Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Give us your fucking money

I moved this discussion from the Help Desk--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw a banner on Wikipedia that said this. I don't care if Wikipedia has articles on sex-related stuff, because children won't see them unless they want to. But they will see this banner even if they don't want to. I'm not going to donate, and I'm going to tell children not to read Wikipedia in case they see this banner. And where do I complain about such banners? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.57.203 (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This banner was on someone's user page, as I recall. Whose page was it (I can't remember)? I thought it was a fairly harmless joke, but understand how some might be offended. Also, this question might receive prompter attention on WP:AN/I.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Assuming the above recollection is correct, I agree with the anon. Wikipedia isn't censored of course, but that sounds unnecessarily crude, even in user space. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the harm, in user space. I curse in my user space pretty regularly. Parents who don't want their children exposed to the word 'fuck' probably should monitor their internet usage very, very closely. I sympathize with this user, but- well, since we don't know where the banner is, we can't even go and look at it for ourselves and see whether it's appropriate or not. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It is of course a quote from Bob Geldof, from the original Live Aid tv broadcast. Is it possible somebody has typed this in with a donation, and it's got into the rotation of quotes on the official banner ad? Jheald 14:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A paraphrase of a quote, I think; I have a vague recollection that either Rory Bremner or Spitting Image started that meme. Guy (Help!) 00:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

(EC) I think the IP may be referring to the Bob Geldof article... Or not? pedro gonnet - talk - 09.11.2007 14:38

No, i saw the banner myself, it was intended to be a harmless joke i think. I can't remember where i saw it though. Woodym555 14:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In any event, Wikipedia is not censored. Dppowell 14:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(copied reply from help desk)Woodym555 14:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC):

Image:Giveit.jpg and Image:Giveit.png was a little joke as the author Neil says at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Donation Banner. It is apparently only displayed on User talk:Addhoc, User:Jeffpw, User talk:Jeffpw and User talk:Dynaflow. They are just three of a huge number of Wikipedia editors and they personally chose to add this (see [1] for Addhoc) to their own user or talk pages. User space like this is not a part of the encyclopedia and I hope you don't advice people against Wikipedia based on something in user space. PrimeHunter 14:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried to copy it myself but got edit conflict twice. The second time was with Woodym555 copying it! PrimeHunter 14:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you've got to be quick at this game. ;) Woodym555 14:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I took it off my talk page in case it offended anyone. I still think it's awesome, though. Neil ☎ 14:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree that there is no need for admin action here. The banner, while somewhat offensive, is displayed only on a handful of individual user pages that are virtually impossible to stumble upon accidentally. And it is obviously a parody of the famous Geldof quote. No policy has been violated. -- Satori Son 14:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It says "Give us your fucking money" with a link to the official fundraising page http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising, and it's displayed above the page name like other donation banners. Many people don't know users can edit there and readers (like the original poster) are likely to think it's an official banner. This is unfortunate. I think that if it stays then it should be made more clear to readers that individual editors are choosing to display this in their own space. PrimeHunter 15:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, PrimeHunter is absolutely right. In addition, the same policies apply to userspace that apply to any other part of Wikipedia. WP:Profanity, although a guideline not a policy, is fairly clear:

Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if they are informative, relevant and accurate, and should be avoided when they serve no other purpose than to shock the reader. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.

I think this clearly falls into the latter bracket, and the users in question should be asked to be a bit more careful. Waggers 15:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel as the creator of this little image I should point out I - in no way - intended it as a parody of Bob Geldolf, as I was unaware he even said such a thing, and wish to dissociate myself entirely from him, his daughters, and his maelevolent beard. I just made it for a joke on Wikipedia:Fundraising redesign. Neil ☎ 15:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I see this on the main page FA. --Kaypoh 16:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I keep reverting the IP whose doing it as vandalism because article space is not a place for these things, and it's obviously being done in bad faith. Bmg916^Speak 16:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should semi-protect it. --Kaypoh 16:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said an AN, I love the alternative banner. Since my walk to work every morning takes me straight through the heart of San Francisco's lovely Tenderloin District, that is the kind of language I've come to expect to hear when being solicited for "donations." If the typical Wikipedia reader would be shocked by the word "fucking" [cringe] and would not immediately realize the banner is satirical, I guess I have no choice but to take it down. I did copy the code to make the thing transclude in place of the real donation banner from elsewhere, and if I got rid of that part and just had the image as obviously a part of my userspace, I don't think it would cause quite as much of a fracas should someone be ... accidentally exposed. Page visitors would then have an extra clue, above and beyond the banner's content, that it's satire. --Dynaflow babble 03:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That horrible begging banner currently defacing every single page of this fucking project is what offends me. It's just so...Wikipedian <shudder>. I commend Neil for giving us an alternate that actually puts a smile on my face (though under no circumstances will anything compel me to put any money into this project's pockets--my free labor will have to be enough). For me the choice is clear: it's either the "fucking money" banner (which is really what you're trying to say with the original, dreadful banner) or stop editing until the beg-a-thon is over for the year. Jeffpw 17:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Using this image is probably a bad idea. It's needlessly crude and serves no encyclopedia purpose. Friday (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Friday, I just visited your userpage, and those pink whatevertheyares scared the hell out of me. Do they accomplish anything encyclopedic on your page??????? If not, I'm afraid they'll have to go, no matter how attached you are to them. Jeffpw 17:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone can make a reasonable case that they bring the project into disrepute, I'll remove them without complaint. Friday (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen no reasonable case made about the banner; just the usual gosh gollying about little tots and their innocent eyes. Last I heard one could say "fuck' in a PG movie, so I doubt any brat coming to Wikipedia would be led down the primrose path to hell by seeing the word on my pages. Jeffpw 18:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there has been a semi-reasonable case made--that some people may mistake this for an official banner and take the Wikimedia Foundation (or whatever they're called) to be somewhat unprofessional. Not every new editor understands the distinction between userspace and mainspace. Note that I don't necessarily buy this argument, but I don't think it's entirely meritless. In general, though, I'm in favor of more wikijokes, not less.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Peeps make a queasy whenever I see them, and they bring back bad childhood memories of The Worst Easter Ever. Anyway, there's a difference between being obscene for the sake of being obscene, and taking elements of what might otherwise be obscene and using them for a satirical purpose. The banner in question is clearly an example of the latter. --Dynaflow babble 18:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is really being added to articles like the FA of the day, a sensible solution would be adding both versions to the MediaWiki:Bad image list with appropriate userspace exceptions.--chaser - t 18:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. [EDIT:] Make that all three versions; here's another: Image:Giveit.svg. --Dynaflow babble 18:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with temporarily adding these three images to the Bad Image List to prevent vandalism, but I still want to be on record as opposing any application of WP:PROFANITY here. Surely the community did not intend that guideline to prohibit the use of colorful language in an obvious satire used only on personal user pages. I fully realize we have to draw the line somewhere, but this behavior doesn’t cross it. — Satori Son 18:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. — Satori Son 18:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Satori, did your edit interfere with the image displaying on my user and talk page? Because it's just a blue link now. Jeffpw 19:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As I understood that MediaWiki feature, it is only supposed to prevent use of those images "inline in articles", but I cannot see the image on your page either. Anyone else more familiar with this feature with some insight? — Satori Son 19:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like user pages require exceptions as well. Fixed by others - thanks. — Satori Son 19:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here, after all WIkipedia is not censored, and it's funny as hell!! (except if you're the Moral Majority ) ;) KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 19:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Kosh Vorlon

I think restricting it to userpage only is a sensible solution, good stuff. Neil ☎ 20:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to restrict it to a single "domain," or is the only option to restrict the image from all of Wikipedia and list one-page exceptions one at a time? --Dynaflow babble 20:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not think there is any such mechanism in the software. I don't mind including people in the list if they ask at my userpage. ··coelacan 20:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that there is any need for restrictions. I would hope, however, that people would have the common sense and maturity not to use it. I guess it shows quite clearly what kind of people we have on this project, and so in that sense is not misleading donors. User:Veesicle 20:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It was showing up in the featured article earlier, so the potential for abuse is pretty high and I think the Bad Image List is a workable solution. As for the kind of people we have around here, well, we have various sorts, including the sort who don't care for what they perceive as intrusive pledge-driving and who, in the relative autonomy of their own userspace, prefer to subvert that with an irreverent and light-hearted jab. And I wouldn't want it any other way. ··coelacan 20:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If they have a problem with the WMF needing money, they are welcome to edit another wiki. User:Veesicle 21:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

They certainly are. And they are welcome to edit here as well. Last I checked, we do not demand that editors sign loyalty oaths. ··coelacan 21:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No, but it is rather childish. User:Veesicle 00:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Giveit.svg now helpfully offers: To use this image legitimately, such as in an article about human anatomy or physiology,... I'm now dreaming of legitimately attaching it to such an article. Hm, spleen, perhaps? Bile? (Moreover, it would seem to belong in [non-anatomical, non-physiological] expletive.) -- Hoary 00:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Something else: The banner says "Donate to Wikipedia NOW!". Donations are to the Wikimedia Foundation and help Wikipedia but "Donate to Wikipedia" could be considered misleading. I'm not a lawyer and don't know whether there are legal implications. PrimeHunter 01:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If one wished to donate to Wikipedia, he or she would do so through the Foundation, as my understanding goes. There's no logical conflict there. --Dynaflow babble 11:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Shop steward's thoughts

While I personally don't struggle with this, I know that this banner can easily be considered harassment. I'm not sure about how this is treated on the web, but if it were in a workplace, and someone might look there FROM a workplace ......., or most other places, one would be vulnerable to complaints on the grounds of the local human rights code. Also, it does not portray a desirable image. I personally despise political correctness with a passion and view it as a plague and would view the inventor of it and ardent supporters of it as hypocritical, holier-than-thou twits. However, the law is the law and there is little anyone can do about that. One can easily make a case, that no part of an encyclopedia should be such as to communicate on that level AND be linked to an official part of the site. It is asking for trouble and degrading to the image of the whole site. Were it allowed, one could then also make a case for permitting that sort of language in discourse between editors. That, however, is not allowed. I would love to use more emphatic language with some individuals on here and am prevented from doing so by the rules. In short, the banner should be altered to delete the f word. If not, then why not say: "Give us your motherf?$§*ß%& money." Or how about: "Give us your motherf.... money, you stupid, motherf&%$, etc." Where do you draw the line, once you allow it? I know that as a union steward, if I had to defend a member who had been disciplined for the use of such terminology, I'd have a serious case. Even if I dealt with it under a collective bargaining agreement, that still leaves the path open for charges with the local human rights commission..... You just don't want to go there in today's environment. Even celebrities are losing their jobs over this stuff now. --Achim 03:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

For the thousandth time, "Wikipedia is not censored." Please actually go and read that official and non-negotiable policy. We actually have an article entitled f*ck, and it's not going anywhere. We also have articles for sh*t, c*nt, and a**hole. (Yes, ironically I prefer to self-censor my own language, but no policy requires me to do so.)

