Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive617

Hagger - please block

Resolved

 – indeff'd

NoolinDrive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[1]. One of the NPPs reverted [2] already. Appears to be Hagger. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone has already indef'd. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Two minutes after I posted. Excellent! --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Use of inappropriate content

With a long history of deletions+2+3+4, this user (+smpile:+es:+AH+...) was now blocked in de:. As I am not well versed with legal issues in en:wiki, perhaps so. else could look over this? Thank you. --Trofobi (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

All your links point to soxred's tools, rather than diffs for dodgy content, so I'm not sure what the problem is. He seems to have been blocked for vandalism and spamming on de, he's not blocked on Simple or Spanish. There isn't a problem with him keeping that school essay summary of WWII on his userpage as long as it's not a copyright violation. He does seem keen to spam it into an article, but it would fail as a duplication of existing content on all Wikipedias I suspect - it's been turfed here already. The swastika image might alarm people, but the text is not pro german (in fact, it's an accurate if very simplistic summary of what happened in WWII). We wouldn't usually block a user here for disruption elsewhere on the project - such users usually manage to do enough to get blocked here as well!! --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In a nutshell, WP:ROPE... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Mdupont

Hello. Just wanted to ask someone (preferably admin) to help User:Mdupont with his edits. User add Albanian names wherever he find needed ([3]) constantly uses underscore in article space ([4]) uses some weird signature without links, ([5]) while his articles are in complete mess (Mosque Katip Sinan Qelebi). He also back up all of his articles in every possible place, including article talk page ([6]), his personal pages, (most of them meaningless) and his talk page. I tried to help him, and explain, ([7], [8], ) but he didn't reacted on my advices and guidance links. As a final act of misunderstanding, he tried to open arbitration, but filled it wrongly. Last dialog can be seen here. (User talk:Mdupont#Districts) User is not vandal, or anything like that, it looks like he love wikipedia, and we is here for long years, but he just need some help that will explain him everything CLEARLY and UNDERSTANDABLY. I just tried to help as some other users did in the past ([9]), but he didn't liked my help, per bit problematic point of view, that was already recognized earlier ([10]). As i will not talk with user anymore, please, i ask from some neutral admin to send him link or two with some guidelines, and help him implement those. As users articles topic is under WP:ARBMAC restriction, his adding of Albanian language everywhere may be problem. For more, sure, i am here. :) --Tadija^speaks 20:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Posted something to his talkpage. EyeSerene^talk 14:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I am being warned of what exactly? please explain. Also, I was not informed about this complaint. the adding of Albanian names to areas where Albanians live has precedence on the Kosovo article, so why not on other places. Am I being warned of being banned? For what offence, please be very specific? I feel like user User talk:Tadija has been wikihounding me and my edits. James Michael DuPont 18:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not get a notification that I was dicussed. It seems that Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. was not used. James Michael DuPont 20:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Here i have gotten a second opinion the albanian names in my favor: http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Talk:Metohija#RfC:_Can_we_include_the_local_names_of_the_towns_as_well.3F James Michael DuPont 20:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Gross Harrassment of User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

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

---

Posting on Treasury Tag's page today I noticed an edit by NewYorkBrad which led me to what I think is the most vile and obvious case of wiki-hrassment I have come accross in 6 years here. I cannot be doing with all the diffs, but I have made my feelings clear here [11]. Yesterday as the result of soliciting by Treasury Tag [12] 2 edits there you can see his earlier soliciting above the editor was wrongly blocked [13], it now seems the victim had every cause to be so upset much of his work is nominated for deletion on one fould swoop, much of it by yes, you got it Treasury Tag! Perhaps some of these pages do meet criteria for deletion, I have not looked through them all, but have yet to find one, but the way this is being handled by treaury Taf, seemingly supported by certain others is vile and needs stopping. One of you Admins needs to step in and close the show down and see what exactly is going on.  Giacomo  14:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• See the previous ANI thread about this, which concluded that there was no inappropriate behaviour on my part. I have no further comment ot make on this issue at this time. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 14:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  You are bullying and harassing.  Giacomo  14:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks for the clarification. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 14:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  Like Giacomo, I've not looked at them all here, but the same is going on at Commons now. Richard Arthur Norton is a longstanding productive member of this community and targeting his user space content and images here and at Commons seems like a very low blow. Unless there is evidence of egregious copyright problems - which I don't believe is the case - this needs to end now. Wknight94 ^talk 14:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  So the day after TreasuryTag files a 3RR case about you (now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive132), you come here to complain about TreasuryTag bullying and harassing someone else (a case which had been looked into before here and found wanting), and go around voting keep on AfD's he nominated, going even so far as to revert comments he makes, with a personal attack edit summary to boot[14]? I would suggest that you leave this well alone, or you may have an acute case of WP:BOOMERANG. Fram (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Competely correct. If I were not on TT's page I would never have seen Brad's message telling him to back off! You may find a respected editor like RAN being driven to distraction a fine spectator sport - I do not!  Giacomo  14:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

My situation precisely. If I hadn't run into Richard in an unrelated venue, I would never have discovered his history of copyright and WP:NOTWEBHOST violations. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 14:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• It's not uncommon when finding copyright violations or other image problems from a user to look through their other image contributions for problems. There are plenty of users (not Richard) who think it's acceptable to upload every image they find on the internet so for the most part, if you find one image with copyright problems from a user, you're going to find more. This isn't harassment. --B (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• TT said: "See the previous ANI thread about this, which concluded that there was no inappropriate behaviour on my part." This is not an accurate depiction, its not like TT was absolved. Like almost all issues raised at ANI, there's no jury verdict rendered at the end of a discussion, there's usually just some throwing-up-of-hands at the inanity of it all. GiacomoReturned took the time to review what is going on, and its no shock that he found it abhorrent.--Milowent (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• I find this comment at Commons (threat of summary block by user:Axpde for anyone "complaining of harassment") to be utterly contrary to the spirit of either project. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Just like Richard Arthur Norton's block for a comment made on Commons was a mistake, discussion of other comments, threats, warnings made about this on Commons are out of bounds here. But if such a comment was made on Wikipedia, it would not be "unterly contrary to the spirit", but just a logical conclusion of "Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly" (from Wikipedia:Harassment). Fram (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Blocking may indeed be appropriate, even for "complaining of harassment". However threatening summary blocks to all editors is far too close to using power for entirely the wrong purpose and simply stifling debate. Blocks are, after all, protective and never punitive. We don't need to act hastily, the appropriate actions can be taken slowly, by consensus, and in public sight. The cost of a workable open system is an acceptance that all editors, even the worst trolls and vandals, retain a path of appeal even when this does imply an extra workload for the community at large in "listening to the whining of the obviously culpable" (should it reach that point). Threats like this, and an acceptance of them, is a much greater risk to either project than some inappropriate uploads. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Surely both sides are in the wrong? Unless I'm mistaken, people wouldn't be deeming no harassment has occurred unless there was a problem with the contribution - therefore, the upload should not have been made or should have been removed or something. Unless I'm mistaken, people would not be alleging harassment unless the other editor did something similar to templating the regular as opposed to informally/gently raising the concern, and only if they were unreceptive, begin taking more formal steps (and even then, escalate rather than start at the top extreme). This is probably a completely different school of thought...but that's how it seems to me, based on what little I've read of this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I see, so you feel the contents list of this page [15] is gentle do you? I can think of some editors it would drive to the nearest canal! It is harrassment on a grand scale!  Giacomo  14:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Silly question: suppose there existed a prolific editor who had uploaded some large amount of problematic content. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that he had contributed 5000 photos, 500 of which were poorly sourced, irrelevant to the project, or otherwise unacceptable. What would be the proper method of dealing with the problematic ones? I'm sorry, but I don't see how to differentiate between what you say is harassment and a good-faith effort to cull a user's uploads for ones not acceptable to the project. --B (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

An editor such as Commons:User talk:Duncharris perhaps? This caused utter chaos across the railway project, yet there's none of the rancour or AGF failure we've seen in this case. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not sure if it was my wording or if you misinterpreted my comment Giano, so I'll try to clarify. Some people say no harassment occurs because there was an issue with editor X's upload and therefore editor Y is justified in going through editor X's stuff. On the flipside (where I referred to 'gentle'), I was trying to convey the point that if editor Y had a concern that editor X's stuff remaining uploaded on Wikipedia, they should gently raise that concern informally (letting each concern being dealt with one at a time rather than unreasonably spamming the lot; it might involve plenty of emails for example) and if there is no receptiveness to the concern, then one thing at a time sort of thing...etc. When that doesn't happen, we have a situation where editors feel harassment has occurred because it seems more like editor Y is engaging in an antagonising exercise. Sometimes that is intentional; sometimes that is not. Unfortunately, I still don't know enough about this to come to a conclusion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Giacomo, would you mind explaining how this is constructive? --Smashville^talk 15:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• I feel like saying "a plague on all your houses" to RAN, TT and Giano. This is getting ridiculous. RAN's understanding of our copyright rules seems hazy at best and his use of Wikipedia as a webhost is very trying, TT has the bit between his teeth and is going after RAN like a terrier, and now Giano can't resist sticking his oar in and making a personal attack (I've warned him for this). Interaction ban for the lot of them? Fences&Windows 15:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't know that an interaction ban would be very useful - it's the functional equivalent of closing your eyes to make the problem go away. There are three distinct problems to resolve: (1) Richard uploaded some number of unacceptable images, (2) TreasuryTag et al used an uzi rather than a scalpel in going after them, and (3) Giano sees it as an opportunity for a soapbox. --B (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, Giano's attacks against me are continuing [16] [17] – ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 15:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(Unhelpful nastiness redacted.)  Giacomo  15:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments like this are neither constructive nor acceptable. --B (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

neither are comments like this being so swiftly hidden [18] after more of his soliciting and victimisation.  Giacomo  15:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not "swiftly hidden", he replied on his talkpage and just copied it to me. Furthermore, I don't see the problem with it anyway. I do object to your persistent personal attacks, however. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 15:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've redacted the comment. Poison like that adds nothing. Giano, avoid gross unpleasantness or find yourself blocked. None of us want to have to read boring nastiness. AGK 15:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You lot are a joke in your behaviour you dish it out, but can't take it. As for you TT, I bet you do! always archive (was it archive or remove) that fast do you? Seems to be becoming a habbit of yours today doesn't it archiving and soliciting seem to be amongst your many frequently used talents. Not so funny is it having a taste of your won medicine dished out to you. Well you can relax now because I am disengaging from you and have other things to do for a few hours. You just follow someof others people's advice and try and put right the harm you have done. So long for now.  Giacomo  15:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Clear harassment and abuse of a contributor to the encyclopedia building effort. And now we see those standing up to the vile abuse being attacked as well. Shame on Gwen Gale, Newyorkbrad, Treasurytag, AGK, Ncmvocalist and others for their involvement in this sordid affair. If you can't be bothered to investigate and put things right then you should resign your positions of authority. There is no justification for the outrageous and abusive blocks now in Richard Norton's log, despite his being stalked with socks and other efforts to drive him off. Those who have stood by and allowed this to happen or encouraged it by attacking anyone who points out how grotesque it is should be ashamed of themselves. Civility policy my ass, these behaviors are sick and those defending them have no constructive role to here in building a supportive community or an encyclopedia. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think we're in danger of going slightly over-the-top here... ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 16:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We're not asking for civility, but for people to behave like adults and to not make life unpleasant for other contributors. I actually am looking into this in as much detail as I can. My request for Giano to stop throwing bile around was as an interim comment only, so you can both stop the melodrama. AGK 16:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should have waited until after you investigated before commenting. You might have avoided being completely off base. As usual Giano is one of the few Wikipedians who stands up for those being made victims here by the abusive, corrupt and dishonest.

Once Richard Norton's block log is cleansed of these outrageous and disgusting admin actions there will be cause to ask for quiet, not before. There also need to be sanctions against the abusive harassers and the admins who aided them so these outrageous behaviors are not repeated. Unless of course you think socking, mass nomming, harassment, and blocking of editors when they object is appropriate? Is that Wikipedia's new Fairness Doctrine, an addendum to the "civility policy" so often invoked by the worst of Wikipedia? Freakshownerd (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Was the wording of Giano's comments more excusable before I had reviewed the situation? Hardly. AGK 16:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You or another Admin should have reviewed the situation before I, a non-admin was forced to make a fuss to make people take notice of the wrong being done. anyway, I beleive things are now happening "upstairs" to adress this matter.  Giacomo  16:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

My clairvoyance is a little rusty these days, so I'm afraid I was unaware of an incident that I hadn't been following and hadn't been brought to my attention. Shame on me! AGK 16:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Preliminary comments: The interaction between Treasury Tag and Richard Arthur is deeply unsettling. I am thinking that an interaction ban between them both may be in order. More unsettling still is the discussion here between SGGH and TT, which at best treats Richard as a "problem" to be eradicated; and at worst constitutes flagrant collusion against another contributor. We don't expect our contributors to conduct themselves so. I am interested in the opinion of other uninvolved administrators; this situation could do with some neutral eyes. AGK 16:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  To be clear, the "problem" being referred to in your link is the (what I considered) intimidating nature of Richard's badmouthing of me around the site (eg.) and around Commons. If you look into the ANI archives, you will see a thread I started on this. I was not aware that reporting suspected breaches of WP:CIV and WP:NPA to an individual admin, rather than to a general noticeboard, was forbidden or frowned upon?

  Just for the record, I would not dream of attempting to "eradicate" (as you put it) another contributor. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 16:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• I am worried by some of the interactions I've been seen, and I think that the diff you linked above is somewhat overly-aggressive ("OH DEAR GOD HOW CAN WE STOP HIM!?!?!?" I mean, seriously, come on...). However, it also worries me (probably more) that the addition of large amounts of content that goes against policy might end up being overlooked because of the harrassment claims - despite the fact that WP:HARRASS explicitly states that looking through someone's contributions for policy-breaking content is acceptable. It is also typical that Giacomo has jumped on the situation to use it as a soapbox, and is thus further muddying the situation and making everything much worse. I'm uncertain as to whether an interaction ban would do more good than harm; I believe it would simply mean that RAN goes on uploading copyvios and using Wikipedia as webspace with no oversight, which I'm not sure is appropriate. It's a tricky one, that's for sure. Ale_Jrb^talk

  Yes, you're right, the "dear God" sort of comment was overly dramatic, but I was frustrated and feeling a bit intimidated by Richard's badmouthing me all over the project. However, your summary – as I read it, basically, that whacking me in this case may lead Richard to believe that everything he has ever done is vindicated – is a poignant one! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 16:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• You were not the least intimidated and I don't think it was "badmouthing" anyway. Far from being distressed you were salivating and enjoying every moment in a a hypocritical way. That is just so obvious from the dialogue here [19] It was even begining not to fool Gwen Gale!  Giacomo  17:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  You were not the least intimidated. I think I was. Far from beinh distressed you were salivating and enjoying verymoment in a ahypocritical way. Don't remember any salivating or hypocrisy, and my mousemat appears remarkably clear of dribble... ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 17:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is Norton being singled out?

New section to separate from the carrying on above. Why exactly is Norton being singled out here? TT alerted me to a previous MFD where several of Norton's user space pages were deleted. Why exactly? Is he really doing such harm here that his user space material needs to be deleted?! Is there some sort of disk space issue that I am not aware of? Hasn't there been a tendency of kindness here to let people who do good work maybe keep some personal stuff around, just to keep all their interests in one place? What happened to that? When did the community turn so sour on long-term good contributors like Richard Norton? Wknight94 ^talk 16:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

TT alerted me to a previous MFD where several of Norton's user space pages were deleted. Why exactly? Presumably because that was the overwhelming community consensus at the discussion. I do think that complaining about the result of a clear-cut deletion debate on ANI marks a new low, if I may respectfully say so. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 16:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• A question on the same note as Wknight: Is there any merit to Richard's suggestion that TT wilfully nominated every one of his uploads for deletion as retribution? AGK 16:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  If you mean is it true, then it is not. I spent about three hours painstakingly reviewing each image I nominated, there and on en.wiki, before including it. As I pointed out in the nomination, it is possible that errors were made in either direction, but there are countless examples of uploaded files which I did not touch. In particular, Richard added hundreds of properly-cited images from the Bain News service, which I filtered out of the list to be nominated using a Microsoft Word regex.

  And it was absolutely not for retribution. I have !voted against hundreds of people in hundreds of AfDs, obviously, and I am not so vindictive as to chase after them all with a {{di-no source}} tag! Check the earlier ANI threads for my more comprehensive statement on the issue. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 16:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  What precisely brought on this unexpected review of Richard's uploads? Certainly not a negative interaction with him? AGK 16:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  His upload of File:Mexico-Iceland 2008.png had been discussed as a breach of the NFCC in the deletion discussion of the page it was used on. I nominated it for FfD (where it was deleted), and it seemed so obviously a copyvio that I looked into his other images, as is the done thing with users suspected of having a problem. I then discovered the vast treasure-trove of improperly-tagged and web-hosted files and pages, and went from there.

  I surely would not be expected to leave a problem like that simply because I !voted the opposite way to him in an arbitrary AfD debate! ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 16:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  No, I tell a lie, it was this AfD comment which alerted me to the image-copyright issues. Apologies. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 16:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  That's plausible, I guess. Irrespective of what becomes of this thread, I hope you will refrain in future from interacting with Richard; this discussion, I think, proves better than anything else could that you and he don't mesh well :). AGK 16:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  Wknight, just because we don't have diskspace issues doesn't mean that we can ignore WP:NOT. I'd also suggest that the outcome of said MFD implies that most of the community doesn't really share your views that it's 'just fine'. Ale_Jrb^talk 16:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)*2 Improperly sourced and tagged files, sure. But what with all the user space nominations? That's just smacks of raw spite. And triggered by what? Has Norton somehow offended you? Sure, once you bring it up at the tucked-away little corner of WP:MFD, the people there see your lead and jump on. But I'd like a wider audience here to tell me what the hell Norton did to trigger this multi-project attack against his work. Wknight94 ^talk 16:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  As Ale jrb (talk · contribs) observes, the community consensus was to delete the pages as a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. I nominated them as a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. You're an admin; when you delete articles, did the creators do anything to offend you? Was it raw spite? No. It is, I'm sure, because those pages are contrary to Wikipedia policy. And the consensus was that Richard's pages were too. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 16:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  I second this question. I'm struggling to see why you're interested in this user, other than that much of his work seems to you to be problematic. If an editor genuinely was concerned about the work of another, I'd expect to see some sort of talk page message saying "your work worries me – specifically, files X, Y, and Z. Could we talk about it?". Instead, I am told that you two fell out over something (or did I imagine that? has there been any negative interaction prior to the deletion of some of his work); and I then see that you went, unannounced, on this spree. AGK 16:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  I confirm that I had never met, interacted with or heard of Richard prior to seeing his image uploading discussed in the AfD I linked to above. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 16:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  As for not discussing it first, a quick search showed that Richard's copyright problems had been ongoing for years, and lead me to suspect that negotiation would be fruitless. I may have been wrong about this, but it was a decision taken in good faith. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 16:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  WP:NOT can be, and routinely is ignored. When someone does a lot of good work on the project but also engages in non-WP stuff - like family research or creating endless userboxes stating which tween singer they like, or making funny pictures and colors appear on their talk page - it is ignored. Why is that not the case for Richard Norton? Wknight94 ^talk 17:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  WP:NOT can be, and routinely is ignored. Sure. But it wasn't in this case. Is this sub-thread just to complain that a bunch of editors, mainly admins, !voted in an MfD in a way which you disagree with? ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 17:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  I'm confused here. Wknight94, are you actually arguing that anyone who is a regular editor should be permitted to store unlimited amounts of stuff unrelated to actual articles? There's an obvious difference between user page "about the editor" type content or community content (like photos from meetups) vs family photo albums. I think there are four separate classes of content from Richard that are all getting lumped in here together - (1) images being used under a very questionable claim of fair use - from my past discussions with Richard I know that he disagrees with some of our fair use rules, (2) useful images from family photo albums where the copyright status needs to be clarified - did Richard inherit the copyright or is he just scanning the photo but someone else has the copyright, (3) not very useful family photo album pictures that are being more or less pigeonholed into a commons gallery to make them appear encyclopedic (ie, showing an example of apparel from the 1920's), or (4) userspace pages depicting galleries of some of the above. Surely we can all agree that #1 needs to go away, and #2 needs to be clarified. #3 should probably go away or at least be severely curtailed. #4 I couldn't care less about. --B (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  "Unlimited" is not what I said. That MFD had less than 30 pages. Are we talking about thousands of others? I don't think so. Someone who has put several years of work into this encyclopedia should be allowed to keep a certain amount of personal stuff around if it isn't bothering anyone. Norton's stuff was not bothering anyone to my knowledge. Others, like Linas (talk · contribs), have been allowed to keep personal pages with seething attacks against other editors - surely Norton can keep some completely benign pages here which, at worst, are somewhat interesting to a genealogy buff like myself. Wknight94 ^talk 17:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

TreasuryTag and Richard: can we bring this to a conclusion, because I'm getting sleepy?

I respect that I may not have handled this in the best way, while maintaining that I acted entirely in good faith and, for the most part, for the best. I think that AGK (talk · contribs) sums up the situation in response to my explanation of how I came across Richard:

That's plausible, I guess. Irrespective of what becomes of this thread, I hope you will refrain in future from interacting with Richard; this discussion, I think, proves better than anything else could that you and he don't mesh well :)

I certainly intend not to engage personally with Richard outside of formal dispute resolution, because I just can't take the stress, to be honest.

Please can we close this ANI thread, because I fear it is accomplishing nothing? I will voluntarily recuse myself from interacting with Richard, as outlined above, and all the personal attacks and nastiness I have suffered, and others have had to read, will be able to stop? Please? ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 17:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If you choose to look into a contributor's work and find problems, please approach them civilly and respectfully in the future. This is a collaborative enterprise and treating people with respect and dignity is important. There's nothing wrong with letting someone know "hey, I'm concerned that some article/ images/ content you've added may not be appropriate because XYZ". When you're already in dispute with them and start doing mass noms (and are joined in the effort by various socks) it becomes extremely abusive. The admins who piles on here with abusive blocks are also to blame for the escalation of this situation and should lead the charge for bogus blocks to be expunged so their damaging actions can be addressed properly. Freakshownerd (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to do a lot more than recuse yourself. You are not getting out of this that easily. Your backtracking now exposed is too late.  Giacomo  17:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

What, in your opinion, do I need to do? ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 17:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop being so goddamned obnoxious. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to expect better, clearer, more helpful and more sensible contributions from, you, MZMcBride... ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 17:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the other descriptors, but the statement was pretty clear :) - Wikidemon (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a simple solution for de-obnoxiousification - lose the signature. Symbols, colors, and a random word or phrase is a bit much. --B (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A bit much, perhaps. Goddamned obnoxious? A little over-the-top... ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 18:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

While I don't about the theology of the claim that God has damned your signature, it is pretty obnoxious. ;) --B (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Putting aside the wise advice from Mr McBride above. A sincere and well composed appology to both Norton and the community would be a good start and some form of acceptance of the harrassing and distress caused. Norton has been put through hell because of you - now you want to walk away because the goings not quite the way you wanted it. There is only one way to treat bullies - be grateful you are not receiving it.  Giacomo  18:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  As I said above, I concede that I may not have handled this in the best way, but maintain that I acted entirely in good faith and, for the most part, for the best. I still unreservedly insist that I carried out no harassment, no bullying, so any apology would be inappropriate and insincere. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 18:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'll second Giacomo. Or else should someone nominate File:Tt-whitehouse.svg, File:Treasury tag.jpg, File:Treasury Tags.jpg, User:TreasuryTag/Fan-cr!p, etc. for deletion? WP:NOT violations! Wknight94 ^talk 18:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• It is not harassment or a violation of policy to point out policy or copyright violations by other users. Stifle (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Aha the cavalry has arrived. Stifle, there you are. Not customary for you to be the Lady-in-WaitingValet de chambre.  Giacomo  18:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Giano, you don't like me, and I have no like or dislike for you, but I will treat you civilly and hope that you will continue to treat me likewise. I am not, however, female, and please therefore don't refer to me as such :) Stifle (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • What purpose does this serve other than to inflame? This whole thread has not served to resolve anything, but only to give you a forum. Whether TreasuryTag or Richard have behaved badly isn't going to be resolved here - not like this. --B (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No way! You lot would love it shut and hidden. let people see what has been going on here.  Giacomo  18:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Giano, thank you for amending the reference to "lady in waiting". May I ask what you wished to accomplish by making this ANI listing? Stifle (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Who is "you lot"? You think that anyone who disagrees with you is a part of a conspiracy. ANI is a forum for seeking redress to a particular incident, not a forum for airing your general disagreement with ... whatever it is that you generally disagree with. Nobody is going to block TreasuryTag over this. Nobody is going to immunize Richard from having his contributions subject to deletion. What is it that is going to be achieved here? --B (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• OK. even his user page image "me in Sweden two years ago" was nominated for deletion. Why was that? Any reasoning behind that little gem? Or are all user page images to be nomonated for deletion? C'mon speak up - let's hear you. Here is a friend of mine (typical of a 1000 pages) File:Jeanne Griffin 1974 makeup style.jpg doesn't look like she took that one herself - does it? Off you go then nominate it for deletion - C'mon what's keeping you? Giacomo  18:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  I think nominating that particular userpage one was excessive. But it doesn't make the others all right now, does it? Stifle (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh do you indeed! A bit late in the day to say so.  Giacomo  18:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Stifle, but it's difficult to tell which have a real basis - like copyright - and which are just nominations of harmless personal photos for no apparent reason than extreme rigid adherence to a rule which is applied far too selectively. Wknight94 ^talk 18:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  I think you're right and it's unfortunate that everything has just been kinda lumped in together. Some (a lot? most? substantially all?) of Richard's uploads are from, IIRC from discussions from a long time ago, photo albums from his family members that he inherited when they died. In those cases, the description page really needs to spell it out. Many of his description pages say something like "the Bob Smith archive" or "Bob Smith collection". If he spelled out, "photo by Bob Smith. Upon his death, his family photos were inherited by Richard," then many of the copyright problems go away. There's still the issue of useless photos (some of the ones on Commons were things like signatures of non-notable people - not useful at all) and there are some questionable fair use claims, but simply being more descriptive on the image pages would answer a lot of questions. --B (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  @Giano & Wknight94: It was technically correct (the image did have no source) but could have been handled better.

  @Giano: Can you now please reply to B and I as to what you hoped to accomplish by opening this listing? Stifle (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, we are exposing just what has been going on, and the inages nominated for deletion and the complete trolling and persecution that Norton has endured following his disagreement with your mate TT (they were on opposite sides in an AFD debate on bilateral relations - the next day 50 of his images were nominated) You seem to have a had a lot to say on the votes for deletion, yet seem strangely quiet here.  Giacomo  18:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  But that was exactly what was covered in the previous ANI thread... ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 19:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  • OK, and what outcome did you expect would come from this besides drama? Stifle (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—I don't know what this browbeating is about, but I suspect it will end unhappily... ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 19:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Another page on your watchlist TT. Anyway in answer to your question, We are re-visiting the facts, something a patholagist often successfully does years after death, in this case we are lucky, the body is still warm. Yes, I too suspect it will end unhappily for you TT.  Giacomo  19:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No, your contributions are on my watchlist. And if I am to gather from your hint that you have "proof" I coerced Edison into making those AfD noms, then either someone is severely misleading you, or you are severely misleading the community. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 19:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Giacomo, that doesn't even make sense. While I'm aware the internets = serious business, I think you're overvaluing the importance of this situation. The "victim" of the "harassment" has (quite wisely, IMO) not even commented here, so I'm still not sure what you want to achieve other than to stir up poo. Just let it go. What is going to come out of "revisiting the facts"? --B (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Incidently Giano, as it's now been going for a while, what administrative action are you looking for out of this thread? That's a serious question, in case it seemed sarcastic or something - just getting a feel for it. Ale_Jrb^talk 19:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Tch Tch tch getting impatiant is always a bad trait. We shall just wait and see. You all seem very concerned for this to leave the spotlight, but sadly I have only just turned the spotlight on. One thing, all even those who hate me to death will agree, is that I never give up without a result. There has been some monkey business here and it's going tp be exposed fully. Incidentally, why was his user page image nominated, not to mention domain images, government images and even an image that he only adjusted the colour of. You are in it up to your neck TT. I want some answers.  Giacomo  19:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't really recall any of your other 'exposes' resulting in anything much at all, except of course affirmation of your unique postion on Wikipedia as the only editor who can say what they like about others with apparent impunity. MickMacNee (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI is not dispute resolution, it's for admin actions. May I respectfully suggest that if you are not willing to specify an admin action you would like taken and have a conduct issue with TT, you take it up through the usual dispute resolution channels? Stifle (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

well you are the admin stifle, how do you think such a harrassing bully should be treated, or do you feel you are too involved to deal with such a disreputable person as TT?.  Giacomo  19:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The only person harassing anyone here has been you. If you don't have some actual desired outcome, then this thread just needs to be closed so we can quit wasting everyone's time. And by we I mean you. Has TreasuryTag behaved poorly? Probably, but that doesn't give you a reason to have a general gripe session about him. And with all due respect to Stifle, if a gripe session is all you want, dispute resolution is not an appropriate channel either. --B (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank-you, finally, someone has voiced a thought which had been troubling me for some time. The only person harassing anyone here has been [Giano]. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 20:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oh do stop re-posting people's quotes in green. You really are making yourself even more totally ridiculous.  Giacomo  20:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that the conduct issues arising from this thread, all of them, should be channelled to dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Well it has been rather like drawing teeth without an anasthetic, but there does now seem to be a general acceptance that TT has behave badly and has something to answer for as indeed he does, so if you, his friends and supporter, wish to close the thread, who am I to stop you?  Giacomo  19:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The us vs them mentality gets really old. All of us are looking at the issue and calling it like we see it - we're not a pro-TreasuryTag faction and we don't have "Friends of TreasuryTag" luncheons. You are refusing to say what it is you want - you're just stirring stuff up. It doesn't take a "supporter" of anyone to see that's not helpful. --B (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you may close the thread, we have seen enough of your "calls."  Giacomo  20:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Neither do we need it collapsing or having a negative closing statement. This has been a very useful and informative thread; noneed to hide it.  Giacomo  20:41, 1 June 2010 (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.

Oversight needed at Escort Ireland

Resolved

 – Revisions deleted. - Yworo (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This edit on the talk page and these edits to the article. IP looks to have been dynamic and reinserted under another address here. I think that's all but a second set of eyes to review the edit history might be wise. Yworo (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the revisions in question. If you would like to make a request for them to be oversighted (which will remove them even from admin view), please use WP:RFO. --B (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Why spend the time deleting revisions on an article that so clearly fails WP:NOTABILITY? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Because the articles has not been deleted yet. Yworo (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Alpha Quadrant and WP:NFCC policy

Resolved

 – User issued final warning by B (talk · contribs) that (1) further violations of the image policies will result in immediate blocks without further warning and (2) further abuses of either rollback or twinkle will result in those privileges being removed without further warning Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In mid-May of this year, this user began placing non-free images in inappropriate places violating WP:NFCC policy. A series of events has unfolded:

1. 11 May 2010 03:09 - Placed File:VoyagerStarship.jpg on a userbox he created at User:Alpha Quadrant/Userboxes/Star Trek Voyager. (see revision)
2. 11 May 2010 20:23 - I removed the WP:NFCC violating image from the userbox, noting the violation [20].
3. 11 May 2010 20:38 - He re-instates the violating image to the userbox, violating WP:NFCC. [21]
4. 12 May 2010 00:26 - I re-remove the image [22]
5. 12 May 2010 00:26 - I advise him on his talk page that the use of this image on his userbox violates WP:NFCC. [23].
6. 14 May 2010 01:00 - He places File:VoyagerStarship.jpg on User talk:Alpha Quadrant/Editnotice, violating WP:NFCC. (see revision).
7. 14 May 2010 03:14 - He places a free content image he created on User:Alpha Quadrant/Userboxes/Star Trek Voyager. [24]
8. 14 May 2010 12:49 - I left a message on his talk page telling him "Nicely done" for the change to free content on his userbox, and also inform him that I have replaced the violating image on his edit notice with this image he has created. [25]
9. 14 May 2010 14:41 - He restores File:VoyagerStarship.jpg to User talk:Alpha Quadrant/Editnotice, saying in the edit summary that if I don't like it to tell him, violating WP:NFCC. [26]
10. 14 May 2010 15:19 - I once again remove the violating image from the edit notice page and ask him to see his talk page. [27]
11. 14 May 2010 15:19 - I advise him on his talk page that the image violates WP:NFCC, that I am re-removing it, and please do not re-add it as it is a direct violation of our policy. [28]
12. 14 May 2010 16:17 - He leaves a fairly nasty note on my talk page claiming the images are both "fair use" and "public domain" (apparently because they can be found all over the Internet). [29]
13. 14 May 2010 16:25 - I explain to him in considerable detail how his stance is in error, and how such images are managed on Wikipedia. I include mention of DASHBot doing removals of this type as well. [30]
14. 14 May 2010 16:57 - He retracts his most recent message on my talk page, and gives me a cookie. [31]
15. 29 May 2010 21:10 - He places File:USS Defiant leaving DS9 damaged.jpg on Portal:Star Trek/Selected picture/4, using Twinkle to revert back to a much earlier version that had WP:NFCC violating content on it, violating WP:NFCC. [32]
16. 29 May 2010 21:27 - He places File:St08-uss enterprise e.png on Portal:Star Trek/Selected picture/5, violating WP:NFCC. [33]
17. 30 May 2010 20:17 - He places File:WorfTNG.jpg on Portal:Star Trek/Selected character/1, violating WP:NFCC. [34]
18. 30 May 2010 20:23 - He places File:Ro Laren.jpg on Portal:Star Trek/Selected picture/1, violating WP:NFCC. [35].
19. 30 May 2010 16:56 - I remove File:Ro Laren.jpg from Portal:Star Trek/Selected picture/1. [36]
20. 30 May 2010 21:23 - He places File:Star Trek - Photon torpedoes.jpg on User:Alpha Quadrant/Editnotice (see revision) and the same file on Portal:Star Trek/Selected picture/3 (see revision), violating WP:NFCC.
21. 31 May 2010 03:17 - I remove ([37][38])the violations from User:Alpha Quadrant/Editnotice and Portal:Star Trek/Selected picture/3
22. 31 May 2010 03:24 - I leave a strongly worded message on his talk page regarding the two new violations, indicating this is a final warning. [39]
23. 31 May 2010 03:28 - He restores File:Star_Trek_-_Photon_torpedoes.jpg to Portal:Star Trek/Selected picture/3 claiming in the edit summary "files are permitted in portal space. portal space features the best articles in that category. Many other projects use pictures in their portals", violating WP:NFCC. [40]
24. 31 May 2010 04:02 - He reverts my warning from his talk page, indicating he has read it (he's free to remove content from his talk page if he likes; the point here is to show he has read the warning). [41]
25. 31 May 2010 05:01 - DASHBot removes File:USS Defiant leaving DS9 damaged.jpg from Portal:Star Trek/Selected picture/4. [42]
26. 31 May 2010 05:04 - DASHBot removes File:St08-uss enterprise e.png from Portal:Star Trek/Selected picture/5. [43]
27. 31 May 2010 05:04 - DASHBot removes File:Star_Trek_-_Photon_torpedoes.jpg to Portal:Star Trek/Selected picture/3 [44].
28. 31 May 2010 16:54 - I respond on his talk page to his claim in the edit summary noted in #23 above, making it clear that non-free content is not permissible on portal pages [45].
29. 31 May 2010 16:55 - I remove File:WorfTNG.jpg from Portal:Star Trek/Selected character/1. [46]
30. 31 May 2010 17:20 - He uses Twinkle to remove my latest message to him, calling it vandalism. [47]
31. 31 May 2010 17:37 - He restores File:St08-uss enterprise e.png to Portal:Star Trek/Selected picture/5, violating WP:NFCC. [48]
32. 31 May 2010 17:43 - He restores File:USS Defiant leaving DS9 damaged.jpg to Portal:Star Trek/Selected picture/4, violating WP:NFCC.

WP:NFCC policy has been explained to this editor several times. He's been shown that it also applies to Portal space. Regardless of this, he continues to routinely violate WP:NFCC policy. Further, my warnings to him are now being reverted as vandalism, and he is undoing DASHBot's edits to pages where he wants to place non-free content. I don't think this editor understands the difference between non-free and free content, but my attempts to educate him on the matter have failed, and he insists on violating our policies and ignoring warnings. Given that multiple warnings were given, and a final warning was given, and even a warning after that, I think a temporary block is appropriate at this point, along with a very strongly worded message regarding his behavior. I will notify him of this thread on his talk page. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, apparently he hasn't gotten the message - just today he restored a non-free image to portal space [49] --B (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yep, and you can see from the diff that he's apparently trying to get DASHBot not to touch it, by placing {{nobots}} on it. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• As much as I hate to say it, I think a block of some length is in order. This has to stop, and if it takes a block to get his attention, then as much as I absolutely detest blocking genuine contributors, it's about the last remedy available. Courcelles (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I am unimpressed by the use of twinkle vandalism rollback to revert Hammersoft's warning about using non-free images outside of article space. I don't know if a block is needed right now, but perhaps a stern warning that his conduct is unacceptable and (1) further violations of the image policies will result in immediate blocks without further warning and (2) further abuses of either rollback or twinkle will result in those privileges being removed without further warning. If he commits either abuse again, then we've had the minor inconvenience of having to revert one more thing. But if he abides by the rules, then we have kept an editor. --B (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your attention, B. Your solution is fine with me, but the warning will go unheeded from me. Would you please place such a warning on his talk page? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. --B (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Angie Y. - community ban time?

For at least the past 3 years, people have been telling Angie Y. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) not to add uncited personal opinion to articles. I ran across her recently when her editing on Willy Wonka-related articles was brought to ANI. Just about every time I trimmed something of hers out of an article, she would restore it with no discussion, even in the edit summary. Today she reminded us that her editing style isn't restricted to fiction: she edited the Priceline article, adding the text "One of Shatner's early commercials for the company had him sitting in a spaceship's captain's chair, in loving tribute to his famous Star Trek role." The existence of the commercial is uncited. Its position as "early" is uncited "Loving tribute" is opinion. "Famous" is WP:PEACOCKish.

