transition is being deliberately and repeatedly derailed by you and, now that you've been called on this, one or two people that you've recruited to run damage control. There have been many complaints where you have taken it upon yourself to dictate what information should or should not be in a TV station article [70], in one case you went as far as to threaten a user with " Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User talk:Rollosmokes. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rollosmokes (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)" just because they complained to you about your disruptive actions[71]. I now see that you've been editing my userpage again to spam your nonsense there, seems a bit of a double-standard where criticism of you is revertible on sight but the personal attacks you direct at others is somehow sacrosanct and free to be reposted at will?

Stop breaking templates, stop removing information on DTV transition, stop spamming user pages with threats and false accusations. You are disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT and have gone too far. --carlb (talk) 10:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There has been no "recruitment", we've cooperated with each other as members of the project. I don't talk to any of the project members off-Wiki and we usually only collaborate on WT:TVS. If you want to confirm that I welcome you to check my talk page history, and you'll see that Rollo or Azumanga have not left any messages for me at all, much less canvassed for my input, nor have I done the same within their talk pages. Don't throw around baseless accusations that cannot be proven. I have shown incredible patience with you and to be accused of being part of a canvassing effort is uncalled for. Nate • (chatter) 20:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sammy Davis Jr./Satanism

Resolved

 – Questionable information removed by Baseball Bugs (thanks), and Mmyers1976 warned about making legal threats

There has been an ongoing discussion over whether Sammy Davis, Jr. was a Satanist. He has been dead since 1990, but User:Mmyers1976 appears to intend to share with Davis' estate the fact that these "allegations" are on Wikipedia [72], with them establishing grounds to sue for libel. I'd like either of our positions clarified before this descends into further recriminations. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The guy points out that he's not a lawyer, which is your first clue that he's on legalistic quicksand. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Note this Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer. Since anyone can edit wikipedia, there is no guarantee the info is accurate, and wikipedia is not liable. Or so they say. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If it belongs anywhere in the biography, the allegation definitely does not belong in the lede of the article. The allegation is sourced to a single book and there is little to suggest that it deserves such prominent treatment and credence. FCYTravis (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's where wikipedia's insistence on sourcing comes in handy. If the Davis estate comes knocking on wikipedia's door (which is unlikely), the wikipedia lawyers can point out the author of the reference and say, "Go talk to him." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I deleted that so-called reference from the satanism article, which the complaining user could have done also rather than making empty threats. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Good job, Bugs. It boggles the mind why the user didn't just do that to begin with. Perhaps he/she got "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" confused with "the free encyclopedia that anyone can complain about".

I have warned the user on his/her talk page. Not only was this a legal threat, which is strictly prohibited, but it was a grossly unnecessary legal threat. Marking thread as resolved. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Following the user's denial of making threats while reiterating them [73], I pointed out that his non-action in regard to removing the potentially-"libelous" comment could be argued as contributing to any libel action. I bet he hadn't thought of that. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion there is getting snippy, so I'm done with it. The only real problem was the content of the two articles (at least the two that we know about), so that's the end of it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, the user continues to make threats while denying that they're threats. [74] I've about had it with this guy. Will an admin please step in here, and tell the both of us what's what? Thank y'all. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I started ignoring him about three comments earlier than you did ;) His user page is worth a look if you want to pursue this further, he basically says he hates Wikipedia and everything it stands for, and the only reason he doesn't engage in active sabotage is because he feels it would be unethical. Eeps!

Also, since this thread is marked resolved, if you want further admin attention, you should probably either start a new section or comment out the Resolved tag at the top. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

So much for "assuming good faith", which I had been largely doing. OK, there's no point in any further discussion with this clown. I said before, that I was done. This time I mean it. Issue remains resolved. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

IP pushing POV

Special:Contributions/82.110.181.125 has made dozens of edits emphasizing Galicia over Spain every several days for the past month, and has twice been blocked for the same behavior after receiving warnings and requests for communication (none replied to) regarding the edits in the past year.

I suggest a block for this IP, given the many edits in short periods of time. And could someone auto roll back Galicia->Spain changes done recently? Toliar (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Rollbacks done (as best I can tell), and IP blocked for six months - it appears to be static. Neıl 龱 12:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think there are still more rollbacks to do, but I'll look at them later. Toliar (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"Bomb threat" on user's talk page

Just wanted to alert you to some particularly malicious material on the talk page of currently-banned user 217.100.179.194. Chances are, of course, slim to none that there's any credibility to it, but I figured it was my civic duty to give a heads-up. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Seeing how the user is in Amsterdam, I wouldn't worry about it; but I did protect the page for a while. El_C 12:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's about as likely as pushing the doorbell and running away. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed the college behind the IP address, with a link to the bomb threat. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 18:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Cazique (talk · contribs)

I believe this person to be trolling for trouble. I have already had an incident with him over an edit war regarding a redirect. Please see their edits on Talk:Thylacoleonidae and talk:Marsupial Lion. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC) See also their comments on the talk pages of the various folks involved:

• UtherSRG (talk · contribs)
• Altaileopard (talk · contribs)
• Rlendog (talk · contribs)
• T.carnifex (talk · contribs)
• LonelyMarble (talk · contribs)
• Bob the Wikipedian (talk · contribs)
• Secret Squïrrel (talk · contribs)

- UtherSRG (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please review Uther's behaviour. He is an admin and should be revoked of his admin privileges. I fail to fathom how he even became an admin due to his behaviour. He has violated many policies repeatedly. Cazique (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

UtherSRG's block log and Cazique's block log. I unblocked both from an edit-warring block and must admit that I have found Uther's actions questionable since then (which is why the block was extended). Alex Muller 16:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Do check Cazique's behavior since, Alex. He's a troll. Notice his disruptive edits on the article talk pages, and on the listed talk pages above. I admit to getting sucked in by Cazique at the start of this, but I have been of good behavior since the block went up. (And if I recall, my edit you made the second block for was made *after* the original block would have gone away. I just didn't want to bother fighting it.) - UtherSRG (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Unbelievable, he still thinks he is right and that you are wrong Alex. Seriously, come on. He also said he will be reporting me for the 3RR but now I think he has realised that I have not as of yet broke it. But he and his mate Rlendog have though through tag team ownership have broken it and as such should be reviewed. I know why Rlendog did not reply to my comment left on his talkpage and I only hope you guys will put two and two together and also realise why. I am going to revert back to the page without the hatnotes which strengthen the keeping of the current revision, which is incorrect. Uther or his mate will immediately revert my edit and report me based on 3RR, unless of course he sees this message and then strategises another way of getting his revenge. Please stop this childish behaviour. Cazique (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that Cazique has chosen to mention me here. He has falsely accused me of puppetry on the Talk:Thylacoleonidae discussion. Apparently, he feels that the fact that I agree with (my supposed "mate") UtherSRG and others who disagree with him on that discussion makes me a puppet. He has also refused to engage in meaningful debate in order to achieve consensus in that discussion, prefering to state that even when people who address his concerns aren't, refusing to clarify those concerns in order to help drive consensus, and then just resorting to reverting the edits that everyone else agreed to (and that even he agreed are an improvement, albeit not the improvement he wants). He may find it hard to believe, but I disagree with Uther that he is a troll and I actually believe that he sincerely wants to improve Wikipedia. But he needs to recognize that the edits he believes to be improvements are not necessarily so, and when they are not he needs to avoid edit warring and name calling, but rather work towards consensus.Rlendog (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Since I reported UtherSRG to WP:3RR last week I have keep an eye on the pages in mention, and his and Cazique's actions. Over the past 6 days both users have acted questionably in my opinion. But, in regards to Cazique he has once again engaged in an edit war, which is unacceptable (for which he has been blocked for). Consensus has been reached on the pages in question, and he must realise that although he may not agree with the reached consensus, that does not give him the right to engage in a revert war. Also, he must stop making unfounded accusations of meatpuppetry. I see no evidence for this from their list of contributions. At this stage I would recommend mediation, and a closer watch on both users edits. Mark t young (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Since his registration on May 22, 2008, he has quickly become a one purpose account, has gotten blocked for edit warring, and has gotten into another edit war less than a week after his first block. Many users have been nice and have had discussions with him, but he refuses to acknowledge anybody's points and is a bully when he disagrees and argues. Anyone that reads through all of Talk:Thylacoleonidae will see that 1. Cazique's civility is questionable 2. consensus has been reached through discussion and Cazique is the only user who disagrees and 3. Cazique refuses to accept the consensus and brazenly claims that "I am reverting any changes which have been made under the false pretense of 'concensous'," which is basically saying straight out he intends to continue to edit war and he has. In the past couple hours he has reverted Thylacoleonidae 4 times and Marsupial Lion 4 times despite being blocked for violating the 3RR only 6 days earlier. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandal Range

• 142.35.18.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 142.35.38.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 142.35.38.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 142.35.39.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Just as a heads up in case one of the admins feels like shooting off a email to a tech contact or two :) Q ^{T C} 18:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This range belongs to British Columbia Systems Corporation and several IPs have had previous blocks. Since they're probably farmed out to schools & the like, I'll look into a reasonable rangeblock. --Rodhullandemu 19:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The limited volume of vandalism has me leaning towards letting a rangeblock slide, unless it's absolutely necessary. Anthøny 19:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, just checked it out, it's way too large for now. Previous IPs have been recently blocked for up to a year, so I'll keep an eye on it. --Rodhullandemu 19:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You might drop a note to the sysadmins over there - they seem pretty cool about getting the word to their on-site people. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've emailed all the info to their abuse@ --Rodhullandemu 20:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi'ed Sitting Bull until this can be taken care of. seicer | talk | contribs 19:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't this belong at Wikipedia:Abuse reports? Toddst1 (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