We make no guarantees that the website is safe for any workplace, nor will we ever. That argument has no legal relevance whatsoever. — Satori Son 04:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I just did some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis and pornography) and do not violate any of our existing policies . One, this isn't an encyclopedic image being used in an article. So its relevance to the content doesn't really apply here. As far as violating existing policy, some people might consider this to be a little uncivil. 'not censored' doesn't protect this, yet civil would indicate it shouldn't be here.--Crossmr 01:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You're joking, right? "If it were a workplace" It's not, it's a website. There are no collective bargaining agreements and the only work contracts apply to a half-dozen foundation employees who have no connection to this situation whatsoever.--chaser - t 06:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That is just funny :) - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I Would like this on my userpage, if at all possible - would it be in any way possible o the bad imag list to permit it to be use here? No more bongos 06:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I added your userpage as an exception for all three images [2].--chaser - t 06:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for typos, my keyboard is broken. Especially E, D and N. No more bongos 06:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't sweat it.--chaser - t 06:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... No more bongos 07:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if we're taking requests, I'd like to use the banner also. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 00:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Also  Done.--chaser - t 00:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that sort of language is all OK, then why don't we go much further? And since we're not censored, then why not throw "being civil" out as well? So that means anything goes, right? What about the N word? I made it quite clear that I was not making claims to legalities here. It's just that it's a slippery slope, once you allow that sort of thing. Apart from that, ask yourself this: If you have never previously considered donating, would you be more likely to donate if the request contained the F-word? Personally, I am not, much as I am amused at the use of it here, but it certainly does not make me more likely to donate. So what's the point of having it? Amusing the author of the banner? --Achim 02:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Consider it a bit of rebellion from good standing contributors. I've donated money to the foundation, I'll donate again. The fundraiser banner annoys regular contributors because it is unnecessary to use. If I use a Wikimedia foundation project daily, I don't need to see a banner. But I have no choice. It's akin to being a listener to National Public Radio during pledge campaigns but with the ability to comment in response. As mentioned before, Wikipedia is not censored and so follows that the word "fuck" in satire is applicable. If it trips your work filters, sorry for that as well but that's a baseless claim for removal if that is the ultimate problem. By rhetorical definition, those offended are the on the Slippery slope's fallacy. Just keep on editing. Keegan^talk 06:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As I just pointed out above, "not censored" doesn't protect this usage in non-article space. Not censored protects the use of words and images that people might find offensive when they are necessary to article space. It doesn't give you license to fill an article with "fuck" and in fact the policy clearly states that its only allowed so long as it doesn't violate any other policy. So you might want to cruise over to WP:CIVIL and have a read. Which obviously some people feel this doesn't jive with.--Crossmr 15:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are asking to go re-read Wikipedia:Civility, but let me assure you that I am extremely familiar with that policy. Especially the part that says "Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress." And the part that says "Profanity directed at another contributor." Please note carefully the "personally targeted" and "at another contributor" language I have bolded.

If someone visited your talk page and demanded that you "f*cking donate," that would be a completely different issue. But colorfully worded satire on your own personal user page is not a violation of any official policy, and it never has been.

I hope it doesn't sound like I am completely insensitive to your concerns. I personally do not approve of such language: I don't use it here and I wish that others would not either. But just as I argued that the personal essay "Don't be a f*cking douchebag" was not a policy violation, I will always defend those who choose to use profanity in a way that is not uncivil. It is simply not behavior that requires administrator attention or action. If someone feels that it should be, they should make a formal proposal at the pump. -- Satori Son 00:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Humour is not universal and you're going to have to accept that fact that obviously this isn't universally hilarious as its seemed to be thought. But I don't see how behaviour has to be personally targeted to be uncivil. If I go off on a rant about the general behaviour of wikipedians and lace it with profanity you can guarentee I'll be blocked for it regardless of whether or not I name names. Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another. More than one editor has indicated they don't find this hilarious and have an issue with it. That's enough as far as I'm concerned to consider this as not acting civilly towards each other. Another quote from the page and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally.. This obvious was unintentional but people have been offended. And 'not censored' doesn't provide any protection here. So there is nothing here to support keeping this image and a clear policy which indicates it should be removed, along with WP:AGF which means you should take their complaints at face value unless you see any evidence to the contrary.--Crossmr 00:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against admin action because I think it's "hilarious"; I don't. And I don't see anything that indicates I have not assumed good faith; I have.

My argument, simply, is that official En-Wikipedia policy does not strictly prohibit the use of profanity that is not uncivil. Obviously, I strongly disagree with your interpretation of policy, but I respect your opinion. And if it's supported by other administrators, I will support consensus. -- Satori Son 01:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The moment someone comes here to complain about it, it has become uncivil. Whether its intended as such or not that is how its has been viewed.--Crossmr 06:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if one grants that it's not strictly prohibited (which I would grant), is that really as high as we aim? I don't really care whether it's prohibited; I care that it's unprofessional, tacky, and unbecoming the dignity of this project. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right: whether a behavior is "strictly" prohibited by policy is not really the standard we use for determining when administrator action is required in a situation, and I have stricken that needlessly restrictive qualifier. My other points still stand. Sorry for the misstatement. -- Satori Son 15:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for completely missing my point. Even if behavior is not prohibited in any way, does that make it excellent, or professional, or indicative of any class at all? Is there any reason that we might want to be excellent, professional, or classy? Is our goal to do everything right up to the edge of what's prohibited? Nobody has made an argument that the banner is tasteful, or that their chuckles are more important that presenting a professional face to the world. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to correct a mistake I made, not irritate you. I am sorry. -- Satori Son 19:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter whether I'm irritated - I'm not really anybody. What I think matters are two things: (a) Can Wikipedia rise to the challenge of being culturally sensitive, as opposed to culturally insensitive, and (b) Is our attitude that of doing anything that's not forbidden, or of trying to be as excellent as we can? I don't see how such a banner could possibly be consistent with cultural sensitivity and excellent behavior. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The key to the civility policy is to act civilly towards others. The presence of the image on a userpage is not directed or addressed towards anyone; it only exists as a self-obvious bit of humorous ironic hyperbole on the part of the user whose page it happens to appear on. Now that the image has been BADIMAGE'ed, there's no worry it might be maliciously forced on a mass audience. If what is causing emotional distress is the image's simple existence, we are dealing with a different issue entirely. WP:AGF also calls for the image's detractors to accept that the users of the image are probably not using it in a manner calculated to shock or offend. As regards the "gratuitous" profanity, as long as we're still citing not being dicks as one of our most important, core values, we have to accept that profanity and quasi-offensive language, in both humorous and merely emphatic contexts, have a secure and long-standing place in Wikipedia's culture. --Dynaflow babble 06:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the humor is as obvious as you make it out to be. I find it cute enough, but Wikipedia is read by a lot of people from a lot of different cultures, and writing cultural differences off as some kind of oversensitivity on the part of others strikes me as very unprofessional and unbecoming of an encyclopedia. The f-bomb means a lot more in some places than it does in others. I think the banner is very tacky, and while I wouldn't support sanctions against users who display the banner, I would hope that most of us aim to be a little classier than that. We are being watched by the world, after all. The conflation of profanity with our fund-raising drive is particularly unfortunate, to my mind. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I made the banner (in a deliberately crappy manner with all manner of bad jpeg artifact) with the sole intention of making people giggle when they clicked on the pipelink to it on Wikipedia:Fundraising redesign. It wasn't intended for display on talk pages or anything like that. Neil ☎ 09:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to suggest that you made the banner for bad reasons, or that anybody who's displaying it is doing so in less than perfectly good faith. I'm just hoping to point out that there may be reasons for not displaying such a banner that some people have not perhaps considered. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

i think it is VERY unprofesional of wikipedia to have such a banner. after i see the banner, i will NEVER donate. americans think saying the f word is very funny. here it is NOT. i didnt come to wikipedia to see that kind of thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.19.150 (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the argument about the use of the f word's being directed at a specific person. Anyone who reads it may very well feel addressed. The author wanted all readers to feel addressed (Otherwise what's the point?) And the point of the banner is purportedly to get people to donate. I don't think anyone can argue that it fulfills that purpose. That means that either there is another purpose or the author was unable to see that the purported purpose was not served by the banner. In any event, it's in poor taste. I don't see the upside of having it on a site like this. --Achim 18:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a good reason to keep these images on our servers? I appreciate that Wikipedia is not censored, but that's an important article-space policy. In user-space, we're presenting the face of Wikipedia, and I think it makes a lot of sense to appear professional and culturally sensitive. The banners are neither. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The face of Wikipedia is in fact the encyclopedia: article space. We have never had any pretensions of professionalism in userspace. Despite the war on userboxes, and UCFD, and a few sad essays scattered about, there has never been more than a tame breeze pushing for professionalism in userspace. Giant Jefferson and I hope we will never see such a day. And I know it's tragically politically incorrect to say so, or perhaps I'm just a clod, but I can't muster any sensitivity for people who get flustered about fornication. Is there a good reason to keep the images? Perhaps you don't value these reasons, but I do: some productive users like them, the area of usage is confined by the software, the time of usage will be temporary, we never know what potential good we stifle when we curb expression, and there's no consensus to delete. ··coelacan 09:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

So, the "potential good that we stifle" when we "curb expression" is worth more than the fact that we're basically pissing in the face of entire cultures? I don't think you're getting just how disrespectful the banner is. Do you walk into churches and spit on crosses, because it's not forbidden? Yes, I'm choosing extreme examples, because I'm trying to get across that, until you've been there, you don't know just how offensive these words are. I was shocked, when I lived in Kenya, to learn just how beyond-the-pale the f-word is considered there. I wouldn't say it there, unless I were trying to offend, and maybe get my ass kicked. Every time I edit Wikipedia, I think about Kenyans reading it. Is it really such a painful hardship to be respectful of other humans' feelings? I know a lot of people who do it, and seem to enjoy it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the silly thing about this is how people can make a case for being obnoxious (and the comment isn't made at Neil who made a one off joke and is no doubt bemused about the ongoing molehill/mountain scenario), but at those who then seek to construct a whole principle upon it). In context, I swear, I will even use the odd swear word or two on Wikipedia to make a point (and risk being reprimanded), but it is done in the knowledge that swearing is offensive, even on the Internet.

In the end though, gratuitous swearing or obscene images just make those who use it seem ignorant and insensitive. If people want to create the impression of themselves being ignorant, then I guess that is there prerogative, but it does then reflect on Wikipedia. People who wear the badge of Wikipedia, and to be that includes admins (regardless of it being "just some tools"), need to reflect that what they do on Wikipedia is seen as what Wikipedia condones. If you want Wikipedia to be reported as being run by a group of foul-mouthed geeks, then carry on, but don't fall for the kidology that what you do in userspace is not part of what Wikipedia is, regardless of what you think it should be.

It is not the first time I have seen an argument that user pages are off limits to Wikipedia rules. This view extends to one that civility does not apply on talk pages (or your own talk page). That is simply unreasonable if user pages are part of the Wikipedia mechanism. Spenny 09:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"It is not the first time I have seen an argument that user pages are off limits to Wikipedia rules." Who is making this argument? I am not your straw admin. If the image is in violation of some rule, let's hear it. ··coelacan 10:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"... no doubt bemused about the ongoing molehill/mountain scenario ..." ' - you are not wrong. Neil ☎ 10:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