As she has been told that this sort of thing is not acceptable for so long by so many people, I am forced to conclude that she is unwilling or unable to work within our community norms, and suggest that she be community-banned for at least a year.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree this is a problem... but I see a lack of blocks to tell her that this is a problem. I see only one from a couple years ago.. Surely a series of escalating blocks should be attempted before an outright ban, right? Friday (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, she tends to skirt right under the edge of blockability for any one incident. It's the long-term pattern I'm looking at here, and that's harder for a single admin to act on without this kind of discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

She does seem to have a lot of warnings over the past few years telling her not to insert her POV into articles. Not sure what to do about it. Possibly assign her a mentor? Basket of Puppies 16:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like mentoring was tried, pursuant to her second RFC, but didn't go anywhere. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose editor is no doubt a pain but lack of long block log suggests lesser sanctions are not exhausted. Or you could have Willy feed her a candy bar that turns her into a huge helium balloon and the Oompa Loompas can sing as she floats away. Ooompa Loompa loopa de do ...--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree it is a seriously issue that needs to be dealt with. Also wondering at the lack of previous blocks beyond the one, when her user page also shows a lot off issues with incivility, ignoring or harassing other editors when they try to correct her, constant lack of edit summaries and just reverting when people undo her OR/opinions. Also curious as to whether there has been any recurrence of the meat puppet issues which caused her one block. Her response to your warning about the OR of "Ah yeah"[50] however also strongly shows that you are correct in that she seemingly doesn't care. Looking at her contribs, she pretty much ignores her own talk pages and rarely tries discussing anything with others on other user talks[51], while her contribs to article talks seems mostly to ask random questions[52]. I also worry how much truth there is in her edits to fictional topics, when she is fond of injecting her own opinion into topics, and if any of her edits are being checked in those areas? Not an admin, so I don't know the rules on blocking, but I do think some kind of block and an editing restriction, at the minimum, would be a good start. Any violations to the restriction gets escalating blocks, until she exhausts the usual set, then go for a ban. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The editor's behaviour has been discussed here several times previously. TFOWR^propaganda 16:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Forgot to mention her RFCs above.
  • 5 July 2007
  • 11 December 2007
• Granted, it's been a while since the last one... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Block for a while. No evidence she works around them, so going for a ban isn't necessary. But (as one who has warned and reverted her many times) she's royally painful to pin down. Pushes right to the edge of a block, then backs off either by moving away from the target-page of the moment, or by saying she will change her ways. Again and again. With some good edits too IIRC. Taken together, the Park Service needs to give this forest a block even if each ranger doesn't think any one tree is irredeemable. Enough community time-wasting. DMacks (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Block for at least a week. This person seems adept at gaming the system here, and as I see it the record cited shows that. Too early for a ban, but count me in with those wanting accountability. User should be encouraged to discuss this issue here at ANI. Jusdafax 17:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• FWIW, this user was once a pusher of birther arguments, pushing fringe sources at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berg v. Obama and at the main article. Old edits, yes, but this is clearly not a user that plays well with others. Tarc (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Don't think that's really relevant to her current editing behavior. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse blocking for around a week or two perhaps. With increasing durations for further problems. This may very well end up a ban, but I'd rather see us get there in a few steps than just one. Friday (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Issue stern final warning, then block I feel that she needs to be put on last notice, and that any further infractions will result in an immediate block. The stern final warning will be indefinite for duration- meaning that in 6 months if she makes an infraction she will still be blocked. No one is irredeemable but some need special circumstances due to the length of disruption. Basket of Puppies 17:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm only trying to help in any way I can. Angie Y. (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, Angie, is that the ways you try to help tend to make more work for everyone else. Even though many people have told you to add references to your edits, and not to put your personal opinions into articles, you keep doing it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Block now clear lack of competence, three years is generally enough time to determine if someone is capable of or willing to learn. Time sink, net detriment to the project on a review of the edits. Make it indefinite. If they cogently explain what they've been doing wrong and promise to never do it again, maybe unblock.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have imposed an indefinite block; there isn't really an established community block process here, but reviewing many edits going back several years, plus her talk page history, convinces me that the concerns raised here are valid. I believe that she is editing in good faith, but the net result of editing in good faith but with poor understanding of project goals and policies, the difference between encyclopedic factual content and personal opinion, is disruptive. If she comes to understand the policies and issues and seems likely to comply going forwards, any administrator can unblock her without consulting me, though given the community input above I think that bringing it back to ANI for discussion would be wise (at least a notification afterwards). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment —I've encountered Angie in the past (circa 2+ years ago, I think) and tried to gently nudge her in the right direction. I've not seen the recent issues other people have concerns over. If there is further discussion of this, I'll root through history and the more recent events, and offer an opinion. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• ... and I have declined her first unblock request with a couple of questions. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Block for only a week; an indefinite block is not necessary, in my opinion. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Block - indef. I was the admin who introduced her last AN/I (a few months ago). I have seen zero improvement since then, and her long history of non-improvement speaks for itself. I recommend she take up blogging instead where the rules are more lax. Rklawton (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse indef block that has already been imposed. I don't see the sense in putting a timer on the block if there's nothing to guarantee that it won't just continue once the block expires. It's up to her on how long it takes her to understand, and this way, sanctions will only be in place for as long as necessary. Of course, without socking, I don't think an outright ban is needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• Amend to a couple of weeks to give her time to understand that no, we really mean it about the personal opinions. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse indef. The sanction can be lifted as soon as there is a reasonable undertaking to amend their approach to contributing; 2 hours, 2 days, 2 weeks... whatever. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Based on her interaction with the folks who have reviewed her request for an unblock, that will be a long time coming. She seems incapable of understanding what the problem is. (And as long as this is simply an indef block -- not a community ban -- I endorse this as an adequate response. A community ban in this case would be the equivalent of breaking a butterfly on a wheel.) -- llywrch (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse 1 week block - There needs to be some indication that this issue is taken seriously, but it's too early for an indef. Shadowjams (talk) 06:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Post-indef block comments

As there's been an indefinite block, some of the above comments are outdated. Further comments below. Shadowjams (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think an indefinite block is appropriate in this case. As discussed above, a progressive blocking structure would be more fair. This has clearly gotten Angie Y's attention. I would advocate a short-term block, followed by reconciliation, attempts at mentoring (I see above that's not worked before), and scrutiny. By indefinitely blocking we're just inviting a new username and alienation. Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think it has to come to this quite yet. Shadowjams (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Indefinite is not forever, the user does not seem to understand how to fix the problem (and seems to be suggesting that she has some issue personally that might make it impossible and that we should "understand") so indef is correct. I have left a suggestion that she try proposing some sourced NPOV changes on her talk page, to see if she can satisfy people that she can do it. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• I share Shadowjams's concern, in as much as I feel that there should be a clear route back for Angie Y. That said, Guy has advised Angie Y. that there is a way back, so I'm happy with the indef block standing for now (i.e. until Angie Y. indicates that she's prepared to work constructively to end her block). TFOWR^propaganda 11:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Each case is distinct; using an indef block in all cases will obviously not be appropriate or ideal (and this should not be interpreted as establishing a precedent as such). In this particular case, my opinion has not changed - there is a clear way back and putting a timer on the block would not otherwise be helpful or sensible. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• I dislike indef blocks, in the manner that it's a kind of "closed door" to the blocked editor. Although technically they can appeal the block, sooner or later, almost always they either 1) have their unblock request denied, or 2) they never edit again, which would mean that we may lose a possibly productive user in the future. A short term block of a few weeks seems like the best solution, as it isn't an indefinite block, and it gives the editor (who in this case is Angie Y) some time to think about her actions. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• As someone who also has an autism-spectrum disorder (mine is PDD-NOS), let me just point out that it's very hard for many people on the spectrum to read between the lines. What may seem like a terminal case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT isn't necessarily so. I left a short note of encouragement, because she doesn't seem too receptive to criticism at this point (not really all that surprising). I think JzG's suggestion is a good idea, and hopefully she'll go through with it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• I don't want to sound too harsh, but I do think that WP:NOTTHERAPY applies here. In short, she may have problems that may make it difficult for her to follow our policies, but that is no excuse for disruption. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with you, but my experience with people on the spectrum (I'm living proof of this) is that if you do give them enough chances, they'll catch on. I think a block may have been in order, but indefinite can be very intimidating. If this was made, say, a week or two weeks, that'd give her a chance to put everything in perspective and go from there. She does seem to realize now that there's a problem. Maybe if she had someone to bounce ideas off of if/when she gets unblocked- not a mentor, exactly, but just someone to help on the side. Hey, we gave someone else another second chance, and that seems to be working out all right. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that we have been remarkably patient with this user already, as her pattern of disruption goes back to 2006. I have a hard time believing that she's only just now realized that there's a problem, judging by the messages on her talk page. If she actually has just realized this, Wikipedia:COMPETENCE should be considered. It's also important to remember that an indefinite block is not necessarily permanent. That said, I wouldn't object to her being unblocked on the condition that she found a mentor. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 16:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Some do catch on, but others... well, I won't invoke the name, but at least one refuses to catch on, and his mother hasn't been able to deter him at all. Suffice to say, we have to treat each one individually, and she's not quite getting it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware of who you refer to above, but the issue there would seem to be much more severe- there are varying degrees. Anyways, we let the aforementioned user back after pulling some truly egregious stuff (I went back and looked) that was worse than what's going on here. This at least can be fixed fairly quickly. I also acknowledge that it goes back to 2006, but to jump to DefCon 5 1 ^whoops all of a sudden seems a bit... harsh. Perhaps this is the "final warning" she needed. Hey, reblocking is never too difficult. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

With regards to the length of time this has gone on for, I would argue that it wasn't properly dealt with then, and so implementing a more harsh sanction may be justified.RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I see the logic in your statement, now that I look at it again. I still hope she does get unblocked- she works in articles I wouldn't touch with a 39 1/2 foot pole- but I see where you're coming from. JzG/Guy gave her a way out, and I guess all we can do is hope she takes it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Although I endorse this block, I think it should be shortened to a fortnight. After all, it only takes a few clicks to block her again, should she choose not to learn from this (and if, on the contrary, she were to learn, we would gain a useful contributor). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Except that it's the same, slow pattern we've been seeing for three years. I don't think a fortnight will make a difference but, if it does, she'll be able to tell us how & why she's changed and we can unblock. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I undestand that blocks are necessary to prevent disruptive behaviour; however, personally, I don't like them and would always try to be optimistic (or naive, if you prefer). That's why I'd give her a second chance. I don't think it's all that risky, given how fast she can be reblocked, should the need arise. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

She has a way out, it's been offered pretty much from the outset. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I recently left a message on her talk page to this effect, but if appropriate, perhaps a succinct phrasing of the "way out" would be good either here or on the talk page. Just so there's a clear roadmap. Shadowjams (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That has already been done: User_talk:Angie_Y.#Suggestion Harry the Dog WOOF 09:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse indef. I agree it's a shame to jump straight to the indef rather than incremental blocks but there is a very clear way for her to come back. If she starts posting some editing suggestions (per Guy's suggestion on her talk page) which show that she now understands the problems with her adding her opinions and OR to articles, we can look at unblocking, but I don't think fixing a timer to that process is going to be helpful and it will likely undermine it. I think it's better to leave the block as an indef and to review again in due course when we get some indication that she understands - whether that be two days, two weeks, two months or whatever is entirely in her court. Sarah 06:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse indef Angie has been offered many ways out over the years. People have been extremely patient with her, and offers of help have been numerous, and generally rebuffed. As others say, indef does not mean forever. It is not banning, which has been advocated. People who cannot edit in conformity with the community guidelines are blocked. It's as simple as that. I don't believe that progressive blocks are needed in this case. There have been several times when a short block might have been imposed but Angie has evaded it by promising to change her behaviour. Her behaviour has not changed, and therefore I regard that as if a block had been imposed. It would have been but for assurances that were not subsequently met. Sadly, I don't think we can accept her assurances (repeated in the wake of this block) any more, and so an indef is required. If she can show that she really can conform to the community guidelines, she should be welcomed back. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse indef - her post-block edits clearly indicate she still doesn't get it. Rklawton (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment' There are plenty of IPs out there. I agree that a block was appropriate, but bans (indef blocks are basically bans) only lead the user to go and make socks and other IPs and blocking those wastes everybody's time and energy and then blocks potential good users from being able to use Wikipedia. Doc Quintana (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(the) Ohio State University

Resolved

 – This is a content discussion and belongs on Talk:Ohio State University, not here.

User:75.23.202.149 has made multiple reverts of content related to Ohio State University by placing the word "the" in front of "Ohio State University" -- normally, something that could be handled through discussions. To make matters worse, the user may actually be technically right in these reverts even though it appears that consensus may not be supporting such moves.

I first asked the user and other interested parties to participate in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#More "THE" OSU B.S. (which isn't exactly a "neutral point of view" name but the discussion was already started) about the topic. To my knowledge, the user has not approached the discussion.

The user has revereted changes for at least two users, calling them "vandalism" -- one at the article Edwin Sweetland by User:Jweiss11 and another at Paul Bixler by myself.

The user has made mutliple changes in multiple articles around this topic, and it looks like we might need an outside admin to come and take a look to provide some guidance. What's the best approach to take from here?--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the institution's formal name is "The Ohio State University", but in colloquial usage it's normally called "Ohio State University." As such, the "The" should be in the bold text at the top of the article, and then not used for the remainder of the piece. The article name should be the common name, which is "Ohio State University". Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The article name should be the common name, which is "Ohio State University" or "The Ohio State University". According to which source which name is the most common name. How did editors decide which name is most common. QuackGuru (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Every single time an OSU graduate announces where he's from, they invariably say "The" Ohio State University, and make sure to stress the "The". Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Your omniscience on the matter overwhelms me. Yworo (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Nasty, much? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, there are a few more people in the world than just OSU graduates, and it is common usage which prevails. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Just as an example, a Google search on "The Ohio State University" brings a little under 4 million hits, which, of course, includes all instances where the "The" is just incidental and not part of a formal title. A search on "Ohio State University" excluding instances of "the Ohio State University" brings up 6.7 million hits. Not conclusive, but indicative. Real-life experience is the confirmation: use of "The Ohio State University" is actually quite rare, and comes across as terribly pedantic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This is for the same reason as the emphasis in Official Monster Raving Loony Party, yes? Guy (Help!) 21:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• I actually considered attending OSU. Pretty much everywhere you see it printed the "the" is left off. I would imagine the emphasis by alumns on the "the" is because they want to differentiate themselves from the well known party school Ohio University over in Athens. My parents didn't even want us to apply there because they worried we'd have cirrhosis by graduation... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • All I can say is, "Muck Fichigan" ;> Doc9871 (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I see there are some buckeyes in the crowd... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Buckeye fan for sure (and I can be a poisonous nut myself sometimes). As I said in my edit summary, my father simply calls it "Ohio State", and would scoff at "The Ohio State University". No offense to Everard's friends... :> Doc9871 (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox hit it on the head. The folks who emphasize it are distinguishing themselves from OU in Athens. It's nothing to do with the actual university name. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The official name is clearly "The Ohio State University", but I agree with BMK, Beeblebrox and Hand. I went to "The George Washington University", but we all call it "George Washington", or simply "GW". Hope this helps more than hurts. "Welcome to Ohio State!" :> Doc9871 (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the quarterback of the football team knows best, and he calls it University of Ohio State. Case closed. WolverineFootball2008 (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(Growl) Okay, Wolverine! ;> Doc9871 (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll note that commonly people will abbreviate Ohio State as "tOSU" (lowercase 't' for "the") no as not to confuse with OSU, also the common abbreviation for Oklahoma State University. But who am I to talk? I pledge allegiance to the almighty Bucky Badger. –MuZemike 21:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What about Oregon State University? What do they do? ;> Doc9871 (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think "ORST" is what they use, but I'm not 100%. –MuZemike 21:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool! I won't "badger" you about it... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a bit ridiculous. It is standard practice in English to remove the word "the" before titles. Therefore, "Ohio State University" is correct, not "the Ohio State University". —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough; but not always true... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that tOSU is more an internet thing than an actual official abbreviation - it's fine for informal conversation or message board smack talk, but shouldn't be used in an article. But yes, tOSU does emphasize the "the" - watch College Football Live just about any day and you'll see the announcers kid them about it by stressing the word "the" (THE Ohio State University). It's either "Ohio State" or "the Ohio State University" (an editorial decision which to use), but the editor is correct that it's not "Ohio State University". --B (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll never understand why the University of Kentucky is "UK" but the University of Kanses is "KU". When I went to Lawrence to do a show there and called it "UK", our driver got indignent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Because people are weird. As for any "officialness" to calling it OSU, look at the top image here [53] not to mention the fact that the official website is "osu.edu." Beeblebrox (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Taking a look at the official website, it seems that usages with or without "The" are both frequent, along with "OSU". And there's no indication that it's a small "t", as the school's seal, for example, has it as "The". But the common name is "Ohio State University". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oooooh! I just knew you'd chime in hewe, you wascal! Doc9871 (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

And not that that we should model ourselves after Google, but: "OSU" - About 8,420,000 results (w/the official website at the top). "tOSU" - About 355,000 results. "Next!" ;> Doc9871 (talk) 02:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's most definitely "The" Ohio State, and it's hardly a technical interpretation, but the common usage. As for other school names, the people that live in the area pronounce it right. Shadowjams (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Pronounce what right, now? In which area are these people? Is this some sort of "Jedi mind trick"? I'm sorry, but I don't understand your last sentence at all... Doc9871 (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The people that "live in the area" call University of Minnesota "The U", but nationally it's "University of Minnesota", just as it's "Ohio State University" on a national basis. No "The" prefixed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Almost all of the above discussion should be discussed on the related article talk pages. Not here.--Rockfang (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed I just wanted to know what to do next...--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(the) Ohio State University NOT RESOLVED

Okay, I get that the "conversation" should take place on another page. I didn't start the conversation, a lot of other editors did.

Here's the question: What is the best way to approach these accusations of vandalism?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page pointing them to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Yworo (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Now it's resolved!--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ocean Mystic Researcher redux

Take a look at User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). My finger is ready to block Gattosby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the basis that nominating yet another group of RAN created articles within hours of another RAN blocking event just can't possibly be unrelated.—Kww(talk) 03:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Do it. I consider mass deletion nominations like that disruptive at the best of times and I agree that, given the history, it;s unlikely to be coincidental. I'm contemplating closing all the AfDs as bad faith nominations... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Let your finger do the talking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Only question is, whether to ask who it is first or just block striaghtaway as a badhand account and run a checkuser to see whose it might be in this ongoing saga Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare has already blocked. Closing the AfDs seems like the right thing to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Having taken a look, I believe that this account, along with Sapporod1965 and Ocean Mystic Researcher, is very likely to be Torkmann—who is in turn likely to be Wiki brah. Torkmann is a user who has targeted Richard with AfD nominations in the past, as you can see from some of their other sockpuppets at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Torkmann. Dominic·t 04:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare procedurally closed some of the AFDs, and I got one more. Two had already received arguments for deletion before the problem was noted, so those have been left untouched.—Kww(talk) 04:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've closed a couple more, and simply deleted the MfD nomination of the userfied article (no point preserving a record there). We don't want to reward trolling any more when people actually take the bait than when they don't. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed the editor's contribution history, and confirmed that their other edits to the encyclopedia are either harmless or in good faith. This leaves two things pending. First, they created an article Allen Dorfman, that appears legitimate if weakly sourced. Second, an AfD nomination for the sub-stub article, Brazil–Japan relations. That wasn't one of Richard Arthur Norton's articles, so there is no harassment issue there. Also, I'm not sure what the general result was in the earlier mass nominations of the "X-Y relations articles a year or two back. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The result was "no consensus", and the more recent run of bilateral relations nominations by LibStar have similarly failed to result in anything more than long, circular argument and bad blood. Procedurally speaking the Brazil–Japan relations AfD should probably be allowed to run but I suspect we'd get along as a community much better if it fell into an early "no consensus" closure. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd leave the Dorfman article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

actually, the dorfman article is in rather dramatic contradiction to dozens of excellent newspaper sources. I have re-edited the grossly erroneous part of it in accordance with the news reports, which I have added as references, and am checking it further. To me, it shows a contributor so eager to get an established account here as to work with remarkable carelessness. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems ridiculous. I would note though that RAN is attracting a lot of attention as of late. I don't think any of this drama has been productive (full disclosure, I've been opposed in 2 [of an infinite number] of bilateral relations afd debates) Shadowjams (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, for crap's sake. I'm beginning to wonder if a couple of our indefinitely banned users are in on this. –MuZemike 07:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just informed that my assumption as incorrect. My ESP must be out of sync with the CheckUsers' magic 8-ball. –MuZemike 07:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Who did you just checkuser to determine that? Seems pretty duckish to me. Shadowjams (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Harvardlaw block evasion again

Resolved

User:72.222.174.25 is an anon of blocked user Harvardlaw, an aspiring actor again trying to add his role as an extra into a movie he was in and an "alleged" project with a big name. See previous ANI results. Diff 1 and Diff 2. Last block was for 2 weeks. Longer this time? Thanks! ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 22:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 3 months this time.  Will Beback  talk  22:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Potential sockpuppet

I have the username and password of an account with which I have reason to believe may be used to vandalise Wikipedia. I cannot confirm (yet) whether it is a genuine account which was hacked or whether it is a single-purpose account created by one of our dearest and oldest enemies. I will only reveal the details of the account privately to trusted users. Jolly Ω Janner 23:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Could we see the username? Rohedin (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you want to happen, and I don't understand why you can't post the suspected sock/compromised account here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If the situation is as sensitive and confidential as you suggest, you may contact the Arbitration Committee. I'm one of the arbitrators, so you can use the "e-mail this user" feature to contact me and I will forward your note to our mailing list for review and any appropriate action. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm unsure of the sensitivity, so would feel better passing it into your hands. I was given the details by a vandal, so I'm pressuming it's a sockpuppet. Would be nice to wipe the smile of his face before he gets the chance to use it. Jolly Ω Janner 23:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Just change the e-mail and password to random gibberish. No need to bring the Arbitration into this. Rohedin (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If it was a genuine account, then that would prevent a genuine user from using their account. Jolly Ω Janner 23:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Then refer to my first comment. Rohedin (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

User:CuriousDrat. I've already emailed the username and password to Brad though. Jolly Ω Janner 23:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about any vandalism, but that's definitely a sock account being used to nominate Newgrounds for deletion, presumably while escaping scrutiny. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That was the account that made the deletion request for Newgrounds. It was a joke that my friends at the forums did because they were kicked out of the local Stickam Chatroom. I can give you the link to the topic. Rohedin (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why did Grawp give you the account? And tell me the username of the NG user that sent you it. Rohedin (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I heavily doubt JarlaxleArtemis would do that, Rohedin. Speaking as someone who's been dealing with the blackguard for a few years now and who's just removed two threads related to him and his lemmings, it's more likely someone claiming to be him, not realizing how much of a laughingstock Grawp presently is. Not only that, but AfDs aren't his MO. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 00:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That is because the password and username was given to Grawp via one of my Newgrounds friends. Somehow he decided to wait for his latest ban to expire rather than take a freebie. Rohedin (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No, Rohedin, Grawp's perma-banned from this site and has been since '05. Also, he doesn't edit himself (exc. vandal page moves, and even then that's iffy), rather he recruits /b/ to do his dirty work. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 00:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Also been given evidence that User:Rohedin is a sockpuppet/troll involved. Would kind of make sense considering the above comments coinciding with the timing of me receiving the evidence. Jolly Ω Janner 00:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have chat logs to back up my evidence. Rohedin (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

And I say that it's not JarlaxleArtemis. He wouldn't willingly expose one of his own socks. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 00:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't mean he wouldn't know how to change his MO a little after how many years this guy has been active. Rohedin (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, JarlaxleArtemis would never willingly expose one of his own socks, primarily because he knows that once he does so, it's blocked quickly. He'd have absolutely nothing to gain by giving up a sockpuppet to anyone. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 00:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

He didn't give up the account, my friends gave him or some guy using Hagger as his MSN username who gave it to the real Grawp and then for lord knows what, he gives it to the guy that made this thread. Rohedin (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That makes no sense whatsoever. I would try to explain why, but suffice it to say that that is most certainly not Grawp's standard behavior whatsoever. I'd say the guy using MSN faked knowing Grawp in order to get the account name. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 00:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Duh! Let's stop prancing around, since my patience is wearing thin. Rohedin, email ArbCom with the details, and let them deal with this. Otherwise, stop playing Spy vs Spy. Drumming up uncertainty just isn't helpful. Rodhullandemu 00:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Legal Threat

I have received a legal threat on my user talk page from an IP contributor. I was directed to report here by WP:NLT, so here I am. --Danger (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

They've been blocked for a week. I wonder if this is enough, and should it only be an anon block? Whois says this is a stable IP address, so an autoblock will catch whoever was editing logged out as that IP, if anyone. Fences&Windows 01:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Since people seem to forget rather quickly, we do not block IPs indefinitely due to the likelihood they will be given to someone else. This applies to seemingly-stable IPs as well. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 01:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I forgot nothing. There's some leeway between one week and indefinite; one week is very brief for such a disruptive editor, and you didn't answer about the idea of an autoblock to catch anyone who was editing using this IP while logged out of an account. Fences&Windows 02:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's an anon-only block, so no autoblock here. Tim Song (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brazil–Japan relations

Resolved

 – AFD is closed. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 04:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Deleted article whose AfD page is still open. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Would have been closed eventually, but sorted. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Ron Broxted appears to be owned.

Resolved

 – User:Ron Broxted is temporarily full-protected. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 04:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if these four editors below belong to the same person, but they seem to be editing the article User:Ron Broxton without permission of the user. I'm not sure if any of these editors were intended to be the same person, so I haven't warned any of them. Can any administrator help me work out what to do here?

Anyway, here are the editors that were recently modifying the userpage:

• User:Prof Colin Berry
• User:81.129.211.80
• User:81.129.210.2
• User:217.41.240.15

Minimac (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

How weird. I've just protected the page to stop the incessant changes while we take a look. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like he is a blogger and these people were "fans" of his blog. I have deleted the revisions in question. I suggest leaving the page s-protected. --B (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

vandalism

The Three Stooges page has been vandalized.--69.248.225.198 (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hardly worth noting on a board for incidents, but OK...2D Maestro ^{Immune Diplomat} 01:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

AIV is thataway. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You should also undo the vandalism and warn the vandalizer (if someone else had not already). —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 04:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Enigmaman

Resolved

 – Anon was blocked by Nyttend. No action needed against Enigmaman. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Repeated obstruction of AfD at Scott O'Grady and removing content and request for citation from article. Tried to warn them but they have locked their talk page to keep away. Now they threaten. --86.40.174.54 (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Page isn't locked (but should be), you are edit warring and putting unnecessary amounts of tags and templates on the page. You are also putting an AfD template on the page that is malformed. Enigmaman is right in his reverts. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have also reverted the anons edits and issued a Warn4IM warning. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That is a lie and an insult. His talk page is locked. They are geniune questions to raise about the article and why am I stopped from doing that? You are both harasing me now. --86.40.174.54 (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have not been disrupting scott o'grady. That is a personel attack. --86.40.174.54 (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You can't, cause you are a POV pusher, as you have done on several different pages. All of which I have reverted as vandalism. Stop before you are blocked. Move on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

How is a POV to ask for deletion? Reasons are given. Please stop personally attacking me. --86.40.174.54 (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a blantant POV. There are more on other pages. Move on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• I have notified Enigmaman of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh great so both of you can gang up together and censor me. I tried to notify him but his talk page is locked. --86.40.174.54 (talk) 05:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Might be good to CSD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott O'Grady as well, since it clearly isn't a real AfD. It was started with a "keep"[54]-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

How is deleting all my constructive edits a good move? If there is something wrong with one of them but all of them? So I've wasted my time? --86.40.174.54 (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if you have wasted our time, but you have wasted ours because we have to clean up your mess. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What mess? [55] How is that constructive? Why am I not allowed to raise the issue of this being a poor article with no citations? You've done it again. And no reason. Just vandal accusations. Please stop bullying me. --86.40.174.54 (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Putting POV nonsense all over multiple pages, tagging things unnecessarily, just plain being a troll. You have done it all in under a day. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've closed the AFD as speedy keep per criterion 5, which permits speedy keeping of pages linked from the Main Page. Nyttend (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The AfD was basically vandalism. I'm glad the IP was blocked, as its goal appeared to be disruption. Adding huge amounts of unnecessary tags to articles, taking me to AN/I for daring to revert, etc. Enigma^msg 06:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and this IP reminds me of another similar IP. I don't remember the exact number, but they behaved in a similar way, and flipped out when they were reverted, going to AN/I just like this one did. I'm certain this is a sock of a previous user. Enigma^msg 06:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Wipeouting

User:Wipeouting is an account that has been started only for deleting articles from Wikipedia. Not that there is anything wrong with it, but the user repeatedly refuses to abide by Wikipedia policy. He/She believes, Actors/Singers/Politicians do not belong to Wikipedia and tries to remove them. He started out by mass prodding articles he did not like. He insists anyone can get coverage in newspapers/Television and will not consider that as a factor in inclusion in Wikipedia. He even once prodded a bio of a dead writer claiming self promotion. I have warned him repeatedly in his talk page that there are policies which govern inclusion in Wikipedia, but he refuses to listen. He has been told the same by at least three other editors, that he has to read WP:BIO before nominating Biographies for deletion again. He stopped prodding/speedying for a while but has now started AfDing articles. This is his latest AfD. The subject has enough WP:GNG and meets WP:MUSICBIO (it survived a previous AfD easily). I am not sure this user has any intention of reforming / acting according to policy. I request the admins to warn/block him before he wastes others' time by AfDing articles that clearly meet WP:N.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

He has had ample warnings and he has been sent links to the relevant sections of the guidelines. To no avail.

As he points out on his userpage:

My aim is to improve the articles about the origin of the Sri Lankan people and wipe outing Non encyclopedic Personal promotions.

Unfortunately one of his aims isn't following guidelines. Jarkeld (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point? That seems to fit. However his most recent AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apiramy Visuvanathan Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanka Dineth Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajith Jayakody Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chandana Prasanna Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Higher education institutes in sri lanka are getting or have had agreeing delete votes. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashanthi seems to be created on top of a closed one in error. I'm just looking through his prods. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Though most of his prods have been declined, he has then taken them to AfD and they seem to be meeting with delete consensus. Could you point me to any deletions which appear to be against consensus? AfD, that is? It only takes one disagreeing user to cut away a Prod. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes his recent AfDs are on non-notable persons - but that is a coincidence. He still does not want to follow policy. The nominating rationale for the Ashanthi article is I am not sure of the accuracy of the article because anybody can publish personal interviews or personal coverage using newspapers or website. No sophisticate evidence of the coverage required to meet notability requirements. This is a personal promotion. Note the refusal to acknowledge newspaper coverage - I have repeatedly told him, reporting in RS is accepted in Wikipedia. But he just wont listen. He says Most of information in the article is essentially unverifiable., when the article essentially has references for every sentence.--Sodabottle (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the current one is a poor AfD nomination. I'll try to untangle the mess it is in. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I Just want him to understand he cant make up his own rules in Wikipedia. (like thinking articles on entertainers as personal blogs/promotions). I and other editors have tried to get him to read the relevant policies, but his rationale for the AfD mentioned indicates, he has no intention of changing his ways. Can you atleast warn him again to read and follow policy? --Sodabottle (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I was doing so as you posted :). Take a look and see if that meets what you were asking for. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Thats all i wanted. I think this will make him extra careful while nominating articles for deletion.--Sodabottle (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Noted. Please drop by again if he doesn't appear to get the message and makes obviously poor AfD or PROD decisions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Some friendly advice might be useful here, along the lines of WP:SOFIXIT; a collaborative environment suggests that even a minimal effort to repair articles is to be preferred over nominating for deletion, which has been deprecated as a mechanism for forcing the improvement of articles. However, if such articles are beyond rescue without any editor wishing to make that effort, they should go. Deletionists sometimes get a hard time here, but so do Inclusionists. What is more important is the reasons why we should sustain articles. Rodhullandemu 01:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not totally agreed with nomination about me as a block user. I am trying to explore about personal promotions and incorrect information. I did not try to delete any article by myself and I did only propose to deletion. If somebody doesn’t agree with my nomination why doesn’t he or she come to discussion? Wikipedia is encyclopedia and there should be a possibly edit or delete incorrect information. I hope to write few new articles to Wikipedia within few months. Person who is trying to block me is not Sri Lankan and I believe can get a decision than him, about Sri Lankan Context. I invite to one administrator please get a reasonable decision about me ? --Wipeouting (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

And I pay attention User:Sodabottle advises which he or she has informed since couple of weeks. I hope to do my editing further, associate with other writers.--Wipeouting (talk) 06:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've left you that message, Wipeouting, and I think that's all that will happen at the moment. I don't think Wikipedia revolves around our nationalities too much, we are all Wikipedians! And you aren't being blocked, the friendly word of advice in my notice should suffice as long as you keep it under advisement. Cheers, S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Jrfoldes Reverting Again

Reported this guy a few days ago for edit warring on the You Can't Do That on Television and Vanessa Lindores, including restoring the latter despite an AfD consensus to redirect[56]. At the time, he had made six reverts to the first article, four to the latter. Once the ANI started, he pretty much stopped editing, during which time the articles were protected. The protection has lifted and he returned to immediately do the same reverts on both articles.[57][58] To me, this gives every indication that he fully intends to resume his edit warring and continue trying to spam the fansite and ignore the AfD. Per, User:Jéské Couriano, bringing back here for outside attention, as he reverted Jrfoldes edits and felt it would not be appropriate to do a block himself.[59] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

C'n we please get some more eyes on this? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 01:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Second set of reverts today[60][61] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Clearly the best result is to pour green slime on him. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humanistic Management

Resolved

• Deleted article whose AfD page is still open. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Closed as speedy delete, as the article was deleted under CSD G12. --Taelus (Talk) 06:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Minor (but persistent) disruption

Short version:

User:Ephix has been deleting relevant text that has no objections for neutrality or sourcing. ArbCom seems to have ruled this as a disruption, but User:Ephix persists even after being so warned.

Details:

At the Peter Schiff article, there have been some minor disputes over how best to present certain characterizations of Mr. Schiff in the article lead. There was an older talk page controversy about labeling Schiff as an "economist" without qualification. A while back, I attempted an edit in order to address those concerns, which was sourced to an author who is something of a peer for Mr Schiff. However, qualifying Mr Schiff as a "non-professional econonomist" sparked a lot of (hand-waving) objections. In case this first attempt violated neutrality, I decided to take another approach and to use the simpler "economist" label but then expand the lead by simply drawing in more of the notable points from the rest of the article.

It is well-established that Mr Schiff advocates a small minority viewpoint as an economist/economic writer, departing in substantial ways from the majority view. My expanded text notes this controversy, per WP:LEAD ["The lead should ... summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies."], and per WP:UNDUE ["...it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view."].

In regards to the new expanded text in the lead: there has been no objection that the text is not cited [it is a summarization of already-exisitng and cited text]; there has been no objection to the neutrality of the text; and, the text is obviously relevant to the article subject.

Even given the above, User:Ephix continues to delete the neutral/cited/relevant text. I have warned him that this may be considered disruptive.

Despite warning ([62]), he insists on deleting the material. [63] [64] He seems to imply that discussion on the new edit is not worthwhile for him. [65]

There has been no talk page consensus against the new points included in the lead, and, really .... not much objection raised on the talk page at all regarding the new points in the lead. (An RfC about whether to substitute "economist" for some other label is still ongoing.) But, the section I created to specifically address these recently-added points covered in the lead has received no comment as of yet.

I believe the deletions are disruptive and I could use some advisement. Thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I am quite confident that any administrator who reads through the full discussion will finally put an end to your distributive edits.

To the admin, please note that user:BigK HeX's comment about me being a peer constitutes a personal attack as this is not only unsubstantiated but has nothing to do with my edits, this reflects on his overall demeaning approach to the Peter Schiff article. The comment comes from someone whose first and only interest in the article is Schiff's status as an economist. user:BigK HeX's use of a passing remark in book review as a source for Schiff being a "non-professional" economist was a waste of my time and still is. user:BigK HeX then dropped that for deleting "economist" altogether, and now favours other labels just as if not more demeaning than the previous one. Of course Wikipedia does not decide who is and who is not a mainstream anything by such measures. We simply tell it like it is according to majority of reliable sources and if there is a controversy surrounding any point of contention significant enough have been covered in the media, we may include it as a minority view in the lead. But this of course isn't the case, the vast majority of reliable sources have it that Schiff is an economist. user:BigK HeX has made it clear he doesn't like that, he should be taking issues with Wikipedia's guidelines, not this article.

I at first gave him the benefit of the doubt and invited him to start a discussion, but he preferred a course of action in reversions and deferred the opportunity to me, here it is. I also invited him again to start an RfC, which another contributor finally undertook the task of completing, but it hasn't gained much attention from uninvolved editors, certainly not the kind user:BigK HeX's wants, so here we are.

Thanks. ephix (talk) 01:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

ephix stated, " please note that user:BigK HeX's comment about me being a peer constitutes a personal attack as this is not only unsubstantiated but has nothing to do with my edits".

Ummmmm ..... this assertion is baffling on so many levels, that its unclear where to start. A) I never referred to User:Ephix as a peer of anyone. B) Even if I did, being called a "peer of Peter Schiff" would almost certainly be a nonsensical "attack" to make against an editor. BigK HeX (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Also ... for someone so concerned about personal attacks, Ephix's comments above seem to contain quite a number of attempts to characterize me.... BigK HeX (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Peter Schiff is definitely an economist according to the dictionary definition of the word. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/economist And he definitely has a profession in economics (on TV, author, etc.). --StormCommander (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Though that's nice (and there is an RfC to address that question), the thread here is about the deletion of verifiable/relevant text. And, in any case, Schiff is noted as an "economist" in both versions of the contested text. BigK HeX (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Emergency blacklisting required

Can someone please quickly add

\bareacode\.org\b
\countrycode\.org\b
\btollfreeforwarding\.com\b

to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (just copy and paste). We've blocked

• 202.65.133.239 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• Snipsz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 24.126.249.98 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 110.33.100.72 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• Spoling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 65.188.155.232 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• Akhapr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Wingtip71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

just TODAY for spamming these sites. (I'm deliberately circumventing the blacklist request page due to it being backlogged.) MER-C 05:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

And while you're at it, please hack at the backlog on the talk page. I hate reverting the same spam over and over. MER-C 05:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done those three. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, though the wider problem of spam backlogs remains. MER-C 08:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I cleared the first ten sections or so just there, but it's pure drudgery. I'm minded to nominate you for RFA so that you can do it yourself :) Stifle (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The upside of the drudgery is that you get viciously attacked on and off Wikipedia by the spammers. Wait, did I say upside? Guy (Help!) 13:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I was considering having a go at it, but the syntax of regex remains completely opaque to me. —DoRD (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It turns out that I made a typo above: \countrycode\.org\b should be \bcountrycode\.org\b.

@Redundancy Most blacklistings are of the form above: replace . with \. ('.' matches any character in regex) and surround the domain with \b (a "word boundary": matches spam.example.com, example.com/blah and example.com but neither anexample.com example.community). You can ask me (I can access XLinkBot), Barek or Beetstra if you need help.

@Stifle 2.5 weeks + resolution of Internet Brands and Chinese knockoffs is the earliest I can consider a nomination. I don't know if the risk of another failed RFA and the downsides (a month no spam patrol?) and the dubious record of being the user with the highest editcount to fail an RFA is worth it. MER-C 13:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I supported your second (and most recent) RfA (#49) and remember being most annoyed when you didn't pass at the 100 mark. Those 3 years 4 months have been a blur but nothing really changes spam-wise, eh? – B.hotep •talk• 14:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

MER-C isn't an admin? For shame! Guy (Help!) 15:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Typo fixed. Stifle (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of talk page messages.

User:Kuebie has been insisting on removing a talk page message, that while it certainly is not civil, it does not seem to be the personal attack that he is claiming.

I did try to explain that his continued removal of this would result in an ANI report, but the reverts continued.

article - Talk:History_of_Korea

diffs

[[66]] [[67]] [[68]] [[69]]

I don't know if this removal is allowed or not, neither do I know if the 3RR applies to article talk pages.

assuming this is the correct place for such a report, can someone please shed some light on whether he is correct in his continued removal, or if the message should be left on the talk page.

thanks

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a prefectly legitimate removel as the comment adds nothing to improve the quality of the article. In fact, it can and should be removed as a troll post ment to stir up trouble. —Farix (t | c) 14:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering that there is a discussion on the talk page relating to how long Korea has been inhabited and the removed messaged addressed that particular issue, I thought the comment while slightly incivil, was relevant. I don't see how it fits the criteria of messages that are allowed to be removed from an article talk page. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's still very much a troll. The intent of the comment is to cause disruption, which is enough grounds to remove the comment. —Farix (t | c) 15:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There are many comments that include less than civil language and put forward a point of view that might cause offence to some - however I tend to assume good faith and try not to read the minds of other editors. I see a comment made by an emotional editor, who could have used a little more tact, but still a valid comment addressing an issue relating to the article in question. Thanks for the input, but rather than waste any more of your time on this, perhaps we could wait for an admin to deal with this, one way or another, but thanks again for your opinion. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Firstly, I should point out that edit-warring applies to any sort of tit-for-tat reversion even if it's happening on a talk page and not an article: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about some aspect of the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion" (from WP:EW). Kuebie has made four reverts and Sennen goroshi three. Although you both have a bit of a history with this, Kuebie's is ongoing and he has been warned as recently as last month (while Sennen goroshi's is from a couple of years ago and looks like a fairly typical newbie learning curve). Accordingly I've blocked Kuebie for one week, which may seem harsh on the face of it for a 3RR violation, but it's clearly a long-term behavioural pattern that needs either changing or excluding from the site. Sennen goroshi, I hope you don't mind a reminder that you've narrowly avoided a block too; please follow WP:BRD in future :)

  Secondly, WP:TALK recommends "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely incivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived." My feeling is that the post in question comes under the last part of that and would have been best left in situ; if it was found offensive, it could perhaps have been collapsed rather than removed entirely. However, it's borderline and others may well see it differently. Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 16:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Password abuse/help needed

Resolved

 – Fake temporary password requests can and should be ignored. –xeno^talk 17:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have falsely received this email message:

Someone from the IP address 64.107.0.158 requested that we send you a new login password for the English Wikipedia.

If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may safely ignore this message. Your old/existing password will continue to work despite this new password being created for you.