User:70.196.66.248 comments on Prestonwood Baptist Church

Resolved

 – blocked for 3rr

I would like for someone to please review the recent comments/edits/vandalism by user 70.196.66.248 that were made on the Prestonwood Baptist Church page. This user not only violated the 3RR rule but has created a new section that has nothing to do with the subject that makes personal and untrue attacks about several other editors including myself. I think you will all find these comments distasteful and the user also threatens to make similar edits to the related page for this church's pastor which is currently locked b/c of edit warring. Your help would be appreciated. Thanks.Johnb316 (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the section you referred to, Johnb316. Actually, it would be perfectly acceptable for you to remove that content, even if it was more than three reverts in a day, because 3RR does not apply to concerns about biographies of living persons, and I am pretty sure that an unsourced rant about covering up an affair qualifies! --Jaysweet (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

User:70.196.66.248 blocked 48 hours, page semi-protected page for 1 month. Toddst1 (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how all this works but how we would go about seeing if user 70.196.66.248 is a sock puppet for other editors on the same page that are constantly making similar remarks and edits?Johnb316 (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You can't go on a fishing expedition, but if you have evidence that supports your suspicions of specific user(s), you would file a WP:SSP report and add {{ipsock}} and {{sockpuppeteer}} to the user talk pages. Toddst1 (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for yet another comment but I'd also like to request that the Jack Graham (Pastor) page continue to be locked for a few more weeks as it is quite obvious that the edit warring has not stopped on either one of these pages. It has already been locked for close to 2 weeks now I would guess.Johnb316 (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Extended to 3 weeks. Toddst1 (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

ThanksJohnb316 (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Threat to flood e-mail with Nigerian spam

Resolved

I'm not even sure there's anything anyone can do about this but I received the following e-mail today:

Full, uncensored, vulgar email -- view at own discretion

Greetings from wikipedia dumbass

Thanks to your stupidity, I now have all of your contact and personal information.

Seeing as you are a homosexual fag, instead of wishing for niggers to rape your female family members, I will be satisfied with you contracting aids.

You have about 24 hours before all your emails addresses become worthless from being flooded with nigerian spam emails. I'm giving you 24 hours because I want this email to reach you so you know that you brought this on yourself.

-Sincerely
Ayn Rand

I've been pretty active with vandal fighting the past couple of days so I'm pretty sure it was one of those vandals. I'm thinking the prime suspect was User:M227, who made several unseemly wishes towards female members of my family the other day after I warned him for replacing a redirect link with a link to a YouTube video. Has anyone ever had such an experience before and is there anything I can do about it? I can provide headers to any user by request. Redfarmer (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reblocked the user with email disabled. Nakon 21:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I know it is resolved I just want to add this. It is always best to just ignore those messages. I have gotten them a lot before and still do. Just delete and ignore. Rgoodermote  22:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I could not agree more, if you are going to choose to do anti-vandalism work you leave yourself wide open to stuff like that. I (like Rgoodermote) receive attack emails quite often and it is just best to apply WP:RBI. Tiptoety ^talk 23:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. It's my first time encountering something like this. I'll keep it in mind next time. :) Redfarmer (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Instead of deleting, you could save them in a special folder that you could label, "Candidates for Top Ten Stupidest E-mails of the Year". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Redfarmer, if you get more of these, just forward them to an admin so they can make sure the email has been disabled on the account and then just do as the others have said and delete and ignore. Don't even mention it on Wikipedia or anywhere publicly as people who do this sort of thing are just looking for a reaction from you. Sarah 01:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Challenging BLP policy

Is this correct? [75] I find it difficult to believe we allow biographies to remain unsourced for 2+ years. I've proposed a redirect on the respective talk page in the interim. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 16:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP clearly says, Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.. Corvus cornix_talk 16:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I see no way that we could be accused of libel from those additions. Libel is (from Wiktionary)

1. A written (notably as handbill) or pictorial statement]] which unjustly seeks to damage someone's reputation.
2. The act or crime of displaying such a statement publicly.

Since we are not damaging this person's reputation, I don't think that BLP applies here. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the edit history is plagued with copyright violations. The text was lifted wholesale from the artist's own website. I'll let another administrator figure out how to deal with that. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If any text is a copyright violation, remove it and link to the original website in your edit summary. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record I'm not accusing anyone of "libel" or any sort of legalese claim. I am simply stating that we're presenting unsourced information (which we've now discovered was lifted wholesale from a primary source) and have been for two years. I find it problematic of the editing system here that people will restore WP:BLP offending text with a hair trigger. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright aside, while it needed better sourcing, it's inaccurate to say that it wasn't sourced, since it came straight from the subject's personal web-site. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, what? It wasn't sourced until it was discovered it was a copyvio. Today! coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The link to the website from which the information was taken was sitting right there at the bottom of the page. You didn't even take 20 seconds to check it before blanking. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you're confusing BLP with Wikipedia:Verifiability. The spirit of BLP is that we must "do no harm" to a person's reputation. I agree that this needs to be cited but I don't think mass deletion of content is the answer. If it is a copyright problem, see WP:CP and Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Sasquatch t|c 17:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That analysis seems, on the whole, consistent with the community's understanding of BLP. It is well settled that there does not exist a consensus that uncontroversial unsourced material need be removed from more aggressively from biographies of living persons than from other articles, toward which one may see, e.g., the community's reaction, preserved at, inter al., User talk:CyberAnth/Final and any number of AN and AN/I threads one may find here, to CyberAnth's January 2007 non-nuanced removal of unsourced but uncontroversial material from various BLPs (for instance, "...[in] 1982, Hank Aaron was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame" from Hank Aaron).

(This is not a comment on the underlying case specifically; I mean only to note that, with respect to uncontroversial unsourced material, BLP requires nothing more than does V [what the latter requires is, of course, a matter of dispute—WP:V, unlike WP:NPOV, is not a Foundation principle, and so it is entirely to the community to determine who it is on whom the burden for inclusion of material, especially if unsourced, should rest and, for instance, whether "verifiability" should be understood as "able to be verified by the reader from sources provided in the article" or as "(in theory) able to verified somewhere, by someone, if he/she should like"—but we need not reach that issue here]). Joe 21:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

zOMG

Here is a case of socks¹⁰. Look at the edit history of Wake Technical Community College, North Carolina State University, and Cary, North Carolina for examples of his "work."

A checkuser was already filed and it shows a sample of his usernames. (I say sample because he's created many more since then...see below) These are the usernames that I know of...so far.
GøFü(kY0ürsélfJayron32 (talk · contribs)
ThemDåmnedYankees (talk · contribs)
ThoseDåmnYankees (talk · contribs)
Fumer tue's ghost (talk · contribs)
It-tipjip joqtol (talk · contribs)
Smēķēšana nogalina (talk · contribs)
Rauchen kann tödlich sein (talk · contribs)
DesignMajorNCSU (talk · contribs)
Ebuckcuf (talk · contribs)
Rauchen ist tödlich (talk · contribs)
Il fumo può uccidere (talk · contribs)
LoseWolfpackLose (talk · contribs)

I found these two edits interesting considering I'm not a "Yankee" and I don't live in Cary. He did get the faggot part right. I'm proud to be a fan of the male anatomy.

That falls under preventing further disruption. List it in the IP check section since this is not sockpuppetry by a regular user, but a request to find an IP and stop the vandal. Thatcher 22:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If I file a checkuser to find this person's other usernames that he has created and have yet to vandalize, is it considered fishing? Also, is there a way to block his IP if it's not a public computer? APK ^{yada yada} 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I added a blacklist entry a while back. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This raises an important sociological question: In the context of the Old South, which is the worse insult: "yankee" or "faggot"? I'm guessing it's a close race. And in addition to the somewhat repetitive insults, the many extra blank lines after it is really going too far. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I filed it at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check, but it's not visible unless I try to edit the page. APK ^{yada yada} 00:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

NM, it shows up now. APK ^{yada yada} 00:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have an anti-smoking obsession; I guess at least they weren't obsessed with railway signs otherwise we'd have had User:Nichthinauslehnen, User:Esporghesepericulo, User:PlatformEndsHere or some such nonsense. --Rodhullandemu 02:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The Hockey Theme OR edit war

User:Dmgerman keeps adding original research (with his own blog as the source) to the article on The Hockey Theme. [76] [77] [78] [79]

I've reverted him three times and tried to refer him to WP:RS and WP:OR but he hasn't listened. Could someone else please come in and explain the problem to him? Reggie Perrin (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I left him a 3RR warning. The next revert is not free. EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Sclua repeated personnal attacks and disruptive behavior

This user has repeatedly been breaking Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. In the articles Crown of Aragon and Coat of arms of Catalonia he has been engaging edit warring:

• Erasing references brought by other editors claiming them to be Aragonese nationalist lies" --> Not assuming good faith
• Reverting edits by other users using xenophobic and racist comments calling me "Southamerican" --> Personal attack

He has also made comments such as:

• "They are trying to block me, are trying that i leave to edit, i am suffering mobbing from both users with lots of threatens (...) It is Spanish fascism, worse than Chinese one (...)" here.
• "I think a fascist Spanish hacker has blocked my access" here and here

May I notice to the admins that he was already warned for using this language: "Also suggesting that 'Spanish fascists' are responsible is disruptive" by User:Prodego. He then answered that he will try to moderate his vocabulary. Something he has not.