coelacan, I will not point to specific examples as I do not want to either revive old wars or fan ongoing ones. I'm not overly fussed about Neil's joke, which only backfired because of someone else's vandalism, but I would simply make the point that generally rude jokes have the potential create an atmosphere of incivility and as such you should be sensitive to those who might reasonably claim to be offended. (Long ramble omitted for all our good!) Spenny 12:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Neil's joke, which only backfired because of someone else's vandalism. Exactly. And now that the potential has been dealt with, the rest of this discussion has been only so much Wiki drama, suitable for passing the time on a rainy day, but of no lasting consequence. As a quick aside, I fail to see how this innocent little sign could stimulate so much discussion, while userpages which advocate nuking other countries and spouting racism were allowed to stand for eons before action was taken. If we wish to keep Wikipedia from being discredited by its users, perhaps we could first get our priorities in order and deal with those kind of pages--or figure out some way to stop the vandalism which is a far greater problem and makes us look like such an unreliable source of information. Just a thought. Jeffpw 12:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. In any case, a little harmless vulgarity can pay dividends beyond a chuckle from those unafraid to laugh at it: "Regular swearing at work can help boost team spirit among staff, allowing them to express better their feelings as well as develop social relationships, according to a study by researchers."[3] Leave the fucking thing be. --Dynaflow babble 13:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Dynaflow, I hope you drop the f-bomb sometime in a cultural context where it's considered truly offensive, and then you can explain to the people you upset that their culture is wrong to be so "afraid to laugh". Then, I hope it doesn't get you into too much trouble. Cultural sensitivity is not simply "Wiki drama". -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL requires we also avoid being unintentionally offensive. As pointed out there are cultures and even people in the west who find this truly offensive. This has no place here.--Crossmr 19:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe displaying this is intentionally offensive - I'm not intending to offend anyone. I don't see any harm in a little satire in userspace. If anyone reading my userpage would be offended by the banner, I might suggest to them that they should lighten up. No more bongos 21:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no requirement that it be intentionally offensive. ...and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally. The fact that some people have posted here and said they are offended is all the evidence that we need that this could be offensive. Continuing to display something that some people have indicated offends them, services no encyclopedic purpose, and could potentially offend other users may have some questioning your motivation for doing so. We don't assume good faith blindly and had I encountered your userpage outside of this discussion with no previous talk of this issue I'd assume good faith, but now that good faith concerns have been raised and a policy very clearly cited to indicate why it shouldn't be used, we don't continue to blindly assume it.--Crossmr 22:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops, misread quote above. Well, fine, people are offended and the image is gone. I would suggest that some editors are rather easily offended. I suppose we all have different standards on this kind of thing, though. No more bongos 22:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterize cultural differences as people "needing to lighten up". I think it's rather provincial to put it that way. Try living in a very different culture, and then see how comfortable you are saying that your culture is right and others are just "easily offended". Wikipedia is trying to be a world-wide institution; doing that involves learning about what it means to interact with all kinds of people. They are not to be judged for being different from us. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Direct you to my comment further down. Have seen plenty more potentially inflammatory things on userpages. Wikipedia also involves learning not to get unnecessarily inflamed. No more bongos 00:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not inflamed. I'm saddened that there seems to be so much resistance to the idea that we might take people's feelings more into consideration than to write them off as "easily offended". Article-space is one thing, and nothing can compromise NPOV. In the rest of the project, I'd rather not offend people if I can avoid it; I'm sorry that others feel differently. The fact that plenty of potentially inflammatory things are on user pages does not make those things classy, or courteous, or good ideas. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted

Note that User:David Gerard has deleted two of the three images. No more bongos 21:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think he missed the third accidentally, rather than deliberately. Joke's over, the thought police have won - I've deleted it. Neil ☎ 22:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, Neil, at least one portion of your sign is still providing me with use and pleasure: the code for the sign is still suppressing the crappy beg-a-thon sign from appearing on my userpage. For that I thank you. For the rest, I'll just say I'm glad the well meaning Wikipedians take themselves so seriously. God knows nobody else does. Jeffpw 22:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite agree. It's possible to edit an encyclopedia seriously at the same time as engaging in light relief, just see List of sex positions. Honestly though, I don't understand the issues people had with this. No more bongos 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Other cultures are silly; let's laugh at them and at how stupid and easily offended they are. That's class. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No more bongos, your statement above, "I don't understand the issues," is precisely correct. You don't understand how words sound to people in different parts of the world, and that's why others are here trying to help you understand. Go travel and learn. You don't sit down among Arabs and put your feet up on the table. You don't go to dinner in India and eat with your left hand. You don't make irreverent religious jokes in a religiously conservative country (no matter how stupid you think religious conservativism is). It is a different world out there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes - however this is the internet. Although I normally agree with those opinions of yours that I've seen, I think in this case you're both drawing irrelevant parallels and being unnecessarily patronising. No more bongos 00:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

So what if its the internet? That means everyone should suddenly subscribe to your ideals? Wikipedia is also a community. Part of working together is not doing things to offend other members of that community. Its one thing to do it unintentionally, its another to pursue it doggedly after the complaint has been raised. However as a community we aspire not to do it unintentionally in the first place.--Crossmr 01:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No, and would be nice if you didn't try and simplify my argument by extension. Being the internet means we do not have a homogenous moral standard. The nearest thing that exist to this is policy. Policy is flawed and appears to be self-contradictory at times.

Userpages in particular are still a very grey area. If somebody had posted a nice note on my talk page, for instance, asking me nicely to take it down as use of the "'F' word" offended them, I would have given it serious thought. Nobody did this.

Instead - and this is only a probability rather than fact - what appeared to be a regular user logged out and used an IP specifically and only to remove it from my userpage and anyone else who had it, which struck me both as gaming the system and as assuming bad faith.

In any case, parody is parody, and as far as I understand it - and this forms my rationale for displaying it there in the first place - it plays on the visual aggressiveness of the fundraising banner. If people don't find it funny, that's down to them. It wasn't my intention to cause any offence, but I found the reaction here very bite-y, which made me slightly overly combative above.

In any case, this discussion here is getting WP:POINTy, since everything has been deleted, so I invite you to my talkpage to continue the discussion, should you feel the need. No more bongos 02:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"Do you walk into churches and spit on crosses, because it's not forbidden?" No, and in fact that is forbidden; it's defacement of private property. It's not only illegal, but immoral, since I have no right to damage or leave my spittle upon others' property. But to correct your analogy, I have in the past linked from my userspace to this monstrous text in which a terribly insensitive man calls "one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites."

Religious conservatism of all brands is remarkably consistent in relegating women to second-class citizenship, if they are afforded autonomy at all. Women in Kenya who've been raped have to flee traditional society to live safely without reprisal. Rape is their fault only if one begins from the ludicrous superstition that a woman first brought "sin" into the world, initiating bodily and sexual shame, and was punished for it with painful childbirth, thus making sex and reproduction the centerpiece of a busybody institution that maintains mindshare by normative violence in this life and threats of hellfire in the "next".

There are indeed plenty of people who are offended by words denoting human sexuality, and those people are wrong. Their beliefs are rooted in misinformation, and are factually wrong. Their beliefs contribute to sexual and gendered oppression, and thus are morally wrong. If they learn their beliefs from their cultures, then their cultures are wrong. Insofar as their culture restricts freedom of conscience and freedom of speech, it is damaging to humans and must be opposed, or we will still be born free but live everywhere in chains. Insofar as my culture values and protects liberty to a greater degree, yes, my culture is better.

If we pretend that an aim of communication should be to appease the most easily offended, then let us not neglect to cover the female visage, easily as offensive to some people as the word "fuck" is to others. If we pretend this a moral endeavor, let us make haste to remove all graven images from Wikipedia servers (surely a worthy criterion for speedy deletion). But I'm confused; you mix in pragmatic arguments too. If I should shut my lip in Kenya lest I be beaten, this is but amoral pragmatism. On the other hand, GTBacchus, if you felt it pragmatic to restrain your vocabulary or "maybe get [your] ass kicked", then this unspoken but understood shadow of violence is all the more reason why those people are morally wrong.

It is impossible to avoid offending someone. I have just offended many people with my assertion that my culture is better than any culture which lacks liberté, égalité, fraternité. You have offended me with your suggestions that I should kowtow to my neighbor's superstitions. Sensitivities, then, cannot alone dictate what stays or goes at Wikipedia. Those who sought the deletion of the images should have taken the question to MFD. Consensus rules here, and these impassioned defenses of taboo might, sadly, have carried the day. For future reference, though, such exhortations are lost upon me. ··coelacan 09:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I find it a shame that you mistake courtesy for taboo. If I suggest being mannerly, apparently I'm "kowtowing to superstition". If I think it's better that we try and get along with each other, then I'm "trying to appease the morally offended". You're pretty sadly mistaken about me. I'm probably more opposed to "taboos" than most people you'll meet, precisely because of experiences I had in Kenya. That does not, however, mean that I think that casual vulgarity is going to set matters right. I still believe in treating others as I would like to be treated, and for me, that means maintaining a certain level of decorum and class.

I think it's entirely appropriate that we have articles confronting such practices as female genital cutting, which is hardly addressed in Kenya because they've got taboos against saying words such as clitoris. That's not the same as keeping vulgarity on our user pages. There's a time and a place for shocking people by dropping the f-bomb. I don't see how our user pages at the encyclopedia is that time or place. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something but where, exactly, is "stupid and harmful banner" listed as a reason in the criteria for speedy deletion? Or was this an out-of-process deletion undertaken with zero participation in discussion and with absolutely no desire to follow Wikipedia policy, either in spirit or letter? Oops, my mistake. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:IAR. We do not owe unencyclopedic pages "due process" or something. If you wish to formally contest the deletions, Wikipedia:Deletion review is right there. Furthermore, I find it very easy to see how the deletion was an attempt to follow the spirit of various policies. Assuming good faith is easy if you can just place yourself in another's shoes. If you can't... um... yeah. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The image was deleted on behalf of the m:Communications Committee because it was in extremely poor taste while representing the WMF. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 10:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, in any event, I was only using the wonderful image to obscure that annoying banner from my userpages. Now that a helpful editor has told me how to edit my monobook to obscure it from every single page of wikipedia that I view, I'm even happier than I was with Neil's banner. For me, the issue was being harassed for money each time I gave my free labor with an edit. Now that's offensive, in my opinion.Jeffpw 18:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What a load of bullshit. Can I now demand that all American Wiki users are required to remove the Stars and Stripes flag from their user pages, as it is offensive to myself, and others that are still rightfully aggrieved over the illegal rebellion perpetrated on what was rightfully and legally UK holding? What a joke. I just hope the "editors" that spent so much time here moaning about this spend as much time chasing rasists, vandals and other dickheads.Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 19:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

We do. Also, I didn't "demand" anything. I asked that people take others' feelings into account, instead of not doing so. Apparently, that makes me an asshole. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, yes. (With due respect otherwise). Duja► 08:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not you, but David Gerard did quite a bit more than ask, he forced the issue. And Swatjester claimed it was on behalf of ComCom, which has not made an official statement at all (nor was such a thing cited in the deletion summary). The images were ALREADY on the bad image list, therefore they could not have been placed anywhere near article space anyway. —Random832 17:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

We're not civil only in article space. People found them offensive, civil covers this, 'not censored' doesn't make any exemption for jokes in poor taste, I'm not really sure where the disconnect is here and why some people feel they should be allowed to be as offensive as they want in the name of humour.--Crossmr 21:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The question, though, was whether it was really on behalf of ComCom, and whether it is appropriate to claim that if there was no foundation-level involvement in this decision. —Random832 19:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've actually been curious about this, too. I see on Coelacan"s talk page that Swatjester says it was done after email discussions, which brings up the question of transparency. I would like to have some clarity about this. Further, after reading the page for the committee, I wonder if it was even within their scope to delete an image solely used in userspace. On my page, the image didn't even link to the beg-a-thon, as I removed all other code. I would hope someone would check into this further, or Swatjester would be somewhat more forthcoming than he has been until now. Jeffpw (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground for you to protest against the fundraiser, and it's certainly not a place for images to make offensive remarks with the appearance that they are sanctioned or even on behalf of the foundation. That is a publicity issue which is clearly within the scope of ComCom's business, which by its nature does not have to be transparent. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot blocked

I've blocked BetacommandBot for incorrect operation. It's been tagging images that are not claimed as "fair use" as "orphaned fair use": see, for example, [4]. Betacommand has not responded to my concerns that this is confusing for new users; he thinks that because templates such as {{no copyright holder}} place images in the category Category:All non-free media, it is appropriate to treat them as fair-use images. --Carnildo 20:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

BCBot has been blockec numerous times for incorrect tagging, I think Betacommand might be in the process of fixing it. He is usually rather quick in fixing problems to get it running again. Qst 21:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(As an aside, I deleted the image, it was an obvious copyright violation though the tagging was somewhat unclear. It was taken from [5] and the source image is copyright General Electric... Georgewilliamherbert 21:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC) )

It's just the example I came across. I could probably find a dozen more without even trying by looking at images OrphanBot's tagged recently. --Carnildo 21:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind doing that so we can take a look at one that hasn't yet been deleted? Thx, Wikidemo 21:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Have a couple: [6] [7] --Carnildo 21:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Slight correction, [8] is an inappropriate NFCC #10C tagging, not an inappropriate "orphaned fairuse" tagging. --Carnildo 21:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NFCC: For purposes of this policy "non-free content" means all copyrighted images and other media files that lack a free content license. Such material may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met. (bold mine)

Then, from the same page: 7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article. (bold mine, note that it does not say "fair use")

I can't say for sure, that I follow where BetacommandBot was doing something disruptive. SQL^{Query me!} 21:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Technically, you are correct. However, the point of {{no source}}, {{no license}}, and the like is that we don't know if it's under a non-free license or not. All we know is that it does not have a free license tag.