Would a checkuser or admin please help? Thanks —Tommy2010 17:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may safely ignore this message. Your old/existing password will continue to work despite this new password being created for you. Someone is trying to get into your account; I might change your password. Do not post the code anywhere, as anyone could crack in. mono 17:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you posted the code; Xeno was quick to WP:REVDELETE it. mono 17:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Don't worry about it (but don't post your password here, either!)

What happens if some clown thinks that they'll try and crack your account. Being the elite "hackers" they are, they fail to sign in as you. They then they'll request that your password - or a new password - be emailed. They try this. Unfortunately, they don't get the opportunity to specify the email address! Oh noes! The request goes, instead, to the email address you originally specified. They fail, you laugh. Honestly, there's nothing to worry about - except how silly some "hackers" are. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 17:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec x3)Despite what mono says, ignore the message. Unless you change your password, there's not a whole lot they can do - the password request email doesn't allow them to see your current password. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 17:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, I was freaking out there for a bit. Many many many thanks to Xeno for his (?) extremely fast response that (had he not done) could have compromised my entire account. Excellent. —Tommy2010 17:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(response to a blunder that could have compromised my account, I think you mean ;>) No problem. And yes, {{gender|Xeno}} = he –xeno^talk 17:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed ;) Damn those linguistic ambiguities! —Tommy2010 17:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

SirFloyd

Resolved

 – contentious off-wiki material removed, user unblocked and we all live happily ever after. Toddst1 (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

While working on the Tito article, I looked up the reliablity of an author named Bernard Meares and rediscovered this little gem. It is the article "Titoism and Totalitarianism" that user SirFloyd created on en.wiki earlier but was later deleted due to its POV content. This is apparently a wikiclone which user SirFloyd uses to, among other things, stalk users and "strategize" his moves for the real wiki. Among the findings are:

• A page dedicated to countering user DIREKTOR's edits "Wikipedia & Political Agendas".
  • In it is a section "Wiki Articles that are manipulated by Neo-Communists" which contains a list of articles that user DIREKTOR has edited at one point or another.
  • In another entitled "Propaganda Pushing Editors" editors DIREKTOR, Ivan Stambuk, AlasdairGreen27, myself, BokicaK, and Zocky are listed alongside nationality and are apparently identified by SirFloyd as a clique.
• Another page "Nationalistic Editing on Wikipedia" discusses the "House of Bona" article which DIREKTOR and SirFloyd were engaged in. While he is careful to not mention names it is obvious at whom such quotes are directed at: "Wikipedia with its current group of editors is participating in that process [cultural genocide]."
  • Attempt at canvassing for the "House of Bona" article [70].

Taking this evidence into consideration, it is, in my opinion, that SirFloyd's intentions on Wikipedia are far from good faith. His actions are in violation of numerous policies including: WP:COI, WP:HOUND (stalking DIREKTOR), WP:NPOV (creating the POV fork "Tito and Totalitarianism" after his failure at the original article), WP:OWN (using a wikiclone to evade deletion and own an article), and WP:CANVAS. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 22:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sir Floyds intentions and contributions here have been very beneficial to the project. His contribution was deleted here and he is able to post it wherever he likes. He is perhaps in opposition to your group but that is good , we don't want everything from a single perspective do we. I also note that in those links you provide there is no mention at all of any specific people. I don't see anything requiring any Administration action.Off2riorob (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? "Director Croatian, Ivan Stambuk (Croatian), AlasdairGreen27 (Croatian), Producer (Bosnian), BokicaK (Serbian), Zocky (Slovenia) Wikipedia Administrator" ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 23:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

@User:Off2riorob.

• 1) being in opposition to someone is fine, its a way to ensure against POV, mine included. However, User:Sir Floyd is not reported here for being opposed to someone.
• 2) You are, as you say, a "close friend" of User:Sir Floyd. It comes as no surprise that you would support him even after this was uncovered, and its certainly not a surprise that you would judge his "lobbying" as beneficial to the encyclopedia.
• 3) Finally User:Off2riorob, I cannot believe you are being honest when you say you "don't see any mention at all of any specific people". Have you noticed this link? You see, it lists all users who dared oppose Sir Floyd as "communist propaganda pushers". Add to this that User:Sir Floyd has been attempting to WP:OUT users on this project [71] and I think you'll find this is not only actionable, its indeff block material.

Finally, I don't think anyone here is prepared to pretend he/she is stupid. It is perfectly obvious that User:Sir Floyd has been stalking editors, following them around, and marking their edits (as well as themselves!) for the attentions of his buddies. This explains much of the suspicious coordinated MEAT that's been going on in this Wiki. The purpose of all this evidently seems to be outnumbering editors with meatpuppets and bypassing proper discussion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are mentioned there as a POV pushing editor, I did not search all the pages. I know and respect Sir Floyds contributions here. He was in dispute with user direktor when I met him and helped him to become a good contributor here. I still don't see any issues worthy of Wikipedia Administrator action. There is nothing to assert any meat issues at all with Sir Floyd. I don't see any stalking. As I said, we don't just want one side of the story do we. So you present a six month old ANI archived thread with no action at all as a claim to Sir Floyd outing, nothing happened then, never mind now and a wikibiz article http://www.mywikibiz.com/User_talk:Ockham/Wikipedia_&_Political_Agendas#Propaganda_Pushing_Editors complaining about POV editing on wikipedia, not very startling is it. Perhaps you could try dispute resolution, or we could topic ban you both from Yugoslavian articles. Off2riorob (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh lol Off2riorob... We're not in any conflicts at all. I think you've conclusively demonstrated your "neutrality", not to mention a serious need to familiarize yourself with policy (WP:MEAT, WP:STALK, WP:OUT, WP:CANVASS etc.). I for one admire such dedication. Leave it for the guys here to read and decide, lets not clutter the thread up. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I had one brief encounter with SirFloyd and after that it was clear to me that his motives are not good. If this does not convince others, then I don't know what will. -- Bojan  Talk  05:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The GFDL says that any content of Wikipedia can be copied and distributed everywhere. If this content will be deleted the content distributed must not be deleted. Please give me the part of GFDL where the license says that the distributed content must be deleted and I will accept your position. I would invite all persons, most of all administrators, to understand the principles of GFDL in detail. Do you need that also the old dumps of database will be corrected? In this action I can only see a "programmatic" action of a group and surely I will start to open an investigation about this group. --Ilario (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Dude, GFDL was abandoned in favor of Creative Commons few years ago. But this is not the question. The question is that what Direktor stated above. -- Bojan  Talk  08:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I've only encountered SirFloyd on the Tito article. IMO, he does have a bit of a point - some of the ex-Yugoslav users do wear extra-rosy-tinted glasses when looking on their former country. However, in my experience, SirFloyd wasn't doing anything to counter that productively. His modus operandi consisted of pushing his (IMO rather extreme) POV by listing out-of-context quotes, often from extremist and/or amateur authors. That in itself wouldn't be a big problem, because it can be countered with other quotes and sources. But, he also incessantly engaged in accusing other editors of having sinister agendas, which sort of kills any sort of productive discussion.

All that said, I don't care much about what he writes on other websites. If there are good reasons to believe that his activities on Wikipedia as a whole are a net loss for the encyclopedia, we should probably do something about it. If not, water under the bridge. Zocky | picture popups 09:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

In hereby calling for action on this and similar situations, I would remind readers of the WP:ARBMAC ruling, which all of us are beholden to apply. What requires action here is that s/he is displaying the most grotesque bad faith imaginable, and the most extreme Balkan nationalist aggressive POV. I would like to work on articles with editors who think I can contribute something. We can work together well. In what way is it possible to work collaboratively in the true spirit of Wikipedia with someone who derides the whole idea(l) of Wikipedia, who describes and derides good faith editors as communists, who describes our articles as communist propaganda and so on. The Balkan Wiki area is overpopulated with POV monsters as it is. If Sir Floyd is allowed to demonstrate such POV and total bad faith and continue to edit regardless, then we might as well ring fence all of our Balkan articles as POV garbage that no-one with a sane mind should read. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I have un-archived this discussion as it appears to have been prematurely archived. Toddst1 (talk)

This is pretty clearly off-wiki harassment by Sir Floyd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and calls for an indefinite block until such harassment is removed and ceases. Done. Toddst1 (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, no on can be judged in Wikipedia for something which is extermal to Wikipedia and most of all no one can be judged for his point of view. It seems to me a judgement of a person derived from some other persons who has the other extreme point of view. If Sir Ffloyd is extreme I cannot see that the persons who are judging him are neutral, absolutely wrong. I would add that in the article written by him there are also official documents and I am a little bit disappointed that their are judged like "secondary" sources. Sorry, but I would have a more neutral decision here. This is a discussion to judge a person where only few users are participating and most of all the users accused by him. In this case I think that the accused persons should not be considered to give to the community the opportunity to be more neutral and to don't consider the parts involved in the original discussion. --Ilario (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• As there are quite a few externals would the blocking Administrator please point directly to the "off wiki harassment" ones and the exact content the harassment is referring to as regards the alleged Wikipedia:Npa#Off-wiki_attacks Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I Agree. Having a personal opinion about something inside wikipedia, and espressing it off-wiki is a very different thing that doing harrassment. So i suppose it's necessary the blocking Admin will point clearly what exactly he considered harassment, just in order to not make his decision an unclear or fuzzy precedent. Theirrulez (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not understand why Sir Floyd was blocked. I cannot see personal attacks in that pages. He only expressed an opinion. An opinion is not law.--Grifter72 (talk) 07:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the "resolved" tag. If I'm off base, please feel free to re-add, I won't object or consider that an issue. It just appears that this matter appears to remain under discussion. As far as I understand it's pretty clear that off-wikipedia behavior, however bad, does not by itself merit an on-wikipedia block. Nevertheless, off-Wikipedia statements can reasonably be interpreted as evidence that someone's presence on Wikipedia is not in good faith. Which is it? Incidentally, I have no idea what the underlying dispute is about and I don't think it's relevant to this particular question. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Npa#Off-wiki_attacks doesnt'seem to support the decision. Off-wiki attacks paragraph doesn't (of course) contemplate any sanctions like blocks, because: «Wikipedia cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions.» - Theirrulez (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a WP:ARBMAC decision, and must be considered in that context. It is perhaps not surprising that the protesters that have surfaced since the block was made are three Italian editors (Ilario, Grifter72 and Theirrulez) that share SirFloyd's POV. I guess/suppose/am sure that the only reason that they all came here in a procession is that they all picked up the block on their watchlists. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems a bit of a "quid pro quo response": "You help us out with our POV-pushing, we'll help you out - maybe we can save the guy to fight another day, or shorten his block". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm here as well asking a decision about this absurd unfair, discrediting and offensive attack against me posted by AlasdairGreen27 on a an Admin talk page [72], followed by DIREKTOR's attack [73], and preceded by another astonishing DIREKTOR's attack [74]. These above mentioned harassment posts were not off-wiki, but incredibly on a wikipedian users talk page.
This is to be considered as an official report. Theirrulez (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It may be fun to use the word "attack", but commenting on single-purpose edit history is not really a violation of WP:NPA. I cannot guess why you're inserting this here, though. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a side note, here: Wikipedia:Spa#Identifying_SPAs reads

Focusing on a single broad topic: When Identifying SPAs, it is important to consider what counts as a diverse group of edits. Very broad subjects like music, medicine, sports, history, and physics are diversified topics within themselves. If a user only edits within a broad topic, this does not necessarily mean the user is an SPA. SPAs edit a group of tightly related pages or a group of unrelated pages in the same manner.

In my opinion, Theirrulez is not an WP:SPA. And, by the way, he is an editor in good standing on it.wiki (he has brought an article to WP:FA, that is to say it:Rodi Garganico) Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 01:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course I'm not an WP:SPA. This is an attempt to lead us off-topic and the last try to influence other users discrediting me. After DIREKTOR replied here above, and after the admin GTBacchus clearly warned him and AlasdairGreen27 to stop the harassment, he demonstrated that he really doesn't matter to abuse wikipedia policy keep on harassing me more and more on the same admin talk page. And probably he and AlasdairGreen27 will continue until someone can stop them.

Anyways my contribution history is available, everyone who want to take a look it's welcomed. I want to remind to whoever could be interested about my contributions history to check also my former account User:Theirrules. After that please, I need urgent explanation about what reported above: the astonishing accuses I openly received. Theirrulez (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say that SirFloyd has a point about Direktor being quite biased. That's my two cents on this issue. (LAz17 (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)).

Apart from Sir Floyd's incident, I would like to point out how many vehement attacks AlasdairGreen27 (talk · contribs) and DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) are used to making on other contributors, engaging in perpetual edit wars and immediately suggesting that there are planetary conspiracies. It's important to underline AlasdairGreen was called into this discussion by another user, PRODUCER (talk · contribs), just to create a firing squad ([75]). I would note that AlasdairGreen has been blocked once ([76]) for "personal attacks" and "harassment") and that he despises the Wikipedia project, having literally written (on an ARBCOM ruled article talk) he believes that Wikipedia (he says: "you know f..k all") is dominated by "the International Court of Wikipedia", formed by a panel of f..ing American Teenagers ([77]). Who at the time, few minute later, took care of removing the astonishing insult in AlasdairGreen's edit was "strangely" Direktor ([78]), coincidentally the very pair who point the accusing finger at me! How can all this be coincidence? And after talking about "clique" by others!

I would ask all of you to consider whether this is a good way to contribute to the project, since I always behaved correctly on enwiki. Theirrulez (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Who invited Theirrulez then? hmmmm I invited everyone that was relevant to the discussion per the list above. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not think you know what the word "violent" means. Please don't over-inflate this issue. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Violent" can also mean "marked by intensity", but if you prefer we can ask Theirrulez to replace it with "vehement"... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ask AlasdairGreen, the one who said Sir Floyd is not compatible to the project, what exactly he means for f..k you all, referring to all wikipedians... I'm just curious to know.. Theirrulez (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's be honest here. He said "You know fuck all about anything" not "fuck you all". Not civil but certainly he's not saying fuck you to all Wikipedians. AniMate 23:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me be more honest. He shouts that infamous and astonishing slur on the Tito talk page. ARBCOM rules there for Sir Floyd as same as for AlasdairGreen27. I want to hope. Theirrulez (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and the editor was blocked for 72 hours as a result. WP:STICK applies here. Toddst1 (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

My comments were pertinent. That is exactly the point I wanted to show:

two users, two harassments or personal attacks, one off-wiki, one inside wikipedia, both under ARBCOM ruling: huge difference in block actions taken. - Theirrulez (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sir Floyd is not banned. Sir Floyd's block log has specific instructions to "Un-block if/when off-wiki harassment is removed/ceases." He could have been unblocked within minutes from when the block was issued. Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users.Toddst1 (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Please specify exactly what you considered to be the off wiki harassment and please provide a link to it. Personally I see very little harassment at all, Sir floyd has a clean block log, perhaps you could have asked him to remove whatever you saw as a violation rather than just indefinitely block him, he was very upset I can tell you. For a first infringement and off wiki at that this was a severe response to a minor issue. Off2riorob (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

See above. Blocked for only as long as the off-wiki shenanigans continue. Toddst1 (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Shenanigans? Please specify exactly and link to what you consider to be harassment worthy of indefinitely blocking without warning a user of around a year with a clean block log. User Toddst1 I would also like to ask you if you are involved in Yugoslavian issues yourself? I find myself wondering why, when the thread had been ignored by all admins and archived you unarchived it and immediately indefinitely blocked Sir Floyd after being personally contacted by one of the complainants on your talkpage. Personally I would like to suggest to you that there is minimal alleged harassment off wiki, we all know there issues regarding POV in that area, it is no secret is it, we are allowed to mention the elephant in the room. Perhaps a reconsideration of the indefinite and moving to time served with a warning for the future or something like that, or perhaps a couple of months topic ban in the Yugoslavian area? Off2riorob (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a reason most admins ignore things related to the Balkans. It's a horrible area to edit in, and any administrative action always leads to loud, long, and vociferous objections from whatever side feels their ally has been wronged. Toddst1 is not involved in Yugoslavian issues. You know that, since you've obviously read the section where PRODUCER asks him to look at the archived thread at User_talk:Toddst1#ANI. He specifically states: Actually, I'm decidedly not involved in Balkan related activities and have gone to lengths to keep it that way. As for the specific harassment, he obviously thinks the specific four pages linked by PRODUCER at the top of this section constitute harassment. SirFloyd hasn't asked for an unblock and apparently has stated to you that he feels keeping the pages up at MyWikiBiz is more important than editing here. If he feels this block is unjust, he's more than able to request an unblock on his talk page or appeal this to ArbCom. Until then, why not drop this, since SirFloyd doesn't appear interested in challenging it. AniMate 21:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have seen enough ANI to know that if there is anything worthy of Administrator action, whatever the field or issue is that action is taken in the two days the issue was here. Ask yourself, how many times do you see the need for an issue to be unarchived for action? Within minites of the message on his talkpage from one of the complainants Sir Floyd was indefinitely blocked. I prefer it if you left the blocking admin speak for himself, only he knows if he is involved with Yugoslavian issues.IMO this block is excessive, Sir Floyd is not here because I can tell you he was upset to be indefinitely blocked without any warning at all and he has a clean record here, it is a bit much if you ask me and I would like User Toddst1 to explain his exact reasons and the link to exactly what is the harassment for the indef. Off2riorob (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Gee, I can't tell if you're hard of hearing or if you are angry at the horse carcass. Regardless, Toddst1 has spoken for himself. As I linked above at User_talk:Toddst1#ANI he said: Actually, I'm decidedly not involved in Balkan related activities and have gone to lengths to keep it that way. So he isn't involved in the Balkans except as an administrator enforcing ArbMac. If you only want him to respond, I would suggest you go to his talk page or email him. I too have seen enough of ANI to understand how threads dealing with edit disputes from the Balkans work. Administrators ignore them because the respective sides won't stop fighting enough to allow anyone an opportunity to give an outside opinion, and when action is taken they get all sorts of hell for it. This is a highly controversial and emotionally charged area of editing, and I challenge you to name 5 administrators who are active in it. Since this block was made via WP:ARBMAC, I would suggest the best course of action for you to get it reversed would be to take it to WP:ARBCOM. AniMate 21:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This is how it happened for me, I was keeping Tans talkpage clean and User Toddst1 comes along and reverts my tidy edit and then we get in a little dispute about it and this is further complicated by my attempting to help another user that user Toddst1 is in dispute with User Malke, at the same time, my friend Floyd is at ANI with this jumped up outing and off wiki harassment claim, everyone ignores it and it is archived, people know Sir Floyd is my friend, next thing I know user Toddst1 unarchived a dead thread and indefinitely blocks my friend. Perhaps it has nothing to do with it but user Toddst1 can say so himself can't he. Off2riorob (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

So now instead of wanting to know if Toddst1's motivation for blocking SirFloyd was some secret involvement in Balkans related editing, you now want to know if it is because he has a grudge against you? Can't wait to see what you try next. AniMate 21:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

What was his motivation then? The block is excessive and could happily be reduced to time served and a condition of some sort. Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

So you have changed tactics. Interesting. Toddst1 has said the block will be reduced to time served when SirFloyd removes the off-wiki harassment. He believes the articles at MyWikiBiz constitute harassment and if SirFloyd wants to be unblocked he can delete them. Toddst1 has been involved in ArbMac blocks long before you came onto his radar, so try to assume good faith and realize you're probably not so important to him that he would risk losing his adminship by performing a bad block just to upset you. Try reading the WP:ARBMAC decision, and if you feel this block falls outside of the scope of the decision rendered there, go to WP:ARBCOM and ask them to reverse it. AniMate 22:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue is a bit more complex Animate. You are right when you say Off2riob has to assume good faith regarding Toddst1 decision. I'm sure of Toddst good faith, and I suppose Off2riob is sure too.

Maybe he just supposed an human inaccuracy in Toddst valuation and he would like to havve his doubt cleared. Are we sure of Sir Floyd identity on the "MyWikiBiz" off-wiki website? What exactly was considered harassment? Can Wikipedia put conditions about off-wiki networks? For the "conditional" block imposed to Sir Floyd did the admin use the same "meter" used for precedent similar harassment (like AlasdairGreen27)? I think these are the question Off2riob means to ask, and I think they are not controversial at all. - Theirrulez (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about Offt2riorob and good faith. He pretty much said the only explanation for the block was either Toddst1 having a secret agenda in Balkans related editing or because he had a vendetta against Off2rirorob and his friends. You seem quite focused on AlasdarGreen27. I get it. He said "You know fuck all about anything" which is quite uncivil, when he should have said "You have no idea what you're talking about". You seem to want tit-for-tat. No one is going to block AlasdairGreen27 for that at this point. Let it go. If the information wasn't posted by SirFloyd, he probably wouldn't have told Off2riorob he would rather retire than remove it from the web. The only thing I will agree with you on, is that this is a complex situation. We have a block related to arbitration enforcement. We have two sides dealing with nationalistic issues. This board is ill suited for dealing with such situations. Administrators do not want to deal with Balkans conflicts. Most are hesitant to undo an action that involves arbitration enforcement. If I may suggest, there are two other venues where we should deal with this. The first is WP:Arbitration enforcement. There is a process there for for appealing arbitration related blocks. The second would be a case at WP:ArbCom. There are conflicts spanning multiple articles, accusations of off-site canvassing, accusations of rampant incivility, and who knows what else. Perhaps it is time to nip this in the bud. I understand why most of the participants here are hesitant to enter arbitration, since it will examine everyone's conduct (including editors I consider friends). However, the limitations of WP:AN/I have been reached. Pursue something else, and let this thread die. AniMate 08:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Frankly Animate I don't see two sides dealing with nationalistic issue, I see several users from different places in the world arguing about complex but substantial things. We can also let the thread die, I agree, but never before getting some further answers to some very precise questions (those above). It could be an easy effort to throw far away every doubt about if this issue could have (or better already could have been) a rightly different ending. Don't you think so? - Theirrulez (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You've gotten your answers, several times, from several people. Now you're being WP:TEDIOUS. Toddst1 (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have asked a few times for specific points that were considered to be the actual harassment and didn't manage to get an answer, Sir Floyd has been watching this discussion and has mailed me that he has removed the names of any wikipedia editors from the wikibiz content off-line and that he hopes that removing the names is a satisfactory removal of the harassment. http://www.mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ockham/Wikipedia_%26_Political_Agendas&action=history he also asks that if there is any content that is still considered to be off wiki harassment could it clearly be detailed so that he can have the chance to deal with it. Off2riorob (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that's sufficient for unblocking. It would be better if he got rid of the lesser part of the problem and we're done. Toddst1 (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Toddst1. I have removed as per your request. Sir Floyd (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Cy Q. Faunce

Resolved

 – Fences and windows (talk · contribs) indeffed Cy Q. Faunce (talk · contribs) for off-wiki harassment Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 01:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Recently, I was involved in a deletion discussion regarding recently-deleted article Bullshido.net (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination)), where Cy Q. Faunce was an active participant. Then this morning, I received this message, from JMU:

“ I work for the Office of the Registrar at JMU and we received a request for information about you from a <redacted>, <redacted>@<redacted>.com, which included your DOB & SSN. Are you aware that this individual has your private information?

<unrelated signature redacted>

”

I called up the person at JMU and also did a little research, and found evidence that indicates that Cy Q. Faunce and <redacted> are the same person. Cy Q. Faunce's first edit and the majority of that account's edits (see Special:Contributions/Cy Q. Faunce) have been in regards to the deletion discussion of Bullshido.net.

Considering the real-life stalking that appears to be going on here, putting in a request to JMU and such, I was tempted to indef-block for harrassment, but would prefer that an uninvolved admin look at things and see what's going on. I'm not so worried about myself - I've filed a fraud report with the credit agencies, and if they do attempt to do anything along those lines, that's a criminal offense, so I think I'm safe there. However, this kind of behavior is disruptive, and appears to be an attempt to intimidate users. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Cy Q. Faunce (talk · contribs · logs) <- for ease of admins, here are the user's links. I too would view this as a stalking-harrassment issue and move to block. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Indef blocked as unacceptable harassment; review of this block is welcomed. I was going to note that you're also outing, but he outs himself on Bullshido.net. Fences&Windows 14:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Good block, and we might as well consider that a community ban. I doubt that any admin would be willing to unblock after this. Tim Song (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• There probably should be a checkuser to find/block this persion's other accounts. This one obviously was not his first and harassment like this is completely unacceptable. SchuminWeb, you may want to consider contacting the police if you have not already done so. --B (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Shouldn't we be scrubbing this entry of "Cy Q. Faunce"'s personal info as well? Tarc (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed. And done. And I support the indef block. Be sure to check your credit reports, SchuminWeb. — Scientizzle 17:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Unblock request posted [79]; I declined. –MuZemike 17:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Wait, so Cy Q a) gets SchuminWeb's birthday and social security number from public sources, and b) contacts a public university to try to verify if Schumin really has the degree he says he does. While this is certainly misguided, is it really worth the indef block? You all say this is stalking/harassment, but I fail to see how it is. Cy Q never even contacted Schumin to tell him that he had this information (that was the university), so the harassment charge seems pretty tenuous. Wanting to find out more about someone may be considered "stalking", but I would have reserved that term for constantly following them around or monitoring their every action, not just trying to find some more information about their background. Or is there additional information that this lowly editor isn't privy to that strengthens the case for harassment? Buddy431 (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Umm ... if you can't see why that conduct is unacceptable, I don't know what to say. There is obviously no legitimate reason to verify someone's academic credentials for an AFD over some website. --B (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There may be no legitimate reason to do it, but that doesn't mean that Cy Q. is acting in bad faith, or that a block's going to do any good (preventative, not punitive?) He could, and I believe he does, genuinely believe that verifying Schumin's credentials would allow him to discredit his arguments at AFD. No, that's not how Wikipedia works, but it doesn't appear that Cy Q. has broken any rules, either on Wikipedia or in Real Life. Maybe Cy Q. is just trying to steal Schumin's identity, in which case there's nothing Wikipedia can do. That's a job for the local police, and blocking won't help prevent that. Buddy431 (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If you (in the extreme case you gave) had a user who was trying to steal another user's identity, you would see no reason not to allow that person to edit on Wikipedia? Good grief. --B (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC) In case it offers perspective/context, I participated in the AfD at issue, read this ANI, and experienced about an hour of serious anxiety (approaching terror) over this -- am I next? This guy was clearly unhappy with me at the AfD -- did I tick this self-styled private investigator martial artist off? Do I actually believe that this is simply to verify his academic credentials? Why should I? Oh God, I googled his name and he's, to listen to some random bloggers (I suppose I'll listen to anybody when I'm afraid), a known character assassin -- perhaps with the physical skills to be an assassin par Jason Bourne!!! (italics intended to mock my own silly anxiety, hehe).

Yes, we should preventatively block editors who are willing to undertake off-Wiki efforts that will scare the bejeezus out of good faith editors. That is, to put it lightly, disruptive. So... try and see the disruptive effect of his actions from the stance of those for whom it is disruptive. In many respects, Cy's action was the most personally disruptive thing I have literally ever seen on Wikipedia. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

As others have said, there's no legitimate reason to do such a thing. SchuminWeb's education has no bearing on his adminship nor the AfD. In addition, a BS is a moderate degree, so, in a context where most would not bother checking, there's no reason for a liar to set their sights so low. As a result, the motivation for doing something like that is inexplicable, but whatever the reasons for it, the behavior is completely unacceptable.

As for his list, I ran across a small list towards the bottom of a page he referenced when threatening another editor [80]. It appears that User:Niteshift36, User:Crotalus horridus, SchuminWeb, and myself are on his short list of most hated WP editors. Whether he's attempted his P.I. routine with the rest of us is unknown at this time. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Support the indef. Cy Q just refuses to get the point of what Wikipedia is. Off-line stalking someone to determine their credentials is ridiculous in many ways, and just underscores his refusal to understand how useless claimed credentials (or any other material not gained from reliable sources) are in the first place. Dayewalker (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I could consider overlooking it if the OP's SSN were not involved. I might even question whether the SSN were really involved, depending on who was doing the reporting. But Cy Q has admitted (on his talk page since being blocked) tracking down an old traffic violation which dated presumably from when an SSN might be used as a driver's license number. While it's public information (which should have been redacted), that level of stalking is scary and doesn't belong here. Yworo (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

But it's not here. It's outside, in the real world. No stalking has gone on on Wikipedia, and it doesn't appear that it was going to. This block is a completely punitive measure for what the account holder did in the real world, not a preventative measure to stop disruptive behavior on Wikipedia. Buddy431 (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That's something to take up with WP:STALK. Offline harrassment has always been treated harshly here and for extremely good reason. long may that continue. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Buddy432, it has impact here. His actions weren't literally performed on here, but that is beside the point; his actions had disruptive effect on Wikipedia. The block was preventative. We can't tolerate editors running around scaring the real life crap out of other editors they disagree with -- that is disruptive to the project, and is behavior we are wise to prevent from continuing. And, either way, my explanation aside, it's plainly blockable behavior per WP:STALK. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

His actions only have an effect on Wikipedia because SchuminWeb brought the email from the university (not Cy Q). Cy Q. has not threatened SchuminWeb personally either on or off Wikipedia. It very well could have evolved into Harassment, but frankly, I don't think it has at this point. If Cy Q. had said to Schumin that he had his SSN and was going to investigate him and post his results for the world to see, I'd be screaming "block" as loud as anyone else. Bud he didn't. He discretely attained his personal information, without telling anyone. He discretely made other inquiries, again without telling anyone in an attempt to "harass" them. When he found out that Schumin's degree was real, he almost would have certainly dropped the search and never told anyone. If he hadn't dropped it, but instead posted personal information or engaged in other forms of harasment, then I'd be fine with a block. It seems hard to me to claim that that's harassment. Off-wiki stalking, maybe. I don't see any policy dealing with such, but it appears that current practice is to block those who engage in it. I disagree with this practice, but consensus obviously exists elsewhere. Buddy431 (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Buddy432, if one attempts to do this kind of thing, one will be indefblocked. That's the rule. Simples.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not the rule, as far as I can see. It may be the current policy, but isn't codified anywhere that I know of. Buddy431 (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's policy: As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 23:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether Buddy recognizes that "rule" = "policy" or not, can this conversation be closed so we can all move on? We have one meaningful dissenting opinion regarding the block, and the dissenter has already ceded above the "consensus obviously exists elsewhere." I think most of us can at least be pleased and relieved that an editor who attempts to dig up the private information of our administrators offline, maintains a list of most-hated editors on his website, and refers to other editors as "dead man" in edit summaries is no longer able to disrupt the project. Let's move on. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Where's his list of most hated editors? Wheres his hateful edit summaries? All I see at this ANI is "my university sent me a note telling me that some guy has my personal info. I think this guy is this other guy", at which everyone starts shouting BLOCK! at the top of their lungs. If you had said that he's maintaining a list of most hated Wikipedia editors offline, I'd have been much more agreeable to a block. But you didn't. You assumed everyone was already intimately acquainted with this editor and his tactics. Maybe if you said "he's been harassing me on and off wiki here and here, and now he's evidently going after my personal information so he can post it on his website" I wouldn't have jumped to oppose the block. Buddy431 (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

and I meant "practice", not "policy". No harassing is a codified rule/policy, but blocking for stalking off wiki is merely a common and accepted practice, not written down as far as I can see. Buddy431 (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• He's not the first one banned for activity like this and won't be the last. When people take this petty wikipedia disagreement junk into the real world, they aren't firing on all cylinders. It's taken seriously here and it should be, whether he is an actual danger or not, the behavior is unacceptable. Period. Your defense of him isn't going to work. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) The hated editor list was referenced (first I saw it myself), in response to something you posted, above by Sxeptomanic, where he expresses the concern that he may be getting "investigated" as well. A lovely talk diff where Cy brags of having "taken down a dozen like you before" is also supplied in this response, and the "dead man" reference comes shortly later in that talk page's history. "I" didn't assume anything here, but I suppose the assumption exists that people responding to this ANI would take a few minutes to familiarize themselves with the situation before contributing, or at least read responses to their own posts. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(also, from WP:STALK: "As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely.") ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of prior behavior, this kind of behavior should result in a swift block. This has the same kind of chilling effect as a legal threat, perhaps even worse. After his actions, would most Wikipedia editors feel comfortable editing an article with Cy Q? Dayewalker (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, editing an AfD with Cy Q this time led to me deleting my Foursquare account and a bunch of Tweets from Twitter... so, I think the answer is no, if Cy Q were around and I saw him editing an article I'd probably steer clear of that article :) ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, I see the list now, and I apologize for overlooking it earlier. That's clearly a blockable offense. I still don't think that the original action in this ANI thread (looking up public information about an editor and not telling anyone about it) is grounds for an indef block, but I see that I'm in the very small minority on that issue. Buddy431 (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If one's threatening to violate someone's personal identity details (which is tantamount to identity theft), that is grounds for an indef block. It doesn't matter whether they was attained through public sources or not; accessory to a crime is treated just about as harshly as doing the crime itself. I am amazed - and fragging appalled - that you are even attempting to justify his behavior. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 20:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times and the Holocaust

Desperately needs more eyes. Dispute in a nutshell is that there are two versions, a pared down one that takes a just the facts approach, and on that is rather, shall i say, polemical to be kind. This is not an "editorial dispute" so much as a question of choosing to rather flagrantly distort in service of a cause.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a ridiculous topic for an encyclopedia article. Maybe it could be expanded to United States media coverage of the Holocaust or some such thing? --B (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Your suggested topic would be a reasonable target (though it would also be a coatrack for activism/revisionist history as this one is). The problem is, who will write it? I wouldn't, because i'd still have to do battle with the revisionist history activists. Even keeping distortions out of this little coatrack is a full time job.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Bali ultimate has been edit warring for days, removing content without consensus that is well sourced and has been POV pushing non-stop along with PhGustaf. Both are trying to censor the article because they don't like it. Period. Caden ^cool 15:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

How adorable. To give one a flavor of the problem look at this diff [81]. You can read the source material yourself to determine which version hews more closely to what was actually written. This is the sort of stuff being restored (went through this article and its sources with a fine tooth comb in January; the SPA that wrote it in the first place now wants his version back, and crack researchers and historians like Caden are being recruited to the cause).Bali ultimate (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Edit-warring is undoubtedly a fact, so I have protected the article at the wrong version. Guy (Help!) 15:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I think a month is way overkill here. The merge discussion will likely be done in days. I'd urge this move to the 4-6 day range. Hobit (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

NB: Bali ultimate brought his complaints here (although what he is complaining about is an editing dispute) without bothering to tell the editors he is complaining about that there is an AN/I thread. His has more than enough experience to know better. Naughty, naughty, Bali ultimate! No reason to keep this thread a secret from the other editors.

Perhaps the one problem at The New York Times and the Holocaust, that qualifies for discussion here, is that Bali ultimate abrasive editing style may may reach the level of being disruptive to the editing process. But for some reason he has not mentioned that problem. The editor who created this article is a newbie, at least in terms of editing experience, and probably deserved gentler handling....even if if should prove true that Bali ultimate is as right about every thing as he thinks. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Bali ultimate reached the level of disruption days ago through his non-stop edit warring and his never ending biased POV pushing. I'm not surprised either that he failed to notify a single editor about his report here. Caden ^cool 16:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This article seems like a potential candidate for deletion. ClovisPt (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, how about a merge into Criticism of The New York Times? ClovisPt (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Given the amount that has been written about this specific topics, I think the article is defensible, but the discussion obviously belongs elsewhere. Thee seems to be a view here that this is fringe, but it isnt.A much more extensive article could and should be written. DGG ( talk ) 16:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There may be sources for an article, but I'm not at all certain that the current article is that article. I mean, it starts with "According to at least two authors, The New York Times coverage of the Holocaust during World War II was not as prominent as it should have been." Two authors? Is there an issue of undue weight here? I'd feel much better about the article if there were more sources supporting it. Shimeru (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

AN/I is not the place to discuss the article's editing problems, but as can be seen in this version [82] that got zapped by Bali ultimate, there are certainly more than two authors used as sources. If there is any issue that should be discussed here it is Bali ultimate's habit of abusing editors who oppose his POV. Such abrasiveness is disruptive and not conducive to constructive editing. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, enough. The IP is in my opinion either a banned editor or someone sock-puppeting to avoid scrutiny. The IP or anyone else is of course welcome to make a complaint about me here, or open an RFC, or whatever, but I think i've had enough assertions from a pot-stirrer about my "abuse" of editors. I call it like i see it, and don't suffer fools. But I haven't abused anyone here.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This is typical of Bali ultimate's method of dealing with subjects he does not want to discuss. He does not make replies, just delivers accusations. The editor who created the article is Cimicifugia who as far as I can tell is a newbie in terms of editing experience. (I have been involved with the article only a few days - since 29 May - almost entirely in discussion on the talk page.) Here, in one of his first talk page edits (13:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC) )Bali ultimate is calling Cimicifugia a liar: "...since the original author of this article lied about what was contained in the contents of many of the cites that i already checked, i'm disinclined to believe that all of these authors and books agree precisely with Lipstadt." (I would give a diff, but in Bali ultimate's history that diff is black, not blue, although I do not know how or why that diff is dead.) That is pretty much Bali ultimate's tone and attitude throughout the discussion, and I think that approach is disruptive. His own statement above: "I call it like i see it, and don't suffer fools" is not exactly a model for collaborative editing, and pretty well sums up the problem, when it is understood that his working definition of a "fool" is any one who gets in his way. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Community ban of User:B9 hummingbird hovering

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

---

For background and numerous diffs see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/B9 hummingbird hovering

• I'm afraid I feel it's the end of the line for this user. For the past two years numerous users have tried to get him to tone down his extremely verbose and unwieldy writing style, mostly in the already obscure area of Tibetan Buddhism. Attempts have been made to explain to him that this is an encyclopedia that is supposed to be written for a general audience and that it's content should be comprehensible to the average person, but he has steadfastly ignored or belittled those who have tried to speak to him about these matters. A full user conduct RFC was initiated last month, and B9 refused to participate, twice announcing his "retirement" only to return a few days later. My attempt to get him to participate in the RFC was met with this reply [83] in which he once again categorically denies that any editing he has done has caused problems and rejects the very idea of consensus based decision making. The RFC includes many diffs showing his overuse of dense, flowery language in contradiction to the WP:MOS advice on the subject: "Articles are supposed to introduce readers to topics, or remind them of what they had half-forgotten: it is not their purpose to dazzle readers with editors' learning or vocabulary. Plain English works best: avoid jargon, vague phrases, and unnecessary complexity."" The shame of all this is that he is clearly knowledgeable in these areas, but refuses to express that knowledge in a plain, comprehensible manner as required in an encyclopedia.