A number of users have already warned him because of his behaviour in his talk-page (me included), but he blanked the page.

For all these reasons, I'm reporting this user to the admins. Thanks --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 21:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally would hardly consider my passing comment a true warning. Prodego ^talk 21:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I'm also involved here. Sclua keeps removing sources that he doesn't like and misquoting the rest to fit his POV, like removing the only catalan author from a sourced list and then misquoting that same source that mentions a catalan author to claim that only aragonese authors backed a certain theory.

I warned him on his talk page, explained him why he shouldn't do that, and tried to merge into the article the few useful sources he brought, but he keeps edit-warring this sort of thing into the article.

Sclua has received several escalating warnings from me, but his behaviour is the same or worse, and keeps acusing others of bad faith for enforcing policies. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, notice that MauritiusXXVII began with the personals attacks " absolutly ignorant (i don't know the meaning of Povish)", please see how he demanded me explanations when he still has not any explanation on the page talk nowadays though his huges changes on the article (only after the edition left the message without reasoning), see how he begans to say me "pushes a catalanist or (may I say anti-spanish) non-neutral POV" before i called him "anti-catalanist", please see how he begins to threaten me after just one day from his first edition "you will be reported" please see how he said "Catalan POV and this is not the catalan wiki" before i call him southamerican and when, in fact, i was bringing International Heraldry Academy sources not Catalan ones and he (they both in fact) only were bringing an Aragonese website source (Aragonese Encyclopedia when the Wikipedia is not what others Encyclopedia say so that source would have be removed as invalid source). And please, notice that i have no warnings but "mobbing" from the Aragonese Enric Naval specialist in request blocks against Catalan editors on the Spanish wikipedia like this when he demanded to an administrator to block the user Periku And the worse of all is that the current edition done by MauritiusXXVII [80] (they both in fact) the sources numbers 1,5,6 and 15 (where he needs to demote the count of Barcelona Ramon Berenguer IV to edit, an example of his ideology) are falsified. He (they both) has gone beyond the limits of the decency. I can prove that the authors do not state what they both are falsely pretending they say. --Sclua (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute, but a behaviour dispute, with this user removing heraldic sources that don't agree with his POV and claiming that we are misquoting the sources (when we are doing a direct quote of the source, I kid you not) continuous accussations of bias that started well before Maurice's involvement, and accusing me of being biased for removing a source that failed completely at WP:RSN where, ironically, he accusses me of trying to clear the sources I don't like.

(Notice that, after my complaint, user Periku was blocked 1 week for disruption, and his changes in dispute were reverted. Also, I didn't complain to an admin, but to an uninvolved bureaucrat) --Enric Naval (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Striking out my comment, this is not a content dispute, I make my argument again.

Sclua's excuse for being uncivil is that others have been uncivil first, but that's not a excuse for incivility. He doesn't address at all his disruptive removal and misquoting of sources. Also, he makes a personal attack on his comment above, calling me a "specialist in request blocks against Catalan editors on the Spanish wikipedia" --Enric Naval (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

New User:Grawp vandalism

I know Grawp has a thing for Geography FAs - on at least three talk pages there is the same odd vandalism, a picture of Kalomira and the obscene things Grawp wishes to do to her. See Talk:Larrys Creek, Talk:White Deer Hole Creek, and Talk:Plunketts Creek (Loyalsock Creek), but not Talk:Joseph Priestley House Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

PS There is no edit in the talk page history to show how this was done. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks to whoever fixed it - it is gone now. Probably want to figure out how to block this in the future though Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

See also Fralmpa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Corvus cornix_talk 18:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I reverted the edits by Fralmpa. Sneaky inclusion into templates, but now gone. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

For curious minds (ec): it is done not by editing the page directly, but the templates: {{River}}, {{WPBrazil‎}}, etc that transclude onto those pages. Reminds me of some of the refdesk vandalism. He uses the 'position' and 'overflow' CSS elements to squeeze the stuff in, and in this case it was wrapped in <noinclude> tags to obfuscate it. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:29, June 9, 2008 (UTC)

Question: Has anyone gone over to WP:RFCU/IP and left this name there so that the CUs can root out sleepers and block IPs? Remember that, as of late, Grawp has been favoring OPs. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 18:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Done RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:42, June 9, 2008 (UTC)

Not Grawp. Thatcher 19:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Didn't think so. Not his MO. Corvus cornix_talk 20:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Ditto on that, Thatcher - Alison ^❤ 00:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Argh. I'm finding that broken/vandalized transclusions are a bane. Which reminds me, WP:BEANS. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am still seeing the vandalism on Template:User14. I hard refreshed my browser and purged my page cache. Can't seem to locate it. Can anyone else spot it?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything there that hasn't been there forever. Sorry. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably a problem with my browser then. It just won't disappear at the moment...odd.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

warning removal

Resolved

 – no admin action required here.

i was warned for a discussion topic i created at Chris Crocker (internet celebrity) however i was warned because i was told i was making it up and making disruptive edits. This is regarding alleged incest on a video created by the subject of the article. I pointed the editor to the video on youtube, however he claims it is a fake video. Another user has pointed out that it was not a fake video, however it may be in actuality a hoax...a shock video. I would like the warning removed as it is unjustified and a mistake.Myheartinchile (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You are free to remove the warning from your talk page, if you like, you can justify in the edit summary as to the reason for the removal. xenocidic (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You can remove any messages you want from your own talk page and it's taken as a given that you've seen the message, so you can't say later if you get blocked that you never saw it. But I don't think the warning was "unjustified" or "a mistake". You have to be very careful with biographies of living people and the policy WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well as articles. The way you worded that question was as a statement of fact that Crocker was in an incestuous relationship with his brother. This is why you received the warning and I think it was warranted. Please be more careful with the wording you use when editing biographies and their talk pages and include a source to an article discussing the issue if it's something controversial like this. Sarah 01:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, please read what Sarah has written above - my comments to you were just to note that you are free to remove comments from your talk page as you see fit. I wasn't making any judgment as to whether or not the warning was justified. xenocidic (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

sorry guess i misunderstood and i'm stupid.Myheartinchile (talk) 03:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No one thought you were stupid and you have as much right to edit as the next person. Policies are there because these issues have come up and been dealt with many times before. You aren't the first person to make that mistake and you won't be the last. Warnings are a good tool to use to learn about a policy that you may have violated, intentionally or not. Banjeboi 03:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Need eyes

User talk:Thatcher is getting familiar vandalism. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 05:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am the banned user Flameviper.

I was banned in '07 following a long string of nastiness and broken edits. I came back under a couple other accounts (user:Two Sixteen and this one). As Two-Sixteen, I was blocked after Jpgordon did a checkuser and confirmed my identity; I created this account to see if I could truly contribute productively or whether I was really just a bad person. I leave my fate in your hands, Wikipedia. Can I stay here and edit? Or should I be banned? Ziggy Sawdust 00:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For further reference, this link is a previous digression on my ban.

Seems fine to me. John Reaves 00:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(I should note that Nick and I are not the biggest fans of Flameviper and have dealt with him considerably). John Reaves 03:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Likewise. Nick (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I also support an unban, though on some sort of probation where people keep an eye on you and admins will more readily block for infractions. If you screw up this time, though, you probably won't get another chance, so use it wisely. --Rory096 00:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is that you are already banned, so the question "should I be banned?" doesn't apply here, but rather if said ban should be enforced. A more pressing matter is the fact that we seemed to have skipped a step here. Where is the community discussion that decided Flameviper could come back and edit? It's clear at least some admins already knew you are Flameviper well before this revelation.--Atlan (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

He's referring to his current account, I suppose- and this is the unban discussion. --Rory096 00:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand this is an unban discussion. The point is, why did this discussion not take place much earlier, when admins were already aware of his identity? I like to know why admins helped Flameviper violate his ban.--Atlan (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely do not support this user returning, especially because of the immaturity that is still showing. Edits like this, this, this, and all his recent edits with "~desu" in the summary are totally immature. Metros (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, the ~desu was a modification of Twinkle - no more intrusive than "TW". Ziggy Sawdust 01:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It links to a completely unrelated article. "TW" does not. I can imagine this confuses inexperienced users. It's entirely unhelpful.--Atlan (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

See, that's exactly what I mean. You think it's perfectly cool and kosher to link to that. And the fact that "desu" is a 4chan meme is just a strange coincidence? Metros (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

So what if it's a chan meme? Does this have any relevance to the discussion at hand? Ziggy Sawdust 01:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's pertinent to your behavior, which is no doubt the most important aspect of an unban discussion.--Atlan (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Categorical oppose. This editor is asking us to validate the violation of WP:BAN and WP:SOCK. I categorically refuse to send a mixed message. Despite productive contributions from one individual, too many banned users who are incapable of contributing positively under any account or persona violate the same policies, and their collective disruption to the site is considerable, and their abuse would only increase if we validate that abuse of policy by sometimes granting it legitimacy. I wish Ziggy had instead demonstrated the ability to contribute positively in a wiki environment on any of the other hundreds of Wikimedia projects where he or she is not sitebanned. Should this person wish to do so, I volunteer to be his or her mentor on any other project where I am active and, after a sufficient interval, I will open an unban discussion on this noticeboard myself. Yet for now, under these circumstances, absolutely not. Please retire this account and contact me; I would like to help you. Durova^Charge! 00:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Accounts