The specific disruption is that, by adding a potentially irrelevant tag, new users are confused as to what's wrong with their image, and the image will be deleted after 48 hours, not after the seven days that {{no source}} allows. Since new users don't visit Wikipedia on a regular basis, the image can easily be deleted before they have a chance to fix any problems. --Carnildo 21:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it appears the bot is correctly applying the image policy in tagging these images. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it is clearly wrong to tag/claim that a fair use claim is invalid when there is no fair use claim in the first place- and in fact no claim at all. The bot isn't applying policy here, it is generating random noise. While the bot sometimes gets it right, we shouldn't let it be this blatantly wrong. GRBerry 21:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The image in question was tagged as orphaned and nonfree, and it was both. The image was on our servers without a free license, and used in no articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are referring to the same image I am. The one I'm referring to is Image:MOP.jpg. Before Betacommandbot screwed it up, there was nothing in the image page about it being a fair use image. Then the bot falsely claimed that the image was orphaned fair use. There was never a fair use claim, so it wasn't orphaned fair use. It was orphaned, but it never had a fair use claim. It was completely unsourced, which is WP:CSD#I4 and would have led to deletion even if Betacommandbot had never touched the page. So Betacommandbot is not helping in these cases, it is making things worse by causing confusion and making it harder to fix the real problem. GRBerry 22:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering how many times the bot has been here with some sort of problem like this, perhaps it's time to retire the bot completely? Argyriou (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Won't happen, sadly. But it would be a glorious day for many, many editors. Neil ☎ 22:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm against retiring the bot without a replacement being available. We do need to comply with NFCC policies, and like it or not, automated tagging is the best way. Maybe if BC could break the bot out into several userid' bots (BetaCommandBot1, BetaCommandBot2, etc). According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixindex&from=Bots%2FRequests+for+approval%2FBetacommandBot&namespace=4 it is approved for 8 tasks. At the very least, multiple bots would prevent the entire operation from being shut down if one of them goes haywire. Mbisanz 22:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, splitting separate tasks into multiple bots sounds like an excellent suggestion. At least that way when the programming gets screwed up, we could only shut off the affected tasks. We've seen bad coding too many times to let this continue. GRBerry 22:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

this was not caused by me, it is an improper use of {{non-free media}}. Template:No copyright holder contains that template. {{non-free media}} is used to label non-free media. β^_command 02:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It is caused by you. It wasn't too hard for me to add various exceptions to OrphanBot; how hard can it be to add a check to BetacommandBot that says "if there is a deletion template on the image, then do not place an 'orphaned fairuse' or 'fairuse disputed' template on it"? --Carnildo 02:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Please unblock BetacommandBot soon, please. I need it to inform me when my pictures get removed from articles, so that I can vent some incivility upon some of my fellow wikipedians. Jecowa 03:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that the bot shouldn't be unblocked until the tests requested by Carnildo are added, and ideally, until the tasks are separated into separate threads under separate bot accounts. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 16:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a small comment here, the whole point of the {{non-free media}} template was to add it to our non-free image copyright tags to make it easy for a bot to identify non-free images without having to maintain a huge list of tags that are exceptions or special cases and such. So the solution here is obviously to make sure {{non-free media}} is only actualy added to non-free copyright tags, and not all sorts of deletion tags. I'll just go remove {{non-free media}} from teh various "no source" "no license" tags and this will no longer be an issue. --Sherool (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking initiative to fix the problem, Sherool. She rule. Cereal. Pizza. Oh, sorry. It's that ADD thing. Jecowa 20:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I will not separate the bot into separate accounts, As for the error with {{non-free media}} I would have removed that template my self but I cannot edit protected pages. Also BCBot needs unblocked still. β^_command 22:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Please leave it blocked and do the whole project a favour, or at least let's open up another RFC or something. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 05:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"I will not separate the bot into separate accounts" - what a helpful response to good faith suggestions. Why not? It seems like a very good idea. If you can't manage the coding, I'm sure someone could give you a hand. I note the bot has been unblocked now. Perhaps we should have a sweepstake on how long until it breaks down again ([9]). Neil ☎ 09:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it would be seven more talk pages to monitor and seven more accounts of redundant code in which to make bug fixes and because it's his bot and he doesn't want to. Jecowa 16:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Also see KISS Keep It Simple Stupid, A core principle that I use when programming. β^_command 14:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's also much simpler to do whatever the hell you want and respond rudely when questioned about your or your bot's actions. You, sir, are the very model of what an admin should not be. Argyriou (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I try to respond to every reasonable question, in a calm and civil manner, If Im a little frank its because I dont like playing word games or wikilayering. People asked that I split the bot into seperate accounts and Im saying that I will not do that. If I dont explain my exact reasons its because 85%+ of the people reading my comments will not understand the technical concepts. β^_command 22:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There are many users who do understand these highbrow "technical concepts". They seem to block your bot, a lot, because it keeps breaking. I don't think you need to be very technical to understand that. By having multiple bots working on different things, whenever your code breaks again we don't lose all the functionalities. Neil ☎ 16:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Most people who block the bot most of the time dont understand policy or procedure. my code very very rarely breaks. if you want technical explanations of why I will not separate the bot into multiple accounts? here it is: there are redundant shared threads and co-dependent shared data in independent processes that use the same libraries. In order to separate the the individual functions I would have to re-organize and re-write the modules in order to separate the individual functions and and remove the cross dependency. Once that is done I would have to create a method of updating all the modules that were previously shared once they are separated and set independent of each other. β^_command 17:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What?!? Having multiple apps share common libraries is the oldest trick in the book. Solving this problem is standard practice. Friday (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

And even if you're not willing to do that, there's no reason why edits related to different tasks can't be made with different accounts. All you have to do is send a different cookie. —Cryptic 17:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If the code really is a problem, what if the same code ran on multiple accounts? And, it looked at the account name it was running under in order to decide which job to do? Maybe there's a way to achieve separate functionality without having actual different programs, if technically separating them is a problem. Friday (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

the issue is isolating the login code that is shared, in order to isolate that code I would have to isolate the whole program. End of discussion I am not going to use separate accounts. and that is the final, its my choice as a programmer and a bot operator. β^_command 17:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you make silly choices, other people will make the choice to block your bot. Wouldn't it be better all around if people could instead choose to turn off only the jobs it's screwing up? Friday (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless its a ORFU/DFU run Im at the computer, a note on my talkpage will normally get the same results. (Most of the blocks on BCBot are by admins who do not understand the policy and that the bot is operating properly) I cannot be held responsible for dumb mistakes admins make. the bot should not have been blocked in this case, it was not my fault that {{non-free media}} was being abused and used on templates that it shouldn't have been. That template is designed for use in licensing templates so that Identifying non-free media is simple via bot. dont yell at me for having the bot do what its supposed to do, and able non-free images as orphaned or as bad rationales, and be mad because the image that it tagged was free, {{non-free media}} labels it as non-free. mis-use of that template is not my responsibility. β^_command 20:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It is your job to ensure the bot is functioning properly. If it is not functioning properly, then fix things so it is. If you cannot fix things, then do not run the bot. --Carnildo (talk) 05:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What about setting up the bot like the AIV helper bots? Have a "control panel" page where individual tasks are managed. And all you'd need to do to modify your code would be to add some if/then/else statements that read the control panel, and then perform the tasks that are switched on. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Yidisheryid

• Yidisheryid (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yidisheryid
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive302#In which there is a dispute between User:Yidisheryid and User:Avraham.

I am afraid that the user is exhibiting symptoms of recidivistic behavior, especially as relates multiple personal attacks against multiple editors, incivility, misunderstandings and misrepresentations of wikipedia policies such as reliability, verifiability, hoaxes, and Wikipedia:Non-free content, among others.

The user has a history of sockpuppetry, and was blocked for such, and only unblocked after issuing an apology.

The user was brought to ANI earlier, see here for these issues, and especially for his habit of redacting other people's edits. The user was blocked for disruption and incivility, admitted such, and once again, promised to reform.

Unfortunately, there has been no indication of any reform; au contraire, there is only further evidence of incivility and personal attacks [10] [11] [12] note edit summary [13] [14] [15] [16], improper accusations of admin-tool abuse [17] [18] [19], continued ignorance of wikipedia policy even after being informed [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25], and subtle and overt changes to others' comments [26] [27]. More examples exist.

Since I am this person's main target for abuse, it is possible that I am too close to the issue, so I am asking my fellow editors and sysops here to comment on this user, his track record, his recidivism, and whether or not some time to review wiki's policies and rules would be helpful, or perhaps other remedies, such as a topic ban or long-term block would be appropriate to prevent further disruption to articles relating to Judaism, Zionism, Israel, and attacks against other editors. Thank you. -- Avi 21:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that every time there is heat against him at one project he moves on to another project as can be seen here evidence for incivility, misunderstandings and misrepresentations of wikipedia policies such as reliability, verifiability. It's been ongoing for more than a year now, every time he is quiet on yi I see him active either on en or he.--Shmaltz 23:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

for the record i am active daily in all 3 wikipedia languages; he; en; and mainly Yi.--יודל 14:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• "au contraire"? Is this the Spanish Wikipedia, or something? LessHeard vanU 23:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No, but the term is pretty selbstverständlich . -- Avi 23:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • it's not Spanish, it's French for "to the contrary" ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

YY's Reply

Who am i: First of all i can say to u i am a man of many wrongs and the community may decide that they don't want to put up anymore with me if they deem me a drag on the wiki, to tell u the truth i was blocked many times in Hebrew wikipedia and many more in the Yiddish wikipedia, and now i am back full force corrected and straightened, after all so much dedication, well over 40.000 edits daily i have declared the wikipedia my addiction and home, mostly in my native language Yiddish where i was already 2 times sysop, i am faulty and nobody has to live with me, but until i am not thrown out of here i believe in this medium especially for my community the Williamsburg Brooklyn Hasidim which needs desperately a form of transparency of knowledge and information to cope with our repressive lifestyle, i have not spoken the Hebrew language nor the English until a very recent time in my life, i believe that we must interlink all those 3 languages and many more on all topics.

Uncivility and Personal Attacks

i will try to answer all the links avi brings one by one and to explain it, and let u judge it as u see fit. he claims that i am uncivil and use personal attacks, i beg everybody to look at his links not the last edit link but my answers to him as well, (i will have time i will link them as well) about my detractors i have nothing to say, but please keep in mind that this is an ongoing constant attempt by Avi to get me blocked and last time i tried to show his pattern about me i was blocked for it, so i am silent. Yes i have ticked off the few users mainly Avi and Shmaltz and yossia and Izak. but i beg to consider my contributions just as worthy as theirs, shmaltz and yosia arent active and avi and izak i consider as better users than i but before u want to block me on their word i would like to correct myself so be very clear what i have done wrong and i will change by further noticing my blemishes thanks for everybody who feels important here to comment and on my behavior, i will take them deeply into my heart and construct it into positive motherly criticism and nurturing of my humanism.

Sockpupetry

i was never ever a sock puppet, and once i was guilty of vote socking which i did not know at the time to be illegal.

Disruptive

yes i was found to being disruptive at one moment back a few months by an admin who blocked me for 24 hours, i had at the time apologized and moved on. please take a look at the whole incident and see what i did wrong was heavily debated and even though i did nothing wrong in of each incident because i was found by others of dismissing their opinion i felt a need to apologize so what it was boiling down to it is lack of respect to other users, which i was promising not to do again and i hope i did breach my promise.