• Relevant policy pages:

• WP:OWN
• WP:CON
• WP:MOS
• WP:CIVIL

• Seeing as B9 has refused to acknowledge there is a problem and will not participate in any meaningful way in a discussion of his editing, taking this to ArbCom would very likely be an exercise in futility. A lesser editing restriction would require acknowledgement of the problem on B9s part, which to date has not happened. A ban discussion seems the best remaining avenue as attempts to come to a voluntary agreement have failed due to B9s refusal to participate. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've not interacted with the user in question, but I read through some of the material and it all seems rather surreal and bizarre. This request for banning does raise one question though: has the issue ever been taken to Arbcom? It seems to me that that would be the next logical step. Or if the issue has been reviewed by Arbcom, could you please provide a link? (Note: I've been editing here about a year now, and am just now starting to watch these admin pages, so please forgive me if I'm missing something about how this all is supposed to work.) Yworo (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration is not a requirement for a community ban. We just need to see if the user in question has exhausted the community's patience. AniMate 19:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom cases is for complex disputes that can't be resolved by normal dispute resolution channels. That's why Beeblebrox took it to this level, from what I'm seeing as an uninvolved user--this seems to be a simple case of a user who isn't willing to interact with others. For that reason, I endorse Beeblebrox's proposal. Blueboy96 19:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I suspect someone who refused to participate in an RFC about himself wouldn't participate in an arbitration case either, so most likely any attempt at arbitration would simply delay action on the matter, but it did seem like the obvious next step to me. Yworo (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That is why I specifically explained in my initial statement above why I did not go that route. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies: I guess I read the first bullet point and the links and then forgot to read the last or had glazed over by then. :-) Yworo (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support I've run into this editor briefly recently and have been looking at his edit and old talk page comments. It seems pretty clear he doesn't engage in serious communication with other editors, and his edits are rarely helpful to readers and may be self-indulgent. I don't see any chance of his changing this behavior, Dougweller (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• I'd support this under WP:COMPETENCE. I was involved in an early ANI post on this user's conduct (thought I never did get around to certifying the RFCU), and it is genuinely disruptive of the project; any article on Tibetan Buddhism watched by B2HH gradually backslides into an impenetrable wall of jargon, and he demonstrably has no interest in changing his behaviour. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support Competence is clearly an issue here. The user's unwillingness to participate in a valid RfC doesn't bode well either. AniMate 20:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support - after reviewing many of this contributor's edits and interactions with other editors in edit comments and on talk pages, I don't see that any other solution would be possible. Yworo (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support. You can't squeeze blood from a rock: apparently, he's not here to edit in a collegial fashion. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support Per above and my comments at the RFC/U PlainJain (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Indef block An indef block will show B9 that unless advise is taken from other editors about how to improve the encyclopedia he cannot continue editing. Based on how an unblock request might be worded I would consider to reinstate editing privileges. I would for example change my stance if B9 expresses any kind of will to learn how write within the generally accepted standards for this encyclopedia and will to accept advise from other editors. ·Maunus·ƛ· 07:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. It always makes me sad to ban based on WP:COMPETENCE, because I'm a teacher. But when teaching has failed, the encyclopedia's good needs to be considered, and I think that allowing him to continue editing will simply put us in the position of perpetually trying to restore readability to these articles, which his writing turns into gibberish. I'm a person with two degrees in English literature. Big words and complex sentences don't alarm me. I think James Joyce's Ulysses is a great book, and I understand it (well, a lot of it). This user's writing isn't the complex, flowing language of someone who is expressing big ideas and forgetting an audience of laymen... it's the language of someone using complex, flowering language to obscure ideas. It's not reminiscent of Joyce's complex language. It's reminiscent of a student using lots of big words to cover the fact that she doesn't actually understand the material. Read it slowly and carefully, untangle the complicated sentences, define the unfamiliar words, and at the end, you see that a lot of what he's writing doesn't mean anything at all. Since he steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that this is a problem, and has done for several years, I don't see it getting better, ever. I have to sadly agree that the encyclopedia needs his absence. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Look what he did to Nondualism (before after). Especially this sentence, which he placed in the lede:

Traditions of nonduality may be identified in the Ancient World Traditions such as Ancient Egypt, Ancient Persia and Ancient India whose influences pervade the modern world; in the Classical traditions of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, Dharmic Traditions of theistic religions and non-theistic traditions origins rooted in the ground of the Indian subcontinent but are now globally pervasive; Abrahamic Traditions such as Christianity and Judaism; and Indigenous Traditions such as the Navajo Nation of the Americas, in a number of philosophers such as Buber for example, critical theorists such as Gadamer[1] and Derrida[2], and various mystics within traditions orthodox and heterodox proper or arising outside of any tradition, amongst others.

B9 leaves it to other editors to translate this impenetrable pseudo-academic obstructionism into standard written English. — goethean ॐ 13:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If that's a fair example of his writing, it's not good. Ironically, the proposal here is to give B9 a lengthy sentence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that this diff might show the changes to Dualism efficiently. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support I was only made aware of this ANI discussion (and the prior RFC) as a result of a message on my talk page here and having looked at B9's contributions and the discussions on their talk page, on the RFC and here, I am forced to agree that despite being asked to write in a manner which is consistent with the style of the English Wikipedia, they have not been willing to do so. They do not appear to be willing to work in a collobarative way. Their writing style is needlessly verbose and complicated - I do not think that I'm stupid (although I know that I am a long way from being very intelligent!), but I found several examples of their edits hard to follow. If they are unwilling to follow the guidelines (including the MoS) and to work with other editors, then a ban is in order. If this means that they believe me to be part of the group "bullying" them (as per the accusation on my talk page which ironically got me to look into this), then I'm sorry: but I do not see bullying here of anyone. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support having read the diffs, RfC etc. Communicating in this text-only medium is problematic enough without complicating it, especially when we're writing for a global audience of all ages and abilities. It's the dismissal of reams of good advice that's most concerning though. In common with others I don't see any bullying; this is merely an unpleasant duty made necessary by B9's own refusal to learn. EyeSerene^talk 14:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Update Here is his response to this proceeding: [84]. He's also been spamming this message [85] onto the talk pages of random articles. This exchange [86] with FisherQueen is particularly telling, as he seems genuinely unaware what could be wrong with the articles he mentions. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: B9HH has now commented in their RfC here. I had previously !voted support here on the basis of B9HH not responding to their RfC; I self-reverted when I realised they had in fact now commented. I'm still pondering, but tending towards supporting this proposal. TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 16:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The RFC was opened on May 1 and it's only now that there is such strong support for this ban that he feels a need to comment, and once again he denies the very nature of the problem and rejects the notion of consensus based decision making, and of course throws in a "witch hunt" comment at the end to try and garner some sympathy. If anything that remark should help convince you that he does not understand what Wikipedia is and how it works. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Question: And forgive me if this is spelled out and I've just missed it, or if this question is premature: are we discussing a site ban or a topic ban (and in the latter case, what topic areas)? Also what duration would the ban be for? Thanks. PlainJain (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A full indefinite site ban, anything less than that would require B9 to admit he has made problematic edits, which even now he still refuses to admit. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• WAIT- Question: has this user been instructed in simplified writing? I don't see any indication that this user was instructed about techniques for simplifying text. I saw no mention of keeping sentences to just 4 prepositions, nor of clearly putting the main subject and verb near the start of a sentence. Perhaps you're asking Einstein to please explain Special Relativity to a 7-year-old Chinese kid, who does not speak German, Italian, French, Latin, English, or algebra. Even Einstein did not want to learn English or (any other "modern languages"). Unless people actively explained and defined those techniques for simplifying text, then I think the term "witch hunt" might be justified. In fact, I read about 30 of the linked edits, and I saw no attempt to obscure the text, but rather to broaden the coverage, and add more precision to general statements. If I had to "go behind" and simplify the writing, I think it would be very easy: mainly just split a few sentences, and replace a few unusual words with more common terms. Please link the main text used to teach how to simplify Wikipedia articles. I think I've written one, so let me look for that page. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

For simplifying text, see: "Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable" and related pages. The U.S. Government (of course) has documents explaining how to simplify text for various types of readers. -Wikid77 07:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Baloney. if you're not competent to edit here, don't edit here. We're building an encyclopedia, not a school for remedial writing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Amen. I don't suppose everyone can be expected to know the case inside and out before commenting here, but the main point is that he refuses to acknowledge that there is anything wrong with his writing, and anyone who suggests there is a problem is ignored/mocked/accused of being a bully. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Let's give him one last chance with an indef block, instead of a community ban. Sheesh, after looking at that one diff that FisherQueen provided, he's either pushing his own idiosyncratic POV or has serious WP:COMPETENCE issues -- so I'm not defending the guy. However, looking at his block log he falls between the two common approaches of handling people like this: either a lengthy interaction with the person, trying to install enlightenment with the occasional keisaku of increasing blocks (yes, I know I'm misapplying a Zen Buddhist technique on our erstwhile Tibetan Buddhist acquaintance, but if what I know of Tibetan Buddhism is correct, their practices are even more austere), or a bum's rush out of Wikipedia with an indef block. Things have gone on too long for the bum's rush approach here; so we need to apply one more rap with the clue stick before we give him a community ban, which will allow him to indulge in his version of zazen untroubled by our distractions. -- llywrch (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
• Indef block sounds good, per llywrch. He's not a net positive, but not malicious, so I don't think a community ban is quite due- this way, if he ever gains some clue he can still come back. {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 07:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The difference between an indef block and a ban in this case is minimal. Any user blocked or banned by a community discussion would require a second discussion to get unblocked. I'd like to know, after numerous ANI threads and full month long user RFC how anyone could come to the conclusion that this was rushed or that "one more chance" would somehow reverse a problem that B9 denies the existence of. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I came across as feeling that this was rushed. In no way am I trying to criticise the proposal or the suggestion that B9 has been unconstructive. I know the difference is minimal; that's exactly why I'd rather go for the slightly less harsh of two options even if only in word. I am not minimising the problematic editing, or the constant refusal to communicate. I just think that if a return can be softened the slightest bit for a contributor who was not a blatant vandal without compromising the solution, by all means. (by this I mean, people will be more likely to evaluate based on his edits and his request than just decline due to the community ban.) But action definitely needs to be taken, and if consensus is for a ban, I have no objections to it. {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 09:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose -- WAIT per Wikid77 or indef block per llywrch and Sonia. Let voices of tolerance, reason and compassion prevail. The project is big enough to accommodate this user, who is clearly intent on its improvement but still labors under misapprehensions. Meanwhile he might be wise to state acceptance of the "desired outcomes" (with the exception, IMO, of the demeaning demand for confession of past sins) at his RfC. Writegeist (talk)

I'm really trying not to badger those that oppose this proposal, but as the author of the "desired outcome" I take exception to that characterization. I can only assume you are referring to the portion that reads "That B9 hummingbird hovering acknowledge that the style of writing they generally employ is unacceptable for an encyclopedia". The point was not to force a confession, but rather to get B9 to understand why his editing is problematic. Nobody is asking for an apology, just an acknowledgement of the problem, and some indication that B9 does not intend to continue in his previous style. All indications are that he has no intention of doing any such thing, and indeed the events of the past days have convinced me that he actually does not understand the nature of the problem despite it being repeatedly explained to him. Indeed I'm beginning to suspect that FisherQueen was correct in stating that he is not able to put these concepts into plain English because he lacks the level of understanding of them needed to do so, otherwise he surely would have at least tried to do so by now.

I'd like to point out again that the RFC has been open for a full month, and B9 refused to participate at all until after this discussion started. There was a full month of opportunity to discuss these matters and reach a voluntary agreement regarding his editing, an opportunity he ignored until he saw how rapidly a consensus to ban was forming. When he did finally comment, he again rejected the notion that he has ever made problematic edits and the notion of consensus based decision making, which he sees as "bullying." He has also refused to participate in this very discussion, while at the same time spamming talk pages and canvassing users to come to his defense. I note that several of those previously uninvolved users have ended up supporting the ban proposal. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to think like a long-term scholar, about this circus of events, with the assumption that B9 is, in fact, a scholar and not just assuming a role. Some issues:

• A scholar is unlikely to accept a "peer review" by this crowd.
• If another scholar could be sent, as an ambassador, to "talk turkey" perhaps B9 would respond better with a real peer.
• We need to prepare an essay WP:Scholars guide to writing Wikipedia articles, and this seems like good timing, and perhaps B9 would help write that essay (over the coming weeks), to warn other scholars when to simplify the text.
• B9 has made it quite clear to avoid these "trial-by-jury-of-who-are-you" forums.
• Perhaps this incident defines a WP lesson-learned entry in how to work with an alienated scholar, who has been insulted in ways a professional journal would never condone.

In reaching for consensus, everyone must try to meet, in the middle, and not expect the accused to submit to a "mob vote" as if his agreement was implicit, somehow, to reach consensus without his consent. Forcing people to obey is NOT a consensus-building technique. Let Wikipedia try to gain a true consensus, by abandoning strict rules, and actually working with another person to gain a mutual agreement. If progress cannot be made in listing steps to simplify text, then perhaps that is the time to part ways, because a compromise will require accepting some form of simplification of the text. Putting those steps in writing should appeal to a scholar, with even citing research to "prove" a 12-year-old can read an intro paragraph, when simplifed in that manner. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've been following this thread and have looked at the editor's contributions, and I have to agree with Wikid77. Dip into many of the articles at the back of the queue for articles to be copyedited and find plenty of bad writers, yet the articles still exist and the editors haven't been banned. Banning an editor because they don't write well sets a precedence for a slippery slope in my view. Maybe have other editors try some consensus building with B9. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• With respect, if B9 had submitted copy to a professional journal, and it was returned with the message "sorry, that does not meet the style guidelines that we use - please read them here" - and then B9 continued to submit material in clear controvention of those guidelines, would you expect the journal to accept the submission? I think they might tell B9 one more time, and then ignore any further submissions until they met the criteria which the journal had set. I don't think that two years later you would get anyone on the journal's editorial staff saying "hang on, let's give him another chance" - they would say, instead, "Sorry, if this person cannot meet the criteria for style which we have told them we expect, then we'll just have to do without their material, as we can't afford to spare an editor to rewrite it in our style".
• Also, with regard to other editors who write in a bad way, how many of those have been approached on multiple occasions and told about the style expected here? If they have, and blatently ignore it, as B9 seems to do, then they would probably be facing a ban as well. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I realize the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument shouldn't be used, but a full ban seems excessive because of writing style. A ban based on disruption is another thing. As for writing style, my worry is where does it stop? If someone, for example feels an editor lacks spelling skills, shall they be banned as well? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• I would agree with you at least that bans should be very seldom given out for writing style alone (I can't say never, because, really, competence is required), but so far as I can see, the primary problem at this point is not the writing style, but the evident unwillingness of the contributor to engage in consensus building and address community input with regards to the writing style. My background here goes as far as yesterday, when this contributor notified me and a great many others of the issue at my talk page. Prior to that, I believe, I had only ever interacted with him in copyright matters. I told him then that I believed it was essential at this point for him to participate plainly here and at the RfC in order to demonstrate his ability to engage. Instead (after continuing to CANVASS for a bit, even at article talk pages), he posted this statement at his talk page, continuing to characterize the efforts of others to engage him as bullying. He also posed and answered the following question: "what is the stuff of a Wikidragon? The ability to stand in solitude and in strength when the whole village says you're the cause of destruction...." That in itself shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia, which (of course) relies on the consensus process, and, in fact, that answer could be used equally well to answer the question, "What is disruptive editing?" No editor is an island. We're a community, and he seems unwilling to embrace that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with your arguments, but then I look at an article such as Ratnagotravibhāga (text) and wonder whether the writing or the subject matter makes it difficult to understand. I have much less difficulty parsing the writing than the underlying subject (which people devote decades, years, lives to understanding.) Very much on the fence here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I didn't express myself very well. Writegeist, I think tolerance has been expended with this user. As for reason, I think that it is reasonable to block one user who is depriving others of time spent building content, because I would rather have one problem editor leave than experienced editors gain the impression that they are not as important and the community would rather them expend their time and patience with such issues. Compassion? That is what I was talking about above- "He might be wise..." but he has ignored the wise choice, at least for now. If he wises up later I want him to be able to return, but it is time to resolve this. {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 09:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreeing with Sonia here. I think everyone would agree that the desired outcome in all of these cases is that a problematic editor starts making productive edits, allowing the rest of us to do something far more enjoyable than dealing with the person. However, there are some problematic editors who will never be productive -- & I would not be surprised that B9HH is one of them. My concern, in simple language & without allusions to Zen Buddhism, is that I want proof that B9HH hasn't misunderstood the incredible amount of patience others have shown her/him as being approval, & that a "change your ways or be uninvited by the community" message has been delivered in as simple language as possible. (An indef block would deliver this with a clue-by-four to the back of B9HH's head; a community ban at this point might still be misunderstood.) And if such a message has been delivered, then I have no problem with a community ban. (And if Beeblebrox is getting frustrated with this push-back against a, I apologize. My intent is not to create Wikidrama, I just want to make sure that a final warning message has been delivered before B9HH is permanently banned.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand you point, and offer these diffs: B9 informed of RFC [87] B9 informed that RFC is certified and live [88] B9 asked to participate in RFC and informed that this is the final opportunity to reach a voluntary agreement [89] B9 informed of this thread, which he has yet to comment on [90]. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Regretfully, I am leaning towards supporting an indef-block at least, per User:Sonia, and I would not oppose a ban (which I think preferable to no action). I'm still kind of hoping for an 11th hour turnaround, but pending some showing of a sincere interest in collaborating, I think User:Beeblebrox is right. As I indicated above, he seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's communal processes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Having thought about the matter since my last post, I decided to simply block indefinitely User:B9 hummingbird hovering, to end the WikiDrama & so everyone involved can move onto something more enjoyable. (Consensus appears to indicate this is the least serious action that will be taken here.) If this is not enough & a community ban must be made, feel free to continue this thread. I invite a review of this act, & give any other Admin my full permission to revert this if they believe my action is inappropriate -- or B9HH proves that she/he has experienced enlightenment. Meanwhile, I'm withdrawing from further involvement in this matter. -- llywrch (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I suggest noting some final points, to catalogue this situation. Mark this event as both of the following:

• Category of lessons learned: Indef block of a scholar
• Category of lessons learned: Indef block of a poet

Because those are not actually WP categories, this text can be searched (such as "Indef block of a poet"). In my 1-day review of this situation, I had overlooked the need to also develop an essay as "WP:Poets guide to writing articles". In final comments, B9 had indicated a wish to write in a "literary" (and poetic) style, so that is an area for future work, perhaps in writing articles about poetry, with using some poetic devices when explaining poetic topics. Just as a mathematician or chemist can flood articles with formulas, consider if WP is banning all poetry from article text, while allowing complex formulas as acceptable. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ooookay. For the record, this is not the arbitrary enactment of some new, ad-hoc policy; this is the MOS, nothing more [well, leaving aside the behavioral issues]. An article about poetry still needs be written in a clear, concise and encyclopedic (this is still an encyclopedia is it not?) style. Your comparison to mathematics is specious at best; writers of scientific articles have, if anything an even higher standard of clarity to hew to so that complex topics (such as set theory, functional analysis) are written in a correct, clear and concise style (sound familiar? It should). And if I may respectfully suggest, you might spend more than your admitted 1-day review of the situation before issuing proclamations that we've martyred a scholar and a poet; this nonsense has been going on for at least two years. PlainJain (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, if a 1-day review is unable to see the problem, then perhaps it needs to be restated so it can be understood in 1 day, with indicating ALL the major concerns, with examples of each. We can't go by argument from authority, as if saying, "There was little evidence at trial, but if you knew what we know, you'd agree to guilty." -Wikid77 (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikid: if mathematical formulas with incorrect formatting and inaccuracies were permitted in articles, your point would stand. But they're not. B9's writing is not just verbose, it is inaccurate. The problem is not just that the points are being obscured, or that poetry is disallowed in articles, the point is that he is making no sense, even when you detangle the text. With regard to using poetic devices to explain poetry: we're not even allowed to do that at school. An explanation of a device should be simple, not masked by another device. This summary of B9's behaviour has actually been stated multiple times in this thread. {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 22:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Not all poetic devices are masks, so we need a new article "Poetic device" to help discuss this issue. The process of a lawyer becoming U.S. President is known as: from the courthouse to the statehouse to the White House. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm fine with the indef block as it essentially the same thing as a ban, the only thing I would add is that this block should not be lifted without another community discussion, and that such a discussion should not take place anytime soon, and not at all if B9 still refuses to acknowledge the nature of the problem. I don't think any of Wikid77's above suggestions have any support in either policy or community consensus however. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Rejecting such suggestions, as not already in consensus, is the fallacy of arguing to the majority, so remember "100 Authors against Einstein" where Einstein replied that if he were wrong, it would only require one. Let's discuss the issues by merit, rather than popularity. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd assume that if the indef block was lifted, this discussion here would continue. Until then, people can discuss the block on B9HH's talk page. -- llywrch (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2010 (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.

Disruptive template replacements

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Disruptive template replacements. It has morphed into a community ban discussion, as opposed to an incident discussion, and that is the more proper place for such ban discussions. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Snottywong's various types of disruption (incivility, too)

There's nothing wrong with the fact that Snottywong doesn't like the article now named Popular cat names, either with his !vote to delete at the last AfD [91] or even with his request for review at DRV [92] (although his DRV nom was obviously without merit, and therefore sunk like a brick, that can be chalked up to not knowing deletion policy). But instead of waiting a while and renominating it for AfD, he's been wasting the time of me and other editors and making it difficult to continue improving the article:

• Incivility: JohnWBarber, the only reason our discussions haven't been constructive is because all of your comments were either wikilawyering or purposely irrelevant so as to obscure the nature of the argument. [93] and But surely, if Wikipedia strives to be an encyclopedia that contains facts, then we cannot include garbage content like this and present it as "truthiness". [94]; also, please take a look at the goading edit summary here [95]
• Refusal to get the point: Long, repetitive, unresponsive talk page argument in which he insists that all ths sources are trying to be definitive about exactly which cat names are the ten most popular, in order. (The issue had previously come up on the AfD [96] [97].)My mistake. Sorry. I'm tired. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • First time on the talk page, 22:10, 19 May;
    • I answer that the sources aren't trying to be definitive and even if they were, the article is not using the data that way 00:36, 20 May ;
  • Snottywong repeats the assertion (see last paragraph) 02:41, 20 May;
    • it is again answered 04:48, 20 May;
  • Snottywong repeats the assertion 05:11, 20 May and made the same point in adding to that comment here [98] (and makes the same point in another thread 05:53, 20 May;
    • it is again answered 18:20, 20 May;
  • Snottywong again makes essentially the same point 21:17, 20 May, and yet again in the other thread 21:27, 20 May;
    • it is yet again answered, and he is told he's repeating himself 21:34, 21 May (and later on, for good measure, I answered him again in the second thread 18:57, 30 May

When answered, he ends discussion and changes the page anyway, despite lack of consensus. Last discussion, [99] followed by AfD. [100]

• More disruption by renominating the article for deletion [101] within less than two weeks after the previous [102] AfD.
• Violation of WP:POINT (emphasis added): First he announces what he's going to do and why: Unless, of course, you are suggesting that we should list the results of every remotely credible survey of the top 10 most popular cat names in a giant table. I would absolutely be for that, since it would only serve to highlight the ridiculousness of this article. Let me know if there is consensus with creating a table similar to the one I've made above and adding it to the file, and I'll get started on it right away. SnottyWong talk 21:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Then he does it: (scroll down to massive table added with this edit) [103]
• Edit warring while being unresponsive on the talk page. When I revert, [104] pointing out that he doesn't have consensus to do something already objected to on the talk page, he reverts [105] (at this point, I should have just kept to the talk page, but he got my goat and I reverted again [106], and Snottywong reverted again [107] with a snide edit summary). This is the talk page section I started in response, [108] and to which Snottywong was first unresponsive in his comments and then didn't respond at all.

And then, when Snottywong has edit-warred to keep in a table that he says will make the article look ridiculous, he nominates the article for AfD. Not good-faith behavior.

Did Snottywong eventually get my goat? A bit. Frankly I'm tired of dealing with someone who is constantly annoying and seems to be annoying on purpose while I'm trying to make good-faith improvements to an article. I think uninvolved admins are better situated to give Snottywong some ... advice about WP:DISRUPT. Snottywong clearly doesn't want to listen to me.

And please close the bad-faith, out-of-policy AfD. It's already wasting the time of other editors besides me. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not motivated enough to spend hours to respond to JohnWBarber's complaints with dozens of links and diffs to make my point. I think it's clear that while the argument was heated, I was never uncivil, I never called you names or attacked you personally (and neither did you). I disagree that you actually responded to the majority of the points I made about the article, which is why they were brought up repeatedly. During the course of our discussion on the talk page of the article, I discovered new information about the sources on which this article is dependent. Since this information was not available and therefore not discussed during the previous AfD, I started another AfD with a completely different deletion rationale. It is my opinion that JohnWBarber has lodged this complaint out of frustration that he is "losing his argument", and I believe that my actions do not require any administrative intervention and certainly are not a blockable offense. I maintain that the new AfD nomination is absolutely in good faith, as the deletion rationale is completely different than the previous one, and is based on information that was not available previously. SnottyWong talk 03:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD has been closed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that the AfD has already been closed without even giving me the chance to defend it. Can someone kindly let me know the appropriate minimum amount of time to wait before renominating an article for AfD (with a different deletion rationale) without a complaint being lodged at ANI? Thanks. SnottyWong talk 03:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If you have to ask, the answer is "not yet". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I closed the AfD. Five days after the DRV endorsed the last keep is just too soon for another try to delete it. (And I'm not usually sympathetic to the "too many nominations" argument, but three runs at deletion in less than 25 days is too much discussion.) Snottywong, my advice would be to walk away from this article- let it sit for five or six months and see what the editors who care about it build. Then, if you still truly believe it needs deleting, nominate it again and see what happens. Courcelles (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. To be clear, this was the second attempt to delete the article in recent history. The first AfD was in 2008, the second was in May of this year, and the third was the one you just closed. I'm not sure what you mean by "three runs at deletion in less than 25 days". SnottyWong talk 03:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The DRV that you started; as DRV has the power to overturn a keep all the way to a delete. Courcelles (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sarawak and User:95Kenrick

Could someone take a look at this article and this user's actions. They keep on adding a db-copyvio tag to it which I've removed for reasons I state on the talk page - in short a) it's only one section so not a valid G12 candidate and b) it seems nearly certain the website in question copied from us rather than the other way round. The editor in question also has a rather strange edit history of the article. It appears that they've not got their own way about somethings so are now trying to get the article deleted - at least that's my interpretation of it. I'd appreciate another pair of eyes to look over it as I'm at a three revert limit and don't want to be seen to be edit warring. Dpmuk (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I acted on COPYVIO, Copying within Wikipedia and Text of the GNU Free Documentation License because it listed on the website with Copyright © Great Holiday Travel Sdn Bhd (843 225-A) and now I have replacing with {{copypate}} until the investigation is completed, thank you. 95Kenrick (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I am investigating. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

While it's always good to evaluate copyright concerns, in this case it is evident that they have indeed copied from Wikipedia. The first five sentences were introduced in a total of four edits, from March 2008, June 2004, April 2008 and January 2008. I've removed the template. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

thankfully, our contribution can avoid the legal jeopardy accusations of copyvio, with regards 95Kenrick (talk) 06:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Also regarding Sarawak and 95Kenrick: this user keeps on adding an edit in broken English to the article introduction, despite disagreement from multiple editors, and several removals of the same. This user is adding the same edit to Sabah. There is a discussion about this on the Sarawak talk page. I took the liberty of removing the "resolved" tag, since this is an ongoing issue. Chelos (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you forgot to mention my contribution on the page Self-determination#Sarawak and Sabah, hopefully we can do better perform together in the future, thank you 95Kenrick (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Please understand that it is not the information you are trying to convey that I am having issues with, but rather that the grammar used is such that the edits are unreadable and add no useful information. I am not even entirely sure of what you are trying to convey, which is why I cannot even begin to fix the grammar instead of removing the edits. Chelos (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Block review requested

I have just blocked 202.189.78.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for two weeks for vandalism after final warning. I did not want to go beyond that due to my relative inexpeience in blocking IPs (two weeks matched the period of the last block). I would appreciate more eyes on the matter to make sure it was handled correctly. Thanks in advance. Tiderolls 03:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

As soon as the previous 2-week block expires, the vandalism resumes? I would have blocked for 3 months. CIreland (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to lengthening the block. I was usure how to proceed with IPs. Tiderolls 03:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd have gone for two months, at least- with the standard terms of anon only, account creation blocked, and left the {{anonblock}} template in my wake. Courcelles (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The usual rule of thumb is to double duration for repeat blocks, so a 1-month block would be perfectly fine and uncontroversial in most cases. This particular IP appears to be more stubborn, so the 2 or 3 month terms would be suitable. Acroterion _(talk) 03:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've lengthened the block and added the anonblock template. Thanks for the input, folks. Tiderolls 03:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW: That IP resolves to rostrevor.sa.edu.au, so {{schoolblock}} would be more precise. It helps to use the whois, rdns, and/or trace links when trying to decide what to do about a vandal IP. Someone should write a guide (he says before turning and running away) [109][110] —DoRD (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV backlog

Resolved

 – Thanks zzuuzz (talk · contribs) and PhilKnight (talk · contribs)! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If any willing admin were to take a look, I wouldn't complain. ;) Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to nitpick, but this isn't really an "incident" and probably could have been reported at WP:AN. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. It's just that I've seen other backlogs reported here in the past, so I did that too. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 18:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What they should so it include in the noticeboard-wide header at the very top of this page (where all the pages are listed) a red indicator that is illuminated when AIV, UAA or 3RR (can that be backlogged?) is backlogged. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Sfan00 IMG

Sfan00 IMG (talk · contribs) is a bot that is tagging tons of used images for speedy deletion, with no explanations in its tagging as to why the images should be deleted. The owner of the bot hasn't edited in almost two months, there is nobody to discuss this with. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

And BTW, the deletion requests are being made on the en wiki for images on Commons. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Example? The recent db-g6 tags look legitimate to me. Those are images on Commons. Why do we need files here for images on Commons? Wknight94 ^talk 21:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Assuming these are all on-Commons files, the tagging is valid -- we don't want to have categories and the like here as well as there.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

But I'm conversing with him right now on IRC, unless it's a Dalek or some automatic voice system or something :) Anyways, if they're duplicate images on Commons, then unless there is another reason for the image (i.e. non-free image or similar) to be only on WP, then Commons is fine. It can be accessed just as easily, not to mention making it accessible from any WMF wiki. –MuZemike 21:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh. The deletions are just for removal of the File pages, and not the images themselves? Ah. I didn't understand. OK, never mind, then. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict x 2) For what it's worth, you're wrong that he/she hasn't edited here for almost two months. I asked about this tagging yesterday, and got a response. As for the substance of your complaint, I agree with WKnight. <longer explanation cut> Bencherlite^Talk 21:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk · contribs) hasn't edited since April. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Doodah

Page speedily deleted three times as blatant hoax. Please redelete and salt, consider blocking current SPA account of creator Rodentmuncher. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the last one and gave them an immediate final warning (because nobody had) before I saw this here. – B.hotep •talk• 21:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Need help from an administrator ASAP

I an administrator could contact me ASAP I would greatly appreciate it. I need help in deleting a revision comment that was made on my account that discusses an individual who has nothing to do with the edit.

please contact me via email at <redacted>

Thanks

Ezmaz (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've redacted your email address, and I'll look into it. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 22:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Armando Galarraga and a question of how many pieces of vandalism require a Full Page Protection?

Hi all, I have a question for you here.

There were three vandalism edits on Armando Galarraga([111],[112],[113] after semi-protection, and it seemed that was enough for protection. However, is it enough?

People look to Wikipedia for quick information on current events, and I can't believe there aren't enough non-admin editors out there that can keep a check on vandalism while improving vital current event articles. I know when I saw the news on ESPN, I went straight to Wikipedia and was disappointed that I could not help. Indeed, one of the removals of the vandalism was by a user with less than 250 edits ([114]).

Perhaps it was more the speed than the number of vandalism edits, but yet I think discussion is necessary here. Doc Quintana (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is currently fully protected – only admins can edit it. – B.hotep •talk• 13:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I would be appreciative if you made comments that are germaine to the discussion since I have already said what you just said. Doc Quintana (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I misunderstood what you said. – B.hotep •talk• 14:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. Boiling it down, what I asked is "Should protection have come here this quickly, or was it appropriate?" I am fairly neutral, but I am curious as to the community's opinion. I am also wondering if I should notify the admin that made the decision, but I haven't named them yet here, and I think it's more about decisions like these in general than this specific decision in any case.Doc Quintana (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I would certainly say that there is a case for ratcheting it back down to semi. – B.hotep •talk• 14:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been editing in suggestions agreed upon on the talk page, but also agree that dropping to semi could work at this point. Last night though, the level of vandalism was ridiculous, and it crossed at least a dozen articles. I would suggest a longer term semi protection (a couple of weeks, at least). Resolute 14:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think semi was fine, and could have been fine even during the flood of vandalism after it was turned into semi-status if someone was watching the page throughout the night, but I also understand the complete protect if that wasn't possible. It would be good if there were a more solid guideline for this though, page protects keep out well intentioned users along with vandals. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I count only two vandal edits after semi-protection. Without knowing all the context, I would say two edits by autoconfirmed socks is not enough to warrant full protection. It's usually fairly easy to knock any such accounts out fairly quickly, leaving room for constructive edits. The proper procedure would be to ask the protecting admin; failing a satisfactory response go to WP:RFPP or here. There would likely be a consensus to drop it to semi before the allotted time. Policy is pretty clear about the "large number of autoconfirmed accounts ... used to make a sustained vandalism attack on an article". -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, concur. After all, Wikipedia has instant replay!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs is going to be devastated to have missed this conversation! ElKevbo (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, those two vandal edits occurred in the 12 minutes between semi protection being imposed and the time Prodego went to full. I wonder how many more such edits would have been necessary to "justify" the move? The full protection is going to expire in about two hours anyway, but I'm guessing there are no objections if Jim Joyce and Armando Galarraga are both dropped down to semi-protection sooner? Resolute 23:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

On the Galarraga article, one of the redlink users edited out vandalism. The next one... well, I don't know what that was. – B.hotep •talk• 23:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD that should be closed.

Resolved

 – AfD closed Netalarmtalk 00:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. There is an AfD for "Woohoo" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woohoo (song) but its a clear snow ball. Now im aware that AfD wasn't open long i was personally neutral to the debate however there is no comments in opposition (i think). Should it not be closed now to prevent further time wastage. Regard, Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Closed. Be aware that you can close AFDs like that as a non-admin closure since you are in good standing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm having one of those days

Resolved

 – Sorted

This is clearly a sock, but I can't remember who of - can someone who does remember please do the necessary. I'm going to bed, perhaps my brain cells will regenerate whilst I'm doing so. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ruin Cireela? Edited Template:A which was edited only by a sock of Ruin Cireela and a user tfd'ing it. N/A0 00:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that's the one - say this just I was logging out. Will sort it before I go. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Demand community ban for Vote (X) for Change

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

Vote (X) for Change (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I demand a community ban on User:Vote (X) for Change and an indefinite block on 92.27.84.129 in response to the long history of block evasion, capped by the insult which can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"Demand"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The user is already indefblocked. The IP is likely dynamic, so blocking it forever isn't going to help anything. I don't know what can be done other than a range block if it gets really bad. --B (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That's why he's asking for a ban -- so that any IP determined to be Vote (X) can be immediately blocked as the sock of a banned user, instead of arguing about block evasion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A blocked user who evades a block is to be blocked on sight anyway. Any user who is blocked and whom no admin is willing to unblock is banned already. It sounds like this is an argument over semantics. (Obviously, I agree with the ban ... I'm just not clear over the point of having a ban discussion for a long-time blocked user who is sockpuppeting ... it seems pretty cut and dry.) --B (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In theory, maybe. In practice I've been blocked (no complaint, good block etc) for edit warring with a sock puppet of an indefed editor. I have no qualms about repeatedly reverting banned editors; I would think twice before repeatedly reverting an indefed editor. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 18:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at WP:3RR and WP:BAN. Apparently the rule has changed from what it used to be. It used to be that reverting the edits of a currently blocked user evading their block was explicitly exempted 3RR. It used to be that if an administrator blocked a user and no admin was willing to unblock, that user was considered "banned" so long as nobody was willing to unblock them. I'm not sure I like these two rule changes, but IIWII and I now understand why the discussion is relevant. --B (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, there is a debate over the name of a calendar. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Little things. Rohedin ^TALK 22:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That's the least of this guy's calendrical sins. He has any number of cranky ideas about the history and structure of the pre-Julian, Julian, Gregorian and the Revised Julian (Orthodox) calendars, which he has pursued very persistently, first in 2008, until the supply of vaguely relevant articles was choked off through long-term semi-protection (at that time he only used IP addresses). Those protections have since been lifted, and he has broadened his agenda, but with very similar tactics, since February this year. He is immune to ordinary rational debate and contrary evidence, and insists that only he knows the state of current scholarship, citing only demonstrably unreliable tertiary sources, at best, to back him up.

Taking on a user handle was an aberration, he says he only did it to campaign for this name change and I believe him. Normally he only uses IP addresses. Unfortunately they are not dynamic in the normal sense. So far as I can tell, they are mostly terminals in various public libraries in NW London. So blocking these addresses has the effect of shutting down public library access to editing WP.

The conclusion I came to in 2008 is that WP is not really set up to deal with this kind of crank. Raising the issues through disputes procedures is time-consuming, and each time a new admin gets involved, who usually only sees the latest incident not the longue duree. For this reason the action taken is frequently just to block an IP address for a few weeks, or to semi-protect an article for a few weeks. That really has no effect.

I totally understand why Jc3s5h has made this request, and I don't oppose it. We both now revert edits from this user on sight and without discussion, but it gets very tiresome. However, I think blocking IP addresses on sight is not the real solution for this problem, he'll only find a new one at another library. As I said, what succeeded last time was choking off his air supply -- semi-protecting articles long term or (preferably) permanently. Jc3s5h has succeeded in getting at least some of the target articles permanently semi-protected, but the antagonist moved on to posting long discussions on the Talk pages or even in Archives which have to be continually reverted. So IMO semi-protection needs to be extended to the these pages as well (in fact this has already happened on Talk:Julian calendar/Archive 2). --Chris Bennett (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I admit this is a bit off topic, but why aren't all archives at least semi-protected? Yes, everyone & anyone is welcome to contribute to the content or discussions here, but editting those pages is the equivalent of rewriting Wikipedia's history, & only a patient or alert reader might catch this falsification. -- llywrch (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

User: Dekkappai -- repeated personal attacks, incivility, disruptive postings at AFD

Dekkappai has been both warned [115] and blocked [116] over extremely inappropriate comments in AFD discussions. In a current AFD discussion, Articles_for_deletion/Toppsy_Curvey, Dekkappai began by insinuating that both the nominator (User:EuroPride) and the original prodder (myself) had engaged in "sickening" behavior by "ignoring" significant evidence of notability (which turn out to be 19 GNews/GBooks hits that provide little more information on the subject than her stage name, occupation, and favored publicity stunt). Dekkappai then posted a gratuitous personal attack on me -- "Perhaps you haven't encountered Hullaballoo before, Dream Focus. His M.O. is to claim something like the L.A. Times is an unreliable source-- sometimes claiming it is a mirror of Wikipedia. "No lie is too extravagant in the service of censorship" is his motto.." [117] and described my comments in the AFD as "flat-out dishonest" [118]. Since Dekkappai's pattern of offensive behavior, groundless accusations, and consistent refusal to AGF shows no willingness to abide by Wikipedia's requirements for civility, some sort of intervention should be seen as necessary. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

First comment doesn't look particularly out-of-bounds to me. I dropped him a note for the later one, which is inappropriate. Shimeru (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

So... you come here when you lose the AfD argument, six days after Dekkappai made those comments you're upset about, and after yourself calling a comment by MQS "utter rubbish"? Sorry, I think admins have better things to do than salve your wounded pride. Fences&Windows 13:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC) p.s. Wikiquette Alerts is that way. Fences&Windows 13:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No. I posted this while the AFD was open, and in response to Dekkappai's later comments, gratuitous and groundless charges of dishonesty, which ought to be seen as indefensible. With about 23,000 edits to date, mostly devoted to BLP cleanup, it's curious and striking to me that a hugely disproportionate amount of controversy is generated by a small number of users who are determined to apply special, relaxed standards to pornography-related articles, and use personal attacks on those who disagree with them as weapons. If admins weren't so eager to wash their hands of such disputes, those of us trying to actually clean up the BLP mess wouldn't have to waste so much of our editing time. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Relaxed standards? It meets the same stands as everything else. [119] Six people said keep, just you and the nominator thought it should be deleted, the article kept because it does have plenty of references. You do seem to be making quite a hullabaloo. Dream Focus 05:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

IP adding controversial edits without sources, edit warring, zero discussion, long history

74.92.49.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of making controversial edits to political articles, often being warned, recently to the point of a final warning. This recently started again with the addition of some unsourced material to Judicial activism. We had this issue earlier on the article. Despite little discussion (the page does not have a large regular contributor base) the current "examples" section is sourced, and has a comment above it indicating that these entries need a source.

I've undone the recent IP twice now, while they've added this information 3 times. I've tried to engage them directly, but in the entire editing history of the IP, the IP has never made an edit to a talk page or used an edit summary. I contemplated the 3RR board but given the long-term pattern of problematic edits, and the absolute lack of discussion, I thought this was more approriate.

Here're the recent additions: [120] [121] [122], here is my attempt at discussion (aside from edit summaries) [123], and here are a few examples of the other problematic edits: [124] Edit warring on tax (at the bottom of the history), and more OR.

Aside from the edit warring, the main concern though is that this editor continues to edit war on articles and does so without any discussion at all. I'd also note that the IP range appears to be part of COMCAST BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS INC. Shadowjams (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The last edit was almost a day ago, so rather than block outright, I've left a final warning (and clarified that it applies to all pages, not just the one he was warned about previously). If it continues, we can always block him then. Shimeru (talk) 03:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. As an aside, I partially brought it here too because I didn't want to get accused of edit warring on Judicial activism. Could someone please take a look, and either undo them, {{CN}} those new additions, add cites, or tell me I'm being pedantic about requiring sources? Shadowjams (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Naming a court decision is citing a reference, especially when a wikilink makes it certain that the popular name of the case corresponds to the full legal citation. Now if it is not obvious that the summary provided is actually supported by the text of the decision, that is a different problem. And the failure to engage in any discussion is also a problem. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because a court opinion can be a reference doesn't mean that every addition of a decision is a reference. For example, saying decision X is a bad opinion cannot be supported by citing decision X. The case in the article is even more clear: they don't even bother citing, they just add the decision. Similarly, if I said book X is the greatest book ever written, I can't support that fact by putting <ref>Book X</ref> after that statement.