Flameviper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Vestige of the Flamey Snake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Two-Sixteen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
The Blazing Sword (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Lumberjake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Γlameviper12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Flameviper in Exile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Son of a Peach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Flameviper1ʔ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
HUNGY MAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Flameviper II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
for review--Hu12 (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the bulk of his sockpuppetry ended in September 2007, over 8 months ago. He tried to evade the ban in late January as Lumberjake but that only lasted 3 days. Three other accounts confined their edits to their user and user-talk pages and administrative pages, which is only a minor sin. We should treat him as if his ban started on February 2, the last time he tried to edit an article. That was only 4 months ago. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Oops, forgot to check his current account, which started February 6. And the clock start... NOW. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• My love of Suiseiseki notwithstanding, I'm going to oppose an unban right now. In addition to the problems with user contributions noted above, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ziggy Sawdust raises a whole new set of red flags for me. --jonny-mt 01:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Others

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Flameviper
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Flameviper12
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Son of a Peach
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Son of a Peach II
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Flameviper X-1
  --Hu12 (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Just a quick procedural note as well, but isn't this discussion more appropriate for WP:AN? Or does it matter? --jonny-mt 01:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Apoplexic Dude and Ilfird the Third are not me. Ziggy Sawdust 01:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note I've blocked the account as a sockpuppet. There's no reason to let a banned user continue editing like this. If unban is called for by consensus, go ahead and unblock whichever account is decided upon, but, for now, he's blocked as per his ban. Metros (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I support both a block on the latest account and not removing the ban. Daniel (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. naerii - talk 02:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Some general comments:

Without reading or commenting on Flameviper's situation, I generally believe in second chances. The purpose of a ban is to discourage future behavior and provide a disincentive for others who would do the same thing.

Before unbanning any editor, he would need to 1) address each and every issue that led to the ban to the satisfaction of those who banned him, be it arbcom or the community, 2) promise to abide by the same rules as everyone else, 3) wait a suitable cooling-off period with zero edits, not even anonymous ones. The cooling-off period is to prove to himself that he isn't a Wikiholic, or if he is, to give himself a start at recovery. I recommend at least 30 days but up to a year if it's a 3rd- or 4th-chance.

Any non-office-related ban (e.g. threats of legal action) for more than a year, i.e. "indefinite," should be summarily lifted if the person asks politely and promises to live by the rules. This only applies if the person has honored the ban for at least a year. Office actions are outside of our control.

Since this editor has a history of sockpuppetry extending past his last block, I recommend he: 1) go 60 days without any involvement with Wikipedia except maybe reading it, 2) use the mailing lists or IRC to request his user_talk page and mail privilages be unblocked, 3) create an article requested on WP:AFC on his user_talk page to show he is serious about editing, and 4) request that this article be reviewed and moved to the main space and that he be reinstated on parole. The terms of the parole would be related to the reasons for his initial and subsequent bans. Finally, I recommend he try to be the next Valiant Return Triple Crown winner.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The Valiant Return triple crown is available only to editors who make a legitimate return to editing, which this person has not (so far). In fairness, we need a better structure for people to return to good standing. That's an area where I've been putting some focus lately and I'd be glad to put my head together with more people on both sides of the fence. If you can edit legitimately right now and are interested in sharing ideas please post to my user talk. I may open a subpage to discuss a better framework. If you happen to be sitebanned and want to participate, please use the e-mail function to contact me: I ask that you respect the spirit of the ban while welcoming input and feedback. Durova^Charge! 02:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Remove the ban, too many productive editors are banned these days, and the treatment of some of them is appalling really (see Metros's talk page for a shining example of good commmunication skills from an admin). As long as he promises not to sockpuppet, there's no need to keep banning. Bans are just a completely negative way to go about things and makes the atmosphere worse than it already is. Al Tally ^talk 02:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep banned. Unlike in real life, on Wikipedia it is possible to start fresh, with no baggage from previous dramas. Anyone who is truly reformed would be ashamed of their previous indiscretions, and would embrace the opportunity to disassociate themselves from their previous identity. Conversely, anyone who would come here to boast of their previous banishment, and the fact that they have successfully evaded the consequences, is not reformed. Hesperian 02:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Some subscribe to the philosophy that the first step in reforming is to publicly admit your sins. That's not the same as bragging, but it is the opposite of hiding under a new name. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Unban, but with hefty probation - oddly for exactly the reasons that Hesperian is using for his !vote on continuing the ban. Yes, on Wikipedia it is possible to start afresh, and that is exactly what ZS seems to be trying to do. Rather than dissociating himself from previous indiscretions, which would be to attempt to hide them from others as well, he has chosen to make it clear to us exactly what his past has been and request the opportunity for a second chance. I don't see it as boasting, but as an attempt to come clean. Consider the other thing that could have happened. ZS could have kept quiet, and eventually might have been found out. That would have led to a permanent ban on ZS. Or he could have boasted about it on some blogsite somewhere. By admitting to his past on AN/I - not boasting about it in a chat room, but formally stating it to those who have the power to ban him - I see a genuine attempt to ask for some form of forgiveness. I'd suggestan unbanning with some six months or more of "parole" in which problem editing is more likely to result in severe consequences (rather than the usual slap-on-the-wrist of a 24 hour block). Grutness...wha? 02:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, this thread that exposes rather than dissociates ZS comes 11 minutes after his previous identity was disclosed on his (now closed) current request for adminship. I'd like to AGF, but the timing of his desire to come clean doesn't sit well. --Onorem♠Dil 02:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For a bit more clarity, he's stated that the reason he started that RfA (which he must have known was doomed to fail) was as a means of revealing his identity. --Rory096 03:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There would be far better ways to reveal his identity with the hopes of gaining the trust of the community, but, for clarity, where exactly is it stated that the reason he started the RFA was to expose himself? --Onorem♠Dil 03:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, IRC, I thought I wrote that. My bad. --Rory096 03:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Onorem. With all the RFAs he's had in the past, I really think he just highly desires being an administrator. He has mentioned in the past, though, that he really wanted to pass an RFA and then, basically, say "Ha, I just got adminship and now I'll reveal that I've been Flameviper all along!" I'll see if I can find a quote/link later. Metros (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that he seriously thought he could have won with barely a few months experience, 1000 edits, terrible question answers, etc. --Rory096 03:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:AN#user:SwirlBoy39 unban proposal, a concurrent thread on WP:AN, for how an unban request should work. A previously agreed-to mentor takes the lead, no dishonest RfA that surprises the admin who was aware that they were trying to come back, no lulz-inspired goofing around. I suppose if you can find someone willing to mentor, I'd support an unban with a similar very tight leash. Otherwise, no. I do, however, support the general idea of unbanning rather than quietly sneaking back without telling anyone, per Grutness. --barneca (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm torn. I'd like to think that people can come back from being banned, and my first response was that Ziggy had made a good effort to demonstrate that he could do it right this time around. However, then johnny-mt posted the link to the recent RfA, where it was apparently necessary for Ryan Postlethwaite to "unmask" Ziggy. This puts things into a very different light from my first impression - that the creation of this thread was entirely voluntary. Some of Ziggy's over-zealous actions in AfD, which I was inclined to write off as good-faith newbie inexperience; I'm now not so sure about. I think Durova makes a very good point too. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