Ignoring Policy

also about my ignoring policy he brings his accusations that i ignore them, never did i take policy here easily i read them over and over, and i even translated all of them to the Yiddish wikipedia, i will answer everybody and retract my words all the time if somebody shoes me that i am wrong, i have even been accused of being a flip-flopper because i changed my opinion after rereading policy.

Changing others text

also about his links that i make neutral headlines on my talk page, it was already discussed in a previous ANI nomination by Avi, and it was answered that i may put my headline above his if its my talk page, as long as i don't temper with his words--יודל 13:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

--יודל 12:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Avi's Acusation of YY changing others text

• I won't comment on the rest (i looked at a few and agree with you on some points), but your "subtle and overt changes to others comments" examples are both changes in a heading level (not even the text), and addition of a comment (with its own heading) above it - in one, he even explicitly states what he has done to avoid even the appearance that it is intended to mislead people about what someone else has written. It seems like you can build a case against him without resorting to such accusations, so why'd you throw that in there? A heading is not part of a comment, and thus is not owned by the person who wrote the comment. People change talk page section headers all the time with no objection, and he didn't even change the actual text in either of your examples. —Random832 13:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Please be clear on what other points there is a case against me so i can correct it. thanks--יודל 13:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

My own interactions with YY have always been civil, though we frequently disagree on specific issues. I think the general tone sometimes not ideal, but not outside the run of things here. DGG (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the tone taken with myself and others has been rather the contrary, as the links above demonstrate, I beleive. However, thank you for your input. -- -- Avi (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

From my own interactions, I think YY's arguments at AfDs and discussions are not always based entirely on policy, and he can be a bit heated in exchanges at times, and not always ideal in tone, but nonetheless I don't think he's fundamentally here to disrupt the project. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Reblocked User:Whig

Whig (talk · contribs)

To summarise: Community banned homeopathic POV-pusher who was unblocked as part of an attempted mediation, then disappeared for a month. Just returned, and began the same idiocy all over again. Re-banned. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with reban, the user obviously has no intentions of contributing constructively here. Qst 20:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Good block. Multiple RFCs have failed to solve the problem. This one's here only to advance his POV, at which point he and the encyclopaedia have to part company. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This user should have been banned months ago. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that this is a good block - but then I thought this particular tendentious user had exhausted all of his chances last time around. I don't see a lot of value being added to the encyclopedia here. That said, Whig was unblocked on probation under the mentorship of User:Mercury last time around, so I'd be interested to hear Mercury's thoughts on the matter. MastCell ^Talk 18:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You should specify what you mean by 'began the same idiocy all over again.' what idiocy? please give the diffs. thank you Peter morrell 17:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I want to see what behavior Adam Cuerden was referring to in the form of diffs. Whig has made the same request. I think to be fair, this request should be satisfied. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no real stake in this one way or the other, but the last debate on ANI can be seen here. --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the reblock. As far as I can see from the logs, he has behaved appropriately for any other editor on Wikipedia since his unblocking. It appears you are reblocking him because he did not consult with Mercury when he re-appeared on Homeopathy. It also appears - from your justification given above - that the main force you cite for reblocking him is your antipathy to the topic of homeopathy. From the previous RfC it appears your behaviour, Adam, is being repeated, and needs to be addressed. Show us please why his edits since the unblock have been disruptive, conflict with Wiki policy, or (apart from not having sought an opinion before editing on the article of Homeopathy) contravened any agreements. From my reading of his edits, there are none. Justify please. docboat (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Whig is not "any other editor on Wikipedia"; s/he's a tendentious editor, as reinforced at his last RfC, who avoided an indefinite block and ban on the basis of agreeing to Mercury's mentorship. I think we should wait to hear from Mercury before going any further here. MastCell ^Talk 03:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

For the moment, I am going to refrain from commenting on the block. I am fairly confident Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) will address concerns regarding his reapplication of the block. Regards, Mercury 04:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Whig was unblocked because I and Mercury agreed that he might have some potential if he took a break and was able to get used to Wikipedia community behaviour standards, and we hoped he would learn what NPOV was as part of that. He disappeared completely for weeks, then suddenly came back, leapt into the topics that had caused so much trouble full-guns-blazing - indeed, he didn't edit anything else except to add homeopathy into Potassium dichromate - and his behaviour and language showed no signs of change. Whig is a true believer. We had hoped that he could learn to play nicely with others. Instead, we got more inane WP:OR homeopathy apologetics, and bold (and uncited) claims that, in fact, physicists and doctors support homeopathy, as well as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=171726760 this post where he takes David's sensible suggestion and turns it into a repeat of the "no criticism whatsoever in the lead" POV-pushing that he'd been canvassing for before the block. In short, a return to the behaviour from the RFC. The objectors to this ban, User:Peter morrell (RFC where he was nearly banned, but agreed to moderate his behaviour (which he stopped doing a few months ago)) and User:BrianWalker are cut from the same cloth, and, frankly, if they hadn't cleverly decided to constantly attack me, meaning I couldn't ban them without a COI, I'd have blocked them already.

But then, I'm in a brutally honest mood tonight. And, frankly, I'm sick of the whole subject. I don't LIKE editing Homeopathy. I wish thew whole thing would go away. But I'm an admin, and that means I have to monitor articles that are prone to trouble. And so, when asked to help out there by friends, I did. And what hell it's given me. More stress than any other bloody article, and that's with me trying to avoid it as much as possible, just checking for vandalism and POV-pushing. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Brutally honest, Adam? Right then. You have made a scurrilous attack on me now "cut from the same cloth" - how dare you, and you an admin? If this is the real, brutally honest you, and you have seen my edit history and read my own background to be able to make that ill-founded judgement, then the WHOLE of your judgements must be called into question. This will go further, I suspect. This is simply not good enough. Fail. You must do better. Quite apart from what you now decide with Whig, I want a competent admin to take a close look at your work. docboat (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do we spend so much time on such users? We give these folks umpteen last chances, soak up the time of good editors in futile attempts at mentoring them, burn out admins dealing with their incessant wikilawyering protests, and on and on, in the hope that maybe, someday, perhaps, possibly, eventually, with infinitely patient nurturing and lavish attention they'll learn to push their version of The Truth^TM in a slightly less tendentious way. Are we really so desperate for contributors? Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree. No, we aren't desperate for contributors, and much less for disruptive fringe editors who just "don't get it" and never will. Often it isn't even a matter of bad faith or ill will, it is simply that they lack the ability. They are immune to cognitive dissonance. We have the bar for acceptable behavior and attitudes set far too low here and this means we have fringe editors who get blocked, while their numerous sympathizers (whose - often fake - civility somehow protects them?) show up and reveal that they don't get it either, but they don't get blocked. In an ArbCom situation sympathizers can get blocked simply for showing too many of the same attitudes as blocked editors, IOW showing too much sympathy for them. They share their guilt because they think the same way and are also guilty of aiding and abetting them by supporting them in normal editing, in edit wars, in RfCs, and in the ArbCom proceedings themselves.

The bar needs to be raised and such sympathizers who don't get it and show signs of never getting it should also be shown the door, or at least be placed on probation. That is one advantage (possibly one of the only ones...) of RfCs. It draws all of the fringe sympathizers out of the woodwork so they show their true colors and they can be identified and the community alerted to which disruptive editors who don't understand NPOV are in need of watching. Unfortunately - because of the low bar - this occupies far too much good time that could be otherwise used on constructive editing. This situation needs to change. No more multiple and longsuffering series of warnings. Adam has several times revealed courage and resolute determination to protect Wikipedia from such time wasters and he should be commended, not interrogated by sympathizers from the flock of "birds of a feather who stick together." They should be warned together and blocked together. It shouldn't be necessary to waste time explaining common sense to those who don't understand it. I too am in a brutally honest mood this morning, but I'm sure only those who feel guilty will complain. -- Fyslee / talk 07:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Brutally honest eh? this does not seem to be an adequate response. The honesty of it must be judged by others, Adam. A number of specific points need to be addressed.

• you have edited homeopathy more than any other single editor in the last 9 months and control it (along with a few others) on a daily basis; you rvt other folks edits and seem hostile and owning towards the article and any other editors; you have created more edit wars and disputes on that article than any other editor; you are intolerant and disputatious and refuse to back down; this is why you block people; you abuse your admin powers; now you are threatening to block many more people including myself and docboat; I see you have a very 'impressive' history for deleting articles and blocking people; do you envisage a good WP as a police state? you are a self confessed anti homeopath; thus how can you say you dislike editing this article? the data simply does not stack in your favour.

• Why do you claim that Whig 'repeated his idiocy?' it seems he merely made some useful and factual edits to potassium dichromate; he never went near the homeopathy article as far as I can tell. His comments about potassium dichromate were fair, moderate, uncontentious, factual and neutral. How was he POV pushing? how was his language and behaviour block-worthy? I just don't see it in the diffs. Please explain your reasoning.

• you have still not supplied the diffs as requested by several folks here.

• attacking others who you claim are attacking you is a distraction, a side issue, and just muddies the waters; let's focus on the current issue and what you have said and what you have declined to say about this particular block.

• please provide the diffs which illustrate your comment that Whig was 'repeating his old idiocy' and show how his language and behaviour was block-worthy. You also claim he was POV pushing; please provide specific diffs that illustrate this.

• please provide the date you became an admin and also the dated diffs that show your claim that 'some friends asked you to check' the homeopathy article with dates. otherwise we have no idea of the factual accuracy of what you state. You must be able to show that you became an admin BEFORE you started editing the homeopathy article. I find that claim somewhat suspect. As I recall, you started editing homeopathy about February 2007. On what date did you become an admin? thank you Peter morrell 07:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Peter, seeing as I asked you just yesterday to tone down the rhetoric after you made a couple of attacks on Adam, you should be aware that you're skating awfully close to the edge of a block. Why on earth would Adam not be allowed to monitor an article for POV-pushing before he got his sysop bit? (Which, for the curious, he got on 2 March 2007). Why would he need to dig through nine-month-old page histories to find an invitation to edit?

Asking (civilly) for more information about a block is a reasonable practice, and an important part of making sure Wikipedia is working smoothly. Using this forum to push what has apparently become a personal vendetta against Adam is not. Please find something – anything – productive to do on Wikipedia that doesn't involve commenting on Adam. (I have warned Peter on his talk page that his current approach is unhelpful and may draw a block.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

When all the points raised have been answered, we shall all be happy. Assuming that is the answers are coherent and verifiable. thank you. Peter morrell

I have just reviewed the edits to the Potassium dichromate article and its talk page, and I do not see that Whig's edits were inappropriate. I note a rather aggressive edit summary from AC to one of the edits. [28] I think my few previous edits on this subject show no bias towards homeopathy, which, to be honest about it, I personally consider a dangerous absurdity. DGG (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's more his edits on Talk:Homeopathy and WP:FTN. Though the positioning of the section he added to Potassium dichromate the first time shows very little ability to judge its importance - there's a chemical with numerous applications in industry and chemistry, and he thinks that homeopathy is more important than major uses that, if I recall correctly, appear in the A-level chemistry exams in Britain (if briefly). Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

As for the Fringe notice board, I see only one November edit of his [29], a single sentence non disruptive comment. As for the Talk Homeopathy, I also see no disruptive edits--just the attempt to refine a single paragraph. DGG (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, Adam, you are a major contributor to the discussion on Homeopathy (and , as I said , I very much agree with what you say there). So why did you block someone for contributions to that subject? I would never use admin power on any one who had significantly contributed to an article on which I had also worked, especially if I were on opposite sides of the argument. (I am in no way defending Whig's earlier edits or opposing the earlier blocks.) There are 1300 other admins, and at least 1250 of them have never edited this subject. Why didn't you ask someone else to do the block for you? DGG (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Deeceevoice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Deeceevoice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently blocked for one year under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice. This block may or may not mature into a ban. The user may appeal the block/ban by the normal procedures. As such, there seems no need to continue this discussion. Physchim62 (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice, please check out for background and context.