There are shades of gray when the statement's obvious or when the reference obviously supports the statement, but making judgment calls (as is certainly the case in these political articles) requires 3rd party reliable sources. Shadowjams (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

JIDF at Gaza flotilla clash

JIDF is bringing people to Gaza flotilla clash http://www.thejidf.org/2010/05/gaza-flotilla-wikipedia-continues-to-be.html

In only a couple of hours many new editors registered today have stared editing the article. Is there some way anyone can lock the article so that no new editors can edit it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there's protection, but... since this is a current event I'd personally prefer to avoid that if it all possible (and I'll concede that it may not be...)

Apparently we're "group-thinking terror sympathizers and leftists" (per the JIDF), so I suppose steering new editors towards working on articles... like... these won't necessarily be to their tastes, but I do feel we should be welcoming these editors, even if their initial contributions may be less than helpful.

Disclaimer: I'm opposed to "the State", not "the State of Israel".

Cheers, TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 12:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Protection has already been requested. I'm inclined to move towards "yes please, let's protect and get edit requests onto the talk page instead", but purely because editing is no longer easy/possible due to edit conflicts. Crap reason for supporting protection, I know... TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 12:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support semiprotection. Definitely needed; the sheer volume of editing from IPs is making life difficult all round. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've granted both requests. You might want to consider whether full protection is appropriate, but I'll leave it for another admin to determine that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Good call. I don't think full protection is appropriate at this stage but let's keep an eye on things to see how they develop. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• I love the way anybody who is not completely uncritical of Israel is automatically an anti-Zionist and anti-Semite. Way to go, guys, that kind of attitude makes it much easier to spot and ban you. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Preaching to the wrong choir, JzG. No one here fits that description.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, any chance of getting 2007–2010 blockade of the Gaza Strip put under the same protection for the time being ? Sean.hoyland - talk 15:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I like everything in this area to go strictly by the book, so put in the formal request at WP:RFPP and in the meantime, I will look to see what is going on with the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked at it and do not see much going on there. Very little vandalism. I probably wouldn't grant the request, but what I will do is not respond to it and let you take your luck with another admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Both articles have been protected by Wehwalt. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's not too bad at 2007–2010 blockade of the Gaza Strip yet so I'll see how it goes. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting otherwise, Wehwalt. They are cranks, pure and simple - it's just nice to have an unambiguous one every now and then when people actively flag themselves as needing removal from a subject. Much easier than the climate change war. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Those new editors pushing POV should be blocked (by their IP)Lihaas (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Your comment surely shows how NPOV you are. Not everyone who criticizes Israel is an anti-semite/anti-zionist, but many critics of israel are driven by antisemitism/anti-zionism, and all antisemites/antizionists are critical of Israel. If someone is critical of Israel, we don't immediately assume that he is an anti-semite, however try to get an idea of the causes of his criticism. Is it true concern of Israel's actions, or deep-seated hatred of anything jewish, using israel criticism as a cover.--Doom777 (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Not the case. We do not judge people by their beliefs but by their actions. If they can edit in a collegial fashion, all is well, if they cannot, they must learn to. Keep in mind that we expect that people will edit what they are interested in, thus most of the editors on that article are interested in the I/P situation. Editors interested in editing in that field must accept that there are restrictions, that they must follow our rules closely, and that their edits will be intensively scrutinized.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• More eyes certainly wouldn't hurt, but I've just commented on one editor's talk page that the overall conduct seems to be pretty good, considering the highly-charged atmosphere offline. Plenty of POV pushing by both sides, but it's pretty obvious and t'other side and more neutral editors are counter-balancing it. TFOWR^{is this too long?} 12:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think that the editors with fewer than 600 edits to their name are tilting the scales inappropriately at the Gaza flotilla article. They have current edit counts of 21 edits, They have the classic characteristics of socks, rather than of newbies. I think a sock check of them is very much in order -- and they should be blocked if found to be socks.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. It's amazing how many sock-like accounts are there. This didn't happen with Operation Cast Lead as far as I recall. There needs to be some SPI's but where to start ? I haven't recognised anyone yet. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• it seems User:Supreme Deliciousness opinion is biased against israel and many others as well which is why it's pro-palesitian whenever i check for updates.

how about closing the article from being edited by anyone until NPOV is reached in a cleaned-up discussions section, i already wrote about it here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.152.79 (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• • There are many editors there advocating on behalf of the State of Israel too using IDF/MFA primary sources, youtube, you name it. It's always like that. Being personally biased for or against Israel shouldnt be a problem if everyone follows policy and the discretionary sanctions. Sockpuppets/new accounts are a problems. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Sounds like another Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign type of off-wiki campaign going on over there. Wouldn't be surprised if there's socks of some old hands taking part alongside the newbie meat-puppets. Tarc (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Can some admin please lock the Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid article from new and unregistered accounts? Take a look at the many new accounts and IPs editing that article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Please watch

Things are getting a bit hot on that article, and it seems to me that that's because few admins are actively watching it; at least I haven't seen any admin intervention while I was there. I have to go now, please keep an eye on it. — Sebastian 07:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC), shortened 07:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Warning: Classfied ad seeking to sell/rent disruptive elements

Resolved

 – Ad has been struck off. Please find some other dramahz.

What's up with this? [125]? Some dude is selling access to a "army" of followers on Wikipedia? Is this normal? TiffanyRalo (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll tell you what wouldn't be normal... stumping up 9.5k for that! – B.hotep •talk• 22:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a discrete seller, so don't lump it together with any others. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I prefer someone who I place my trust (and 9.5k) in to go round shouting about it from the rooftops, personally. But it does mean we will have to check each and every RfA and RfB that got to WP:100 just to be on the safe side, eh? ;) – B.hotep •talk• 23:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you also seen [126] --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha! I suspect most of our banned users lack the funds to take advantage of that, fortunately. :-) Yworo (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Refraining from any reference to the well known phrase or saying containing the words 'money' and 'fool' :) Being a tedious git, I've used the abuse report function on the site to report both, as the 'sales' fail at least two clauses in the non-permitted items section of the TOS --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha, "seller will ship to the US only". N/A0 00:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• "They are not "sockpuppets" and can evade any checkuser systems.". Awesome, I will take 20. Anyone that gets the reference wins a barnstar. Rohedin ^TALK 23:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• Aye, 9,500 whatevers to be thwarted by Wikistalk. Good value, that. Not. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• The ad appears to have been taken down. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sold to the shady looking guy in the corner? Or soon to be relisted? Keep an eye out for further special offers like rollback rights for cash in a brown envelope... – B.hotep •talk• 08:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Extra eyes on Natalee Holloway and Joran van der Sloot, please

Joran van der Sloot is suspected in a fresh murder in Peru, and is being pursued by Interpol. So far there hasn't been a significant BLP problem at either article, but that can change in a flash. The admins that normally help me keep an eye on the article seem to be away from their desks at the moment, and I can't watch full time. Help keeping an eye on Natalee Holloway and Joran van der Sloot greatly appreciated.—Kww(talk) 23:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Just was getting a cup and coffee and chatting at the water cooler. Yes, I agree. Keep in mind, everyone, that we consider Natalee to be a living person for BLP purposes.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, i will watchlist both as well.--Milowent (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Trautenau

Resolved

 – Removed game spam posing as references Yworo (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the correct place to raise this concern, sorry if this is the wrong board. The Article is about a notable battle but it is sourced to some kind of game website (!!!) and contains contains portions of text copied from said site. This is ridiculous. I got no idea how to fix this, so please help. 217.235.9.126 (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice catch. I took care of it. Yworo (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. But the whole section "The battle" is copied from this site. 217.235.9.126 (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am about to take care of that too, but keep getting interrupted. Will get done soon. Yworo (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Linked elsewhere also. 78.86.152.174 (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:Game vs WP:GAME

Resolved

I just stumbled across a really confusing redirect of WP:Game pointing to Wikipedia:WikiProject Games while WP:GAME points to Wikipedia:Gaming the system. That seemed really broken. Being WP:BOLD, I changed WP:Game to point to Wikipedia:Gaming the system, while WP:GAMES points to Wikipedia:WikiProject Games. I'm sure there will be folks upset by this so I wanted to ask for a review of this action. Toddst1 (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem with the bold change, but maybe another hatnote is needed to point those who were looking for the WikiProject know where to find it. Mjroots (talk) 07:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Duly hatnoted. Toddst1 (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

72.229.3.163

Hey, can someone block this guy for a while please ? It looks like a static IP too although I can't be sure. His edits from today alone are impressively bad.

• BLP violation extraordinaire
• Political childishness
• More political childishness with deceptive edit summary
• ...and my personal favourite, personal attack

Editor notified

Thanks Sean.hoyland - talk 08:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

AIV is that-a-way. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

As NeutralHomer says, this could have gone to AIV. However, since you're here anyway I've hardblocked the IP for 3 months. Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 08:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we get a checkuser, please? He's also came back as the following:

• Crying out loudest (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Crybaby kommy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Phineas urikar3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• First twater (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

This person has some (near homosexual) infatuation with Noam Chomsky for some reason. Hopefully there is an underlying IP range which can be blocked and also possible sleepers. –MuZemike 09:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This is Runtshit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is it not? We usually do the RBI/DENY thing to not give him the pleasure. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 09:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Runtshit almost always uses fresh accounts on open proxies, so a range block won't help, though more checkusers blocking proxies might. Edit filter 17 is dedicated to Runtshit. 72.229.3.163 doesn't particularly look like him. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No, 72 looks like a wannabe or a co-incidence. The accounts listed above are Runtshit, and most of them (there are a bunch more with similar names, also blocked) were blocked on tripping the filter. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 09:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I usually catch a few every week myself. SPI would soon be overloaded if there was a CU on each one. We usually just tweak the filter and RBI. For future reference Runtshit should be blocked immediately without warning, and any IPs used listed at WP:OP -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Given the nature of Runtshit harassment, it's worth blocking with talk page and email disabled. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 10:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Rollback misuse

As you all know, I have a very consuded idea of "rollback misuse" so I would be grateful to know if the use of the esteemed tool is legitimate here [127]. Where user:Fastily (an admin) to my mind is misusing the tool very badly. Life is just so confusing isn't it? Go forth and discuss.  Giacomo  18:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• I would like to hear from Fastily on this. As a preliminary comment, I will say that the decision to use rollback here seems to me to have been an unwise one. AGK 18:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have rolled back that edit. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Really? so what are you going to do about it? Take away his rollback rights, say he is harrassing or do nothing? There seems to be a lot that is "odious" going on currently - doesn't there?  Giacomo  19:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Rollback cannot be taken away from an admin. (That's not an endorsement of anything, just a clarification of what is technically possible.) --B (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No, only one thing can be taken from an Admin and that won't happen - just go stew, all of you. I feel tainted in some of the comapany here right now. I won't be back to this thread so just close it - leave it - cover it up or whatever it is you usually do.  Giacomo  19:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

As B says, Fastily is an admin. I'd say someone should talk to him. Now that I understand you were baiting me, I also understand why you didn't ask him about it yourself on his talk page. I think this thread should be closed now. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Giano said it before B did.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What's with the forum shopping, Giano? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

He'll be able to answer that question when he gets back from AGK's block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Or when the wheel war begins ... --B (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the question of appropriateness, if the edits themselves were appropriate, then using rollback would be appropriate in this case - it is approved for bulk reverts. However, I don't see that the edits themselves were appropriate for the most part. Some of these images are clearly public domain and, while there technically needs to be a source for our image policy, if it's obviously PD and it's obvious where it came from originally, we don't need to be obnoxious about it. But I should point out that the articles from January 4, 1923 are NOT public domain. So to answer your question, no, the use of rollback was not appropriate. --B (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, this is just a plain obnoxious revert. I would hope it was accidental. --B (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to hear some excuse from Fastily for using this edit to revert a perfectly good edit on the user's own user talk page.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I undid it and Fastily apologised on my talk for it, saying they were in the process of rectifying it. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In the edit I just undid here, it was clearly an invalid deletion rationale -- it was stated that it came from a particular issue of the New York Times that was comfortably in the Public Domain. The exact provenance of the scan is irrelevant.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be nice if we had (just in case there is ever any question) something like "User such and such scanned this image from an original clipping" or, "this clipping was posted on Bob Smith's blog at http:// whatever". That way, if, sometime down the line, someone questions the authenticity, we have that level of audit trail. But I wouldn't go around deleting things without it unless there is some legitimate concern that it may not be authentic. At Commons, for instance, there are plenty of works of art that are obviously PD, but for which there is no exact source of the image file itself. Going through them and deleting for the sake of deleting would just be obnoxious. --B (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yet another reason why the admin toolset should be split up. There is no way that Fastily can be "punished" for this - any ordinary editor would have their rollback right stripped without question. Oh, and Giacomo has been blocked for "personal attacks". Aiken ♫ 19:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding that - an ordinary editor can be topic banned, or told to not post to another editor's user page; can not the community, or other admins in concert, put an administrator under a ban from using one of their tools? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom has done that before. I don't see why a community ban over the rollback tool couldn't be imposed. (I'm not inclined to do so at this point - not unless there is evidence of significant abuse ... just stating the theoretical possibility.) --B (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There are about 20 he has the same tag on under the same circumstances. All PD. I know of no Wikipedia rule that demands what library I scanned a book from or what roll of microfilm I used. Bridgeman v. Corel says that a new copy of an expired image doesn't reset the clock for copyright. Saying "New York Times on January 12, 1910" is enough info to refind it. The demands for a link or that the text be in a fancy new format are just a continuance of the nonsense all week to pile on. I want to remove the tags since they are incorrect. Can I remove the tags, when I tried to add more text and remove the tag he threatened to block me and rolled back my changes as you saw above. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Richard, you don't need to say what microfilm you used - just put in there that you personally scanned the image (as opposed to downloading it from a website). The whole idea, as I said above, is that if five years from now, there's a question about where it came from and someone says "some website claims that the article text says this", we can say, "no, Richard himself scanned it from microfilm so we know our version is correct". You don't have to give the life story - just say that you did the scanning. --B (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I found flaws in most of those tags, I'd say rm them. My only (wee) worry is there may be a very few scanned articles which may not PD (I don't know if they are or not). Gwen Gale (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There was one that was from January 4, 1923. --B (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that one is lacking. Meanwhile, RAN, in his uploads, has claimed that copyrights weren't renewed. Could be. RAN, how do you know that? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Aiken, there is a way Fastily can be "punished" (using the term loosely because, in general, corrective action on Wikipedia is preventative, not punitive) - he can be blocked. If it is decided that there is an ongoing threat of disruption from Fastily's use of the rollback privilege, he can (and will) be blocked. --B (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

An ordinary editor would have already lost the right, for sure. Aiken ♫ 19:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If the oil spill were a used banana peel, it would have been thrown in the trash can. We can't do what we don't have the technical ability to do. --B (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A block is effectively a slap on the wrist. It'll come and go, but the admin will still have access to rollback. An ordinary editor would not. I know it's not technically possible to remove the right, so until that's the case, it's probably best that all rights are removed. Aiken ♫ 19:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That's counterproductive and kinda like curing the illness by killing the patient. In this particular case, all that has been established is that, on one particular occasion, he misused rollback. If someone posts diffs showing that this is an ongoing thing and that has has refused to change despite repeated attempts at intervention, then desysopping would make sense. --B (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That's more appropriate for an RFC, but I assure you this isn't an isolated incident. See, my way of thinking is that if an admin abuses one tool, they are probably going to abuse another too. Aiken ♫ 22:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, good faith editors who have lost rollback can get it back within a few weeks if they show understanding of what went wrong. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

When I was granted rollback, I was warned - twice - that misuse would result in it being taken off me. It seems fairly clear - misuse of rollback results in it being withdrawn. The fact that it also means the withdrawal of admin rights is unfortunate, but that's the way it goes - and should mean that those who have the ability consider its use even more carefully before dispensing. Surely being granted admin rights doesn't also grant immunity to the affects of it being misused? Perhaps at a later date he could re-apply, but in the meantime, the process seems clear to me, a mere editor. a_man_alone (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? Here's what irks me most about stuff like this. It's like pulling teeth on this site to get admins who really are abusing the tools. There was one case I was involved in where an admin was obviously socking (one account at work, and his admin account at home), regularly (and almost exclusively) blocking people he was in disputes with, and showing up at AN3 only to block people who were in edit wars with his friends. He had been warned multiple times by arbcom for the identical behavior. Finally, after about four different arbcom cases, he was desysopped and even then, the cabal was fighting vociferously. Even now, there is at least one admin I can think of who constantly blocks people he's disputing with and goes out of his way to disallow outside editors to participate in the topics he owns. Any time someone brings his actions up here, there's a calvary here to defend the indefensible. When you demand instant summary desysopping in a trivial case, it makes it just that much harder to deal with the real abuses. --B (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on that, I'm commenting on this. Neither am I demanding anything - I'm just pointing out that what you call a trivial case would have resulted in me losing my rollback ability. a_man_alone (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, A man alone, you pretty clearly advocated the removal of Fastily's admin rights because of this incident. That seems like a disproportionate response to making some questionable choices with rollbacking. — Satori Son 21:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Only because that's (apparently) a side effect of removing rollback. Misuse of rollback results in the loss of rollback. As administrators, do you not agree about that? If removing rollback also removes admin, then removing rollback means loss of admin. It may be disproportionate, but an admin should be aware that with rank cometh responsibility. a_man_alone (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

So much for "I'm just pointing out..." At least I appreciate the fact that you are no longer being coy about what, exactly, you would like to happen here. — Satori Son 21:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

As B hinted, if it came to that, a ban on Fastily using rollback for a given time would be much more fitting. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Hopefully, Fastily will respond here before we decide what to do. — Satori Son 21:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing should be done right now anyway - he has yet to edit since very early this morning. Once he starts editing again, if he says, "I was wrong, I will not do it again", we move on with life. If not, we can take an appropriate action. --B (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

To point out the obvious. If we can't trust a person with rollback, we can't trust him/her with the block button.--Harthacnut (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What actions have been taken to rectify both image questions and rollback question?

Question: Have any of the administrators here, particularly those who have identified that the rollbacks were inappropriate, initiated a discussion with Fastily about his use of this tool? Have any of the editors commenting here, particularly those who have identified that the rollbacks were inappropriate, returned the pages involved to their prior state? Has anyone initiated discussion on the talk pages of the various images identifying what needs to be changed between Fastily's version and RAN's version? In other words, is everyone here just talking, or is anyone actually taking any actions to resolve the issue? Risker (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Two editors (including the user who brought this report) contacted Fastily at his talk page, they were received thusly [128] [129] (see, in particular, the edit summaries, which only add to the disappointing response). –xeno^talk 21:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed one of the di-tags for a scan of an article that was cited to a particular PD issue of the NYT, as noted above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, SarekOfVulcan and Xeno, for your response. Now, can we have a volunteer to talk to Fastily again? Is there further action required with respect to him? Can we also have a volunteer or two to look at all of the pages that Fastily reverted, and review what does and doesn't need to be done there? I'd like to see this resolved in a way that allows us to keep (potentially) useful images, properly tagged, without any more templates being put on any editor's talk page. Risker (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• I do sometimes wonder, when you have all quite finished shooting the messenger who brings the tidings that you don't want to near, if any of you have any memories at all, this is not the first time that this Admin has been guilty of mass harassing nominations is it [130]? I warned you all I was going to get to the bottom of this harrassment case and I damn well will.  Giacomo  22:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
• (ec) Please note that Fastily has not edited since O dark thirty this morning ... so he has not necessarily even seen this discussion. --B (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Risker: With respect, I ask if you have pursued any of the sensible courses of action you recommend? AGK 12:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• I understand my personal limitations here; images (and the rules associated with them) are not my strong point, and indeed I always arrange for my own uploads to be double checked, AGK. As to a direct intervention with Fastily, I believe it would be better for it to come from those who have expressed an opinion here that his work was substandard, and that Fastily will respond positively to the critique; I myself do not have an opinion, but instead am trying to support the purpose of this noticeboard by clarifying the issues that have been identified and suggesting possible next steps. I would encourage that this be done more often, particularly when discussions go off track and lose their focus. Risker (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Don't mind me here. I just wanted to thank Risker for a wonderful initiative such as this. Thank you very much Risker. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• A detailed examination of this issue, resulting preferably in a re-education of Fastily, is the ideal outcome here. But this response to earlier requests for him to refrain from using his rollback tool in the way he did suggests to me that such an outcome is unlikely. Fastily doesn't seem to have logged onto Wikipedia since this thread was initiated, so at the moment we're waiting for his comments. But I would be interested to know what outcome other uninvolved administrators think would be available to us here. How precisely will we deal with this, either assuming Fastily is co-operative or is not compliant? AGK 16:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

  My thoughts on this are made clear in the following subsection. –xeno^talk 17:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

History repeating: Fastily has been warned for this behaviour in the past

"Now, can we have a volunteer to talk to Fastily again?"

Why should anyone spend their valuable volunteer time attempting to talk to Fastily when his personal policy seems to be blanket reversion of good-faith criticism of his actions?

Now, this may be seen by some as retaliation for Fastily's early oppose at my RFB (by his own admission, he opposed because I previously called him out on his poor behaviour), but I assure you I have been concerned about Fastily's behaviour for quite some time now. In February of this year, I asked him to step down as administrator for what I saw to be a scorched earth attack on another editors' image uploads during which Fastily parotted another user's comment referring to the editor's contributions as "worthless" [133].

He has used rollback in a questionable, sometimes abusive, manner numerous times (see this ANI thread, for example) - including blocking an editor whose good faith edits he was inappropriately rolling back in an edit-war [134].

In the course of his duties, he often bombards users with templates and makes unsuitable nominations for deletion [135] and even went so far as to unblock his own sock account [136] (without discussing first) after it was blocked [137] by Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for the same.

Normally, any private correspondence I send or receive on Wikipedia will remain private, but since Fastily took it upon himself to bring it into the public eye (calling it "offensive") [138], I will reproduce it here. On 19 February 2010, I left Fastily strongly-worded advisement for him to slow down, pointing out numerous problems with his recent behaviour. He reverted the message with the comment, "god damn xeno. thanks for reminding me. I don't think that was necessary at all" [139], at which point I issued a bluntly-worded caution to him via Emailuser:

Copy of your message to Fastily: Wikipedia e-mail: It is necessary...

......because I see that you are moving too fast.

You are going to find yourself stripped of the tools if you keep carrying out your duties with reckless abandon.

Sincerely,

-x

— Xeno, private correspondence to Fastily, Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 9:18 PM (UTC)

I received no reply. The next day I ended up blocking his sock account again for a brief time [140], for another bombardment of tags left on another users' page [141].

This latest situation is simply history repeating. Now, I'm not saying that all of RAN's images are perfectly acceptable, but if you are going to systematically go through another user's contributions, you need to exercise civility and restraint. Fastily clearly lacks the maturity and temperament for this task and seems to lack the care and due diligence required for adminship in general. –xeno^talk 17:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I just do have to say that Fastily clearing his/her talkpage of messages is explicitly permitted under policy. While we may not like it, it is genuinely unfair to criticise anybody for performing an action which they are specifically allowed to carry out. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 17:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting on this specific case: It is acceptable (or, at least, not against policy) for an editor. For an admin, not so much. In general, if someone wishes to delete messages on their talk page without responding, they should hand in their admin bit first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, to be fair, that's the first I've ever heard about such a notion. Whether or not we personally approve of Fastily's removal of material, the clear, codified policy situation is unambiguous. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 17:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to look it up, but I know somewhere in WP:ADMIN is language to the effect that admins must explain their actions, and be responsive to talk page questions. Plus, it's common sense. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Where such removal is a part of a long-established pattern of failing to listen to concerns or to respond constructively, then it is legitimate to raise it as a further concern. DuncanHill (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Two-tearing between editors and editors-who-are-admins is rarely helpful. Removing a post on your own talk page gives the explicit message that it has been read. Attempts to work out an implicit reason for it are doomed to fail epically. Often it's a useful way for anyone, editor or admin, to remain cool rather than exploding. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 17:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, removing posts not explicitly allowed by policy, that's simply a guideline. If we take a look at WP:ADMIN, it states quite clearly that admins should be willing to discuss their actions in a civil manner (see Wikipedia:ADMIN#Accountability). I don't see Fastily removing and ignoring a legitimate concern with the comment "god damn xeno. thanks for reminding me. I don't think that was necessary at all" as "respond[ing] promptly and civilly". In some way, I agree with you Redvers, but I don't really see the messages Fastily has been receiving as unreasonable, if Fastily can't handle the normal stress resulting from being an admin, they can always step down, or simply stop using rollback. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

@TT: From Wikipedia:Administrators - "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." –xeno^talk 17:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, that doesn't say anything about retaining messages, simply responding to them. I agree that Fastily may not assiduously respond! However, I could dig up diffs showing tens of admins not responding promptly and civilly to queries; I'm just not entirely happy that this is a productive road to go down. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 17:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The removal of the comments is but a small slice of the problem, indeed the discussion above is a red herring. The actual problem is that his behaviour has not changed despite the numerous good-faith critiques from fellow editors. –xeno^talk 17:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not the fact the messages are being removed (though I personally think it rude). It's that the comments being removed are being ignored. Removing with a comment like "ya whatever" is not acceptable when it's legitimate criticism. As I said above, this should be moved to an RFC. Aiken ♫ 17:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be the second step. The first step is for someone to ask Fastily on their talk page to respond about the allegations. And it doesn't have to be here (there's no reason to strap someone to Wikipedia's pillory if we can help it) but whatever, we need to engage Fastily somewhere first and have evidence that they have not responded to that engagement. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 17:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Erm.. Redvers, one of the main points being brought up here is that Fastily isn't responding to attempts to engage, despite numerous requests for responses to the allegations. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I consider Fastily a personal friend, and I think he does good work, but sadly I must agree with xeno's assessment. Fastily is curiously fast to tag hundreds of perfectly fine images for deletion with equally peculiar rationales. I'd hate to see him stripped of the bit—I don't think it's come to that yet—but I second the advice to listen to criticism a bit more. Respectfully, Juliancolton (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Another concerning example, from February 5, 2010... in this edit, Fastily's sock account removes image(s) of television antennae from the article television antenna because the image "does not significantly contribute to a reader's understanding of the article". One minute later Fastily's sock nominates the image file for deletion with the rationale "Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated." - a quite remarkable rationale for an image that was in encyclopedic use a mere two minutes before. Fortunately, GRuban noticed and commented on this "conduct unbecoming of an administrator". In addition, looking at the rest of that Feb 5 deletion log, there are clearly many other examples of Fastily nominations that were found to be flawed, many having the same remove-image-from-article then immediately claim-image-is-orphaned history. EdChem (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm an outsider here, so I don't know the entire story here, but it seems the problem is less talk page reversions and more calming down. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Fewer, not less. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(Doc's usage was correct—maybe I missed an inside joke). However, I found the talk pages reversions important, not because they were against policy, but because I was trying to give Fastily the benefit of the doubt, considering potential scenarios that might explain the behavior. The talk page reversions evaorated many of my good faith plausible explanations.--SPhilbrickT 14:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, Doc's usage wasn't correct. It's "fewer eggs, less flour," and since reversions is plural, he wants fewer of them. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 14:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Are the actions and comments of TreasuryTag and Fastily in the debate around this photo of RAN, aged 8 acceptable behaviour for admins? TreasuryTag nominated the photo for deletion on May 23, and Fastily closed the debate as 'no consensus' on May 31. Following this talk page discussion, Fastily agreed to TreasuryTag starting a new FfD discussion just 17 hours after the previous one closed. In opening the discussion (not as a relist), TreasuryTag suggested participants in the previous discussion should not take part In this 'new' discussion so that it not be "derailed", presumably by commentary about the treatment of RAN or by discussion of the issues raised by Carcharoth. Fastily has argued it is proper to obtain "a more lucid consensus" so that "more decisive action can be taken" by having a new discussion, and implied the difference between a new debate (without the previous comments and editors' participation) and a relist is a mere formality ("would it please you if I were to add a little notice?"). Fastily's view of RAN and his right to WP:AGF is also clear, on account of an alleged "past history with uploading copyright violations", and !voted delete within minutes of TreasuryTag posting the new discussion. Both Fastily and TreasuryTag have participated extensively in this new deabate, pushing for the file to be deleted and behaving (in my view) as if no other issues (like harrassment or process) are worthy of mention, let alone consideration. My question to the editors and administrators here is, is this sort of behaviour acceptable to you? If not, what should be done with this mess? Thanks, EdChem (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I note, for the record, that Newyorkbrad has now closed the FfD thread with a well-considered, clear, thoughtful and wise decision. I would like to formally thank him for putting an end to the debate over the image of RAN aged 8. EdChem (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There are ArbCom decisions also recognizing that administrators are expected to respond to good-faith concerns and questions regarding their administrator actions. (I can provide links if anyone wants to read them, or doubts the point.) That being said, Fastily has not edited in the past two-plus days, so there is probably little progress to be made until he returns and has an opportunity to review and comment on this thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I have come across Fastily's deletion purges and find them unhelpful. Many, many images all fine, all up for deletion with boilerplate reasons. No moving to commons, strong negative interaction with him/her. Secretlondon (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I fully support the assessments by Xeno, Juliancolton, Edchem and Secretlondon. Fastily does a lot of work in the imagedeletion department, but unfortunately the quality of that work is lacking at times. Add to the issues with removing an image and then nominating it for deletion as "orphaned" and cases such as RAN and you simply have a bad advertisement for our project. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Fastily doesn't seem to be collaborating (with his lack of responses). GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Contrary WP:ENGVAR edits and questions

There has been a continually series of edits switching American\British spelling over a whole range of articles[142][143][144], edits contrary to WP:ENGVAR. The IP of the editor seems to switch constantly but this series[145] points to a specific editor's[[146]] project page. The close match to IP edits there[147] and the fact that practically all those IP's are associated with switching American\British spelling seem to show this is the work of one editor and has been going on for a long time. Left explanation on edit reverts (example[148]) and left notice[149] for possible editor but the editor seems to be ignoring any discussion[150][151]. Is it OK to go 3RR on these edits if the editor in question seems to be ignoring any discussion? (treat as vandalism?) Did not leave ANI-notice since there is no fixed account for the actual edits and I did not know if this should be confirmed via WP:SPI or some other method first. MrFloatingIP (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

One thing I don't understand here, ENGVAR says Wikipedia doesn't endorse any particular variation of English. So how would changing from one variation to another or vice versa be an ENGVAR violation? I think the only time ENGVAR would be pertinent is in articles that are specific to a geographical area like Ayers Rock or Dodgers Stadium or what have you, where there are specific spellings that would be used by those in contact with the subject per WP:TIES. Doc Quintana (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You missed the WP:RETAIN clause of WP:ENGVAR.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 3, 2010; 14:32 (UTC)

I did, sorry about that. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the alternative would be changing articles related to neither the US nor the UK to anything someone wants anytime they want to do it, which would get disruptive. The idea here is don't change it unless there's a good reason to, and there is rarely a good reason provided.AlexiusHoratius 14:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR has many sub-sections covering changes re:consistency, strong national ties, retaining the existing variety, etc. WP:RETAIN seems to be the relative section here, the articles are clearly evolved, they have internal consistency, and the spelling was used by the first major contributor. The editor in question is ignoring consistency (i.e. the editor seems to be word searching words such as meter and changing it to metre while ignoring the consistent history of the page and ignoring the internal consistency of the page (missing other words such as color --> colour[152] or larger signs of consistency such as the page title[153]) MrFloatingIP (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If it's just a simple one-time thing, then sometimes I'll revert with a uw-lang warning, sometimes I'll just ignore it. If it gets to be a serious, long-time problem with a particular editor, then I'd say warn them specifically then report them to AIV - which may seem extreme, but like I said before it gets to the point where it is simply disruptive. If someone, like you said, is trying to improve an article by inserting consistency, that's one thing, but nine times out of ten it's just a random, unexplained change to "metre" or "defense". AlexiusHoratius 15:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not just you. I've been reverting the ENGVAR changing by 91.85.184.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 91.84.183.188 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 91.85.137.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for the last month on Cenote, for example. I've left warnings, but of course, the vandal moves on to another ip soon enough. The range belongs to Eclipse Internet GB, so we could complain at abuse@eclipse.net.uk if they continue to make a nuisance. --RexxS (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

User: Neutralhomer

I don't know what route to take with this, but I am again getting harrassed by user:neutralhomer. I posted a link to a photograph on my website (standard site, no advertising, I get no revenue, just a picture host) showing proof of evidence in an article. I disagree with his assertion that is it not a reliable source. (He state's conflict of interest, however I dispute that! How is a photograph evidence not reliable? It's a good faith source). I removed the link for the time being, however.

Anyways that is not the intended purpose of this post. He has requested that I do not post on his wall, so I can't notify him directly of this matter, and hope someone else here can.

He is now clearly following my every move on here, and based on other users talk pages, he's done/doing it to other users here as well who question his motives and what could be considered WP:Harrassment. Examples of a couple of other user talk pages [| here], [| here], and [| here]. His tactics include unnecessary flagging, incorrect flagging [| here.] reporting removal of unverified information as vandalisim, which had been determined to not be. He's been flagged by other users in the past as well. When the OP is questioned about his removal of unverified information, he refuses to go into arbitration. I had to flag him for edit warring, something that appears to have been done before. Based on comments left on my [talk page] by other users, I am not alone in this matter.

The user "requests" that I do not post on his wall, but feels it is ok for himself to do so on my wall. I believe this qualifies as WP:Harrassment as well as WP:Hounding , based on what I stated, and the comments clearly posted on the other three walls. What are the correct steps to take to get this overzealous member to back down? He's making several people's lives on Wikipedia a nightmare because of actions. Necrat (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)NECRAT.

He is correct that that picture is not an appropriate reference for the information you're using it for. Also, pointing to an entire article history is not generally considered suitable evidence for "incorrect tagging".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

How do I tag the one line that I am referring to? Also that's not the bigger problem here. It's the borderline bullying over other members as well, and what I would consider to be WikiStalking. I have removed the link to the picture in the article he questioned. Is this acceptable to use? [| Link ]

I think you mean WP:DIFF. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Wasn't told of this thread. No worries, found it searching for another ANI thread. I told Necrat that a website owned by him wasn't a reliable source since it was added by him. Just like I can't source an article with my website, it is COI, since I own the site. I think it could be possible for others to source it (since they are not owners, I will leave that to an admin to decide). I directed Necrat (politely, regardless of our past) to the FCC website where I believe they keep a list of transmitter brands the station using on the main application, which in this case would be here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Folks really shouldn't be banning other editors from their user talk pages unless there's serious harassment. I see that now Necrat has reciprocated by asking Neutralhomer not to post on his talk page either. User talk pages are there for a purpose - communication.   Will Beback  talk  19:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I will be honest, I do that for things I just don't want to deal with and areas where I feel I am being roped into a pissing match. I just say "begone". Though it is very rare I have to as I do try to get along with most everyone on Wikipedia. This has been a big pissing match gang-up between 4 users and me and I had better things to do like get an article to Good Article status (and I did) then deal with a pissing match. I just felt telling them to "begone" was easier than continous fighting. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There are more than just those examples. If I listed more, he would say "there are 5 users". Neutralhomer, you have rejected any fair and good communications, and by not communicating, you invoke what you call a "pissing match" between members. Telling users to "begone" instead of entering into a communication with them, and as seen as evidence from previous disputes, there have been other problems with you and this matter. I did so reciprocal to his post about not wanting any communication on his wall, thus not wanting to have open discussions about his 'decision's and his continual administrator like flagging without discussion, which is not in the scope of Wikipedia. Necrat (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)NECRAT

Sorry, I couldn't make hide nor hare of that, but I will try and respond anyway. First off, I am not an admin, I don't act like an admin. Any editor (you, me, anyone) can issue warnings. I have an application that makes that a little easier, you can use it too, go to WP:TWINKLE. I tried right off to talk with you but after some edit warring, I just reverted and was done with it. You and others tried to force me into mediation and when I didn't go, I was accused of be "unreasonable" and "unresponsive". There wasn't anything to discuss in mediation. You had no references on the WABC article and admittedly, neither did I...but what you were adding was original research and when confronted with that, you kinda went off. That is when I just asked you not to post on my talk page and moved on. I had and have better things to do then get in pissing matches (for reference, a "pissing match" is a southern term for arguement) for people over silly shit. Plus I had bigger fish to fry (like a Good Article nomination) and was working on that (got my GA :)). If you want to be cordial and talk like civilized human beings, I will gladly allow you to post on my talk page, but if you are going to try and force me into mediation again and treat me like I am a "kid" (I am 29), then we have nothing to talk about. The ball is in your court. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You DO act like an admin. Look at the user talk pages I linked, they have said the exact same thing, and have all had seperate interactions with you. I am not going to get into a debate with you, but I did provide valid resources (direct online articles from a well established company, that basically counters the information you posted), and when I modified the article, I put a directive to the fact, referenced on a direct link posted below. You continually accuse of not having sources, when I did provide them to you, you screamed vandalisim and refused to discuss the matter. Your exact line was "unless it is in a local newspaper, such as the times, it is not a reputable source". I hope the admins can see how difficult you are to work with here and take appopriate steps. I am at my wits end with you, this is the kind of thing that was driving me off of Wikipedia. I am not going to comment any more until a Admin steps in here. Necrat (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)NECRAT

Promise?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Necrat obviously didn't read the last two sentences of my previous post. So much for the olive branch. OK folks, I will be offwiki dealing with WP:REALLIFE for the next hour and a half. Please do not be offended if I don't not respond in that time period, I will respond when I get back. When in doubt, check the Status on my userpage. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm one of the users mentioned above and my talk page is linked. Summarizing my interest here, which is discussed in more detail on my talk page: I have not really interacted with Neutralhomer in articlespace or noticed him prior to a couple weeks ago. I originally noticed Neutralhomer when on 19 May 2010 he made the comment "I feel it is vandalism to push is "abortion is bad" position". This was part of an edit-war he was involved in (diffs) where he reverted a clear correction of an error as vandalism - not once, but 3 times. From there, I noticed that he was in an edit-warring dispute with Necrat (see 17-19 May 2010). Necrat was removed the unsourced statement that WABC (AM) was HD2 while Neutralhomer repeatedly reverted (providing no sources), marking one of these edits as vandalism. Neutralhomer was adding fighting to retain unsourced material, even going so far as to call the removal of that unsourced material vandalism. Further, our own page on HD2 says that it is an FM channel (at the risk of having Neutralhomer change it). From there I could see that Neutralhomer was a highly disruptive editor (a vested troublemaker) and I was surprised that he had such a pretty user page with so many barnstars. Someone like this can cause a lot of collateral damage by making newcomers think this kind of conduct is acceptable. Looking at Neutralhomer's block log (too many blocks to count), I was glad to see that he hadn't exactly gone unnoticed. In his archive is a discussion of his last block on 22 April 2010 (User_talk:Neutralhomer/Archive6#Consequences). DragonflySixtyseven blocks him for marking non-vandalism as vandalism; Bwilkins declines the unblock request, and Muzemike imposed conditions prior to unblocking, noting that Neutralhomer has been "having significant problems understanding what vandalism is and what it isn't and how Twinkle factors in on that. This isn't an isolated case, either; this has been going on for the past 3-4 years from looking at the numerous other ANI discussions regarding this". As a neutral party, I expressed my concern about Neutralhomer's behavior to him first directly (calling him unreasonable) - his response feigned complete ignorance of the issues so I notified the admins involved prior, but none really seemed interested in relooking at Neutralhomer. I was actually surprised that he was willing to discuss as much as he has, but he still refuses to admit any problems and considers me to be a wikistalker for raising the issues. Overall after talking with him he didn't seem entirely unreasonable, but the fact that this has gone on for so long without seemingly any improvement makes me think that a longer-term sanction is necessary. He needs to be put on probation whereby future harassment (non-vandalism marked as vandalism) and edit-warring are not tolerated. II | (t - c) 05:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • It looks like NeutralHomer has a long history of mislabeling edits as vandalism and of misusing Twinkle. Hasn't he been asked to stop using that tool?   Will Beback  talk  06:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Just when you think you can escape, they suck you back in. OK, I was previously asked to remove TWINKLE and had to ask for it back at a later date. Perhaps I need some freshening up on what is and isn't vandalism since so many seem to think I have a problem. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• I am going offline, per WP:BEDTIME and WP:REALLIFE. So don't be offended if I don't respond to anything until about 4 or 5pm EST (yup, I am a nightowl). - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • When you're back, please clarify the status of previous concerns. I see you've been unblocked a couple of times as a result of making promises. Do any of those concern Twinkle or mislabelling vandalism?   Will Beback  talk  00:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I am back, just working on other things at the moment. At present, I don't think I am under any restrictions via TWINKLE or labeling vandalism. I could be wrong though, can't remember my own name half the time. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Nobody likes dealing with ANI threads about them, but since you are a frequent participant in threads about others I'm sure it won't be an imposition. You have a very long block log, including several indefinite blocks that were lifted due to assurances of better behavior. If the problematic behaviors are recurring then it's an issue of concern. If you're too busy to do so I'll myself.   Will Beback  talk  01:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
        • What I was working on has come to a dead halt....so what do you need to know? Yes, I have one of the longer block logs on Wikipedia. No, I am not proud of it. Yes, I have improved since my last indef as I have had some good tutors to keep me in line and still check in on me once-in-awhile. Perhaps I don't completely understand what is and isn't vandalism, but I always felt it was the call of the individual. Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps not. What else can I answer for you? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I see this has come up before, and many promises have been made:[154][155]