In many cases, some extremely prominent users have given banned users the advice to "come back, don't go back to the same misbehavior, don't edit the same areas, and we'll never have to know it's you" - no-one ever disagreed with people giving that advice either. In light of this, I cannot agree with the people who are opposing solely on the grounds of WP:BAN and WP:SOCK. Don't forget, we recently let the original Willy on Wheels come back. --Random832 (contribs) 03:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I was about to give that same advice. Could you link that WoW discussion? I missed that one. --Geniac (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose the block - FlameViper has his share of compulsive edititis, and his effervescent sense of humor can certainly grate on the nerves, but even at his most annoying, he's just on a level with your average outspoken radical inclusionist on AfD. I'm not a fan of the "Admin Cabal" style of argument, but in the case of FlameViper, it seems that from the start certain folk were so annoyed by his presence as to take positively baffling leaps and jumps to paint his admittedly-less-than-stellar edits in a malicious light. Annoying? Sure! Malicious? Get real. His worst edits deserved a patient, level-headed explanation of what exactly was wrong - not this hyper-militant power trip that he got. I'm well aware that Wikipedia is not a baby-sitting service, but this isn't baby-sitting - it's being a functional, communicative community. The bitching and moaning over his infamous edit to ElaraGirl's talk page was the utter nadir of this juvenile Wiki-policing - ElaraGirl herself, the "wronged" party, understood the tone in which it was intended, but this couldn't, wouldn't, and didn't satiate the thirst for blood on the Votes for Banning of the time. The failure of most of Wikipedia's most trusted faces to even acknowledge his goofiness, treating him (in some gross sort of manifestation of the total travesty that is Zero Tolerance) like some sort of serious threat, is, ironically, itself rather immature. This is a community that bent (and still bends) over backwards to extend last chances to completely useless trolls human beings such as the great Mantanmoreland and the positively unforgettable Gordon Watts (not to mention the excessive outpouring of oral-testicular manipulation that the departure of Everybody's Favorite Tenured Professor inspired). Does anyone have even the slightest inkling how positively humiliating the demands for baby-sitting and nannying must feel to Flame? It's no small wonder that he'd sooner start from scratch with a new sock-puppet than subject himself to what, no matter how it actually is in practice, is always expressed in the most petty, tin-pot dictatorship terms. Yes, he does head-scratchingly dumb things sometimes (I certainly cringe at the edits to jp gordon down-up-down-up's talk page), but when he feels - and more rightfully so than not, really - persecuted to such a ridiculously petty degree, what do you expect him to do? Handle it rationally? There are grown adults who can't remain completely stable under stressing circumstances like those. He's a kid. Kids are more transparent about their panic. Kids do stupid, stupid things when they panic. Kids also, however, have pride. No matter how much he reminds us of ourselves in that eternally awkward, embarrassing stage of our lives, he deserves the fair break and respect that we ourselves wanted when we were "back there". Maturity does not spontaneously occur in a void. The "vocal minority" of the community approaches him in about as flat-out wrong a manner as can possibly be accomplished. --Badger Drink (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• As usual, Flameviper is dishonest about pretty much every aspect of why he's been banned. He's wasting our time, again. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for similar reasons to Durova and well, Jpg. Heard it before from this user then find out he's yanking our collective chains. If I recall correctly, the last time he pulled this exact same stunt, even convinced an established admin to mentor him, he used another sockpuppet in the very unban discussion...Please... enough time wasted. Sarah 06:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Lots of kids can behave "grown up" on Wikipedia, some can't. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  And this justifies the nasty manner in which he is constantly and consistently dealt with? I'm not the biggest fan of linking WP:CIVIL by any means, but in this case, I think we could really do without the upset ruffled-feather shenanigans. Give him a chance to learn from the graceful example of the Wikipedia community, if nothing else. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per various arguments above. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Opposeplenty of users above have noted that the problems which led to the ban in the first place haven't been resolved. I would like to add that under this new account he has made inappropriate GA promotions which were reverted and has used inappropriate edit summaries. Durova is correct that we shouldn't be condoning violations of WP:BAN and WP:SOCK either. Hut 8.5 11:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• oppose per durova and diffs provided by Metros. On 22 May, even, this editor was using edit summaries such as [81] which includes the words "I suck c**ks" (his version didn't have asterisks.) This would merit at least a warning/advice not to do so in intself, and that he is a blocked user too does not bode well. Here he was on AN/I asking to be unblocked when only the week before he made edit summaries such as that, which he must've thought people might've considered when viewing his contribs due to his starting this discussion. Sticky Parkin 13:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  Thank you, kind sir, those two asteriks saved me a world of psychological upheaval. Were it not for them, I do not know how I would cope with seeing the letter "c" next to the letter "ocks" on a computer screen. --Badger Drink (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I've been watching this user for some time, wondering when the block would be coming. Aside from the diffs already supplied, I'll supply a personal observation, which is that the user seems to be attention-seeking, pushing things further and further until, failing to get the attention they crave, they actually come here and blurt out "look at me". This doesn't seem like someone who has the intention of contributing to the project. And I do apologise for commenting on the user rather than the contributions, but I think it's a pattern of behaviour that is likely to continue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose While I disagree with Durova's position (I feel forgiveness is always an option, no matter what WP:BAN and WP:SOCK might say, as long as the user demonstrates a genuine desire to contribute constructively), the diffs provided by Metros, all of which occurred in the last five days, are a deal-breaker. Flameviper is asking to come back, with the understanding he'll be on a very short leash -- but he's already biting the leash. While those diffs might only result in a civility warning for a new user, for a previously-banned user they are the kiss of death. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.
• Oppose For the reasons given above. Also, a banned used should request unbanning via e-mail, not on-wiki. _{1 != 2} 14:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. Flameviper has been the subject of numerous admin discussions (including 1, 2, 3; there are many others in the AN and ANI archives). He resorted to sockpuppetry in order to seek an unblock. He's been given many chances, and he openly admits here that he enjoys seeking attention. If he were truly interested in contributing to the encyclopedia, he would just do it without all this disruptive behaviour. --Kyoko 15:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Bah I can't even spend a week away without being dragged back by something like this! Curse the global login cookie. Anyway, I support unblocking. Why? I supported the same for Cream (formerly known as w00t, see archives), and things have turned out well there. The key thing to do is, now that Ziggy has "come clean" about his identity, is to nurture him around to being a productive contributor. This means defining the limits. Saying "he's already blown his chance" doesn't fly with me. He was never given a chance - he was constantly hiding and hoping not to be "outed" by any of those he had confided in. Banning a user repeatedly is useless. They come back angry and cause issues. It doesn't work. No point bearing a grudge, even if "policy" "says" we should. Urging reconsideration and care, Martinp23 17:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

He did not "come clean", he tried to become an admin and was unmasked. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what I love about this place. There's so much assumption of good faith. Yes, I'm being sarcastic. He's not the bloody Phantom of The Opera being "unmasked" (or something - I'm not a great dramatist (honest)). He's a real person, like you or me. Now think about that. He's real - he's like you, sat here behind a computer. Now tell me that you can honestly make a judgment like that based on the prejudice of actions of a year ago, simply because of the WP:BAN tag? If you can, then I despair. The point is - if a user is coming back again and again despite a ban, then they want to be here (more than I do, frankly). Why should we stop them when we can put in a bit of effort to turn them around into useful contributors, and save ourselves the pain the the future? Martinp23 17:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I really do try to assume good faith and if you honestly think I've failed to do so, please point out how / where. All I said was that ZiggySawdust filed an RfA and RyanPostlethwaite pointed out his former identity. If he had not filed the RfA, and had announced of his own volition who he was, I'd be urging that he be unbanned - just as you are. But that did not happen. All I've said, really, is that a confession loses some of its moral value when one's hand is caught in the cookie jar. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Unban and move on with your lives. By creating this account, he took a huge risk, and I for one admire Flameviper for admitting that and risking making his situation worse. He wants to edit here, so as long as he's not causing any trouble and being monitored to check he's doing fine, everything will be fine. Good luck. Qst (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Causing trouble like creating nonsense redirects you mean?? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

RfD it if it's so evil. Martinp23 18:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's not "evil", but neither is it productive or helpful. Nor is this. I don't feel like trolling through the contributions to find more examples, but they are there. What I honestly don't see is the evidence of reform. I don't think anyone is suggesting it's not possible, but it doesn't seem to have happened yet. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Or "testing" like this: [-Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive418#Need_an_admin_to_reverse_pagemove]=? Metros (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Tried talking to him about your concerns before jumping to block? I'd honestly like to see more admins do that for serious cases - if you can talk the user out of being a dick (if he/she is being one), then the problem is resolved much for satisfactorily for all than using the buttons. Martinp23 18:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. It was a silly move which wasn't the best for his reputation, but its not the end of the world. Qst (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support unban. This is ridiculous. Ziggy is annoying, but in no way harmful. He is not Greg Kohs or Don Murphy and does not deserve to be banned. howcheng {chat} 18:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Completely support unban - this user is certainly not the worst member of our project, we've probably unbanned far worse users before. This latest account of Flameviper is far better than previous accounts, and has done some fantastic work here. I see no reason to reblock him (yeah, I'm aware it's already been done) for actions that happened relatively long ago. I'll certainly offer to mentor him, I think that could help and I'd welcome thoughts on some editing restrictions. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• I never saw anything too problematic from the Ziggy Sawdust account, and he seemed like a productive editor. I'd support giving him a chance and unbanning him. I'm very disappointed that he's been blocked so quickly too, rather than being allowed to talk here. Acalamari 18:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Not now. He's shown too much annoyance, both on and off wiki. We've been here before, where he promises to do good, then ultimately fails. My decision stands. Oppose an unblock. -Pilotguy contact tower 18:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest- have many people received mails from this person in response to this thread? Not that I minded it- it's always nice to get mail :) and it wasn't particularly abusive, however I was careful (I hope) and used the 'email this user' function to respond, rather than revealing my email addy. (No disrespect meant to Ziggy and I'm not trying to say he's a wrong'un or anything like that - I just try to be cautious online.) Sticky Parkin 22:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Since you ask, Flameviper emailed me, too. Just so you know, I believe that the "email this user" function does reveal your email to the recipient, so that they can reply. Someone please correct me if this isn't the case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It is the case. Speaking as someone who uses the email function often, sending an email to someone reveals your email addy to them so's they can reply. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 00:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No email here - I don't even think I have that option turned on. At least I hope to God I don't. --Badger Drink (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• No real strong opinion on Flameviper himself, but the fact that he socked again to get around his ban doesn't sit too well with me and makes me none to quick to think we should unban. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Wait. I'm willing to consider the unban, but on a short leash after a month or so long wait. bibliomaniac15 00:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support unban. This discussion is disappointingly filled with the idea that the user is an unreformed scoundrel, needs to repent, needs to abstain from improving the encyclopedia as some kind of gesture of goodwill. It appears that this user has been editing in a mostly constructive fashion and wants to continue doing so, but feels that his participation should have the approval of the community. I find all that to be very encouraging. Everyking (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unban - I hate to sound like I'm not showing good faith, but AGF says "assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary". I have reviewed the edits of all the accounts in this saga and I am not convinced that unbanning this account, the latest in a long line of socks (some of which were used to support his last blocking request, others of which even fairly recently were simply vandalism-only accounts) will have any net benefit for the encyclopaedia. Others such as Poetlister and Moulton that we've unblocked are potentially strong contributors capable of improving the encyclopaedia, and any controversy surrounding their edits did not extend to living Wikimemory of the unblock requests. It's very easy to stay under the radar simply by sticking to speedy deletions and script warnings. From the last two weeks alone - unhelpful edits like [82] and [83] suggest someone will have to spend a lot of time running after him fixing up, and needlessly offensive edit summaries [84] and [85]. I'm not seeing the "constructive editing", sorry. Orderinchaos 01:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unban per Durova. I think Ziggy should try to contribute positively in other Wikimedia projects where s/he is not sitebanned. If Ziggy can show that he is capable of working in a wiki environment, s/he should be given another chance. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If unbanned