Today I banned this user from Afrocentrism and its talk page for tendentious talkpage time-wasting, incivility, edit-warring, and POV-pushing (see [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36] (you need to read the article and see how bad it is to get that one)). Please also check some of her contributions to other articles to get the full flavour of her/his POV-pushing. From the user talk we get such gems as this:

“ With regard to WDM's "proposal," I'm not agreein' to squat. I didn't start the sh*t, and I'm not going to curtail my editorial rights because of someone else who's just got the a** with me simply because I don't buy white folks' lies about who our people are and our history. The guy's got a problem with me -- but that's his problem, not mine (along with, obviously, some personal issues as well; people as hateful and nasty as he is generally lead very sad, empty lives). ”

Directed at User:Wikidudeman, I believe. In response to my banning this user from Afrocentrism, I get told my actions are "unresponsive, high-handed, arrogant and totally off the wall" on my user talk. Reviews? Opinions on further action? Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on Deecee's edits on Afrocentism per se, but I do believe she is guilty of multiple, repeated, and unapologetic violations of civility. Long as her block log is, I'm surprised it isn't longer given that she’s basically thumbed her nose at the arbcom ruling. She's been around since 2004--I'm not sure there's a way to reach her, though as I've seen people I respect say she's a good contributor, it'd be nice if there were an effective way to get her attention. IronDuke 22:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The block log and history here seem amazingly similar to the Haizum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) situation in the section directly a few sections above here, at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Haizum_-_request_for_further_admin_action. Similar blocks, similar long-term incivility, just a different POV is being similarly furiously promoted, for better or worse. Haizum was just blocked indefinitely (and then appears upgraded to an indefinite ban, afterwards). EDIT: Actually, Deeceevoice's block log looks worse than User:Haizum's. • Lawrence Cohen 22:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that block log, I am inclined to indef and be done with it. She has had every chance in the world to reform and hasnt taken it. Good writer or not, we don't need people with her failings here. Viridae^Talk 22:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There are many editors and admins who will vigorously defend DCV's rights to slander other editors, create tension, soapbox, ignore the arbcom ruling, poison every article she works on with POV and accuse anyone who calls her on it of racism. I think it's about preventing systemic bias. Somehow. I don't see the logic myself. Neil ☎ 23:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the amount of personal attack blocks logged on the arbitration page, and the extent of the block log for the same. Is there two other admins who will support a year long block per remedy seven of the arbitration case: "She may be banned from Wikipedia for up to one year by any three administrators for good cause.". I consider a failure to abide by the personal attacks policy repeatedly sufficient cause and the recent edits for which she has now been banned from that article. Viridae^Talk 23:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ban. We're finally winning the encyclopedia back from the trolls, so we shouldn't stop with this one. While it maybe a personal attack, you have to call a spade a spade, and with multiple blocks, ANI threads and an RfAr, it's not getting through. Will ^(talk) 23:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I would probably support a ban of some period. She's not here to improve the encyclopedia, she's here to fight some kind of race war. We don't need this nonsense here. Friday (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Viridae, although I don't oppose a block like the one you gave her, did you get the support of two other admins? Corvus cornix 23:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Both Neil and Friday are admins and are supporting the block. I have enacted it. Viridae^Talk 23:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Viridae, can you log the block on the Arbitration case, pretty please? And have it endorsed by two admins who agree to the one year ban as required. (Neil and Friday's endorsement of a ban of "some period" is not necessarily support for a one year ban as required at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice#Deeceevoice_placed_on_probation.) I personally would support something between a week and a month at this time, but I won't oppose a year if two other admins specificially agree. Thatcher131 00:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Logged. I may have been a bit hasty in enacting that block, but I think it will stick given that everyone appears to be sick of her behaviour - wouldnt have done it otherwise. Viridae^Talk 00:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a month would have been better. This would show her what will happen if she continues to use Wikipedia as a battleground, but will give her one last chance to reform all the same. If she continues after my proposed shortening to one month, then I would have no objection to re-extending it to a year. While I see this year block as better than nothing, it nevertheless does not strike me as the ideal sanction at this time. Picaroon (t) 02:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I simply feel that she has had ample chance. The block log is 28 items long, almost a third of which are since the arbcom case... Viridae^Talk 03:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, look at this another way: her last block, according to her arbitration case, is over a year old; to me that says she's generally reformed of whatever problems she was deemed to have back then (I was unaware of this editor back then, so I can't say). I'd say that's worth investing a little good faith in it.--Ramdrake 03:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Moreschi is the same user who called my requests for civility from Dbachmann "process wankery" (diff) I just wanted to add this so it is clear that Moreschi is not an "uninvolved admin." I'm not exactly uninvolved myself, but I want to say that to me this seems unfair. Where is the evidence? And if civility is an issue why isn't anyone saying anything about Dbachmann's lack of civility and unwillingness to cooperate with the proposed 1 revert rule to allow us to unblock the article and avoid edit wars? This is unfair. The block should be lifted. futurebird 00:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Instead of attacking Moreschi (who isn't even the blocking admin in this case), perhaps it would be more constructive to explain why a block of an obviously tendentious and disruptive user is even a controversial issue? ELIMINATORJR 00:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you actually SEEN the block log? Its as long as my arm. I am incredibly surprised she has lasted this long. Viridae^Talk 01:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

28 separate items in the block log, in fact. For all I know, that might be some sort of a record. John Carter 01:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that's SPUI (talk · contribs) by a mile. Hell of an editor all the same. Mackensen (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• How EliminatorJR conceived that comment as an attack on Moreschi, I don't know. It is perfectly acceptable to comment on a user's involvedness. Picaroon (t) 02:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• I want to comment on your own involvedness then. You kind of have this pattern of defending and giving support to abusive users if they are pushing some pro-black or Afrocentrist biased opinion on Wikipedia. I'm also pretty sure that that other administrator EL C what's his name will soon get all Che and "heroic" on this valid block. Make yourselves less predictable, or this place will turn into a complete joke to the outside world. 82.208.193.150 03:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Pattern of defending "pro-black" editors? Like when I warned Jeeny and Taharqa about incivility towards their allegedly "pro-white" opponents? Or when I blocked Jeeny for edit-warring on Race of ancient Egyptians, and protected the article on her opponent's version? Or when I supported a month-long block of Deeceevoice? That's hardly a pattern of support, my proxy-using friend. Care to comment under your main account, or are you banned? Wait, don't answer. Picaroon (t) 00:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• C'mon everybody knows this is all an act, feigning neutrality to cover your back. You block Jeeny knowing the cabal would be all over it in no time. Nobody is fooled. 222.231.8.175 (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, if you keep blocking people who have a lot of blocks then it's not a surprise that they have a lot of blocks. Second, I'm sorry if it comes across as if I'm attacking anyone. That's not my intention here. It is just that I saw the events that happened on the page Afrocentrism in a different way. Dbachmann, was the driving force behind the "edit war" and lack of civility on the talk page that got that paged blocked. Wikidudeman came up with an idea for a "truce" to get it unblocked. Deeceevoice and Dbachmann did not want to do it. They both refused. I don't understand Dbachmann's reasons, he seems to feel that he should not have to enter in to such agreements because it makes it hard for him to "fight trolls" (?) I don't know... (see his talk page to read it in his own words...)

Deeceevoice refused, possibly because she does not trust Wikidudeman, after all, he's the one who tried to get her user page deleted a few weeks ago. They seem to have had some issues in the past. Deeceevoice has not been the only aggressor in this.

So, if this quote, which isn't a personal attack as much as it shows that Deeceevoice is not assuming good faith (and if someone tried to get my user page deleted I don't know if I'd assume good faith...) is all that you have as the reason for this block then I think a block is way to harsh and unfair. futurebird 01:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as Deeceevoice is one of our best editors. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I took a closer look at the diffs listed above and I don't understand how they support the charge?

• This link here, which is given as evidence as to why deeceevioce should be blocked, seems to just be her responding to my question about a citation tag she added to one of my sentences in the article. I found her response helpful. (I don't agree with all of it, and will respond after looking at some sources) But, it's not POV "editing."
• this isn't a "POV edit" either it's an explanation for a lack of trust. I hope that the context I provided makes this clear.
• this is not a POV edit. If you read it in context it's something I agreed with. It's called "systemic bias" there's a whole project devoted to fighting it.
• This is not a "POV edit" either.

I agree that her tone is at times harsh, a warning will do for that, But it's not like she is an admin and saying these kinds of things. None of this makes any sense to me. futurebird 02:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

One question that I'd like to ask, is how much more scrutiny would have gone in that call to admin action if Deeceevoice's record had been spotless? I may be wrong, but I feel she's been summarily declared guilty of all charges in good part because of her past record, and I don't think this should happen, as it is the practical application of the logical fallacy of Begging the question, namely she must be guilty; just look at the number of previous blocks she has. Yes, her exchanges show that she had problems assuming good faith in the situation reported, but it should be clear by just looking at histories from Talk:Afrocentrism, User talk:Dbachmann and User talk:Deeceevoice that she wasn't the only one, at the very least. Look, one of the exchanges that are linked in the list of offenses she purportedly committed was directed at me, and I took no offense, especially in this extremely tense situation (and again, it should be obvious from looking at the Afrocentrism talk page that another editor actually started the tenseness. So, in summation, I must agree with Futurebird here that the sanction was totally out of proportion with the purported offense.--Ramdrake 03:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I want to question the one-year ban also on the basis that it is customary at Wikipedia to escalate the length of blocks when offenses are repeated often, and when users stop offending for a long time, the blocks usually de-escalate. Based on this, I'd like to point out again that Deeceevoice's last block was in October 2006, was for 24 hours only, and that she's made litterally thousands of constructive edits since then. So, a one-year ban for repeating an offense one year after the offense garnered the offender a mere 24 hours is totally out of justifiable proportions. I say, if people feel she needs to be blocked, anything from one day to one week would be more appropriate, or possibly the time served so far on this block may even suffice.--Ramdrake 13:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I seriously question a one-year block. For the record i seldome have agreed with DCvoice's comments or edits though it has been a long time since I have worked on the same articles. I know DCV can be conentious and have no doubt that s/he can use some cooling down right now - a few days, maybe a week at most. But I think that systematic bias at Wikipedia is a serious problem and DCV's POV is no more extreme and no less valuable that that of many active editors. Perhaps DCV can benefit from some mentoring. perhaps DCV and Dbachman need mediation. My point is, we MUST have better mechanisms for these kinds of problems than one year bans. I believe if anyone wants to ban DCV for more than a week that they file an ArbCom complaint and ensure that due process is provided. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Couple points.. first, yes, a year is probably excessive. Why not start with a month? Also, I agree that the case of POV editing has not been made well on this page. I assumed it was true because it's historically been a problem with this editor, and I assumed that the admin who banned her from Afrocentrism exercised due diligence in determining that it was warranted. If she's not still making unconstructive biased edits and being generally impossible to work with, that's another story. Mentoring is not an option in my view- if she cared about feedback from other editors, we wouldn't be having this problem. She's a racist with a chip on her shoulder, and if someone disagrees with her, she assumes they're part of the White Conspiracy Against The Truth. Does this sound like a mentorable editor? No, the solution is to keep her in a box where she can't hurt anything. Friday (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I'll vouch that her edits were pretty much in line with majority consensus on the article page, and this situation got escalated through the one dissenting user (Dbachmann); this should help explain some of the angry reactions to this user's block. I can provide diffs to demonstrate if needed.---- Ramdrake (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The incivility is over the line, and this is a long-term problem, so I think a block of some length is necessary to make clear that this won't be tolerated, but I'm also hesitant to support such a long-term block. Why not a week or month, with a longer term block if more incivility follows? -- Everyking (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is evidence to justify a block of any-kind. I think a warning is all that is required in this case. Also, Friday, you tone is rather condececeding, and I don't think it's very professional to talk about keeping any user "in a box where she can't hurt anything." I think your tone is too harsh, in the same way that deeceevoice's tone is often too harsh. -- futurebird (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's sometimes necessary to attempt damage control here at Wikipedia. Maybe it's not nice, but it's what the encyclopedia needs. Friday (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