Diffs about Neutralhomer

Twinkle is not a necessity in performing the actions you have mentioned. Moreover, you leave out that you've had Twinkle removed a total of three times in the past. JPG-GR (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Actually wasn't aware how many times it was, but I admit I have used it poorly in the past. Hence why I am asking everyone to watch my edits. Also, while true no one needs TWINKLE, HUGGLE, or any program to do any warning, it does make things sooo much easier and quicker. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 2, 2008 @ 22:46[156] AGF? You've lost it three times and had questionable reverts just two weeks ago. I don't see why this time will be different than the previous times you had it, especially a month later with evidence of questionable reverts since then. There is only so far that AGF can go, either way (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC) ...and I admitted I lost it due to bad decisions and asked for a second chance. ... NeutralHomer • Talk • December 3, 2008 @ 00:55[157] ...I have removed Twinkle from your monobook. I am sorry to have to do this, but using automated tools to tag good edits as vandalism is basically the definition of abuse; and given your previous history of using the tool I don't feel there is any alternative but to remove it. Black Kite 13:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[158] I know in the past I have misused the tool, but I ask that I be allowed again with a promise that I will not misuse it again ... NeutralHomer • Talk • December 25, 2008 @ 02:40 [159] No, but it wasn't vandalism. You need to be more careful if you're going to use automated tools. JPG-GR (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Considering it was my first mistake out of some 100 edits with it, that isn't bad.....ain't good either, so I will keep an eye on it. Take Care....NeutralHomer • Talk • January 5, 2009 @ 18:51[160] Yeah, I think NH has failed to see the point, in that he agreed a few months ago to use twinkle only for "blatant vandalism as defined here". Original research or not, this is not vandalism, let alone blatant vandalism. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC) OK, let me make sure I understand. Removing it once and saying it is OR is OK, but removing it again and citing vandalism isn't? I don't want TWINKLE, I will remove the damned thing myself. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 23, 2009 @ 01:10[161] As I said, if you want me to use the ol' Undo button, I will. I make a decision if something is vandalism, to me, both felt like vandalism. I didn't mark Beta for vandalism, but Piano non troppo and I had this discussion previous on another page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Just use the 'rollback' rather than 'rollback vandal' option in Twinkle, and put something in the edit summary. Don't hand a hostage to fortune as they say. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC) That can be done. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Great! So is this a compromise for all? Neutralhomer can keep Twinkle, and won't mark edits as vandalism when it's a dispute/WP:NOTVAND. Is everyone reasonably happy now? (yes, I'm butting in) tedder (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC) I am happy with it. See, I don't mind comprimising. I will use the vandalism button for only blindingly clear vandalism (like putting cuss words on a page or blanking) and leave the rollback button and AGF button for everything else. I can be comprimised with, ya know. Ya just gotta ask. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[162]

As recently as October 2009 there was a promise to not use Twinkle for anything but obvious vandalism. That seems to be only the most recent of several such promises, which have all been broken. So promises don't seem to to the way to resolve this issue. Maybe the answer is to not use Twinkle and to not label anything as vandalism? Twinkle isn't necessary, and neither is calling bad editing "vandalism". Would that be acceptable?   Will Beback  talk  07:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Only took six hours. OK, so you want me to let blantant vandals get away with vandalism because of something from 2009? I seen the edits on the WABC page as vandalism, still do, and marked them as such after standard conversation just wasn't getting anywhere. So, you want people to just go all willy-nilly with pages and add whatever they want? Sure, do it on your own time. Before and after the WABC page incident, I have used the TWINKLE application correctly and in cases I felt it wasn't necessary, I used the undo button. So, "no", I don't think that would be acceptable, as that punishes me and allows others to get off scott free. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of the edits you've reverted and labeled as vandalism recently weren't vandalism. This is the exact issue that has come up in 2010, 2009, 2008, and 2007. I'm an admin yet I use the rollback button sparingly. I try to use the "undo" feature instead and to leave a neutral edit summary, like "rv unexplained deletion by anon". Just describe the edit - "rv cuss words", "rv original research", "rv unsourced addition". There's really no need to use the "V" word. Is that acceptable - to drop the "vandal" accusations in edit summaries?   Will Beback  talk  09:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I can drop the "vandalism" edit summaries and use the undo button more often. That can by done. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I know you can do it. But will you do it?   Will Beback  talk  09:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

So that answers his slapping "the vandalisim tag on everything" concern, but what about the other conerns brought up here, such as the wikistalking, and failure to communicate rationally with other editors, entering into edit warring with them? I'd like to see those issues addressed as well. That's a big problem, in my eyes. It violates the civility policy here as well. There is clearly a long history with him, which seems problematic to me and clearly other (more than 4) editors. Necrat (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)NECRAT

To Will: Yes, I will. To Necrat: For someone who doesn't want to be involved, you seem...well...involved. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I will be offline for WP:SLEEP. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

User:79.72.128.246 inserting unsourced content and making accusations of sockpuppetry

User:79.72.128.246 is repeatedly reinserting content into Isang Lakas‎

• [163] 00:35, 4 June 2010
• [164] 11:31, 4 June 2010
• [165] 16:00, 4 June 2010
• [166] 17:59, 4 June 2010
• [167] 19:59, 4 June 2010
• [168] 00:35, 5 June 2010

The edit summaries claim that the articles show that actors are portraying certain characters in an upcoming television series "Isang Lakas‎" or originally "Sanglakas". I have searched each of these articles and found no mention of the series. The IP has been asked to provide information about where these sources confirm the claims and the only response has been the edit summary "It says so in every article, most of these articles have it in different language and on second pages" which would put it in the forum posts.

(Note that I have reverted multiple times on that article as well, based in part on this confirmation that the edits were vandalism and that 3RR does not apply to reversions of vandalism.)

The editor has also repeatedly slapped {suspected sock puppet} tags on two users pages (see [169] and [170]) despite being told that baseless accusations are not allowed and s/he would need to file a Suspected sock puppet report. The editor claims to have already filed one, but my search for the two names in question came up empty. The editor then accused me of being a sock puppet [171] and a "dumby" [172].

Can something be done about this disruptive editor? Active Banana (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked user still editing

Resolved

Someone take a look at User talk:173.217.160.99. Still editing mainspace despite having a 24h block. Falcon8765 (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, their block ended 1 hour before they started editing again. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 01:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, Huggle was showing them as blocked. Sorry about that. Falcon8765 (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

David.Kane's disruptive blanking: Jensen and his writings on "American Negroes"

• David.Kane (talk · contribs)
• History of the race and intelligence controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mainstream Science on Intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Disruptive blanking:

• Adrian Wooldridge (Cambridge University Press) [173] (summary of Wooldridge's precis of book)
• William H. Tucker (University of Illinois Press) [174]
• Michael Byrd and and Linda Clayton (Routledge)[175]
• Joan Freeman (Springer Verlag) [176][177]
• Donald T. Campbell, [178], [179]

Forum shopping on WP:BLPN [180], [181], [182]

Typical example

• Jensen quote blanked by David.Kane: "well-meaning but misguided and ineffective attempts to improve [the] lot" of blacks
• Actual long Jensen quote: "As a social policy, avoidance of the issue could be harmful to everyone in the long run, especially to future generations of Negroes, who could suffer the most from well-meaning but misguided and ineffective attempts to improve their lot."

David.Kane is an editor who mostly edits race-related articles where he engages in WP:CPUSH. This editor has somehow decided that Arthur Jensen wrote no articles mentioning African Americans and their learning problems. This is manifestly untrue and is reported in multiple secondary sources (history books, commentaries, academic papers and books) as well as in Jensen's original articles and books. Now, for whatever reason, he has decided that if there there is a statement in a secondary source about Jensen that he doesn't like, he can just remove it as a BLP violation. This he seems to regard as his passport for removing all content where Jensen makes remarks about African Americans: Jensen referred to African Americans as "Negroes" or "American Negroes" in articles and papers in the late 60s and early 70s. So far David.Kane has challenged material written by Donald T. Campbell, and William H. Tucker, on the grounds that they were written maliciously and misrepresented Jensen. However, the material is repeated in many secondary sources. William H. Tucker is still alive so allegations of this kind on wikipedia amount to some form of libel. Now he has removed text on the same subject by Joan Freeman, an English psychologist specialising in gifted education. Researchers in this particular area are extremely pro IQ-tests and in general have welcomed Jensen's work. So the idea that Joan Freeman is writing maliciosly in a Springer Verlag text book is highly unreasonable. It is another example of David.Kane trying to remove all connection between Jensen and his documented statements on American Negroes. Similarly he has removed a section in the lede of History of the race and intelligence controversy which was a simple extract of what was is still in the main text taken from the book of Adrian Wooldridge, historian and managemant editor of The Economist. Similarly he removed a passage cited in a textbook of Michael Byrd and Linda Clayton (also cited in Tucker). I have no idea why David.Kane is doing this. Does he really seriously expect other wikipedians to believe that all these authors, many still living, are deliberately misrepresenting Jensen? In no cases so far have David.Kane's objections been in any way justified. He is using this as another method of WP:CPUSH to waste other editors' time, as pointed out to him by other users on the talk of the History article (notably Professor marginalia (talk · contribs)).

A few weeks ago he decided that all material of this kind was fine, leaving "Kudos!" messages about the content. Now he is attempting to remove the very same factual statements, appearing in multiple secondary sources, on the tenuous and usually unsupportable grounds that they are BLP violations. David.Kane is a single purpose user who is edit warring on History of the race and intelligence controversy to remove any mention of the documented fact that Jensen discussed possible policies involving African Americans.

It is absurd that he suggests that the En[glish academic Joan Freeman could be writing malicious falsehoods in a book published by Springer Verlag. That really is going one step too far and is clearly an unreasonable excuse for removing properly referenced content. On the basis of his edits today, he will continue to remove any statements that don't suit him, claiming that they are BLP violations. That will exclude him from the 3RR rule. However it now makes it tremendously difficult in those circumstances to use any secondary sources, no matter how realiable or how eminent the author, when writing about Jensen. This does not seem reasonable and seems to be a misuse of WP editing policies. He has removed material four or more times in 24 hours, which normally would result in a block for breaking the 3RR rule. Please could administrators look at the way he is trying to misinterpret wikipedia editing policy to cause disruption. I have no idea what his motives are. Apart from occasionally editing articles related to Williams College, he only edits race-related articles and usually from the hereditaraian point of view, that is, the recorded fact that African Americans score lower on average on IQ tests than White Americans has an inherent genetic cause connected with their race. Usually David.Kane is supported by editors that include Captain Occam, Mikemikev and Varoon Arya. Distributivejustice was another supporter but he retired as an editor (around about the time Ludwigs2 was blocked by BozMo). Many of these users almost exclusively edit race-related articles from the same point of view as David.Kane. Mathsci (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder along the same lines as Mathsci here: these claims are made by otherwise reputable, reliable sources and therefore are acceptable, at least as being their authors' interpretation of what Jensen said. Specifically because it seems there may be issues as to where (and maybe whether) Jensen said exactly those things, it would be prudent not to put them in Wikipedia's voice, but to attribute them to their various authors. However, the fact that the same comments can be found in different sources lends strong credence to the fact that Jensen actually said those things. As long as proper attribution is maintained, I don't see that there is a problem to include them; indeed, I can see where Mathsci can contend that excluding them on the basis that these several authors are "misrepresenting Jensen's words" can be construed as a BLP violation of those otherwise reputable researchers. So, let's just make sure the comments on Jensen are properly attributed to their authors and let it go at that. I fail to see a BLP violation there at all.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:37, 31 Ma]]y 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ramdrake. It's about time, however, that something was done to reign in single-purpose POV pushers on these articles. Perhaps a long-duration topic ban for David Kane and Occam is appropriate, at this point? Hipocrite (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

More disruptive blanking and misrepresentation by David.Kane who has undisclosed WP:COI

• Allan Ornstein (1982) [183][184]

David.Kane's blanking is continuing. He has also claimed that the new material, properly credited to a professor of adminsitrative administration, is another BLP violation. Thats frivolous assertion seems to be false. He also claims that new 1982 source added by me just yesterday has alereadt been discussed. He wrote this in his second edit summary, but it is untrue. In fact David.Kane appears to have an undisclosed and very serious conflict of interest here. In 2009 he created an article which since has been deleted and its content userfied at User:David.Kane/EphBlog. During the AfD, David.Kane admitted that he was the person of the same name who had started the blog when queried about WP:COI by User:Blueboar. Now on this blog in February 2010 David.Kane made the following statement [185] about African Americans in elite colleges in the US:

Looking at the 6 year data from the Diversity Initiatives, you are three times more likely to fail to graduate from Williams if you are black then if you are white. Does Williams have an obligation to tell this to admitted students?

I suspect that this is not so much as race issue as an academic rating issue. I bet that US students with AR 1 have a 98% graduation rate while US students with AR 4 or below are at 80% or worse. If so, shouldn’t Williams be honest about that discrepancy? Would those students be better off at a different, less competitive school?

This is a very extreme statement. These views conflict with David.Kane's claim to be neutral and "agnostic". It indicates a WP:COI. Already this was the case when he volunteered as a "neutral third party" to write the draft of the modified version of Race and intelligence in March 2010 during the last stages of mediation. His continuing tendentious and disruptive blanking of material from reliable secondary sources on History of the race and intelligence controversy is certainly not designed to improve this encylopedia. Another plausible explanation, differing from the many constantly changing reasons offered so far, is that David.kane is removing this material from wikipedia for very strong personal reasons connected with not having his heated arguments on ephblog undercut by wikipedia.

David.Kane has now been disrupting the writing of this article by spuriously blanking the same material from completely different reliable academic sources multiple times. It's time he was blocked for edit warring. Mathsci (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

His tag team member Captain Occam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is edit warring in the same way, blanking material from reliable secondary sources without explanation at all, just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This, by the way, is typical behaviour for the single puprose account. Just disruption with no desire whatsoever to build a reliable encyclopedia. Instead of content to wikipedia, these two users are tendentiously removing without any justification.[186][187] I have which has written most of the 82,000 bytes of content of History of the race and intelligence controversy. All these SPAs do is tendetniously and dsiruptively remove content that conflicts with their extreme personal points of view. In this case Occam should not have edit warred (for which he blocked three times) but discussed what was wrong with the sourced material on the talk page of the article. Apparently he doesn't feel the need to do that. Mathsci (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This is creepy. Following DK around to find that he's concerned with why people drop out of college. This is a content dispute, deal with it. 94.196.104.45 (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing "creepy" about this. D.K admitted to being the author of the blog in question. That's not "following DK around." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the very definition of ad hominem, and a complete misunderstanding of what constitutes a conflict of interest. MathSci is effectively labeling David.Kane a racist on the basis of this blog entry and arguing that such a viewpoint renders him incapable of editing on Wikipedia. The premise is absurd, and the logic that any private political stance could invalidate an editor's contributions is simply wrong on more levels than I could list. Rvcx (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

-

Having and voicing an opinion isn't a COI. While I agree with Mathsci that assing criticisms of Jensen is never a BLP issue when sourced to reliable sources this is just a waste of time taking the focus from the real problems at the Race and Intelligence related pages. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

What a mess. Is it just me or don't there look to be more serious WP:BLP concerns on this User:David.Kane/EphBlog page that should be dealt with before worrying about solidly, reliably published claims about a highly public, prominent figure like Arthur Jensen? BLP violations sourced to what David.Kane appears to have written himself and self-published in blog exposé? What in the heck  ??? That page warrants a serious scrubbing, imo. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC) followup-I've blanked most of it for now. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it was a fairly crude attack page [188] written wholly by David.Kane. It was not properly userfied when transferred to his user space: if for example I search google now for "Robert Shvern", whom David.Kane singled out for mention in the article, David.Kane's user space article still comes up 30th in the google list. Was David.Kane willfully violating WP:BLP publicly to disgrace the boyfriend of an unnamed female student from Williams College because of some student prank? Does he really imagine that articles like that are part of the purpose of this encyclopedia? Mathsci (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Tag team content blanking - without checking secondary sources

• Mikemikev (talk · contribs)

Here is the latest bout of edit warring in action, where this tag team continues to blank sourced content indiscriminately taken from a reliable secondary source without any cogent reasons:

1. David.Kane [189]
2. Captain Occam [190]
3. Mikemikev [191]
4. Mikemikev [192]
5. Mikemikev [193]

There has been more forum shopping at WP:BLPN here, where so far no support has emerged for the tag team's claim of BLP violations. There are a lot of reliable secondary sources which contain the same material and they have existed for years. What is slightly disturbing is that these editors are removing actual factual content about Jensen's theory of Level I and Level II theories of learning which he did actually apply to explain the low IQ scores of African Americans. If David.Kane, Captain Occam or Mikemikev have some doubt about this, they should presumably explain themselves, because account of the theory are repeated in countless psychology textbooks. Are they trying to WP:CENSOR wikipedia because this material doesn't suit [[their point of view? Mathsci (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

@ Captain Occam, if you do not want editors to discuss your blog, then you also should not discuss your blog on Wikipedia. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Since you have blanked my comments concerning your blog controversy, it is only fair that you blank your own accusations since I was responding to them. If you choose not too, then consider restoring my comments or else I might do so. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, my accusations are directed at Mathsci, not at you. Why do my accusations against Mathsci make it necessary that you have the right to respond?

If Mathsci wants to dispute what I’ve said about him, then he’s welcome to do so, but since this has nothing to do with you I find it very strange that you’d have this attitude. This issue has also already been discussed at length here, and nearly all of the editors who commented there agreed that Mathsci’s claim about this wasn’t acceptable. There is no controversy over these claims from Mathsci, and never has been; there’s only a single user (you) who seems compelled to express support for Mathsci’s personal attacks based on things people have written outside Wikipedia, apparently because you’ve made similar personal attacks against me in the past. For you to keep trying to justify this aspect of Mathsci’s behavior amounts to a personal attack of your own, so I advise against it. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• [194]

Another revert by Captain Occam at break-neck speed, this time of material from a peer-reviewed article of Yehudi Webster, a professor of sociology. I didnt even have time to proof read the content. Another writer of vicious calumnies no doubt: Captain Occam has an incredible ability to judge such texts all on his very own. He determined that Yehudi Webster was obviously biased in probably less than 2 or 3 minutes. Yehudi Webster is an African American. It surely can't be true that all African American academics are biased and can't be trusted to write neutrally about Jensen or other aspects of race and intelligence or its history. Mathsci (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• [195] David.Kane blanking content yet again. Mathsci (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Victor Chmara (talk · contribs)

Another single purpose account whose edits are mainly on race-related articles form the same point of view as David.Kane, Captain Occam, Varron Arya and Mikemikev has joined the tag team. He is inserting own WP:OR and blanking sourced content, without making any attempt to locate secondary sources. He is deciding with Captain Occam witout leaving any opportunity for other editors to comment. This appears disruptive to be edit-warring. Expanding Europe#PRehistoric history was peaceful tranquility compared to the mayhem these editors are causing, by attacking the article simultaneously. Mathsci (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the ArbCom request should cover this as well. Rvcx (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop this

All editors involved in this topic:

Please be advised that continuing to edit war in any form while this is up for an Arbcom case will not be tolerated.

Anyone not already under a 1RR restriction in Race and Intelligence issues should consider yourself under one now. This applies to all editors who have been involved there and in the prior ANI discussions.

Knock it off. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I second Georgewilliamherbert here: everybody take a rest, please.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Amen. Yworo (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Amen from me too. Let Arbcom take its course. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC).

Recent block of GiacomoReturned

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

---

Speaking as one of the few admins who has actually had a block of Giano expire rather than being reversed, I think AGK's block combined with the subsequent actions and going away was at the very best unhelpful. His actions immediately prior to the block were mild by any standards, and it is unclear that the block serves a purpose of preventing further drama. I do not wish to spark a wheel war by unblocking unilaterally, but would like to gather a consensus to unblock him forthwith. Stifle (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like User:LessHeard vanU has decided to unblock him, I guess this thread is moot. Stifle (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Why was the guy blocked? I didn't see any foul language used on his part. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that he was blocked for refusing to retract a reference to another editor as "odious" and restoring it when removed. Stifle (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• As noted, I have unblocked GiacomoReturned. I have provided my rationale to AGK at his talkpage. As regards WP:WHEEL, it is my understanding that an admin may undo another admins action (within reason) and it is a revert of that action that is a wheelwar. (If I am wrong, then I likely shouldn't have the bauble anyhoo.) If a consensus arises that GR should be blocked for his earlier comments, then obviously the block may be re-instated without reference to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

  Only if an admin repeats an action that has been opposed does a wheel-war exist, but I feared that unblocking Giano would cause one to kick off, and I am also signing out shortly. Stifle (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

  Support, involved users should stay away from their tools. Off2riorob (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Giano has been making comments like this for the last day or so. If you don't view "odious" as a personal attack, I'm sure you will admit that it is at least not altogether civil. If the community is hesitant to block him, that's a pity in my view; the question now, though, is what is going to be done about the long-term pattern of abusive and disruptive behaviour we have here? It is surely counterproductive to let it continue unfettered. (That's my statement, and in everyone's interests in my not provoking an extended pile-on against myself, I will not comment further on this issue here.) ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 21:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

While I am here. All Administrators should be open to recall if you have not the continued support of the community you have no mandate to use the tools. Off2riorob (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think that unblock rationale was kinda weak LHvU but... as I keep trying to tell folks, there is always an admin willing to undo the civility block of an experienced editor, they don't stick, hence most personal attacks are allowed to slide here, it's so boring. I think you should have talked to AGK about it first. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

  AGK did what so many admins do after a silly block - stopped editing. Requiring discussion is all very well, but easily and often gamed. DuncanHill (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• AGK had not edited since commenting on his own block, which was his previous edit. I did review his edits thoroughly to check whether there was any pre-block discussion on the sanction, so I was pretty certain he was not onsite. I did post my extended rationale as soon as I had actioned the unblock, and invited him to comment. I am not sure I could have done much more. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You could have done much less, too. Only sayin', though. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• ...but I am, more or Less!? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. It's important that we have pre-block discussion with Giacomo because he might not be aware of WP:CIVIL at this point.--Crossmr (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• I have my thoughts on the block at [196]. Was AGK right to make the block over this? No, that particular edit was rather tame and mild. But Giano's general conduct is not acceptable. You can't spend your life picking a fight and then be surprised when someone finally hits back. I don't know what the solution to the problem is - it seems that we have two extremes desired by the crowd - pin a medal on Giano vs block Giano. --B (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't do either. Giano is... Giano. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

On first review, I agree that Giano's behavior wasn't excessive enough to justify a block; Unlike Gwen, I feel that we can effectively make civility or personal attack blocks on longtime contributors, but I think that they need to be well supported by facts in evidence. I didn't see that here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh forget it, water off a duck's back. In fact, AKK was led onto it by the soliciting and comlaining (note nice polite words)Treasury Tag here [197]. Trasury Tag is very good at leading admins into making bad blocks, it's a real talent.  Giacomo  23:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If it is inappropriate soliciting to report a personal attack to an administrator, then yes, I solicited the block and I am proud of having done so. If, on the other hand, it is actually normal Wikipedian behaviour to inform admins of civility issues etc., which I think it is, then your "nice polite words" of soliciting and comlaining (eh?) are nevertheless false. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 08:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• The weakest case for an unblock EVER. Next we will be hearing how LHvU is a totally neutral observer. It's funny how no neutral admin said a word for over 2 hours, yet around 100 admins must have been aware of the block within 10 minutes. I was not surprised to see Giano blocked for having been in the past 48 hours, the model of incivility toward Treasury Tag (has anyone got around warning/blocking him for being a 'bully' yet? I didn't fucking think so, because it's Grade A bullshit). And then giving an admin the finger, by restoring the latest comment, in a blatant 'come on then, if you think you're hard enough' move, let to him getting what he asked for. I was equally unsurprised to see the outcome of the block. Foolish AGK. He doesn't know that you can never block Giano EVER. It's futile. Fucking Groundhog Day and then some. Still, at least now we have some interesting case law for what is and isn't a personal attack, it's any word you can't find in a Wikipedia policy page. Pure brilliant. No consensus to block. More Pure Gold. Part of the discussion which led to the block - i.e. 'don't restore that comment'. Even more Pure Gold. MickMacNee (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

With exception to the comment about LHvU (whose involvement with Giano I am not aware of), I would agree with much of what you said, Mick. AGK 11:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I have previously unblocked Giano (see here) and may therefore be considered to be involved, but my actions are in order to stop the escalation of a drama. I have always maintained that I am willing to block GiacomoReturned where there is a good consensus for sanction of a violation of policy; most of these blocks are ill considered because instead of being a deterrent (because blocks are not punitive, they have to stop further disruption) they are more likely to create disruption. The only blocks that have stuck as regards Giano are those which were part of an ArbCom probation, and were placed by Arbs. This is not because Giano is special, but because so many sanctions previously were ill formed and hasty. It is because of blocks like the one last imposed that there is this problem. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not the case that an administrator needs a community license to apply a short block for a personal attack. Not the case at all. AGK 12:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If Giano is now only blockable per arbcom sanction, that is news to me. I guess TT has no right to having the ongoing attacks on him being stopped. I guess that just doesn't count as 'disruption', certainly not the kind that needs stopping. A 16 hour block after a proper warning, was the model of a well-formed, unhasty, block. And now your only justification to unblock seems to be the usual, 'its pointless blocking Giano' defence. If you want the disruption of an arbcom case to examine why the hell Giano is, for all intents and purposes, unblockable, then please, let's have it. MickMacNee (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You summed it up perfectly, MickMacNee. AGK 14:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Where does one sign up for a "Giano license to repeatedly insult other editors without any consequences" and an "automatic instant unblock by an admirer?" Edison (talk) 03:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This is hilarious. Giano points out multiple instances of questionable, likely harrassing, rollbacks by an admin and gets blocked for using the word "odious". Then the whole discussion descends into a drama fest of the Special Admin Clique and their lap dogs attacking Giano and wondering why, for the umpteenth time, why he always gets unblocked. Wikipedia has truly become a 1980s Soviet Bloc government! Maybe the real problem here isn't that Giano uses colorful language but that a lot of admins here are blatantly corrupt and out of touch with the spirit of Wikipedia. Fantastimus (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC) — Fantastimus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This is this user's first edit, so he presumably needs blocking as a sock. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 08:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Prodego's got that done. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• My involvement in the discussion leading to the block was to warn Giano for precisely the same behaviour I blocked him for. Are you genuinely suggesting that when I saw he ignored my warning and then when he re-added uncivil comments of his that I had removed, I was unable to use those sysop tools I was given and block him for making personal attacks? Sorry, but when did we start doing things this way? AGK 11:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Question for Stifle: What subsequent actions are you referring to? And in what way was my actual block improper? Very interested in your thinking here. AGK 11:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • A discussion first would have been helpful. Giano's conduct, while incivil, was still relatively moderate in my opinion. The fact that you went offline shortly after blocking with the effect that you were in a position to discuss the block, especially when it was bound to be controversial was the subsequent action in question. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • And don't get me wrong, I find the situation whereby Giano is essentially immune to several conduct policies and guidelines that apply to other editors, and there is nearly always someone available to unblock him whenever he gets blocked, quite unsatisfactory; in this particular situation I find myself coming down on his side because, as Georgewilliamherbert mentioned on your talk page, Giano wasn't particularly hostile on this occasion. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
    • My point has been, and still is, that Giano's comments were blockable relative to how we expect a typical editor to behave. As Giano usually has to do a lot worse to get blocked, the thinking has been that 'odious' is "for him" quite tame, and that he thus doesn't deserve blocking. As per usual, Giano gets special treatment; and too many administrators, for reasons that escape my understanding, are willing to oblige.

      I don't know what LHvU meant by "'odious' is used by WP"? This unblock has made it acceptable to call another editor 'odious'. AGK 12:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Puting aside the fact that most people privately agreed with my statement, the block was obviously not going to hold, for the simple reason that saying someone is "odious" is no worse or better than decribing someone as "toxic." Sadly AGK, you allowed yourself to be trapped into a situiation where you morally agreed to block before the offence was committed, without even bothering to check what the offence was. You were led to the edge of the cliff and then pushed. However, as an admin you should have known better than to allow yourself to be so easily led by Treasury Tag; I'm sure it won't happen again. I advise you to be a little more guarded in what you agree to do in future, better to have Trasury Tag screaming at you, than a whole ANI board. That advice also goes for Gwen Gale and SGGH who both should have known better.  Giacomo  12:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• As I said before, your statement may well be true, but labels like 'odious' aren't appropriate on a collaborative project. Your perception is that I blindly followed TreasuryTag; this is not the case. He did bring the edit to my attention, but I was firmly of the opinion that your comments were inappropriate; and though I did not say it, my intention was to block you if you did not remove the insult. As it happens, I am still of the opinion that your comment was both unacceptable and blockable; and though I haven't finished reviewing the voluminous comments concerning this matter, I have not yet read one argument that convinces me that to call another editor odious is not blockable. AGK 12:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Nobody here is screaming at AGK. At best, the opposition to the block is luke warm, and is of the common or garden 'we can't do jack about Giano' variety, rather that the 'there is nothing wrong with calling someone odious' variety. The delicious irony is that the apparent 'usage by Wikipedia' of the word odious, is in to describe those kinds of editors who have behaved so badly, and for such a consistent period, they are likely to never be unblocked. Infact, the policy should probably also mention the word toxic too, being also highly relevant to those types of editors. MickMacNee (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a Giano law. GR doesn't decide as to whether he gets blocked or not. Such a decesion falls with administrators. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I missed most of this discussion so I will repeat my position re Giano. He insults large numbers of editors, and is not half as clever or witty about it as he thinks he is. He is a net negative, he ought to be community banned. Dealing with him takes huge amounts of admin time (this thread is Exhibit A) and his insults drive people from the project. He is the Wikipedia equivalent of the soccer player who plays dirty all over the field and then collapses to the ground in seeming agony when another player retaliates (but misses by a good six inches). Count me as one vote yea any time someone wants to have a poll on ending Giano's involvement in WIkipedia. I only regret that some few of my fellow admins go to great lengths to find a plausible reason for an unblock when he is actually called to account.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The usual hypocrisy from the worst of Wikipedia's Admins. They can call people names and behave in the most abusive and uncivil manner but will never be called to account (as we see in the case of the unjust actions taken against Richard which resulted in no redress). But if anyone dares to call those abusing our policies and their positions of authority to account, they will be aggressively sanctioned into silence for daring to speak up. Gross. Has the abuse and harassment against Richard at least been slowed for the time being? Let's hope so. Kudos and thanks to Giano for standing up for an editor being harangued unfairly. Far too many good editors have been lost in this way, it's just unfortunate that there is such urgency to go after the whistleblowers instead of dealing with the problems. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Section break for ease of editing

If administrators can't agree on whether an editor should be blocked or not, then that's an administrators problem. GoodDay (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What does that even mean? ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 13:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If one blocks a bloke & the other come along & unblocks him, then there's a disagreement about it betweeen the administrators. GoodDay (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Really? Can we get you on Mastermind – special subject "The Bleedin' Obvious"? ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 13:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

And if one blocks, hundreds say nothing for two hours, and then one unblocks, on the basis that it would have led to drama if he hadn't. What's that about? Apart from the obvious elephant in the room of course. MickMacNee (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That's from administrators having differing views on how to handle an editor. GoodDay (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, I'm not sure that you're helping... ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 13:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It's merely an observation. Only others can decide if it's helpful. GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Only others? So my views don't count? (Hint: they do.) ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 14:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Fear not, I count you among the others. GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that you are, TT? DuncanHill (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I was simply pointing out, and you are free to provide a reasoned argument against this idea if you want, that comments such as, If one blocks a bloke & the other come along & unblocks him, then there's a disagreement about it betweeen the administrators, are intuitively obvious and in no way advance the discussion. I don't plan on engaging further with this line of discussion. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 14:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I meant, are you sure that your contributions to this whole matter are helping anyone at all? DuncanHill (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The thinking behind this whole event seems to be "Giano said something inappropriate, but that's fine because it's Giano so the block was wrong"—which itself is counter-intuitive. We're needing to get back to basics because there are some fundamental logical errors here. AGK 14:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have to agree with you there. In particular, this argument about why he shouldn't be blocked seems to me absurd. It says, "Blocking prevents... what? He's going to come back, probably angrier than before, and won't be changing his ways."
Now that's interesting. Because if I was vandalising articles, said that if I was blocked I'd return and vandalise even more articles than before, would the correct response from an admin be A)don't block; or B)block? ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 14:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

AGK, if you were serious about proper enforcement of "civility", you'd start with the admins and sole-co-founders who engage in personal attacks with impunity, not with an editor who has pointed out genuine admin abuses in the past. DuncanHill (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not here to play civility police. My mission isn't to punish every instance of incivility. If you want to know what my aim was, see my comment below. So far as I can tell, Duncan, your thinking is that Giano's personal attacks are excusable because there are others who are worse than him. Do I even need to waste time in outlining why that is wrong? AGK 15:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You've been an admin long enough to have known that blocking Giano and then making yourself unavailable for discussion of that block would create far more disruption than it would prevent. Quite what your motives were I do not know. DuncanHill (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

He's not being handled at all. I pity any fool that comes across him without foreknowledge of the special Giano laws, and might in their naive idiocy, come to the admin board for redress if/when he decides to target them in one of his pointless conspiracy crusades. I am sure every regular here is now well aware, that the only way you can handle Giano, is by bending over and taking it, sideways, or file an entire arbcom case because the admins corps are collective rabbits caught in his headlights. MickMacNee (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a Giano law. GR doesn't decide as to whether he gets blocked or not. Such a decesion falls with administrators. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem appears to be a perception that the standard of conduct required for a block of Giano to be justified may differ from that applied to other users, and different standards are considered appropriate by different administrators. The effect is that blocks of Giano are inherently controversial. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That's naive at best GoodDay. At best. MickMacNee (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, his fate is in the hands of administrators, as it's always been. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

So naive. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 14:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel like I'm reading dialogue from a B conspiracy theory movie here. There is no homogeneous group of administrators that function is a group. Rather, administrators are just like any other cross-section of Wikipedia - some are just trying to do what is right, some have other motivations, etc. Unfortunately, this sort of decentralized and unfocused power structure means that we as a community have a lot of trouble dealing with borderline conduct cases (not borderline in the psychological sense, but meaning conduct that borders on acceptable vs unacceptable). There is no cabal and it's the complete lack of a cabal that allows situations like this to go on. --B (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

AGK, I would like to ask you to explain what you were thinking (in a big picture sense) in deciding to block Giano. Looking at the whole situation, the treatment of RAN (including the overturned blocks) looked a lot like harrassment. Richard was being bombarded with templates and XfDs, threatened and blocked, and nothing much was being done - so Giano shined a spotlight on the situation. Whatever else you might think of Giano, his actions had the positive effect of drawing attention to the situation. There are still deletion debates running (several having restarted), a CCI case has been opened, closed and reopened, and some highly questionable actions from Fastily are being considered here at ANI. With all this going one, why did you choose to try to send the message that Giano can be blocked for civillity? No less than three arbitrators have weighed in trying to smooth over the mess and move things forward in the best interests of WP (see Carcharoth's and Newyorkbrad's comments at user talk:TreasuryTag and Risker's comments above), and it seems to me that the message that should be being sent here is about the unacceptability of harrassment... yet the only blocks have been against the harrassed user and the user who forced others to recognise what has been going on. Leaving aside the question of whether your block of Giano could be technically justified under policy, I would like to know why you thought it was a wise action to take, why you thought it was helpful to resolving the bigger mess, and what message do you think your actions have sent to editors watching who are concerned about the relative importance of WP:HARRASS and WP:CIVIL. EdChem (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If the purpose of that screed of a question was to get info, it probably should have been made on AGK's talk page or maybe by email. If the purpose was to grandstand in making a point, well, spot on.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Some revision reading for you... WP:AGF EdChem (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If I may comment, the CCI was started by an absolutely neutral user who has been active in CCI for a good while. Accusing him of harassment (if that is what you were doing) is out of order. I make no further comment as regards myself and harassment, since I have already made myself plain. But don't accuse the CCI people of getting personal. They're doing their job. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 14:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Can we please drop this whole 'shine a light' idea. It's bull. The interactions had been noted, even at a couple of ANI threads, well before Giano got involved, and based on the fact nobody has ever before defined that as harassment, let alone ludicrously as bullying, and not once has anyone even been blocked for it, everybody moved on having had their various say, as is normal. TT even agreed to disengage from RAN, but as we see, RAN's issues are not TT, it is his various content issues, and a couple of sock stalkers making trouble. Hopefully nobody here is suggesting they were TT btw. Then Giano got involved, and decided the best way to right this wrong was to attack TT all over the project and go on his usual conspiracy/cover-up crusade. And for one aspect of that, for an actionable sign of contept, he rightly got blocked. Everything else is just chaff. MickMacNee (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Infact Edchem, your summary made no mention of this interaction between Giano and TT, which further muddies the whole white knight scenario proferred. Giano had a reason to go after TT before he discovered the conspiracy/cover-up, and given that he knows he is pretty much immune from sanction, he of course didn't hold back on the personal button pushing as he went about it. MickMacNee (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

EdChem's question is relevant, so I would refute the suggestion that it was made in order to grandstand. Giano was drawing attention to an issue of importance. I have already said, privately and publicly, that I agree that the issue deserves investigation and that Giano is right to have brought it up. The issue was receiving attention; as Mick said, there have already been a couple of ANI threads (to say nothing of the multiple direct attempts to foster a resolution). Giano's involvement, however, extended beyond simply bring the issue to light; he was commenting during the threads, in some instances in a way that was unhelpful. Some say that "that's just Giano; let him be". I'm okay with going along with that for a while. But when one of the editors on the "other side" perceives that his conduct is being scrutinised whilst Giano is allowed to make personal attacks, the free-for-all has to end. I like to do things as fairly as possible, and that includes making sure that every party is not persecuted. So when TT pointed to Giano's restoration of the 'odious' reference, I blocked. The point of that was not to play Civility Police. It was to say "fine, that's dealt with; now back to the issues concerning RAN"; it was to refocus attention on the issues that are of real importance. There are some side issues, including that I didn't want to be perceived to be one of Giano's pitbulls (as some administrators have been in the past), and that I wasn't happy with Giano being allowed to make personal attacks because some kind of special license is afforded to him. In these efforts I would have succeeded, if the logic that "Giano can't be blocked for a short time for disruption because he's Giano" did not prevail. AGK 14:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, AGK - I appreciate both your response and your formal recognition of the relevance of my inquiry. My concern would be that your expectation that the block would lead everyone to "refocus attention on the issues that are of real importance" was seriously far from being realised. Even had it not been Giano I think it was inevitably going to distract from the central issues, and thus was unwise and unhelpful to addressing thr problems of admin and non-admin harrassment of RAN. It is really sad that the actions of Fastily and TreasuryTag seem to have been forgotten, swallowed up by the froth that I believe was the inevitable result of your block, even if the block were justified. Sometimes paying attention to the bigger issues means letting trivial distractions pass by, and Giano's civility is a distraction from the issues around RAN's treatment. EdChem (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