If this user is unbanned, what kind of restrictions/policing/guidelines do those who say "he needs to be put on a short leash" believe need to be put into place? I don't believe that he should be just "turned loose" without any structure to guide his actions and an understanding of what would happen with disruptions. So for those of you who support an unbanning, what do you feel needs to be done after the unbanning to prevent any of the issues that led to the banning and the issues that occurred under this account. Metros (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If we really must unban; immediate short blocks in response to any unnecessary use of foul language or other obscenities which aren't in a context that could be construed as necessary or relevant for building an encyclopedia. Including edit summaries. Sticky Parkin 22:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Foul language is not grounds for blockings. --Badger Drink (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sticky Parkin is correct, it can be evidence of incivility. Kbthompson (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Then block for incivility, not for a few f-bombs. "Evidence of incivility" - if you find yourself needing to play Sherlock Holmes or start a spreadsheet to determine whether or not a user is being incivil, it's a good sign you're looking far too fucking hard. Best - --Badger Drink (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If a user demonstrates an inability to distinguish between when profanity is acceptable and when it is incivil, I think it is entirely appropriate to prohibit them from using profanity altogether, as a purely preventative measure. This is not about censorship; this is about helping people be civil. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Whoa. Strongly disagree with a general profanity ban, although I agree with everyone's points about it being innapropriate in certain places. When a rule like this is cooked up, people have to realize how hard it is to enforce. If he uses profanity in a mild way, it would be ridiculous to then block/ban because of this rule. If he uses it in an incivil way, deal with that, no need for such a wide-ranging rule. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Every dog has their day (in court), which is why I say evidence. It's usually enough for someone to be on a behavioural probation for them to concentrate on avoiding such situations. Kbthompson (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

We never ever ever should block someone for incivility. (policy states, last I checked) Martinp23 18:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No it does not, and in fact policy states the opposite, right in the 3rd paragraph:

The community realizes that editors are human, capable of mistakes, and so a few, minor, isolated incidents are not in themselves a concern. A pattern of gross incivility, however, is highly disruptive, and may result in warnings or blocks. Of course, one single act of incivility can also cross the line if severe enough; for instance, an egregious personal attack, a threat against another person, or extreme profanity directed against another contributor are all excessive enough to result in a block without any need to consider the pattern. (WP:CIV, 3rd paragraph)

I really have no idea where you get that from, to be honest... Incivility is probably the most disruptive problem the project faces. Vandalism is easy, you just RBI. Otherwise productive editors who are incivil, on the other hand, are a serious quandary. You hate to block them, but then how many countless productive editors have left the project because they got sick of taking shit from incivil arrogant (but otherwise productive) editors?? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Jay, plenty have left indeed. Me included for most purposes. I don't know where I get that from - I seem to remember some discussion concluding that it was a bad idea to do "block per WP:CIV", if there is no personal attack or sustained disruption. Looking at the quote above this does indeed still seem to be the case, hence my opposition to a block for a single bit of incivility. Ah - I remember now. "Cool down" blocks are a bad thing, and this is effectively what a "short block for incivility" is, if not a punishment, and blocks are not for punishment. Yes, a sustained pattern of issues after his "probation" proper starts would call for a block, but being imperfect does not warrant a sanction like that. Do you see what I mean? Martinp23 18:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

To say that we cannot block editors for persistent refusal to comply with an established policy is equivalent to saying that the policy is without force and void. At some point, sufficiently egregious violation of any policy – including WP:CIV] – will draw a block. It's also worth noting that the ArbCom has imposed civility paroles on editors before, recognizing that persistent incivility is harmful and disruptive to a constructive and collaborative working environment. (See for example [86], [87], [88].) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I worded my comment badly due to not having been active. Persistant inciv. can result in a disruption block, but isolted incidents shouldn't do so. More incivility is likely to result from such a block (for most people (I don't say that lightly)), so a block only on the basis of saying a swear word or whatever is stupid. Martinp23 18:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I should clarify that when I proposed prohibiting Flameviper from using profanity, I did not mean that a single "damn" should result in a block, far from it. I just meant to make it clear that, unlike other users who are trusted to use their own judgment as to when profanity is acceptable, this user should be asked to refrain from it altogether, and understand that if he uses profanity it will be automatically considered incivil. This is actually intended to help the user -- since he obviously can't tell when it's okay to swear or not, if he just assumes it's never okay, then by definition he'll never "accidentally" use profanity inappropriately. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between profanity and incivility, I think, so we ought not make a "profanity=incivil" judgment, rather look at any issues on a case by case basis. But yes, I think he can expect that he will inevitably be held to a higher standard than others (much as I personally dislike the fact, I can see why it is the case, given a degree of mis-trust and, perhaps, anger). Martinp23 19:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ryan has offered to mentor the user - I think this would be great. Limits do need defining - I'd suggest basically, in a nutshell: "avoid personal attacks, remain civil, and don't mess about too much ["too much" because a bit of fun is good]. Try to work on building the encylopedia". Thanks, Martinp23 18:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not have an opinion on the issue yet but i am still studying it. JeanLatore (talk) 02:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You and Ziggy Sawdust/Flameviper are a lot alike in your flippancy and love of the help desks, so I'm interested in your conclusion of what reasonable limits might be. I don't support unbanning for reasons stated earlier, but how would you feel, if you were the user, about a ban on participating at the help desks? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• If Ryan wants to mentor, I've no particular objection. But my first introduction to this person was as a drama-seeking child with little self-control; this entire theater piece is an example of that. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  I think we way too often give attention-seekers what they want. This keeps them coming back for more. Can we find a way to ship this kid off to some other website or chat room or something where such behavior is a better fit for the environment? Friday (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  For the record, Flameviper has another sock, KONATA KONATA KONATA (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) as confirmed in this diff.
  

  I'm not personally convinced that Flameviper has reformed, but if Ryan is still willing to mentor him, fine. I do hope that he can become a productive contributor and win the community over. I have seen it happen before, rarely. If Flameviper is unbanned, I strongly encourage him to refrain from any profanity and even heated remarks, and furthermore, I hope he avoids any situations where he might be tempted to say something regrettable. --Kyoko 16:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for unbanning

I think it would be good to put everyones cards on the table and I'd like to offer some proposed community sanctions should he be unbanned....

"Ziggy Sawdust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is unblocked and is allowed to resume normal editing, under a community editing restriction. He is placed under community civility parole. Should he make any comments which are personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith or any other comment which is perceived to be incivil, he may be blocked for up to one week. He is also banned from editing any reference desk, or help desk pages indefinitely. Ziggy is permitted to use just one account and any further instances of sockpuppetry will lead to his ban being reinstated. Further to these restrictions, he is placed under the mentorship of Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)."

Any thoughts on this? Ryan Postlethwaite 16:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Very important point: no more socks. --Kyoko 16:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oops, forgot to add that in. Now done. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That is acceptable to me with one reservation: That the user (Ziggy/Flamewiper) be placed on something of a "probationary" period for one year, under my or someone else's supervision, where the user be required to make at least 100 contributions (edits) to wikipedia articles a month. The contributions may either be substantive or minor, but the total must exceed 100 a month. If at the end of any month the user's article edits are less than 100, the "probation" will be revoked and the user perma-banned. That way we can not only rehabilitate this user, and monitor him, but also get some productive work out of him in building the encyclopedia. JeanLatore (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That seems awfully strict. It would be better if we eased him into articles, which I could do with mentorship. I don't see this probation as productive - it essentially says that he should be banned if he doesn't do enough graft in one month as a volunteer - that's not right. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel it's unreasonable to demand an edit quota out of someone. This is a volunteer project. Making 50 (or five) good edits a month is something to be applauded, not something that a person should be banned for. Everyking (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Any good contributions are good contributions and are welcome. Wikipedia is not about racking up a high score. Friday (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If I wasn't assuming good faith, I might think this was a deliberately ridiculous proposal by someone trolling ANI (again). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely hope it isn't, and I would also hope that he is closely watched and infractions scrupulously policed. Orderinchaos 01:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, my comment above is directed at JeanLatore's ludicrous mandatory edits proposal, not the request by Flameviper to be unbanned, nor the proposal by Ryan Postlethwaite to mentor. While I don't support the latter two proposals, I don't think they were suggested for the purposes of trolling. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[after edit conflict]The distinction is that this is not a volunteer project when it comes to the user in question, as the user in question has been previously banned from the project. Therefore, if the project allows him to come back (thus overturning their decision) the project does reserve the right to impose a less-than-full set of "rights" to him for a while, and making the user produce some article edits would be a good way to turn the probation/mentorship time into improvement of the articles. JeanLatore (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