How many warnings does Deeceevoice need? How many has she had? Don't you think those multitudes of previous blocks would count as warnings? -- Corvus cornix (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why she is being blocked this time? -- futurebird (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies to Physchim62, but I'm unarchiving this for a little while, because I believe this could do with more time for scrutiny. (Closing the discussion less than 24 hours after it began is not really good for those of us who do not have the ability to live and breathe Wikipedia 24/7...) If you look at her block log, you'll observe that I'm not Deeceevoice's greatest fan, and have myself been the target of no small amount of her invective. However, I do feel somewhat that a year's block may be a little disproportionate to her actual recent conduct. Let's accrue some collective opinions about this for a little longer, before we declare this topic closed. There's no need to be hasty. — Matt Crypto 22:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not involved here, but I've seen Deeceevoice get a free pass on civil/npa like no other editor I can think of over the years. I've always been a little amazed how she gets away with it...I doubt very many other editors would have gotten as much slack as she has gotten since 2004. But having said that, a year long block is ramping things up a little fast. The ArbCom result aside, her block log isn't outrageous over the last year...I think a shorter block might be more appropriate for starters. A week or two maybe? RxS (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

After multiple suggestions, I am willing to reduce it to a month, only because she has been better (not perfect, just hasnt got a block out of it) recently. Viridae^Talk 10:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at the six or seven edits p0rovided above as evidence justifying the ban, and I do not see how they justify any ban. If you are looking for a community ban, you need consensus and you do not have it. Ramdrake, Futurebird, and I obviously feel strongly about this. Several of the edits provided as evidencts of tendentious incivility and edit-warring are anything of the sort - the first edito for example is very reasonable and just what we would want contributors to post to talk pages. I see an conflict between DCV on the one hand and Dbachman on the other. If one merits a ban, so does the other. I see this whole proceeding as an attempt to side-step ArbCom because the evidence provided simply would not stand up under ArbCom scrutiny, or other editors who have been in conflict with DCV would end up being blocked or banned as well. I have seen a lot of crap at Wikipedia and the evidence offered above simply doesn't raise to a bannable standard (unless we have a racist double-standard that holds people we think are black or women to a higher standard of behavior than white men). Some of the edits presented as evidence are DCV simply registering dissent. If that were a bannable offence we would all be banned. Even a one month ban is not justified in this case. Am I wrong? take it to ArbCom and see how the so-called evidence stands up to a rigorous due process. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Easily. We know what we'll get if we unban this person. We'll get the same old use of WP as a blog, blatant contempt for other editors, same old POV editing (did people see what DCV was condoning on Afrocentrism?), same old time-wasting drama. Do we really want to? And yes, the same people protesting here are the ones who were quite happy to let screamingly bad POV content stand on Afrocentrism, along with DCV (thank heavens for this edit!) Either DCV appeals to the ArbCom or this ban stands. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 11:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Easily? Then take it to Arb-Com - I mean, take your complaint to ArbCom. Wikipedia insists that people with diverse points of view work together. DCV represents an extreme - but notable point of view. It is clear to me that some people cannot work with DCV, but it is also clear to me that other people can work with DCV. DCV's behavior is not more extreme or tendentious than many other editors, and oftentimes less so. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

We've already been to ArbCom. They gave us measures to stop DCV from troublemaking in the future. Now we're enacting those measures. You also fail to understand that Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is our most important policy. DCV's deviations from this policy cannot be tolerated, we simply can't accomodate them. If a user is POV-pushing we kick them out. This is obvious, so I should hope. DCV does not even attempt to edit in a spirit of neutrality, as the diffs and quotes presented show. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 11:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Slurbenstein, it has been to Arbcom. DCV was told to cease using her user page as a soapbox, and warned to respect our boundaries on civility and avoiding personal attacks. Not only does she ignore these enjoinders, editors like you passively encourage and perpetuate the behaviour by describing her poisonous, hysterical, self-martyring and aggressive ranting and rabid POV warring as "having a diverse point of view". Those who defend that kind of behaviour are no better than those who carry it out. Neil ☎ 11:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. A "diverse point of view" is the last thing we want. We need one point of view - the neutral one. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 11:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Man, do you misunderstand NPOV:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly .... As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".

Diverse views (use the plural please, when using the word diverse) is precisely what we want, and your attempt to ban a view you do not like is a violation of NPOV. Moreschi, I think you have revealed your true colors here. As for the ArbCom decision, DCV's parole does not mention his/her own user-page as a soap-box. It does as Neil suggests refer to disruptive edits. And this AN/I report provides seven examples none of which rise to any fair standard of "disruptive editing." On the contrary, I see Deeceevoice trying to comply with the ArbCom decision i.e. taking their counsel to heart. You should be encouraging that rather than look for ways to twist the ArbCom ruling to support your own POV. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• There is no neutral point of view in the sense you are referring to it. NPOV is an amalgamation and a balance of various point of views in conformity with consensus. Why else do you think we are witnessing these conflicts and arguments on the talk pages of the articles. DCV might be uncivil, but the same problem plagues the other side as well. It is consternating to watch people label somebody as "uncivil" and "racist" without checking the entire facts. Given that DCV is prone to making comments that might be perceived as racist, she has also one of the long-standing and good-faith contributors to the project. What we need is a proper reform programme, otherwise we can only wonder how Wikipedia would sustain itself in the coming years – as both the number of articles and users increase on this website. Banning productive, but occassionaly disruptive editors is not the answer. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Guys, that is completely not the point. We don't allow people to fervently push their own POV in the vague hope that someone else will push their counterbalancing POV as hard as they can, and so we get a decent article - it doesn't work that way. You have to strive for neutrality within your own editing, and not rely on other people arguing with you for neutrality to be achieved. DCV doesn't even make a pretence of editing neutrally. If you don't even bother, what's the point. For you two to fundamentally reject the concept of neutral editing makes me sick at heart. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 13:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not internally consistent. As the numbers of users increase, the fact that some disruptive editors make some productive edits should weigh less with us, not more. Relata refero (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Also in WP:NPOV is the statement: "NPOV is a point of view". I think that's quite clearly what Moreschi was saying. If this editor was incapable of editing without tendentiousness, if she clearly was completely uninterested in WP:WFTE, then I don't see how her presence would help the project. Relata refero (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Regardless of the correctness of the one-year block (personally I think this was far too long), I am very uneasy that the unblocking admin did so apparently unilaterally, without any attempt to contact the blocking admin or any of the supporting admins per the terms of the ArbCom resolution. And does the topic ban on that article still apply, or has Slrubenstein's unblock cleared this user of all wrongdoing? This is all very messy. ELIMINATORJR 12:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I can't help but be very concerned that admins would say that there should be only one POV (the neutral one) (who decides it? based on what? who has a voice in the process?), and that those who disagree, and even those who support these dissidents, should be shown the way out of WP. Can everyone here stop and just ponder exactly what that sounds like??? Pretty please? Also, I think it is best if some admin uninvolved in the dispute is the judge of this and SLR just started taking interest in the talk page of Afroncetrism this morning, after the cause of all this commotion was over. Not sure what is being aimed at here.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes - I have refactored the above comment, which probably better addresses my concerns. as for NPOV, the policy page WP:NPOV covers this quite well. Anyone who has mediated on a controversial issue knows how difficult this is to achieve on a controversial article, because different editors' version of NPOV will differ depending on their viewpoint. In the end, though, it is aggressive and disruptive pushing of a particular POV that will lead to sanctions, not the actual content of that POV. ELIMINATORJR 12:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Eliminator, I fully agree with you that it is aggressive and disruptive pushing of a particular POV that will lead to sanctions. Now, keeping that in mind, please take another look at the history of the Afrocentrism page on November 15, and ask yourself again: where was the consensus, and if disruption can be considered to be in part pushing POV against consensus (or however you wish to define it, in the end), who was being the most aggressive in reverting without explanation and against talk page consensus?--Ramdrake (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently we're going to have a war over this one as well - and an unhelppful block comment to boot.[37]. More than one person feels there's a problem here and the length was being discussed. Removing the block wasn't the solution. Shell ^babelfish 14:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The evidence provided (40 -46) simply does not provide enough evidence of "tendentious talkpage time-wasting, incivility, edit-warring, and POV-pushing" to justify banning an editor. What is the solution? How about isolating a few major conflicts over content and one by one seeking to resolve these conflicts over content in ways that satisfy concerned parties and complies with core content policies? I have looked over the recent talk on the Afrocentrism page and it is not clear to me what the major "problems" ae that need "solution" - but I do see a number of editors including Deeceevoice who are talking to one another, trying to explain their views, in constructive ways. Perhaps that discussion does not get to the core problems, but neither is it evidence of a major breakdown in communication and collaboration. Again, I see no cause for banning one editor who has a strong point of view. And to be clear: it is not a point of view I share. Which is exactly why it is important to me that this view be represented at Wikipedia. If that doesn't make any sense to any of you, then i suggest you completely miss the point of our NPOV policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

While there's no real consensus for a year long block, there's none at all for this unblock. Please reinstate it, at whatever length of time you feel this discussion justifies and we can go from there. You don't get to unilaterally decide these things. Another option is for someone to reblock at a length of time based on this discussion...at this point that would be supported I think. But the preferred outcome would be for you to take care of this yourself I think. RxS (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the unblock was a bad call. DCV is a disruptive racist and we don't need that kind of garbage here. Yes, the evidence presented here is weak, but if you're not familiar with the situation, why are you overriding the block of someone who is? You should at least note your unblock in the log on the arbitration case. I'm willing to believe she edits in good faith, but good faith alone is not enough. Editors must also be reasonably competent at following core content policies, and she's not. She doesn't even try. Send her off to Deeceepedia and let her do what she wants. She has no place here, where we expect neutrality and verifiability. Friday (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose unblock - the block was arbitration enforcement. Simple as. What use is AC when the decisions aren't binding? Will ^(talk) 16:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

To Friday: not sure if you're aware of this, but your latest intervention looks very much like an ad hominem attack. "She edits in good faith, but she's a racist, so let's block her anyway?" How about we calmly continue this discussion until a consensus is arrived at as to whether to block her, and for how long? I don't see that she's edited anything since her unblock, let alone disrupted anything, so it isn't like there is a clear and imminent danger to the project.

To Will: yes, there is an ArbComruling,and if we suspect a breach of conditions, how about we present the facts to ArbComand let them decide whatever sanctions are appropriate?--Ramdrake (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I almost never try to describe the mindset of another editor (because how can I really know?) but in this case it's relevant. It looks to me like people are calmly discussing. If an editor cannot be reasonably competent in editing according to policy, yes, we need to show them the door even if they're a nice person and are really trying very hard. A bull in a china shop may have good intentions, but he's still bad for business. Friday (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Not all of the editors were calmly discussing. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The unblock by Slrubenstein was staggeringly against consensus. Based on the above, there seem to be a minority calling for a long term / indefinite block, and a minority of one (Slrubenstein) for nothing at all. Somewhere between the two extremes would seem appropriate, say a month. I won't do it myself, as I personally feel a month is not long enough, but it's a fair compromise. Neil ☎ 16:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If I may interject, I don't see that there is a consensus around any specific sanction,so I don't see how unblocking the user while asking her not to edit mainspace articles while we try to arrive at a consensus (which we don't have so far) isn't the correct thing to do.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and also that unblocking the user at such a juncture would have sent the wrong message. But it would only be pragmatic to wait a while and let DCV comment here. Let's not take this decision in haste. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

To Ramdrake - did you actually read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice#Deeceevoice_placed_on_probation?

Deeceevoice is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. She may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article or talk page which she disrupts. She may be banned from Wikipedia for up to one year by any three administrators for good cause.