For the two hours the block was in place, Giano was prevented from carrying on his attacks, and the Wikipedia world carried on, including the resolution of the RAN situation, and everywhere else, the world was at peace. Nobody, not one person in that two hour window, used the block to distract from the other issues, and while there was some predictable mock outrage, more railing against tthe conspiracy, nobody who can be considered a neutral party, let alone a neutral admin, really gave a crap about the block. Nobody cared about it, because it was a good block. Then LHvU decided to unilaterally unblock Giano on one of the thinnest and weakest unblock rationales I've ever seen, because, well, you can't block Giano right, and only then, did all hell break loose, for reasons some people think are obvious, and others seem to just want to ignore. There is no way on Earth that AGK is at fault for the ensuing distraction arising from the persistent protection of Giano from being held up to the basic expectations of behaviour. MickMacNee (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Really interesting admin (and others) behaviour

A thread which starts with Giano raising valid concerns about poor behaviour by an admin gets derailed into a "bash Giano and anyone who thinks he should be allowed to edit" thread. Good one folks. DuncanHill (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You're correct. Things have morphed into something else. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, please, as a favour to me, consider how helpful your comments are. Thanks in advance. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 14:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Will do. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

TT, lay off GoodDay, he's not causing anyone any trouble here. DuncanHill (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem is, Giano doesn't actually have an official investigative journalism brief here at Wikipedia. He has a writing-an-encyclopedia brief, just like the rest of us, but the notion that his efforts – no matter what we think of them – to uncover misbehaviour and abuse by admins should exempt him from various behavioural policies, or limit those policies' application to him, doesn't seem appropriate.
You said above that if AGK wanted to enforce civility, he shouldn't block someone who uncovers admin misdemeanours. Wrong. If AGK wanted to enforce civility, he should have blocked an editor or editors who was/were incivil. Which he did.
Investigation and advocacy is all very well, but it's a self-appointed portfolio which shouldn't have any official effect. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 14:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I actually suggested he start with admins and sole-co-founders who are rude, rather than with an editor with a good track record of uncovering bad admins. DuncanHill (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. And my point is that his "good track record" is neither here nor there. If he wants to engage in investigative journalism, that's fine, but it doesn't entitle him to special treatment because it is a self-appointed role. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 15:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of editors - admins and others - at least as rude as Giano, but they don't get targetted like he does. There is a double standard, but it's not Giano benefitting from it. DuncanHill (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Giano's "admins behaving badly" are usually "admins grievously provoked by Giano and reacting with irritation" threads.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The problem is that some rather poor admins and their supporters will keep using Giano's (frankly not very) colourful language as an excuse to divert attention away from themselves. DuncanHill (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps the solution would be for him to use less colourful language and thus not give administrators anything with which to camouflage themselves? ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 14:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it'd be easier than stopping the bad-faith attempts to divert attention from poor admins. DuncanHill (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears that most of the people commenting at this point are involved in the underlying dispute over the mass nomination of User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s files for deletion, either as parties to the dispute or weighing in on one side of the dispute or another. To be straight up, I'm in one of those camps or the other at this point. Participating in a dispute that does not concern him and having an arguably valid point to make do not give Giano a free pass to be uncivil. Further, reversing other administrators' civility blocks is a bad idea because it vindicates the blocked editor and encourages further incivility -- I have observed this directly a number of times. Nevertheless, this is not a clean situation or a shining example of uncivil behavior, it is a spillover of a dispute from somewhere else. As such I don't think it's terribly productive. Just like this is not the best time to further badger Norton on copyrights, this is not the best time and place to entertain questions of Giano and civility. Wikidemon (talk) - 14:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

But unfortunately, Giano's incivility – and everyone else's, to be fair – inevitably comes about during a dispute. Which means that there is never a "best time and place" to address it. That's no reason not to, though. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 14:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no connection whatsoever with that dispute. I simply think Giano needs to find another wiki to edit, based on his history.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps so. My point is that this isn't a clean, clear-cut situation, even as disputes go. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

85% of the problem is that this has now become a dispute for the sake of a dispute. Primary problem: Richard uploaded some images that were copyright violations and some others that probably are not copyright violations, but lacked proper crossing of t's and dotting of i's. Secondary problem: the way this was dealt with was with mass deletion and templating, rather than an orderly process of helping him fix the actual problems. The current problem: rather than being part of the solution, Giano simply wanted to have a forum for airing the gripe. Whether Giano uses impolite language or not isn't the point - the point is that an unactionable gripe fest doesn't do any good. --B (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this discussion is 29 pages so far on my computer monitor. Let's keep in mind WP:Waste of Time :) .Count Iblis (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

A couple of admins and TreasuryTag behaved badly in abusively harassing a productive editor. Giano drew attention to their misdeeds. For this, Wehwalt thinks Giano should be blocked (and there is no question that those daring to speak up when they see abuse taking place are frequently targeted here). Others think we should focus on ending the harassment and making sure it is not repeated in the future (rather than attempting to silence anyone who dares point out problematic administration). Is there more that needs rehashing or is that a sufficient summary? Freakshownerd (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If the summary was designed to be entirely one-sided and to throw as much petrol on the fire as possible, then, yes, the summary is sufficient. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 16:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You missed out the part where Giano did not 'reveal' anything here, and you missed out Giano's prior interaction with TT. MickMacNee (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Ably and eagerly led by TT, you're doing it again - wilfully preventing discussion of a bad admin by engaging in your long-standing grudges against Giano (a better content contributor than any of you, from what I've seen). DuncanHill (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

  Please avoid guessing at my motivation(s) and intention(s). It helps nobody and is quite hurtful, especially since you're incorrect. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 17:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

  That's the Kool Aid talking I'm afraid. Nobody here is preventing any admin from being called to account just by pointing out the hypocrisy and double standards that abound when Giano inevitably goes to far and rightly gets blocked for crossing the line. MickMacNee (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

  Kool Aid talking? You obviously aren't above making personal attacks when it suits you. And you are deliberately hijacking these threads because you support Fastily's abusive behaviour and want it to continue, and attacking Giano and others distracts attention from him. DuncanHill (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

  I think Giano attacking others also distracts from it, though! ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 17:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

  That shows what you know. I happen to not like Fastily very much, due to a past dispute I've long forgotten the details of, but his name sticks with my memory enough for me not to willfully attempt to distract any attempts to scrutinise his record. MickMacNee (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What a shower!

This discussion has become excessively unproductive.
The following discussion has been closed by Georgewilliamherbert. Please do not modify it.
While you are all allowing yourselves to be artfully and very cleverly drawn from the real problem, the harassing of RAN by some of those commenting here. My view remains entirely unchanged and will remain so. At present, it appears that bullying, harassing, intimidating and making another editor's life complete hell are completely to be disregarded, for that is what some are condoning in this thread and earlier threads. Yes, I am aware of the previous thread, which apparently completely absolved (so he says) Treasury tag. Shame on you who allowed him to think that. We have seen Admins illegally rollbacking RANS edits and voting for even his user-page image to be deleted is quite in order. Additionally, while that was going on, it was perfectly acceptable for him to be wrongly blocked (gagged) as a result of soliciting and mischief by his enemy (for mild, innocuous comments made on another project). When that block was deemed on ANI to be very wrong, Admins then did nothing as he was templated mercilessly, for hours on end, and further of his pages nominated for deletion, indeed some admins even joined in the fun. In other words, a gang of rampaging editors and Admins set out to make RAN feel he was worthless shit - or was that to be just a "happy" result of the merry game? Shame I stepped in and spoilt the fun.Oh treasury Tag will cry: "that's not the way it was." Sorry! That is exactly the way it was, yet these same people, those who harassed and those who did nothing (which is the better of the two?) dare to comment here in their mealy mouthed sanctimonious hypocritical way about "Nasty Giano's incivility to me" and "Giano should not be allowed here" "it's not fair on me, for him to be so nasty" I stand by every word, and believe me, if I were not very in control of my temper, I could think of a few more very descriptive adjectives for what I have read here and elsewhere over the last 36 hours. I shall have no more to do wuth thread. I'll leave you to talk about me ad-nauseum, I can stand up for myself. At least that way, you won't be harrassing some other poor sod.  Giacomo  16:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC) And yet, you are still permitted to be here. Guess we stink at martyrizing Giano.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC) "it appears that bullying, harassing, intimidating and making another editor's life complete hell are completely to be disregarded". If you are talking about your continued and persistent attacks on TT and your continued ranting about 'the conspiracy', which does nothing, not one damn thing, to help RAN, then yes, they are apparently being disregarded. You can keep peddling this White Knight rubbish all you want, nobody is buying it, and I think you'd be pretty upset if they did, taking away as it would your sole role in this pantomime. It's not a shock to see you exiting stage left for like the fifth time, after yet another volley. Nor are they buying your 'I am keeping very cool' act either. You've got something even worse to say to other editors than you have done these last two days? Go for it. You most definitely won't be blocked for it. MickMacNee (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Nobody is buying it: I'm buying it. Admins do behave badly at times (I won't name any names, for fear of a "civility" block), and it's good that editors like Giano exist to look for those situations. I know he's a pain in the a** to deal with, and that he can be pretty abrasive. Still, he raises valid issues at times, and I commend that. Buddy431 (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Once again, he did not 'raise this issue'. It was already known about, and being dealt with. Giano's contribution was, as you correctly characterise pretty much all his contributions lately, to wade in to an issue already being handled calmly and per policy, and be an abrasive pain in the ass. Only this time, he did more than that, in the full knowledge he has special immunity when he goes further into the behavioural territory only he is allowed to inhabit. Or are you one of these people who would have no problem at all being called an odious harassing bully all over the pedia, for nigh on 24 hours, just because Giano happened to think you were one? With little or no sense of irony at all. MickMacNee (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC) To be honest, I wouldn't have much problem being called an "odious harassing bully"; I've been called far worst, and sometimes I've deserved it. I realize that not everyone has as thick of skin as I do, so I can understand, even if I don't agree with, the righteous indignation that seems to have been taken to Giano's comments. However, I would never call for a block for that type of comment, and really, I don't think that blocking for that level of an insult is by any means universal here. That's a borderline comment coming from anyone, and I don't think there would be unanimous agreement to block, no matter who it came from. Buddy431 (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC) (all together now) ODIOUS HARASSING BULLY! Whoa, Buddy, dude, you don't look too good. I'd let you lie down on one of the leather couches in the admins' lounge but better not. Here, have a seat on one of these wooden benches in the sun. (hey you kids, no frying eggs here) Just take it easy, I'll send a water vendor over to you.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Try "shabby, lacking compassion and understanding, sounding seriously uneducated and behaving like a spoilt child", with a gratuitous dig at your mother's parenting skills thrown in. All directed at me by admins or sole-co-founders, and none of them got the level of crap thrown at them that Giano gets for calling a spade an odious harrassing bully. DuncanHill (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC) And who says those people weren't calling a spade a spade? Who made you and Giano the only people able to spot a spade eh?. And besides, our policy on personal attacks is pretty bloody explicit, nobody here gives a crap whether the insulter thinks the insult is justified or not. And seriously, this whole defence tactic of 'that infraction was not as bad as the incident I was subjected to in 2009/8/7 etc' is seriously OLD NEWS. Change the record already. MickMacNee (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Well, Our "policy" on personal attacks is a joke - admins and Jimbo have a free hand to attack whomever they bloody well like, while spouting holier-than-thou claptrap about how much they deplore it whenever someone they don't like replies in kind. You - with your history - are just stirring for the sake of stirring. DuncanHill (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Like I said, change the bloody record. This victim/conspiracy bullshit is just that. You don't have a defence for Giano, not in policy or in morality, the quality of it is bordering on undying devotion frankly. It's nauseating. MickMacNee (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC) And your defence of Fastily and TT is "Giano's rude" - you don't care about their history of harassment and bullying (much more serious than a bit of name-calling), but your apparently complete lack of a sense of proportion prevents you concentrating on what is important. DuncanHill (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC) You clearly aren't listening are you? I have no interest, not one, in defending Fastily for anything. And I'll defend TT like I'll defend anyone who is the subject of Giano's regular and unchecked abuse thanks to his privelaged position. The general issue of harassment/bullying of RAN was known about before Giano, and it was dealt with before Giano got involved. And it was dealt with like it has been in the past for other users, with no blocks, because the complaints are simply not actionable in that way, and certainly not in this case. The complaints of targetted harassement, and worse, bullying, while pushing the buttons of the conspiracy theorists, were rightly found to be total bollocks in that regard, based on policy and past precedent. This is normal. If you don't believe me, go and have a chat with Tony The Marine. Maybe Giano wants to start an Rfc to change that, but I very much doubt his pantomime rage extends to actually doing anything like that. No, he is in it for the glory, while using it as another vehicle for his grandstanding against Them, and to throw a few attacks at TT in the process. Running around calling someone a harassing bullying odious editor however, quite rightly, is very much actionable with a preventative block. And if you want to talk about the offence of harassment, let's investigate further how Giano got involved in the first place shall we? Interested? No, I didn't think so. Your defence of Giano on the basis that he brings The Truth, and anyone tackling him is part of The Cover-up, is frankly ludicrous. It's beyond transparent even. It's old, it's really old. It's frankly just predictable. MickMacNee (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Who's Tony the Marine? DuncanHill (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC) User:Marine 69-71. S.G.(GH) ping! 19:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks, what was it I'm supposed to ask him? I read Mick's last post twice and am still not sure. I do know that he's either totally missed the point of what I've been saying, or is deliberately misrepresenting it, but it is a bit like nailing jelly to the wall. DuncanHill (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Tony is the last case where it was claimed at ANI that mass tagging was a form of harassment. That neither you or Giano know anything about its outcome speaks volumes for what the hell you know about this case and The Coverup. Giano doesn't give a monkeys about harassment, he saw an opportunity to mouth off at a user who recently ticked him off, and he went to town on him, in the way that only he is allowed to do. MickMacNee (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC) I don't just know nothing about its outcome, but I'd never heard of the editor in question before. Got a link to the archive? DuncanHill (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Well, maybe we can have a system where people can display on their user pages how 'thick skinned' they are, and just how much venom and abuse they are willing to take before they will do something about it. Rarely though is that going to be to keep calm and seek redress at ANI, even if they could expect even a modicum of uniform standards. And the fact is, many people will probably just leave, rather than take such abuse for simply being a volunteer on a poxy website. God knows what third parties looking at such behaviour being tolerated think, but only the most sadistic must think 'wow, I must get involved in this project!' I'd rather stick with a system that says, here is the line. If you cross it, take the consequences. It's about time the apologists stopped looking at this issue as to how it affects Giano and his victim. And all of this meta-crap is besides the point, we have a user already entrusted to be an admin, who warned Giano it was not acceptable, and got given the finger for his trouble, so he rightly blocked. And his block was unilaterally undone, without a by your leave, and Giano carries on as normal. It's bull. MickMacNee (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Lets try and get back to reality for a few seconds. Giano is the one preventing the lynch mob here from harassing an outstanding editor until he kicks back or makes enough mistakes that he can be perma banned, as has been done very recently to another scholarly and highly constructive editor. The editor who initiated this mass attack may have been acting in good faith, but its impossible to assume the same of the attack pack who have piled in after seeing the editor blocked when he tried to defend himself. I still havent seen one of the so called copyright issues turn out to be better than a borderline case, and an editor with almost 100k contributions will almost inevitably have a few of those. Thank God for Giano whos held up a mirror to the harassers. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC) If you want to talk reality, then please try and at least be aware of the actual sequence of events. Who knew what, who did what, and who got who to do what first. Giano features in none of those stages as a key player, he is late to the party, and while he might get off on claiming to be the White Knight exposing the coverup here, it's bull. He features as Giano usually features, as a distraction at best, and as a drive by attacker at worst, only as we see, his immunity from blocking for such attacks means that he is wholly unhelpful overall. As far as I can see, his most constructive suggestion was that RAN be given a breather from Xfds for a set period, and arbcom step in and review his work. And quite rightly nobody, not even RAN himself, thought that was a remotely appropriate step. RAN is well aware that his articles need to stand for themselves, and a few mistakes aside, he at least now seem to be learning that blindly swinging at your opponents is not going to make his content issues go away. Thankfully, inspite of Giano's late attempt, his example of such bad practices has not taken hold, because without Giano's cloak of immunity, that is the path that gets any normal editor blocked, no matter what their contributions. MickMacNee (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Still here Mick? Yackety yack. Still all wicked Giano's fault? yeah right, anything you say Mick. And Wehwalt, don't lets forget, I'm too well brought up to have him called him a "cocksucker", but that would have been fine with you wouldn't it. Go on Wehwalt lets here the usual justification for your own behaviour and views. we all need a few laughs.  Giacomo  19:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Yep, it's what I say, and it's what happened. Yackety yack, don't talk back. MickMacNee (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2010 (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.

Arbitration

I intend to file an arbitration case over this apparent de facto situation which has developed and has yet again played out here, whereby the admin corps as a collective body appears to have become next to powerless at holding Giano up to the behavioural standards that frankly, most definitely do apply to anybody else. I think it's pretty indisputable that in this case, and in many past cases, he is getting a free pass simply because he is Giano and it only ever takes one admin to decide to unilaterally unblock and that will be the status quo, through fear of the dreaded WHEEL, meaning that the majority of admins when a Giano issue comes up, simply ignore it, and those who do take a stand like AGK, might as well be pissing in the wind, despite their status as people supposedly entrusted to be able to tell whether repeatedly restoring personal attacks of the 'you are an odious harassing bully' type is disruption that merits stopping by block, when warnings are met with contempt. If the suggestion is as LHvU profers, that only arbcom can make a block on Giano stick (and in the process, he has simply chosen to downgrade the stated block reason from PA/restoration, to simple routine Giano type CIV abuse that apparently, due to past admin fuckups, is now not enforceable by block, period), and AGK was simply wasting his time blocking because it would have led to drama had he not unblocked (and I think its obvious to everyone that for two hours it stuck, there was no drama, until his unilateral unblock), then let's have that situation examined for its moral and intellectual robustness, and if necessary, formalised properly, so that people who do end up being the target of Giano simply because they are guilty in his court, don't have to waste their time seeking redress from mere mortal admins. As this case will primarily swing on the views of admins as to whether they are doing a competent job handling Giano, or are simply prolonging an ultimately disfunctional and destructive environment where toxicity and impotence flourishes, I'm giving you a heads up, to either say this case would be a brilliant idea, a terrible idea, or otherwise hide your lights under your bushels. MickMacNee (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

A terrible idea, a complete waste of everyones time. For the record, i agree with Duncan Hill, who wrote: "There are plenty of editors - admins and others - at least as rude as Giano, but they don't get targetted like he does. There is a double standard, but it's not Giano benefitting from it." David D. (Talk) 17:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, he tends to say that every time. And he would have an opportunity to prove it in an arbitration case, if it is even remotely true. MickMacNee (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Even if it were true, it would mean only that he has exhausted the community's patience, which is at least as valid a reason for banishment as the magnitude of incivility in a single instance. However, as I mentioned in the archived section above, this particular instance is not simple or clear-cut. Straws may break camels' backs, but they don't make good cases for adjudication. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe everyone involved in this one is somewhat at fault. A lot of people should have backed down on the button pushing, and asked for someone outside the immediate conflict area to review and comment.

If people truly believe that Giano has exhausted the community patience, then there's a whole community ban process set up, go to AN and file one. I don't think he has; I believe that he's exhausted a number of individual editors patience, and that he continues to be more of our more contentious editors, but he also has over the last couple of years mellowed out a lot.

To those saying "nobody can block Giano and make it stick!" - I say, wrong. If Giano really and truly does step across the line he'll get blocked, it will stick, and there won't be any controversy over it. That's true of anyone - be it Jimbo, Board members, Arbcom members, Admins, or individual users.

Conflating a long term contentious editor issue with specific incident problems which led to questionable blocks is not a good path forwards. I don't think anyone disagrees with the first; even Giano admits that he's provocative. If the sum total of that over the years is enough to ban him so be it - but so far the question has been answered with "no". This specific incident was not that big a deal, and should have been handled in a less confrontational manner. It didn't deserve a block. It's not worth this much ANI time. This incident has been handled in an unseemly manner, and does not justify the ongoing antagonism. You can't weasel in a community ban by yelling loudly and throwing stuff around on ANI to blow a minor incident out of proportion. Go to AN and file a ban if you must; if not, please consider that you all were equally guilty of escalating the situation in ways, and bear plenty of responsibility for the fuss here.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal filed at AN. MickMacNee (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Everyone is at fault for their own behaviour. No one held a gun to Giano's head and forced him to act as he did. His block log is plenty of indication that he's been at fault many times and that there is no shortage of people to enable him. The real question you need to ask yourself is if another editor did the same things as he did would there be as much drama? If the answer is no, then there clearly is a special rule and/or line for Giano.--Crossmr (talk) 04:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Don Martin (Austin, Texas)

• Don Martin (Austin, Texas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This BLP seems to be the subject of disruptive editing. An editor who has stated that he is the subject of the article filed a request for mediation of the dispute: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Don Martin (Austin, Texas). Whilst there may be underlying content issues, from the editor's statement at the mediation request I gather that there are also conduct problems. Could an administrator look into this, sort out any problems with the article content, and deal with any parties whose conduct is not in accordance with how we treat BLPs? Not taking action as I may have to deal with the request for mediation at some point soon. Thanks all, AGK 20:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I will take a look at this. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 12:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks SheffieldSteel. Neutral scrutiny by any other editors would also be appreciated. AGK 20:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for your help SheffieldSteel - your suggestion for a summary paragraph was accepted and posted after achieving the agreement of a majority of those that were involved in the dispute. GregJackP (talk) 05:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Ledenierhomme

Resolved

 – Both editors ended up blocked for 24h by EdJohnston for breaking 3RR. Yworo (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The article on the Economy of the United Kingdom has been fully protected twice recently on my requests due to user:Ledenierhomme's apparent continuing vandalism of the article, who keeps removing various long standing and well sourced sections of the introduction of the article without consensus. I've tried to engage with Ledenierhomme on the talk page many times now and explained that long standing, well sourced information cannot be removed without consensus but Ledenierhomme gives little if any explaination and continues to remove such content once the article is unprotected again. I have warned Ledenierhomme on Ledenierhomme's user talk page about breaching the 3RR rule, which Ledenierhomme has many breached times on this occassion, as well as many times before judging by other users' warnings on Ledenierhomme's user talk page. Ledenierhomme's contribution history appears to consist highly of reverts of other users' edits, which leads me to believe Ledenierhomme is simply an edit war account. I don't think continued protection of the Economy of the United Kingdom article will solve the problem as Ledenierhomme removes content once the article is unprotected. Australisian (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any recent 3RR violation there. In fact, I see a number a uninterrupted sequential edits today (you do know that a series of edits counts as one edit for the purposes of 3RR, don't you?) and before that at most 1 revert a day. In any case, if 3RR is really being broken, the correct place to report it is WP:3RRN. Each time the user is blocked for it will be for a longer period. This user has actually not been blocked since Feb 2008. It's possible that the 3RR warnings on his page are actually spurious or editors did not follow through with reporting. If the editor is actually breaking 3RR, please report in the correct place each time and the problem should solve itself through standard process. Yworo (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like other users and Admins to join in this matter as I feel user:Yworo has not been neutral. There is a clear case of a user vandalising the article whenever the protection I've requested ends. Ledenierhomme deletes random paragraphs from the introduction, which is well sourced and long standing, without giving reasons for doing so. Yworo appears to be almost taking sides with this user, failing to warn the vandal while warning the very user who has been trying to protect the article. Australisian (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You have not informed the user of the discussion here which you are required to do. Why don't you do so now? Yworo (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I was unaware of that requirement. I have told the user on their talk page now. Australisian (talk) 00:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

However, the point is Ledenierhomme is clearly vandalising the Economy of the United Kingdom article. Is vandalism not someone who deletes random sections of an article many times, deleting content which is long standing and well sourced, without consensus, without giving reasons for doing so? That is what Ledenierhomme has been doing. Australisian (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that's a misrepresentation. He's been giving reasons, both in edit comments and on the talk page. You just don't happen to agree with his reasons. It's not clear to me that you've taken the time to understand them. OTOH, he may not have taken the time to make them clear to you. On the third hand, people tend not to bother to explain again once you start calling them a vandal. Yworo (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Attack/borderline threatening emails.

Resolved

 – Suspicious user blocked/email disabled. Thanks again everyone Tommy²⁰¹⁰_message 12:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Further resolved with user's talk page access removed - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am receiving emails from User talk:Louiefontanez regarding some of my reversions – that don't even pertain to anything I've done involving him and certainly not regarding any type of abuse with rollback for that matter either. The first email I received was this:

"I edited the page for North American GM President Mark Reuss and you said my edits on Miguel de Cervantes were vandalism. Are you stupid or on some power trip?

Congratulations on being signed up for Wikipedia for more than a few days. You are now qualified to be an unpaid editor. I don't speak when I'm not completely sure about the subject. Maybe you should try the same, Dick.

While I don't expect it from a piece of shit like you, I would be interested in the thought process that went into your decision to flag an article on a 21st century white man as vandalism in an article on a 17th century Spanish man."

Annoyed with not only him not getting his facts straight and for blatant personal attacks, I sent him a message on his User talk page and I also replied the email with "if you email me again, you will be blocked" (which supposedly didn't send).. supposedly. Then he replied with:

"You screwed up and now you're threatening me with what? The Wikipedia police? You didn't even have the right article. Do whatever you want. You can't do shit."

—Tommy2010 00:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is definitely misuse of the Wikipedia email feature. Violation of WP:NPA on both fronts. Since the warning you gave was met by another personal attack, I think a 24 block for personal attacks is needed and Louiefontanez email abilities blocked as well since they are being misused. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

While issuing a "Only Warning" (which I never did finish), I noticed that Louiefontanez has one edit in 2009, none in 2010. Something isn't write here. A possible checkuser is necessary. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, are you sure you have the right guy? This user hasn't edited in over a year, and I don't see that GM person on his old contribs. Crum375 (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, positive. I have no idea... And all my edits are legit. Unless he's using IPs... but even then all my edits are legit so I don't know. —Tommy2010 00:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The email account his username... @hotmail.com —Tommy2010 00:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the IP account in question is this one, 69.171.163.209. That account edited both Mark Reuss and Miguel de Cervantes - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think thats it too... Ridiculous. Like I said, not even pertaining to me. —Tommy2010 00:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• I have requested a Checkuser via J.Delanoy's talk page, if anyone knows of a checkuser online, please message them. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you (: —Tommy2010 01:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

<- That user account has sent three emails in the last two days. --Versageek 02:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Would make sense. emailed me at least twice in the past 3 hours. —Tommy2010 02:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hold onto those emails, an admin might want to take a look at them. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

In the interim, I've indef'd Louie with email disabled. He still has access to his talk page. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 07:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! Shall we marked this as resolved then? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Per this, can someone disable his talk page access?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably going to need oversight for that also. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk page access is gone, working on oversight. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Diff oversighted. Nothing to see here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Catch-22 Absurdity

I registered my Username, Albert Sumlin, on April 21 of this year. After one month of editing I was blocked without warning as a suspected sockpuppet. Following the instructions, I filed an unblock request on the grounds that it was my first and only account. For my trouble, I got juvenile insults from "Smashville." So, I read the "Guide to Appealing Blocks," and anything else I could find on the subject, only to learn that there really is no way to appeal a block once you have been accused of sockpuppetry, and any attempt to prove your innocence, such as by requesting an IP number check, will only serve as proof of your guilt. Curiouser and curiouser. So, I set about to try to understand why I had been blocked. After spending a considerable amount of time, I was satisfied that I had learned the answer, so I created a second account and filed this report: [198] Within minutes, there was a tag placed on my user page by "NeutralHomer," expressing a concern that "Sumlin, Albert" may be a sock puppet of "Albert sumlin." Good one, "NeutralHomer"! Except that Sumlin, Albert is not a sock puppet of Albert Sumlin, he is Albert Sumlin, searching Wikipedia like Diogenes for someone who has an ounce of sense. Meanwhile, Will Beback, who executed the original malicious block of my username, writes in response to my report, "Even if this user was not a sock, this is not the right way to appeal a block" -- Right! Because there actually is no right way to appeal a block! It reminds me of the 17th century practice of dunking a woman to ascertain whether she was a witch. If she drowned, she was innocent. That's what I call a "win-win" situation.

If you all don't want new editors, why don't you just say so, instead of calling yourselves "the encyclopedia anyone can edit"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The late Mr. Sumlin (talk • contribs) 22:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Where did you read that there is no way to appeal a sockpuppeting block? Crum375 (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Here:[199] —Preceding unsigned comment added by The late Mr. Sumlin (talk • contribs) 23:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You do know that you're allowed more than one {{unblock}} request, don't you? Go back to your original account and plead your case. Creating block-evading accounts is definitely not the right way to be unblocked and only serves to reinforce the original assumptions. —DoRD (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) No, it doesn't say that. It says you shouldn't ask for checkuser evidence. You can always appeal a block, and should do so, if you believe you are innocent. Crum375 (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've unblocked on the basis of WP:AGF. There is zero Checkuser evidence, although the original account is so old that records would no longer available; there is no WP:SPI case to support this block. Merely "editing the same articles" is a very weak basis on which to block for sockpuppetry, and there is nothing, zero, nada, that I have seen to support this. Meanwhile, we have risked losing a potentially good editor on the basis of very thin evidence. If I'm wrong, I'm open to correction, but I am old-fashioned and prefer to see some, er, evidence. Rodhullandemu 23:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I am old fashioned too, and if the blocking admin says "If any admins have questions about this block then please email me", I contact that admin by email prior to unblocking. Crum375 (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • What Crum375 said. In many cases it's not a good idea to state publicly what led to the block. I wouldn't have unblocked here without consulting the blocking admin in private, especially when another admin has reviewed and confirmed the block. Tim Song (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

On very weak, and unsupported reasons, as far as I'm concerned. I'm fully aware of WP:BEANS, but sorry, I remain committed to due process and require evidence. Rodhullandemu 00:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I missed that, perhaps. But it's anathema to the way we work here to have "secret processes" unless ArbCom or WMF are involved. Please see my unblock rationale. We do not, and should not, have hidden reasons here unless there really is some cogent reason for doing so, and I don't see mere sockpuppetry as transcending the requirement for openness. I'm sure the blocking admin will give me full evidence, chapter and verse, if necessary. Meanwhile, we are not Soviet Russia and do not have the luxury of secret trials. Rodhullandemu 00:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are an admin with any experience, you'd know there can be many good reasons for not making evidence public. But the main point is that you don't reverse an admin's action without consulting him, especially when he asks to be contacted by email prior to unblocking, and after other uninvolved admins have reviewed and approved his decision. Crum375 (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This block sucked and this guy is entirely correct to complain about it. The only reason people are ignoring it is because he isn't one of the local personalities. Imagine if, say, Giano or WMC were blocked for sockpuppetry on such flimsy evidence. Jtrainor (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Leaving aside "personalities", which are largely irrelevant here, blocking any editor is a serious measure to take, and a last resort; even more so without making the reasons public. Alleged sockpuppetry is one of the easiest reasons to cite, and to my mind, requires a cogent argument, reviewable by independent editors, admin or not, and linking to diffs. The appropriate venue for doing that seems to be WP:SPI, with or without Checkuser. We cannot hold ourselves up as honourably taking such actions without accountability for those actions, and unreasoned actions are the worst of all actions. But it would help if such blocks were supported by diffs rather than "email the blocking admin"; this is not the transparency required by this project. And it means that the blockee has no way of seeing the evidence against him, or countering it. That's a fundamental breach of the principles of natural justice, and should have no place here. That's why I unblocked. Rodhullandemu 01:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Seriously? We can't block someone as a sock unless we disclose publicly how we reached that conclusion? Sorry, that's just plain untenable. Dealing with socks is unique in that the details how we reached the conclusion of socking assists the user in evading detection in the future. This is different from any court proceeding that I am aware of. We routinely block on CU evidence, which normally is not disclosed to the blockee either, or even to the blocking admins (except a 8-ballish template) - are we not supposed to do that, too? Surely, "you are confirmed to be the same user" is not much different from "you are a sock"? Tim Song (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• I have emailed evidence to Rodhullandemu, which I would have done ealrier had he asked. As Tim Song says, there is no policy that requires we share with puppet masters the means of their detection. If we did so routinely we'd soon be unable to detect them. While "justice" is a laudable goal, we don't operate in the same environment as a court of law. For one thing, it's usually pretty easy to establish the identity of people in the justice system, while it's quite difficult to do so on Wikipedia. The editor in question, user:Herschelkrustofsky, was sanctioned in three ArbCom cases before being banned by the community. He has used dozens of socks over the years, and had a reputation for using socks on Usenet before that. WP:LTA/HK. The block was made properly, it was reviewed by two uninvolved admins, and should be restored.   Will Beback  talk  02:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely at this point you should leave him unblocked, per wp:ROPE. If he really is who you guys think he is, it will become apparent and you can block him again. If, on the off chance he's telling the truth, he isn't, then we've gained a valuable new contributor who you'd just be jerking around in blocking again. Have his edits up to this point been problematic enough to warrant a block? If so, block him for that. Otherwise, there's not much harm in letting him edit a little longer, even if a sock-puppet. There's the potential for a great deal of harm if you block a new contributer. Buddy431 (talk) 04:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

If it were a close case, your suggestion would be a good one. However this case is clear enough that a block is appropriate.   Will Beback  talk  04:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Rodhullandemu wants to look at this one then too (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

User:TheReturnOfMe

TheReturnOfMe (talk · contribs)'s name indicates the return of a blocked user. Taunting other users about daring to go ahead and block him. Created a forked article of Horse because he doesn't want to deal with the protected page on its Talk page. Smells like a WP:DUCK to me, but could somebody run a checkuser? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

See this edit. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Editor wants blocking regardless of whose sock it is. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Horse has been protected since June of 2009. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 hours to prevent disruption while we determine what to do.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Their only contributions have been disruptive. They are quite plainly not a new user. The don't block me, my account was hacked argument would have some weight if used by a user with an established account, but not for one that's half a dozen edits old. Hence, I've extended the block to indefinite. Feel free to overturn if there's a consensus otherwise. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I was about to change to indef myself, which is what we'd normally do to an editor whose only edits were vandalism or disruptive Dougweller (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, are you sure you wanted to "take the risk"? – B.hotep •talk• 21:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Risk? Dougweller (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, in reference to their edit summary. What is the smiley for sarcasm and "ooh, I'm scared to block you"? ;) – B.hotep •talk• 23:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This user has returned to post an "unblock request" that was summarily dismissed (using rollback). The question now is whether they should be blocked from their own Talk page. My own opinion is that access to this talk page is of no value since this isn't their first account. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. They can make an unblock request on their original account. Talk page access revoked. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 16:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive sock or pointy simulator

Resolved

 – VLB Pocketspup indef blocked as a sock by EyeSerene. Yworo (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at User:VLB Pocketspup? "Funny" name, exactly 10 edits in his own userspace, aged, now jumps into climate change articles with a clearly disruptive set of edits. I'd block him out of hand, but I'd rather have some very uninvolved admin do it to avoid drama. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, how am I being disruptive? Have I done something wrong? --VLB Pocketspup (talk) 07:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Indefblocked - clearly someone's sock and not here to be productive. EyeSerene^talk 08:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I had a filter set up for autocon-busters, but it didn't get any hits and was disabled as a result. (The filter was set to log-only, so no worries about false positives blocking edits.) Would it be worthwhile to maybe enable the filter? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 05:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Has it changed to now get hits? Or would it just have caught this one by coincidence? ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 17:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

RFA self-nom topic ban for User:Gobbleswoggler

Resolved

 – User has voluntarily agreed [200] to this proposal. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

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

This user filed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gobbleswoggler in February, and it was quickly closed as a clear case of WP:NOTNOW. Today Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/gobbleswoggler 4 was also closed for the exact same reason. Numerous users have tried to counsel them to wait a significant period of time before posting another but have been ignored. Given this user's inability or unwillingness to get the point I propose they be banned from nominating themselves for adminship for a period of one year. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's not kick him when he's down. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Uh, he's been asked nicely and had the situation explained to him numerous times already and has pushed ahead anyway. He seems either unwilling or unable to understand why he continues to get shot down so rapidly, and since he won't listen to reason a formal restriction seems warranted. If he would voluntarily agree to it that would be fine too. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I see no need for a "formal restriction", it's not that big a deal. No one is putting a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to read/vote in his RFA's. Why have a long drawn out ban discussion for something that really isn't an actual problem? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Then what about the User:Wiki Greek Basketball fiasco? –MuZemike 19:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Bingo. That is exactly what I was thinking of. While Gobble isn't acting as unreasonable, there is an air of deja vu to this. Repeatedly taking actions that are directly contrary to a very strong well-established consensus is exactly the sort of thing users are topic banned for all the time. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Support. If he's not willing to discuss this, and he's not willing to take advice, he needs to be prevented from being disruptive. I guess this is progress, although it's not much. Like Wiki Greek, it's even more infuriating because Gobble is a good contributor otherwise. Şłџğģő 20:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Support, I'd prefer to see this editor voluntarily state that he'll not self-nom for a year, which would reflect better on him in the future. Failing that, the community needs to act and impose the restriction. Mjroots (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Serious question: since the user has continued to nominate himself, why is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/gobbleswoggler 2 deleted? I could see deleting it to encourage them not to continue nominating themselves, but since that didn't work, the record of their previous nominations should be available to future RfA voters. For the record, I can't view deleted pages and rarely do anything at RfA, but I'm genuinely curious whether there's anything there material to a discussion of this user. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted under G7, but that doesn't seem to apply, since it was indeed edited by others aside from the original author. I've been bold and restored it. Shimeru (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, RfA #3 doesn't seem to exist, having been moved to 2 previously. The current #4 should probably be moved to #3 for housekeeping, accordingly. Have not done so since it's currently under discussion. Shimeru (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

As I read it (remember, without the ability to see deleted pages), RfA1 is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gobbleswoggler, RfA2 is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/gobbleswoggler 2, RfA3 is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gobbleswoggler 2 (note the capital G), and RfA4 is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/gobbleswoggler 4. A careful reader will perceive an obvious argument against deleting RfAs in the first place. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, yes. Well spotted. Seems a different housekeeping move is in order, then. >.> Shimeru (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. There is no pressing need for a ban, and certainly not for a one-year long one (a lot can change in a year). The user does not have a history of problematic editing, aside from too many RfAs, and has been a positive contributor otherwise. A ban would likely just drive him away from Wikipedia altogether. The previous RfA from him was in early March, right? (Or was it February?) His RfAs have not been sufficiently disruptive, IMO, to justify a ban. Nsk92 (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Where's the harm? If he keeps nominating himself for adminship despite not being ready, he'll just get turned down again and again. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Other than the RfAs, he does very good, worthwhile work here. Isn't there a possibility that the rejections will pile up so high he'll feel his presence is not wanted any more? Şłџğģő 20:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please close Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/gobbleswoggler 2 so it doesn't appear here soon? Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I should have made this request too. Since I'm not a bureaucrat, I couldn't close it myself when I undeleted. Shimeru (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to be a 'crat to close an RFA that has no chance- or in this case, is purely a procedural close. So, done. Courcelles (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support a ban. It's becoming disruptive, and wastes time having to close it for the umpteenth occasion. Aiken ♫ 21:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. If, in this year he were to suddenly become the perfect candidate for adminship, he could still be nominated by someone else. 4 RFAs in less than 6 months are a wee bit too many for me. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support because we don't need the hassle each time. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 21:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support with a little bit of hesitation: I agree that this is not quite as extreme a case a WGB, but it is along similar lines: an editor who otherwise makes good edits, but fails to listen to well-intentioned advice. A year ban seems adequate to me - and perhaps making it also a condition that should he be nominated by another user (although no such nomination should be allowed under any circumstances in the next 6 months), the nominating editor has to have at least a year's editing, or something similar (a pre-emptive strike against potential friends asked to create an account just to nominate them) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support: I find this pattern to be disruptive. mono 22:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support TO PhantomSteve, what if a potential nominator's first edit had to be before 3 June 2010, or be a sysop themselves, as a prevention against meatpuppetry. It's a shame, as he's a good editor otherwise, but too much focus on the sysop bit isn't doing anyone any good here- including gobbleswoggler. Courcelles (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose It is not a big burden to have a notnow close done on the RfA's, and it is possible that in 11 months one could succeed. If it becomes so much that it is disruptive then some action can be taken, but that may be at a dozen requests. Most self-noms do not succeed, but that is a discussion for WT:RFA. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Floquenbeam. It was a well intentioned self-nom. As long as they're well intentioned, there's no harm. It is never a waste of time unless it harms the encyclopedia, and since this isn't article space, I don't see how it does. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Support. Seems like a waste of time. --ÅlandÖland (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Floquenbeam. No reason for this now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
• Moot Gobble has agreed [201] to self ban for a year. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2010 (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.