How could we justify banning him in July if he made fewer than 100 edits in June, provided all the edits he did make were good? I think any number of good edits is better than zero. One imagines a starving man pushing away a slice of bread—"I'm starving, and you think I'm going to settle for that?" If he makes bad edits, then we could consider a penalty, but that's a different story. Everyking (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no. If you create a requirement like that, volunteers who work mostly with content will have to fix 98 articles he felt obliged to edit. By past experience this would mean dozens of useless tags per article. Orderinchaos 01:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying he is incapable of helpful edits to articles? JeanLatore (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm saying if you force numbers on people that they will make up the numbers by whatever means. It's human nature. Orderinchaos 05:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Still oppose on principle. This proposal would send a subtext to every banned editor who pays attention: Don't sit out your ban; come back and sock. And if you're sly and political enough about it, the site will even reward you for that by lifting your ban! You've got nothing to lose anyway--you're already on the outs. So sock away... Life is waaaay too short to deal with the fallout of that message. We don't owe one difficult individual a free pass at the price of charging our productive volunteers that heavy a price. My previous offer to mentor on another project stands: I'll open a new unban thread myself in due course if he does good work elsewhere. But this way? No way. Durova^Charge! 05:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with Durova: rewarding editors for violating sitebans sends, to put it lightly, quite the wrong message. And Ryan, please stop misplacing your efforts towards mentoring people that have proven to be useless in the past and redirect it towards productive contributors who haven't yet been able to pass the hurdle of enculturing themselves with our wacky customs. Or put your considerable talents at mediation to use in resolving a dispute somewhere... something, anything besides wasting your time on incompetent editors. It's pure hubris to think that you'll finally be the one to turn a banned editor around, and it never happens; the proverbial fall inevitably comes around in the form of the person in question becoming recidivous. (Okay, maybe there's the one exception, but that's not happening again soon. :]) east.718 at 05:57, June 7, 2008
  • Agree with Durova and East. People do not get banned for no reason, it's usually done at a point where community patience has been exhausted, and they have usually done a lot to get there. I've been at the other end watching someone being given chance after chance and then finally the last straw where they get banned, but usually only after driving productive contributors off the project. It wastes project and volunteer time to unban people who cannot offer us anything and have demonstrated an unwillingness to work within the rules. I've seen mentorship work at close range, but it only works where the mentoree is basically there but has regular lapses of judgement. This is not one such case. Orderinchaos 06:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• People who get banned and sock are either going to help the project or hurt it. In my opinion, you can't reasonably decide what to do with them until you judge which course they've taken by evaluating their edits. Banning people is a practical measure that should intended purely to prevent them from causing harm. If unbanning Flameviper sends a message to other banned users that they can sock, work constructively, and get themselves unbanned as a result, then I'm happy to send that message. What if Flameviper wanted to donate money to the project—should the foundation refuse to accept his money? It makes no more sense to reject his good edits than it would make to reject his money; in fact it makes even less sense, because the improvement of articles is our highest priority. Everyking (talk) 07:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming capability here. Please show me one article he has significantly improved under any of his nicks. Good faith alone doesn't cover bad behaviour in the absence of positive contributions. Orderinchaos 08:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I scanned his contributions going back through mid-May and found that it's overwhelmingly tagging and notifications for speedy deletions, coupled with many minor edits (I don't want to dismiss this kind of work, but clearly it's not on the same level as content addition). However, I did find a few examples of him adding substantial article content: Lutetium is the best example, followed by this edit, which also appears to be high quality. So my evaluation of his work through that time is that he is someone who spends a lot of time patrolling new pages, but is also capable of adding an occasional bit of quality, referenced content to science-related articles. On the other hand, he does tend towards occasional silliness, but he doesn't seem to do so in a harmful way. The best example of this is User:Ziggy Sawdust/Avril. I don't really know what's going on with that page—the questions are obviously not genuine, and the page is bizarrely popular among users who don't edit anything else. It would be easy to assume he created all those accounts as sockpuppets for fun—since they're doing nothing but editing his own "reference desk", I'm not sure I could define that as disruption, but it's obviously not something we should look very kindly on. Everyking (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

What this proposal and its supporters are overlooking is that it not only sets a bad precedent; it's unnecessary. There are plenty of other projects where this editor isn't banned and could demonstrate a good history legitimately. I extended an offer of mentorship to him for another wikiproject days ago. He evaded his ban to post to my user talk page, so I blanked he ban-evading post and replied to his IP's talk page with instructions about how to follow up legitimately, via e-mail. He hasn't replied. With that already on the table before Ryan extended his offer, there's no excuse to bend the rules. I'm an admin on Commons and I edit a variety of other WMF projects. I'll put my reputation on the line at any of those to offer Flameviper a policy-compliant return. That should be more than generous enough in this situation. Durova^Charge! 09:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Durova, East and Orderinchaos and I'm very troubled about the precedent the community is going to be setting if this happens. I regularly get emails from Eddie Segoura, the "Exicornt Vandal", saying that he wants to be unbanned. He has appealed without success to the ArbCom several times now and he has had a few socks that have been productive by all appearances but he has also had many sockpuppets that were not productive. Shall I tell him to keep creating sockpuppets and when he has a constructive one that has gone unnoticed for awhile, to come here and announce who he is and he'll be unbanned? Seriously? He watches the admin noticeboards and I know he would be most delighted if this is the precedent we are going to set for future appeals but I'm not so thrilled with it myself. I'll guarantee that he'll be creating socks minutes after he sees flameviper is unblocked. Also, for informational purposes, I received an email from flameviper after commenting on this subject earlier and he indignantly asked me to point out one policy he had violated since he was banned. Ugh, SOCK, BAN, BLOCK? That he doesn't get even *this* much is extremely concerning. But maybe that's just to me... Sarah 11:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Durova and east718 here, too much headache for so little a chance of success, seeing this user on IRC, I do not see there being any chance of success IMO. I'll note that there are 24 users in Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user who to my knowledge are not banned, socking, etc. Rather then rehashing every good ban we've ever done (something I've seen more and more of recently), I've got to echo the feeling that we need to be workong on helping totally new contributors learn to contribute at progressively higher levels of quality. MBisanz ^talk 11:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and a good wider perspective on the matter. Orderinchaos 13:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Durova too that Ziggy S. got banned for a reason, seems intellectually incapable of making productive content additions to the articles (which is -- or should be -- our priority), and clear evidence of Ziggy's current sockpuppets being disruptive at the very time his "main" sockpuppet account is begging to be re-instated probably doesn't sit well with other editors either. My proposal above still stands, however, I would like to clarify I would like to see about 125 solid, referenced article content edits a month out of him for a year before he were to be granted full user status. Most people don't even want him back under any circumstances. JeanLatore (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please be more careful with syntax: a reader could infer from your statement that I've insulted his intellect. I haven't, and I ask you to refactor the opinion itself. It's one thing to point out behavioral problems, another thing to speculate about a person's intellect or state of mind. He's banned and not allowed to respond here. Durova^Charge! 16:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still uneasy about unbanning him, because Durova, Sarah, and other people do have a point about the principle of a ban. Furthermore, I don't get any sense of contrition in Flameviper's/Ziggy's unban request, and he was dishonest in not revealing his identity in his RfA, and in his unban request (four socks I know of post-ban, not two as stated). Ryan, could you please explain further what convinced you that he had reformed?

As a side note, I find Jean's proposed requirement of "125 solid, referenced article content edits a month" quite demanding. I don't believe I satisfy that requirement myself. --Kyoko 17:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you are not banned and asking to come back for no reason. This gentleman is at Wikipedia's mercy right now, Wikipedia might as well turn that to its advantage. If Ziggy/Flamewiper wants to come back, he'll do so as a constructive article editor for a year...if not, then CYA! JeanLatore (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