Keeping an editor off my talk page

Resolved

 – For now the editor is blocked, hopefully giving them time to calm down. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what to do about this and am going to be offline most of the next 20 hours. The editor is Ceoil (talk · contribs). I haven't any idea what the best thing to do about this sort of silliness is. I'm not asking for a block, so I'm not even sure what Admin action if any would be useful. All I know is I'm fed up, have been trying to 'get lost' as requested by him but did edit his page one last time when I discovered that he was claiming that he struck out a comment of mine elsewhere because I'd said I'd gone to bed, when that wa obviously not the case. For some reason he's noticed that and decided to be a pita. Thanks. I'll notify him. Dougweller (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: There is background to this. Admin who can give, mistakenly, but not admit that, and refused to take in kind. That is a coward. One established editor to another who has left an templated msg last warning can expect rigght of reply, you would imagine. Not for Dough, and here we are. This is now bitter, and a week old, and I will say this - an/i is not your army, template happy process blind child. Perhalps you should think more and interact more with thoes you have blindly templaed and not run off for help. Ceoil (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a classic wikidrama, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". If nobody bothers to say anything further, it will just disappear, and time and energy can be spent on something more productive. Ty 02:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Regardless, it's not the wisest idea to keep reverting his talk page after he's asked you not to. Really, the masts people will decide to tie themselves to.... Shimeru (talk) 02:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

So I can be templated in error by a lazy admin, but I have no right of reply. Its worth mentioning that that this is the second time I am here on an/i in five days for a bunch of just nothing. Over Dough? He seems so thick and harmless, but if he reverts me agian won't take that. You cannot template and treathern established editors and just walk away with basically, two fingers aloft, and by the way you are a useles troll -all under the protection that npa is one way traffic. Fuck that. Not good enough, at all. Ceoil (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Very good. Frustration vented on all sides. Hot air expended. Let it dissipate, please. Get some sleep. Ty 03:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Strage as it may seem, frustration vented was I all i sought. When I asked on the warning admins page, I was told to fuck off, troll. So I can vent here with out being archived. Go an/i. Ceoil (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody either block me or close this; either please. closing might note this. Or is this just for amusement now, open for rent an openion, what ever dregged voice (not you ty, I respect you) might like to chime in. Ceoil (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest a block of Ceoil, since they're edit warring with Doug on his talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I just did so. 48 hours. I hope he'll take the time to cool off and not stew over it, because this isn't productive. Shimeru (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks folks. This was the sort of thing I hated on Usenet, shame it gets here. For the record, somewhere in the maelstrom and probably deleted I noted (before Ceoil) that I shouldn't have used a template and regretted it (I did the bad thing of making assumptions from too little evidence, ie just his talk page, I must never do that again!). His timeline and version of events for some reason differ considerably, but going into that is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. I plan to stay off his talk page and really hope he stays off mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 11:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats by IP

An IP has made a legal threat over the article English Defence League: "This is slander, and legal action is to be concidered".[202] TFD (talk) 11:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There's WP:NLT and WP:DOLT etc, but I was putting it down to "IP using big words" (it's not slander they should be concidering [sic], it's libel). I'm inclined to ignore it, to be honest, unless they repeat. (Note: I replied to the IP at the time). TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 11:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think unless the IP continues editing, there's not much we can do, except perhaps drop him a warning on his talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should discuss wit the user the issue and resolve it using Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures. Truthsort (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Manatee Palms Youth Services

Resolved

 – no admin action needed -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at Manatee Palms Youth Services. An IP, perhaps with dubious intention, is trying to delete the article. -Regancy42 (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment at the AfD, then. I would also be wary of ascribing motives for an action unless there is clear evidence for it (the action of itself not being evidence). LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

IP sockpuppetry at AfD

There's something strange going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manatee Palms Youth Services. The nomination was by Joe routt (talk · contribs), but the page was tagged and transcluded by the IP 96.228.200.80 (talk · contribs). I assume that this was simply Joe routt (talk · contribs) editing logged out; nothing wrong with that.

But 97.67.16.26 (talk · contribs) is active in the deletion discussion, simultaneously with Joe routt (talk · contribs). According to DNSstuff.com both IPs are located in the same Flordia town.

I suggest that all three users – Joe routt (talk · contribs), 97.67.16.26 (talk · contribs) and 96.228.200.80 (talk · contribs) – are the same person, and are inapproriately multiple-!voting on the AfD page. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 16:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations is the place to go then. Aiken ♫ 16:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did know about that page, actually, but I thought that an admin or two ought to deal with the sockpuppetry's effects on the discussion. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 16:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, report filed, but I still think that the deletion discussion could do with some admin intervention. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 16:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

96.228.200.80 is my home IP. I made my initial edits without realizing that I hadn't logged in. But I am not 97.67.16.26. Joe routt (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

So it's just a coincidence that the only other argument for deletion aside from you is is being made from a computer at your local Salvation Army? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Within a couple of minutes? On a near-new AfD page? (My thoughts precisely...! Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joe routt) ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 16:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I think I know the editor. I told her about the article, but I didn't know she would edit it. I can at least say that I don't have, and have never had, any socks. Joe routt (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah. So it's either a case of WP:BROTHER or WP:MEAT then? ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 16:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

More or less, albeit not deliberate on my part. I'm trying to resolve this on my end. In the meantime, I will refrain from further editing of the AfD until this reaches its conclusion. Joe routt (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Was there any prior attempt to discuss the matter before filing this report? Per WP:AGF this account has been editing the encyclopedia on and off since August, 2006, with utterly no history or implication of bad behavior as far as I can tell. As such they're entitled to a presumption that they are telling the truth when they say that forgetting to log in was an honest mistake, and that they might have mentioned the article to a friend. Politely asking the editor to remember to log in, and reminding them in a non-accusatory fashion about off-wiki canvassing, would have achieved the same result than making a sockpuppet case of it in three different forums within a couple hours of the deletion nomination. I'm going to go ahead and remove the excessive sockpuppetry accusations and notices from the deletion discussion, where they're clogging things up. A single notice is just fine, and the closing administrator can use their own judgment about whether a like-minded "friend" should be discounted or not. I haven't been following this all too closely but this doesn't seem to be the first instance in recent days of aggressive wikicopping on matters that could have been dealt with before being escalated. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I and multiple editors thought it (and think it, to a degree) suspicious and implausible that two different people in the same town would both cast "delete" !votes within minutes of each other, on a relatively new AfD page. If you have a general problem with my editing pattern, then dispute resolution would be best. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 17:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to make a federal case of it, but you really ought to take a look at your recent run-ins here and ask yourself why you've been locking horns with a number of well-established editors in such a short time span. If you can find a more productive way to channel your zeal for cleaning up the encyclopedia, much time and considerable angst could be spared. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Wikidemon. Joe routt (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I've closed the SPI case as "nothing to do", though Joe is advised to take note of how things can be interpreted. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Why does Malleus have a free pass to be nasty?

BOLDly closing this, I don't see anything constructive coming out of continuing it. This is becoming a pissing match and no problems are going to get solved out of letting it go on here. If anyone believes there is still a problem they can collect evidence and consider WP:RFC/U, as was suggested by several users; name-calling at ANI is not going to improve the situation. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed by Rjanag. Please do not modify it.
It's no secret that User:Malleus Fatuorum and I don't care for one another. That's fine, you can't expect to get along with everybody. What you can, or at least should, expect is not to be personally attacked on your talk page by someone that you have already asked in the past to stay away from your talk page. Malleus said I was a liar, a disgrace, and a "dishonest pratt" [203] [204] despite being asked, both today and in the past, to stay away from my talk page, And yes, I told him to fuck off. Three times. In those words. That is what you tell someone who won't take the hint to go away and enjoys coming around just to stir up trouble. Why does Mal get a pass? Why is it that every time he is blocked for being nasty he is unblocked again? Why is he apparently entirely exempt from WP:NPA? I would add that continuing to post on a users talk page after being repeatedly asked not to would also get any other user blocked. I would fully expect to be blocked if I did such a thing, why does he get a free pass? How long are we going to let this go on? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC) This is a question that occurred to me recently. When I pointed out to Malleus that telling another editor to "grow up" was out of bounds civility-wise, he told me to "fuck off". Other editors joined him in this incivility and it was clear they considered themselves a privileged clique immune from repercussions from these actions. See this section of his talk page. Yworo (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC) And his reaction to being informed of this thread was to call me a "dishonest twat." I dpn't even know what I did this time to deserve his ire, and I don't care, but he is so far out of line it's ridiculous. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I really feel for you Beeblebrox, its not funny being the victim of bullying.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC) It's simple: There are a group of users including many admins who feel that WP:CIV is optional for good contributors. That's basically it. Equazcion (talk) 22:47, 4 Jun 2010 (UTC) Your logic is clearly faulty Yworo, and not for the first time. Beeblebrox has admitted to telling me to "fuck off" at least three times. Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC) So you're telling me that two wrongs do make a right? I don't think so. Yworo (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Two wrongs doesnt make it right Malleus. If he told you those words, you shouldnt use the same language back as you then "lower" youself to the same level making any argument about bullying etc etc totally useless Malleus. Yworos comments also seems to be only a reaction to your first comments to him. Try to be more friendly with your fellow editors. Yworo has right in this situation not you.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I suggest that you investigate before you pontificate. When have I asked BeebleBrox to "fuck off"? Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC) While I make no comments on the perceived attacks/incivility, I must say that editing someone's talk page, calling them unpleasant things, is not really on. Sometimes the case is that people come to Malleus's talk page - it's fair game for him to tell them to f off there, but in this case, is Malleus looking for trouble? If he thinks those things of Beeblebrox, it makes me wonder why he keeps going to his talk page. Aiken ♫ 22:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I don't believe it fair game to tell anyone to "fuck off" anywhere on Wikipedia. Politely ask them to stop posting on ones talk page, yes. Yworo (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Then why is Beeblebrox (an admin) saying it? Malleus was just giving his opinion. Aiken ♫ 23:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I can't answer that, but I don't think he is right to do it either. Yworo (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC) So will you be attempting to sanction him as well? No, of course you won't. Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC) THis discussion isnt about that user its about you Malleus, isnt it time to owe up to your comments and perhaps apologize to everyone?--ÅlandÖland (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Look. You're all here because you want me to blocked, as some kind of a punishment for some imagined crime against "civility". What you don't seem to realise is that I hold you in no regard whatsoever, so do whatever you like. Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Can we please just cut to the chase here? I believe that BeebleBrox is an incompetent and abusive administrator, and ought to be desysopped. I fully recognise though that none of his admin friends will agree with that assessement, and I have no faith in the integrity of the admin corps or the rather ineffective measures that claim to control their excesses. So ban me, it's what you all want. Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Well, isnt that what you really want so you can be really mad afterwards. Why not try to be polite and friendly like 99% of the other editors?--ÅlandÖland (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Rubbish, nobody wants you banned. Aiken ♫ 23:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Is your best trick to play the victim, Malleus? You brag about your incivility pattern. Don't complain if it comes back at you. --Cyclopiatalk 23:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC) It is uncanny how only the incompetent admins seem have issues with Malleus... Resolute 23:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Not really; just that some of us realise that our limited time here might be better directed to reverting and blocking vandals, amongst other valuable work. If you want my opinion, you may ask for it, but it's likely to be swamped by unnecessariness. This kind of unfocussed and apparently unnecessarily dramatic ego-pushing is a matter of supreme indifference to me. I would prefer to spend my time improving this encyclopedia where I can before I die. You kids! Rodhullandemu 23:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC) lol. Um, I think you and I are in complete agreement on that point! I'm not sure exactly why, or if, you are disagreeing with me, but my comment was intended to be commentary on Malleus' victim complex rather than the competence of any administrator. Resolute 23:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) I am happy someone has brought the issue. I was thinking of doing it myself, after having assisted to this disgusting WQA thread. What is especially concerning is the people that explicitly endorse double standards in favour of MF handwaving "pragmatism". This is much worse than Malleus' behaviour per se. --Cyclopiatalk 22:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Beeblebrox, I'd say an RFC/U is the logical next step. I know you wrote one recently for B9HH. I've not had any experience putting one of those together, but I'd be happy to certify it. Yworo (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I'd certify it, too. I'm almost positive this is my first interaction with MF, and it is an entirely unprovoked personal attack. (Although it was a minor one. Once I replied with my customary snot, I was treated to this devastating zinger.) Şłџğģő 23:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Yes, its definitly a pattern for the user. Friendly questions and requests are met with rudeness and bully remarks.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Can you provide any evidence in support of your prejudice? Malleus Fatuorum 23:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC) It has already been presented. By many different editors.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC) See my comment right above ÅlandÖland's comment. I already typed this out and ÅÖ edit conflicted me with practically the same message. How about that. Şłџğģő 23:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Judging from the exchange that seems to have prompted this, I would say that both users are at fault here. Beeblebrox, perhaps Malleus is unwelcome at your talk page, but in his defense it looks like he was agreeing with you when he first posted there, so "fuck off" is a bit of an over-the-top response (what ever happened to just removing or archiving posts from people who aren't welcome?). Sure, Malleus' behavior has been discussed before and perhaps another discussion needs to be had, but I don't think it would be fair to do that in a context like this where he didn't even throw the first blow. If anyone's going to be chided, both of you can be, and then we can all just move on. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC) *For the record your account is in error, his first post to my page today was this completely out of the blue attack: [205]. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Far more users have indicated a belief that MF doesn't follow WP:CIVIL than have indicated the same towards Beeblebrox. Equivocating those users' civility failings is ridiculous. Şłџğģő 23:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I certainly don't recall BeebleBrox telling me to "fuck off" his talk page, but I may have missed it. Now that he's shown his true colours I'm quite happy to fuck off from his talk page. Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC) If you hate being on Wikipedia then why not find another site where you feel more at home Malleus? Or do you just like to start conflicts?--ÅlandÖland (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I'm here because I think the idea of wikipedia is a worthy one, but I'm here at this ANI cesspit because the idea has clearly been corrupted. Malleus Fatuorum 00:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC) When you edit warred with me several months ago on my talk page, I asked you to stop posting there and removed your comments. When you posted today to call me a liar (I still don't know what it was I am supposed to have lied about) I told you to fuck off, as that sort of language seems to be the only kind you understand and you often use it with others. I don't know why you think I'm incompetent or a disgrace, but I don't believe I belong to any elite cadre of admins, if I do they haven't bothered to let me know I'm a member. If you think I should be desysopped gather your evidence that I have abused the tools or otherwise behaved in a manner unbecoming an administrator and initiate an RFC, don't just come around and make petty insults without even explaining the reasons behind them. In other words: put up or shut up. If you can't substantiate your accusations, keep them to yourself. I would still like to know why Malleus gets a free pass to act like this, if I had behaved as he often does I assuredly would have been desysopped by now. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I'd have thought it was obvious. I think you're incompetent and a disgrace because you are. But let's back to why you started this fiasco. Can you remember? Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC) No, you wouldn't have been desysopped. – B.hotep •talk• 01:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I started this? What was this:[206]. I'll tell you what it was, a completely unprovoked attack with no explanation. The thread was about some very minor involvement I had in a matter nearly a year ago, nobody had commented on the thread in two days, and along you come and start insulting me completely out of the blue for no apparent reason. We call that trolling. You could hardly find fault with my reply since your own talk page contains remarks like this: "As I already said, fuck off and take your poncey attitude elsewhere. Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)". In case it's not clear, in my opinion it is you who are a disgrace, or more accurately your cadre of admin friends who unblock you every time you are rightfully blocked for incivility and personal attacks. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC) You should have been desysopped long before now, because you do exactly as those you so vehemently denounce for "incivilty". That you're clearly unable to see that speaks volumes. Malleus Fatuorum 02:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Please calm down Particularly here on ANI, it would be very helpful if all parties stopped making personal attacks and hostile comments. Please stop poking and baiting each other as well. These incidents are stressful enough without a whole large group of editors all descending into a flame war on a public page. If you are planning to post and cannot do so in a calm and respectful manner, consider that perhaps your comment is not going to be helpful and advance reviewing the situation and case, and might not be a good idea to post at all. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Here here. Everyone needs to calm down. I've found that when people act rudely to me, I just reply with random things like Red Sox statistics, or whatever the hell I want to talk about and it makes me feel better. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Why is this so complicated? MF's comments here and on Beeblebrox's talk page are clearly out of bounds, are blockable, and are well within the purpose of issuing blocks. We don't need an RfC to figure that out. This matter is stale so it's a moot point. But next time a block will help prevent this needless drama and time sink, why not simply do it and if any administrator cares to overturn civility blocks they do so at the risk of sullying their own record? If you do that, MF will either clean up his act or leave the encyclopedia on his own... waiting for this to accumulate to the breaking point because nobody is ready to act until then will probably result in a community ban. Although people should not be calling administrators liars, etc., there is an expectation that administrators should tolerate the abuse that often comes with the role with some amount of grace and decorum. If Beeblebrox is a poor administrator or is engaging in disruption that should be blocked (something I have no opinion about), there are forums for dealing with that too. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC) They do seem out of bounds, but if Beeblebrox can't politely ask MF to stop, there are proper channels to get MF to stop or voice his concerns in a more constructive manner. Once BB stooped to MF's level, all sides were at fault, regardless of what actually started the conflict. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC) My feelings exactly. MF's comments in this thread alone are already sufficient to justify a longish block. Nsk92 (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC) It won't happen. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I, personally, know that. I think most everybody here does. The question is, why not? Şłџğģő 04:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC) It's kind of like trying to deal with a rabid dog in your backyard. Rather than confronting it, you just hope it will go away. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC) But it never does, it just sits there in the backyard, foaming at the mouth and bringing down real-estate values in the neighborhood. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Eventually an RfC/U will be started, then ArbCom will be called in, and after many hourse of testimony, something might happen. That, in a nutshell, is why admins put up with it until everybody gets mad at the guy, then something will happen. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Alternately, an administrator could simply cut to the chase and issue a longish block when there's gross incivility that needs to stop. That takes all of a minute. I don't see why nobody has the resolve to do what needs to be done, and to brush off the inevitable name-calling that results. That's what we elect them for, isn't it? RfA isn't to elect a bunch of dog catchers who refuse to catch dogs. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC) In theory, yes. And then another admin would immediately unblock the guy, and then a megillah would be unrolled here and ultimately nothing would come of it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Which begs the ultimate question, since MF obviously has no control over whether or not he gets blocked. What in hell is the matter with the various admins in MF's pocket? My favorite is Gwen Gale's, who has impressively made it this far without ever reading the civility policy. Şłџğģő 04:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC) If I understand you, you're mistaken Sluggo, I support short, preventative civility blocks, but when one admin out of one or two dozen (or more) can undo them without consulting the blocking admin, knowing that WP:WHEEL has sway over a further block, civility among experienced editors here is trashed. These uncivil editors not only use their slurs and baiting to win content disputes, they drive far more helpful content contributors away than they could ever make up for with their own contributions. I say keep blocking them until they either learn how to contribute without snark, or leave the project, because they do much harm to it. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I think my favorite in that block log is the admin who undid a 24-hour block after 12 minutes with the note "ineffective block". Well... yeah, the block is pretty much ineffective when you undo it. Given the propensity for some admins to unblock them no matter what, the rest of the admin corps deals with people like MF and Giano as if they were unstoppable elemental forces of nature -- I mean, you can complain about the weather, but there's not much you can do about it, really. MF & G realize this, and correctly ascertain that they have carte blanche to behave any way they wish. From their point of view, that's a perfectly rational response to their situation; unpleasant, uncivil and frequently rather nasty, but entirely rational. Since that's the situation, and it doesn't seem likely to change anytime soon, it's probably best to just mentally pigeonhole them into the appropriate slot, and try to ignore them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Per Bugs and BMK above, and per me as well. It's obviously my raison d'etre to be a poncey asshole and to have the last word of course, but for all that I recommend leaving this user in peace while he works through his civility issues, and if that fails, draft a properly constructed RFC/U. As with a certain other user, they enjoy extra leeway because they add value to the encyclopedia, and so there is no stomach for a community ban. RFC/U then Arbcomm if necessary. Of course as I said in the second diff, if MF could just express his dissent about the injustices and "hypocrisy" that he sees on the site in more socially acceptable ways, life would be so much easier for everyone. It seems that he doesn't have that in him at the moment, sadly. So leave him alone, ignore him if you can, and if it's still like this in a week or two, seek the next step, would be my advice. --John (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Malleus block log and absolute indifference -if not conscious opposition- to everyone asking him to behave differently seem to indicate your "wait-and-see" strategy is not going to work. --Cyclopiatalk 09:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I just love this, people getting oh so het up about Malleus' 'incivility' whilst at the same time comparing him to a foaming at the mouth rabid dog. Hypocritical idiots. Quantpole (talk) 10:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC) What a load of rot. Malleus is a fine editor, and there are far better things to be doing than conducting bloody witchhunts against the bloke. But, of course, the admin corps need their pound of flesh and wouldn't dare go looking for it amongst themselves. Skinny87 (talk) 11:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC) OOh please, Malleus has given incivility a name... just look it up in a dictionairy and you find Malleus profile there:)--ÅlandÖland (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Quantpole and Skinny87, I don't think anyone is denying that MF is, in some ways, a fine editor. Thing is, he also seems to have a dirty word problem. None of us is perfect of course, but I don't think it is hypocritical to question what we should do about this user's serial incivility (no scare quotes). It certainly can't go on long term. In suggesting folks try to ignore him and see if he settles down on his own, I am in no way condoning his behavior. Just trying to be pragmatic about how we deal with it. --John (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC) It is hypocritical to ignore the numerous fuck offs from Beeblebrox and the incivilities in this very discussion from various other editors. Stop treating Wikipedia as some sort of grudge match by abusing the incivility policy to go after those you don't happen to like. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Ok people, let's try this again. Here are the facts: Last year Malleus and I did indeed have an edit war on my talk page. We both edit warred, I'll admit that. He persistently posted remarks after I asked him to stop and I kept replacing them with a "don't feed the trolls" graphic I should think Malleus got the point from that incident that I did not wish him to post further to my talk page Yesterday for no apparent reason he began posting there again, beginning with an edit in which he called me a liar but did not explain what I was lying about That is trolling, plain and simple I told him to fuck off He posted some more remarks I told him to fuck off again He posted some more remarks I removed those remarks from my talk page and initiated this thread Malleus called me a twat when I informed of this thread as required by policy Malleus posted here saying he didn't remember being told to fuck off from my talk page even though he had already recored the remark on his own talk page Malleus plays the victim and keeps attacking me by saying I am incompetent an a liar yet refuse to substantiate those claims I still don't know what made him want to show up on my talk page uninvited and began insulting me, but I stand by my statement that it was trolling. If not, then what was it? What possible purpose was served by it? This is not a witch hunt, I didn't come after Malleus, he came after me for no apparent reason. Trolling is trolling no matter who does it, and Malleus trolled my talk page. I admit I fell for it and responded emotionally, which is exactly what trolls want. Malleus claims to hate the drama, and yet he undeniably stirred this up himself. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC) MF telling anyone to "grow up" is ironic, and also funny, since that kind of comment is most typically made by a teenager. Adults don't tell each other to "grow up". I think you should simply roll back any post on your page by MF, without comment, justified based on being strictly harassment. From what I've seen, he has no intention of "working out his incivility problems", and if the admins won't block him, the only effective strategy is to treat him as if he were already banned, rolling back any comments on your talk page as if they had been posted by any old perennial troll. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC) You may be right, but you're almost certainly wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Compliance with WP:CIV should never be considered optional I don't know the principals in this dispute. But I believe I do know two important points, made above, but important enough to repeat here. As we all learned in kindergarten, "two wrongs don't make a right". I think our policies and other wikidocuments are clear on this -- when we feel someone is being rude to us, or personally attacking us, we are never supposed to respond in kind. As another contributor wrote: "There are a group of users including many admins who feel that WP:CIV is optional for good contributors." I can definitely confirm that some of the wikipedia's administrators act as if the wikipedia's civility policies do not apply to them. I would strongly urge those administrators to do what we are all supposed to do when we feel tempted to respond in kind to perceived incivility. Asking for help, or the opinion, of uninvolved third parties, is a good choice. I don't like being the target of incivility, and personal attacks. But I find it a lot easier to handle that kind of behavior from non-administrators, who are my equals, and can't use their administrator tools to retaliate. I request any administrator who doesn't feel willing or able to comply with the wikipedia's civility policies to resign their administratorship, because I think we should all agree that compliance with those policies should never be considered optional. Geo Swan (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I agree wholeheartedly with most, but the discussion isn't (or wasn't, in any case) about an administrator. The most well-known "problem editors" in this vein aren't admins. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Uh, I am an admin. And I did tell Malleus to fuck off. And I would do so again if he posted to my talk page again. If every admin who had traded insults with Malleus resigned we would be short staffed in a hurry, despite his victim act he obviously enjoys stirring up drama, or else why did he begin posting insults to my talk page yesterday? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC) We would certainly be rid of the worst of them, which those more honest than yourself might consider to be a good thing. Malleus Fatuorum 21:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC) The best way to deal with foul-language, is to ignore the foul-languager. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC) And the best way to deal with trolling is to block the person doing it, yet nobody will do it to "the unblockable one." Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC) But if no one will do it at present, be patient, grasshopper. As with other now-banned users, he will eventually get enough users fed up that appropriate action be taken. One thing to keep in mind: If someone is uncivil with you, that does not diminish you, it only diminishes the name-caller. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Malleus just appears disappointed that this potentially limitless resource has become instead an online game of "gotcha". What is contributed by any editor is less important his ability to play by the rules of several nonsensical social games which have nothing to do with actually building anything encyclopedia-like. In this "Civility" game what is said is less important than how it is said. "Incivility" never caused any harm to the encyclopedia. If a good, productive, valuable editor tells you to "fuck off", well then do that, and get back to work. If Malleus' choice of words offend you, then perhaps they were meant to, and perhaps for a good reason. Malleus is not "playing victim". He's a disillusioned idealist. That the ban of such a valuable editor is considered all-but-inevitable by both him and others says more about the the project than it does about the editor. So says I. Dekkappai (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC) What a fascinating and enlightening discussion. Not. Have your necktie party wherever you like, it's your loss, not mine. Malleus Fatuorum 21:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Jimbo treats CIV as optional - choosing to insult or attack editors he doesn't like. Many admins treat CIV as optional - choosing to insult or attack editors they don't like. Often, it's the admins who most often resort to abusive language and personal attacks who make the most noise about trying to kick of editors who sometimes stoop to their level. DuncanHill (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC) So? Much as he likes to think of himself as such and much as the brown-nosers and sycophants like to believe the contrary, he is not God! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC) So ban him then, or haven't you got the balls? Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC) @BB: Bingo! Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Editor requiring extraordinary reference and has just removed all 25 Ref's

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

Wrong venue. Please follow the dispute resolution guidelines. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 19:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

An editor is requiring a citation in a form beyond any reasonable interpretation of practice or policy. The sentence being questioned is simple, clear and concise - the supporting references deep, sober and widely available. Frankly, I'm at a loss as to how one meets impossible and unrealistic demands. The entire, short, incident is found here:http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Talk:PIGS_(economics)#BRIC.27s

The editor has now removed all 25 references (replacing each with ("Cite needed tags") and has made a specific demand for me to go through this with all 25... This is not behavior commonly associated with Good Faith practices.99.141.254.167 (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

For ease and clarity, this was the edit being discussed in the section linked above: "Members of the Spanish and other international economic press continue to use the term of art in its narrow and restricted economic sense as a grouping acronym like the related BRIC."

Numerous ref's are to be found in the talk section that is linked.99.141.254.167 (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page discussion it seems to me the editor is correctly stating that the 25 refs do not support the actual statement made, without engaging in synthesis. The sources do not support the direct statement made, rather they are various unrelated tangents from which one is drawing a conclusion. This is what we consider original research and thus his removal of the claimed sources and tagging for needing an actual citation would be correct. Also, this really isn't an administrative issue at this point. Dispute resolution would be the appropriate first step, such as asking a third opinion (which I've now given unofficially here), asking members of the related project to weigh in, or filing an WP:RFC. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The matter is not simply that one sentence. The issue relates to how sources are being treated though the entire article following a rewrite by 99.141.*.*.

99.141.*.* boldly rewrote the article. A series of reverting between myself and 99.141.*.* ensued where I asked him/her to discuss his changes on the talk page or to say where he/she saw probems with the previous version.

There are many problems that I see with the new version. Use of citations is one. Many of the citation in 99.141.*.*'s rewrite seem to have been attributed to statements without a great deal of attention being given to whether those references actually support the statements being made. Additional commentary and original interpretation is a particular problem.

99.141.*.* is very determined that his rewrite will stay (see the edit history, I stopped reverting when he/she broke 3RR). However, if the rewrite is to stay then it has to be reference properly IMHO. As stated on the article talk page, my intention with removing all of the references was to keep 99.141.*.* text but to start with a blank slate with respect to referencing. The references can then be added to the new text in a manner where we can have confidence that statements made in article is actually what is supported by the reference without additional interpretation or synthesis.

I would suggest that 99.141.*.* simply re-adds the references but with a quotation accompanying each one to show that what the reference says is that he/she attributes to the reference in his/her rewrite. --RA (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2010 (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.

Strangeness at Consumer Watchdog article

Resolved

 – DeeKay64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked indefinitely as a sock of WiccaWeb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Feel free to take this to SPI to verify. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Back in April, a long term sock (User:Proxy User) of User:WiccaWeb began edit warring at Consumer Watchdog to insert some poorly researched original research, with an occasional citation to a blog. Both of those accounts (and some other related socks) are now indefinitely blocked. User:DeeKay64 has since taken up the exact same cause, alleging that the Consumer Watchdog organization is some sort of a front for Microsoft (apparently because of their domain name whois record)? User:DeeKay64 admits to being a sock, but I thought it would appropriate to bring this strange set of circumstances here, since it's becoming a bit of an ongoing issue. jæs (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a visit to WP:RFCU is appropriate as well if you haven't already gone there, just to see who this new sock belongs truly belongs to just in case if it's not Proxy User. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• I have blocked the self-admitted block-evading alternate account, of course. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center

Resolved

 – more participants welcome at the talk page, though. Jclemens (talk) 02:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please look at the edit warring at this article and at the report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring‎ of the editor involved? He's citing BLP as his reason for multiple reverts - at least 5 now I think. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I'm the editor who keeps removing the possible BLP until Talk is completed. The page is now protected, by the way. And I appreciate Dougweller leaving an unbiased message. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

6 times now in fact. If this is a BLP issue why are you edit warring without reporting it to WP:BLPN? The talk page isn't the best place to discuss BLP issues. Dougweller (talk) 02:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think LAEC has some good points, and the BLP issues aren't entirely unreasonable, but they're far from intuitively obvious. In disputed BLP matters like this, I endorse the full protection without blocking the editors involved, and the discussion proceeding on the talk page. Jclemens (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Article protected by CIreland (talk · contribs). Is this thread resolved? - 2/0 (cont.) 02:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Mathsci

Unresolved

Subpaged to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Race and intelligence @115K. Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

Self-outing by new editor

Would an admin take a look here please? I'm not sure if the editor really meant to reveal his/her email address in the edit summary but it probably wouldn't hurt to go ahead and delete it. I left on note on the User Page about it (linking here). SQGibbon (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've deleted the edit summary for that diff. I'm not sure what to do now, but since it has been mentioned in a public forum now it needed to go from public view ASAP. If anyone thinks full Oversight is needed, please go ahead and request it. Courcelles (talk) 05:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Should I have not mentioned it here? Would there have been a better way for me to have handled it? SQGibbon (talk) 05:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I prefer to immediately hit the revdel button, then go to User:Oversight and send it as an e-mail to that account, which is processed through OTRS to everyone with the Oversight permission- that way the diff is never drawn attention to in public. The oversight crew is usually pretty fast about such things. I've heard IRC can be used, but I can't say I have any experience with the medium. Courcelles (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. Will remember that in case it happens again. SQGibbon (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no effective difference between revdel and oversight; revdel hides the information from everyone, and sysops can press a button to view it, while oversight hides the information from everyone, and oversighters can press a button to view it. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Self-disclosure is not oversightable (nor should it be rev deleted) unless it is an accident. Which this doesn't appear to be. Prodego ^talk 03:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

However, most new Wikipedia editors do not know that there a talk page exists, so they think that their only form of communication is e-mail. If they did know that they had a talk page, they probably would not have posted their e-mail. However, that's just my two cents. Consider it however you wish. Cheers, —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Colton Harris-Moore edit

I just stumbled upon this edit to the Colton Harris-Moore page; does anyone think this may be an issue to report to the police? -download ׀ sign! 22:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to do so--any user who believes it to be a worthwhile effort is welcome to. Jclemens (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

If this article exists on Wikipedia, I suppose the cops probably already know about this issue. If what the IP says is true, it is probably not true anymore, as he has probably moved to another location. Feel free to report to the police if you wish. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks by IP accounts 94.116.37.43, 69.110.12.49, 68.122.34.169

Resolved

 – 94.116.37.43 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is blocked temporarily; 69.110.12.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 68.122.34.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are warned. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

IP account 94.116.37.43

• here Pejorative ethnic reference and referring to another editor as a “war criminal.”

• here refers to me as a “racist and a “war criminal.”

• notification

IP account 69.110.12.49

• here Referring to an edit as “vandalism.”

• notification

IP account 68.122.34.169

• here Referring to an edit as “sabotage.”

• notification

It is also likely that the IP accounts are socks of each other since the attacks were coordinated and took place within a short time of each other. Requesting block of these IP accounts.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any kind of racial or ethnic slur should be tolerable here and have dealt with that IP appropriately, I believe Toddst has warned the other two. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Karunyan continued stalking

Karunyan (talk · contribs) was indef blocked following an Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive604#Karunyan Continuing Wikihounding/Trolling After 72 hour block and the revelation that he was using sock pupppets to further his stalking of myself. He has continued using some 20 or more IP and named sock puppets in his unrelenting stalking (see SPI for some confirmed). In the SPI, two range blocks appear to have been instituted, which stopped it for awhile, but not long. When he reemerged last time, I asked one of the admins, User:MuZemike, from that SPI if another range block could be instituted, but apparently a high school is in that range (and likely where this guy is coming from) so the collateral damage was seen as too high[207]. That this guy is still doing this mess more than two months later seems to be a sign of his having some serious issues.

I just discovered today that he used more IP socks to register User:CoIectonian (obvious spoof of User:Collectonian) to create Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Giraffedata then populated it with two IP socks[208][209] Presumably it is also in direct response to my complaints about Giraffedata at the Village Pump[210] and User:Seresin's closing that and stating RfC was the best course of action to take[211]

What, if anything, can be done at this point? Can a range block be done, regardless of the damage, or is it basically a matter of just live with it and hope each and every one is blocked quickly? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

ping....seriously, he's now hit this twice, and nothing...*sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Worst-case scenario with a range-block would be 256 x 256 IP addresses blocked, which is probably too wide. A more knowledgeable IP wonk, SPI clerk or checkuser could probably cut that down quite a lot, but it may still be too broad. Stick with SPI, the good folk there are a good bet for helping with range-blocks.

My experience with similar socks is that your "live with it and hope..." solution is the one that is easiest applied... sorry, I'm sure that's not what you wanted to hear.

There is a forum for dealing with long-term abuse; I've not used it and don't know how effective it would be.

I'd suggest the next step should be to request that Karunyan be community banned. In the past there was little difference between and indef block and a community ban; these days it seems that a community ban allows an editor to be repeatedly reverted on sight, which may serve to discourage them, and also draws attention to them (hastening the "B" and "I" steps in WP:RBI). (I believe that the same does not apply to a merely indef blocked editor - I hope I'm wrong, but don't believe so).

TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 13:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a discussion above where the issue of indef blocks vs. community bans is mentioned. B discusses changes at WP:3RR and WP:BAN. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 14:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, LTR seems mostly useful for just documenting behavior. As the one of Bambifan101 has shown, it doesn't really help stop the abuse, just make it easier for folks to see the history. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Can't argue with that, I think that may have been my thinking when I looked into it.

If you wanted to call for a community ban of Karunyan, I'd certainly be willing to second it... though that still keeps us playing whack-a-sock. But I guess that's really our only option, barring a possible rangeblock.

TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 18:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah...if a rangeblock can't be done, not sure there is much else to do. Community ban would just be a formality at this point and seeing as you're the only one who even answered this despite his continued disruptions here....it is a rather sad statement of things as a whole. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• If for no other reason than to give clearance to revert and block on sight, I'd support a formal community ban. I blocked a couple of the IP's a couple days ago, but this person goes through them so fast that I'm not sure it did any good. Courcelles (talk) 05:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've blocked 59.96.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and 59.92.96.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for 3 months, collateral be damned. I've seen enough. Oh, and he's banned as no sane admin would unblock, but if someone really want to formalize it it's fine with me. Tim Song (talk) 07:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Much much much appreciated. Thank you. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like he has a named sock that was made before the range block, ConductResult (talk · contribs), whose only edits have been very random edits to Lad, A Dog (kept undoing himself), an article I have up for FAC, uploading a new version of File:Anna Tower.JPG, an image uploaded to the Commons by Karunyan with his sock Karunyam[212], and to post to my talk page about the range block stating "Actually all he blocked was just three or four floors of some obscure hotel in Chennai, India. It also seems that surfers who connect with their laptops to the wireless network in the ground floor of this hotel connect through the range 59.94.224.0/19 "[213]. May need to do a CU to find the rest before this is truly ended for awhile. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't hear myself think over all the quacking. Blocked. Courcelles (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

And another User:ColIectonian (another spoof of User:Collectonian - either he made a stable of these things, or he's getting around the range block. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, and I've asked a checkuser to take a look. Tim Song (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, found another TheCoIlectonian (talk · contribs) that recreated the RfC/U above, but is already blocked for the username. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone got that one, as well. I've also placed a month's semi-protection on Lad, A Dog to... well, I'm not sure what. Move this tomfoolery somewhere else, at least. Courcelles (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2  Confirmed by Deskana (talk · contribs) that ColIectonian == ConductResult. Sadly no IP block possible. Tim Song (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Pooh on the range block...is there anyway to do any kinda filter on the username to auto alert if a play on Collectonian shows up? As it is a made up word, there is no way anyone would be using it as a legitimate user name. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

(←) Not a filter, but perhaps a bot? User:X! runs a namewatcher bot for UAA, perhaps you could check with them? Tim Song (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Left him a note, though he is mostly on a wikibreak, it seems like he is checking his user talk :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Question If someone stalks another user on here, should we call the police?--222.154.163.53 (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This is just what I love about Wikipedia. When your an IP and you ask a serious question, a) your question is ignored b) some smelly snotrag admin or admin-wannabe goes and checks your contributions like your a crook. Fucking twats!--222.154.163.53 (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I check everyone's contributions like they're a crook ;-)

To answer your question, no, almost certainly not. If you're talking about the "stalking" alleged above, then it simply means one editor examining another editor's edits in an inappropriate manner - that's something we'd look at here, and is in no way a matter for the police. If you're talking about something else, then I'd suggest that - at least initially - you describe it here. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 18:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

While some places have laws against such actions, as long as it is purely on Wiki and the perpetrators are not in the same country as the victim, there is little to no point in doing so. If it gets really bad, the first action would be contacting the ISP. And, FYI, calling people "twats" is certainly not a way to make anyone think your question is legitimate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

@IP: Your assumption is wrong when you stated that either your question is ignored or some admin checks your contributions like a crook. Most of us treat IPs as equally as users, since some IP editors have their reasons not to register for an account; indeed, some IPs are quite active in editing legitimately. It is just the fact that vandalism usually comes from IPs that makes IPs look bad; however, since users vandalize equally much (sometimes more – for instance, the "Grawp" incident), that is a bad assumption of an average IP editor. To answer your question: No, we should not call the police, as the editors above have stated. The "stalking" on this wiki refers to WP:STALKING, not real-life stalking. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, calling users "snotrag admin", "admin-wannabe", or "fucking twats" is not acceptable on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks for more information. If you want someone to help or listen to you, insulting them isn't going to help. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)