He's already past CYA, and the burden's on him to come back from the corner where he's painted himself. There are open doors from that corner to Commons, Wikinews, Wikibooks, etc. And from there we can unlock a door back to Wikipedia without ruining the paint job. Durova^Charge! 19:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding to my last message: I'm not convinced that he has reformed, after discovering his edits to Lutetium, in which he adds content but also adds inappropriate ref tags. I don't want to repeat them here, but I've removed them. I did only a cursory reading, so there might be other hidden jokes. While he might conceivably feel this is just harmless fun, I think it conveys the message that he doesn't take Wikipedia seriously. I'm not saying that Wikipedia should be a joyless enterprise, but I also think that I or other people should not have to screen his edits for possible hidden messages. Sorry, Ryan, but I don't think he should be unbanned. --Kyoko 19:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this looks like it's going to have to go before ArbCom because I'm seriously ready to unblock. It's sad really - we've allowed many users back who have caused far less disruption than this. Flameviper is in the minor leagues as far as disruptive users are concerned. This guy created WP:ADOPT and it's clear he wants to help the project. He hasn't had a single opportunity to have an experienced Wikipedian to help him along the road - this is what I'm offering. It's not an easy way back in, it's the last chance saloon (something we've given to many users in the past). Yeah he's created socks to evade his ban, not to harm the project, but because he's a good faith user who really wants to help out. Yeah he's made his mistakes, but I'm willing to keep Ziggy on a tight lead. Even if I have to give a couple of short blocks to get him back into line, we really can shape him into a good Wikipedian. As far I'm concerned, it smacks of double standards compared to the treatment we give to other users that have been banned. One question - would we have banned him if he hadn't have admitted it here (or I'd have admitted my knowledge of it on his RfA? I seriously doubt it because nobody saw him as a user that needed a ban (nothing like in fact). This really isn't right. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, I understand where you're coming from but you don't seem to be following our objections and I still have a major problem with the way we have got to this point. If there hadn't been socking and you had come here and posted another mentorship/unbanning proposal (you said he hadn't ever had the chance at mentorship but he did have the opportunity, he just squandered it by using a sock in the very unban discussion) I wouldn't be really keen because I think he's too immature and just an attention seeker but I wouldn't have such a strong objection to it and wouldn't have tried to stand in the way. What I have a problem with is users who are banned creating sockpuppets using them to make lots of mainly minor edits, tagging and such and then if we don't happen to notice who it is in time and block them, they come here a couple of weeks later, reveal their identity and we reward them for socking by unbanning them? Are you sure that this is the precedent that you want to set for dealing with banned users? Why is there a rush? Why can't he request unbanning in the usual way without socking around the ban? Also, have you looked at his contribs and did you see his offensive edit summaries? I get that you think you can turn him around and kudos to you for that and I don't want to stand in the way of you trying to make a productive editor out of him but I really don't think this is the right way to do it. You said that "it smacks of double standards compared to the treatment we give to other users" - who else has been unbanned after announcing they're a sock of a banned user? To my knowledge, historically we've always blocked socks of banned users and I don't recall any sock of a banned user being unbanned in this way. Again, I have a problem with the way we have got here and the precedent it is going to set for future cases, but I am not particularly against him being a second chance if he were to stop socking and either appeal in the usual way or follow up with Durova and edit on another project for awhile. I'm not seeing what the rush is about here. Can you please respond to some of the points that have been raised by Durova and others above? Thanks. For the record, I think the idea that he should be forced to make an edit count quota is ridiculous and I would object on principle to that requirement being applied to anyone. Whether someone is on mentorship or not they should never be required to edit more or less than they want to. Sarah 01:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My frustration at this basically stems from this recent unbanning from WP:AN. Here, we see SwirlBoy39 evaded his ban, after creating numerous socks used to vandalise Wikipedia and when it was finally announced who he really was, he was unbanned to edit constructively. Then in this thread, Ziggy, who I don’t even think has used a previous sock (he had far less socks than SwirlBoy) to vandalise the project, gets relatively strong opposition to an unbanning. This is why I talk of double standards. The only reason why we even know the correlation between the two accounts is because I revealed it on his RfA, then he came here requesting an unban. I respect that this wasn’t the best way of going about things, but unfortunately we can’t turn back time. By having Flameviper editing under an account we can watch closely (let’s face it, he’s most probably going to create a new account, and this time tell nobody about it, so we won’t have a clue who he is), we can keep him on a tight leash and his edits will be open to scrutiny given the problems he caused in the past. I’ve certainly seen the incivility in the edit summaries, and even some on talk pages, but under the editing restriction, this would see him blocked – I’d block him myself because I’d be keeping an extremely close watch on him. As Everyking has pointed out, there is some constructive work in his editing and with a bit of help, we can cut out his poorer side (with short blocks if necessary at first) and help him become a better Wikipedian. I certainly look forward to doing a tag team on an article with him, talking him through our editing policies/guidelines so his content edits can be the best quality possible. Ziggy hasn’t had an opportunity to work with someone – he’s never had a mentor, or someone to turn to if he’s not sure what to do. This is exactly why I want to help him – if it doesn’t work out, oh well, we tried and we can block him indef again, but if it does work out, we’re going to have one more productive contributor who is obviously extremely enthusiastic about helping here. On a side note, I’m not a fan of Durova’s offer – Ziggy doesn’t seem to have an interest in working on another Wikimedia project (after all, they’re all very different), he simply wants to help out here- I don’t think it’s good having someone edit in a place they really don’t want to be editing at. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If you unblock plz. enforce the 125 referenced article edits a month requirement, or something along those lines. JeanLatore (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

JeanLatore, you're the only one advocating this. It's not going to be implemented for the various reasons discussed above. We do not force people to edit articles as, essentially, repentance. Yes, there are topic bans for those who demonstrate disruption in particular areas, but this kind of restriction is not "what we do" so to speak. Metros (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise would be possible: he could be banned for one or two more months, then unbanned and allowed to edit (if he doesn't sock in the meantime) under Ryan's mentorship for one or two months after that, and if Ryan deems the mentorship successful, then he can edit without restriction. Everyking (talk) 04:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

So socking one's unban discussion earns a ban reduction? I've already offered a more reasonable compromise, and he's lucky it's still on the table. Durova^Charge! 07:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it comes down to whether one believes that it's better for the health of the project that banned editors serve out their bans regardless of circumstances, to encourage respect for the rules, or whether one believes bans should be lifted at any time if there's a reasonable expectation that the person will not behave in a harmful manner, to facilitate direct improvement of the encyclopedia. Everyking (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Everyking, have you looked into my offer? Right now I'm increasingly dubious whether a reasonable expectation exists that he'll be productive. This discussion has stretched to nearly 80k so I'll put a parameter on the situation: my offer to Flameviper of sister project mentorship now has a shelf life of 7 days, maximum. Over 4 of those 7 days have already passed. I may shorten it. It is a generous offer because I would put my reputation on the line at the project of his choosing. Then, if he lives up to the generous hopes some people have for him, I would open another unban discussion here myself. While this offer remains on the table he may contact me via e-mail to accept it. Durova^Charge! 07:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, my assessment of his editing over the last month, which I detailed above, is that he has been productive, albeit in a rather limited way, so I feel that we could reasonably expect continued productivity if he's unbanned. I don't know that your offer is such a great one. It feels like it could be almost be conscripting him into work on a project he isn't interested in so that he'll be allowed to edit the one he is interested in, sort of like making him pay to do volunteer work. I suppose maybe he does have an interest in other projects, though. Everyking (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have an alternative proposal: instead of being allowed full reign to the encyclopedia, the user is allowed to use their talk page again. Using {{helpme}} (or some other template if people want), they can request edits to pages be done for them. This would encourage serious content-creating edits, but would be reviewed through someone else first (plus the lack of ability to do real-time work adds to the pressure which I want to him under). I would propose that he cannot sock but is allowed one user talk page to conduct this test. If he does not indicate an serious interest in helping the encyclopedia during one month (either no real edits offered or some bad habits during that period), then he remains in the banned condition. Any socking during this period is an immediate violation (and socking to get around the reviewing process is a complete done deal). Any other views? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I like this idea. If he makes some major content suggestions during that time without causing any trouble, I think that would make the case for unbanning more clear to some of the doubters. Everyking (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is getting more clear. It stuns me that with a generous and nearly unprecedented offer already sitting for four and a half days, respectable editors propose to go beyond that and create a dangerous precedent. I am very tempted to withdraw my offer and walk away entirely, as protest. Durova^Charge! 09:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You may see your offer as generous and unprecedented, but there is no obligation for him to take you up on that offer. Having said that, a polite decline of the offer would be reasonable. First, though, do you have evidence that he has seen the offer since the latest reblock? Secondly, your offer shouldn't prevent others from making suggestions, or you from commenting on those suggestions. It would be nice if things were discussed in sequence, rather than in parallel, but it is nearly impossible to do that in large discussions on Wikipedia. Wait for the discussion to die down and then renew the offer privately and see what response you get and then announce it somewhere, like you did with Matt Sanchez. Carcharoth (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, the answers to all of your questions are already on this thread. Nearly 5 days ago I extended the offer. He's seen it; he evaded his siteban yet again to inquire about it at my user talk page. So in accordance with WP:BAN I blanked the post; I also went to the talk page of the IP address he had used to post at my user space and left instructions on how he could follow up properly; via e-mail. I later summarized that here among my several updates to this thread. It is unreasonable to demand that I explain these points again, or to imply that I haven't proceeded with due diligence. As of now, I reduce the time span of that offer by 24 hours. Durova^Charge! 16:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for missing the earlier stuff. I think you would be better to withdraw the offer now, rather than have some deadline that you are reducing in some effort to force a response to your offer. Either that, or leave it open for him to contact you at some future point when things have calmed down. Carcharoth (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I owe an apology too. Now that I check my own page history I see that was a different banned editor who replied via IP. This one has contacted me by e-mail now and I've outlined the offer plus a selection of other sites where I've done some work. The ball's in his court. Durova^Charge! 21:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I am volunteering to help mentor the user to help enforce the article editing requirement I could put him to use doing some research for me on articles I am writing on supreme court cases and other things. JeanLatore (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

JeanLatore, as has been explained, there is not going to be the article editing enforcing if there is an unban. Metros (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

dont you think that writing articles is the best thing one can do here? It is an encyclopedia after all, not myspace. JeanLatore (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Everybody who wants Flameviper to treat Wikipedia as MySpace instead of writing articles, please raise your hands. Everyking (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Really had my hands full; should have done this sooner. Flameviper has written me and expressed an interest in the Simple English Wikipedia. Really he'd like to be here at en:wiki, but that's pretty close. If he follows through and does good work I'll restart this discussion myself when the time is right. I'd like to come back with some good arguments that he's shown he can adapt and contribute productively without the problems that brought things to this point. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 16:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)