Arbcom have already passed a verdict on this. There shouldn't be a need for further process wonkery. Neil ☎ 16:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The decision was given more than one and a half years ago. Since then DCV has improved greatly and tried to productively contribute to the project. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Really? I invite everyone to read this and decide whether this is the attitude of constructive contributor, or someone who's using the 'pedia to fight some race war. Friday (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It was rude, obviously, and this kind of attitude is not to be condoned. DCV has also had borderline personal attacks on her user-page in the past, which had to be removed after tedious discussions on the noticeboard. However, it must be noted that you had been an involved party in the arbitration case against DCV. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the threshold before years of ongoing, low-grade or outright incivility becomes cause for a long-term block or banning? 5 blocks? 10 blocks? 1 ArbCom? 5 ArbComs? Does the threshold reduce or increase if the person also manages to create some good content? Does being able to create a variety of quality articles excuse perpetually acting monstrous or racist towards your peers? • Lawrence Cohen 17:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's no secret that I've been critical of her conduct for a couple years now. I still think it's a problem. I will freely admit I'm very biased against racism. Friday (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom decisions are binding until ArbCom say they're not. So if no time limit is set on the decision, it's indefinite. Will ^(talk) 17:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The ArbCom exists for the 'pedia, not the other way around. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the merit of her contributions, she's still on probation. Will ^(talk) 17:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If Zscout was desysop-ed (even temporarily) for unblocking Miltopia, then certainly Rubenstein's rash action deserves consideration for the same. Not only was there no consensus to unblock, there was overwhelming consensus against doing so. If we go by 1RR=wheel war when unblocking without consensus (or in this case, against consensus), then Rubenstein is certainly guilty of this. K. Scott Bailey (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, there was no discernible consensus around any specific block length that I'm aware, so I don't see the harm of unblocking while we try to attain a consensus.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw not one admin other than Rubenstein argue that this user should be unblocked. Thus the block, as status quo, should have remained, until consensus formed around a set time frame. This unblock is so far outside of policy that it's not on the same continent. And, as Jeff said below, how many chances does this user get? The probation statement by ArbCom was very clear on what happens if she becomes disruptive. It happened. Rubenstein undid it. Admittedly, I don't check in at AN/I all that much, but I'm here enough to know that going against a direct ruling from ArbCom is "desysop-able", that's for sure. K. Scott Bailey (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I thought decisions here were attained by community consensus rather than just admin consensus, and there were numerous editors who disagreed strongly with the original sentence. Slrubenstein raised the point that the evidence presented couldn't be construed as a breach of ArbCom conditions, and that should be reason enough to suspend the sentence until consensus is reached (which I don't think has happened). If several of the editors questioned that there was good cause in the evidence presented for a year-long block, I don't see that the ArbCom ruling was ignored, merely that the evidence wasn't found sufficient to invoke the strictest possible sanction in the ArbCom ruling. Moreover, I seem to remember at least one editor calling for a ban in furtherance of the one-year block, and that is distinctly not in the ArbCom ruling.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• This is of course one of the administrators who cozy up with the Pro-Afrocentist cabal on Wikipedia [38] [39] [40] [41], helping to push this agenda. Let the pretense charade continue. 200.64.191.49 (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• This is just one more example of people taking WP:AGF to the extreme. This project will collapse on itself if this sort of user is allowed to continually disrupt encyclopedia. How many times does one have to say "maybe next time she'll do better"? 28 blocks (I think I counted correctly) should prove to even the most naive Pollyanna that this user is not prepared to fundamentally change. I endorse a block of whatever length the original blocking admin wants to give, and I completely disapprove of Rubenstein's unblock. This uneven enforcement of policy and these free passes to certain users simply has to stop. The time wasted fixing POV edits and debating one user's actions is not compensated for by either the quality or quantity of the edits. Jeffpw (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you don't count the unblock line items, or the blocks that got reversed, the count drops down to 14 (which is still a lot admittedly, but I've seen worse). Also,the fact that this user had been blocked only once in the last 13 months would, on the contrary, strongly suggests to me she's trying hard to amend her ways.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The one thing I have no confidence she'll ever try to do is change her behavior. She doesn't want to be neutral- she thinks there are "white articles" and "black articles" and she doesn't think white people are qualified to edit "black articles". Again, we don't need this racist nonsense here. Friday (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is the example of the user revert warring on the Afrocentrism article. It isn't a 3rr but it's edit warring nonetheless. Here: 1, 2, 3. Reverting another users edit more than once is edit warring pure and simple, even if it's not a 3rr violation. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Massive, disruptive canvassing

• Ta bu shi da yu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaging in massive internal spamming/votestacking for a deletion discussion in blatant violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking, and refuses to stop despite a request on his talk page. John254 03:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not that big a deal, especially when the page is just a photo page of Wikipedians, and not an article or anything of consequence. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 03:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I see Ta bu shi da yu has been blocked. I'm not a great fan of this block, as he was clearly trying to alert people of something they had participated in was about to be deleted. It wasn't as if he was spamming random users. And as gaillimh says - it's not as if it was over anything important. I would certainly support an immediate unblock. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with Ryan and gaillimh. I don't think Ta bu was doing this in bad faith and is quite distressed over this whole issue. Mr.Z-man 03:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is a big deal when you consider his related actions over the past 24 hours:

A. Speedy kept an MfD out of protocol,

B. Attacked the nominator (as a sock!!),

C. Canvassed [42] (and was blocked [43]) once he realized the DRV would over turn his out of protocol speedy keep.

--12 Noon 03:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with 12 Noon. And in response to Mr.Z-man, it is abundantly clear that he is "quite distressed over the issue"—quite so, to the point of irrational behavior. He needed to disengage and refused to do so voluntarily, thus the 1-hour block was entirely appropriate. Mike R 04:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What he said. I fully support this action and would have done it if I hadn't had to step away for a while. Metros 04:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, I think the dude just retired [44]. Maybe something is going on behind the scenes with him? He seemed to just be having a bad day, but maybe it is much more serious than that?--12 Noon 04:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't sweat it. He just needs a break. He's quit and come back several times before. Mike R 04:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Not if he scrambled his password. - 211.30.71.131 04:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Bleh I scrambled my password of my old account after stupid conflect, I came back with a new one, he needs a break and I hope he comes back soon. This is a Secret ^account 04:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

He has hardly retired, now he is using the anon account to add comments 211.30.71.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Is this appropriate or is that considered a sock? Seems like that is circumventing the block.--12 Noon 04:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If I read the timestamps correctly, 211.30.71.131 didn't edit while the block on Ta bu shi da yu was in effect. Mike R 05:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Still seems underhanded to add to the MfD without identifying himself. I added a tag after the IP address identifying him. I hope that is not too crass, but I think others have a right to know.--12 Noon 05:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Only as underhand as using a sockpuppet account to participate in xfd. I'm just popping back in to protest at you changing that signature on MFD! - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to throw in there that I also think this was a bad block. I've said it once and I'll say it again, if I'm involved with a page, or if I add myself to a category, etc, then there's really no issue if someone notifies me or someone in a similar situation of something like a deletion discussion related to that page. The fact that this page had a large number of participants is nothing more than a technicality. -- Ned Scott 06:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. MFD doesn't get all that much attention, and it is WAY too easy to get Wikipedia: space pages deleted by a small number of opinionated people. Notifying interested parties that the page is up for deletion is quite acceptable. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Is this behaviour even characteristic of this particular editor? I am wondering if something has happened either to the editor or the account. --健次(derumi)^talk 07:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes it's normal of him when he becomes very upset. Surely any other admin who's been around since 2005 and knoweth TSBDY will tell you the same. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 07:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not as concerned about the notice as I am about item B - any admin should know enough not to create a sock puppet and it them solely for making a WP:POINT violating attack on another editor who has taken one of their decisions to an appropriate review venue. (See thread above or in archive.) That is the issue that I think most needed to be addressed, and I'm not sure a 6 hour block was sufficient. But I don't know this admins history to know if this is an uncharacteristic flipping out or a pattern of behavior. GRBerry 13:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. It was probably a mistake to do that. However, I wasn't trying to attack the user. I was trying to get them to change their sig to make it easier to read talk pages they sign. Yes, handled badly, but wasn't an attack. That sig should be changed. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone's going to have to explain to me how this falls under WP:CANVAS, because I don't see it. I also know that from time to time a proposal has been mooted that people who had edited any article up for deletion would receive a bot notification. Until I see more information, I have to call this a defensible block with unfortunate outcomes, as 1 hour is certainly proportionate, and editors do disagree on the canvassing policy. Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was canvassing either. And I'd strongly support exactly the sort of bot-mediated notification that Mackensen describes above. Far too often articles simply are "disappeared" around here when one of the cool kids decides they don't like the article, AfDs it, and quietly manages to quickly gain enough support for the deletion while none of the fans of the article are even aware that it's in jeopardy. This sneakyness is one of the principal reasons I've cut way back on my participation here. The notifications that Ta bu shi da yu was providing are exactly what a fair system would do automatically.

Atlant 12:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Really I'm having trouble seeing anything re: canvassing here. I don't know that he actually stated to "go vote keep..." but I do think he just should have walked away from this a while ago as he clearly has a passion for this, the outcome so far has just been unfortunate. -Pilotguy contact tower 13:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The massive scale of the posting does make it canvassing in my opinion. The "votestacking" section of WP:CANVASS is also relevant, because the editors who were contacted were those who were listed on the page nominated for deletion.

I think this incident raises the issue whether it is reasonable to expect editors to watchlist the articles they care about, or check MFD every few days. If an editor doesn't do these things, and we don't permit canvassing, the editor may feel left out from deletion discussions. The no-canvassing policy is, in my opinion, an unfortunate consequence of the way we close deletion discussions. Does it need to be modified to allow this sort of canvassing, for wikipedia: namespace pages? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that, taken by itself, posting the "friendly notices" on other talk pages may seem innocent; but when taken together with the big picture (harassing the nominator of the MfD and usage of a sock, uncivil actions, point-pushing, not to mention the ill-fated speedy closing of the MfD after 1.5 hours), it is hard to assume good faith here. IMO, taken with the other evidence, canvassing appears to be the motive. Additionally, this guy (he's a he, not a she) has been around for years, so he should know the rules (and how to skirt the rules), so I would not give him the benefit of the doubt. From comments above, it appears that this seems to be his modus operandi. But I guess it is rather subjective - but this case seems a little extreme. Regards.--12 Noon 16:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't generally have a problem with alerting editors to things they are likely to take an interest in, although I have to say that's a lot of alerting, nearly 100 people, and I think when it's at that level a person might want to consider trying to get the message across in some other way. And aside from that, some of TBSDY's surrounding behavior seems worrying. I'm not sure it rises to the level of a block, however, and I hope TBSDY hasn't truly quit over this. Everyking 16:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think his actions were clearly canvassing/votestacking. Going around "alerting" people who have an interest in that page is nothing more than shopping for keeps. I think this block is fully warranted and think that an even longer one would be appropriate. I'm very sorry that this person has done good things here, but he also has a long history of odd behavior, including 3RR violations, petty vandalism, "retiring" and then coming back, and lately the abuse of his admin tools to speedy keep an MFD discussion out of process, harassing me with a sockpuppet (which was indefblocked specifically with that reason in the summary), and then when DRV overturned his speedy, he proceeds to shop for votes in an effort to either 1) votestack, or 2) bugger up the discussion so that it results in a "no consensus". As I stated in the new MFD, I'm shocked that this person was trusted with admin tools. Ya know, I'm sorry if he's a friend of yours but that's no excuse for this behavior, particularly since admins should really know better. Everyone here needs to follow the rules equally and be held equally accountable when they blatantly contravene them. (edit) Furthermore, as the MFD template was placed on the page per the normal process, anyone who has watchlisted that page would be able to see for themself that it was being nominated for deletion. Anyone who added their photo to the page would, almost certainly, be someone who wants to keep the page, so alerting them all is clear voteshopping to me. -- Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have thousands of pages on my watchlist; I don't look at every edit to every page. Sorry, you're not going to convince me that it's canvassing to notify some of hundreds of people who contributed to a page of its impending deletion; I believe it is just common decency.

Atlant (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the only people he's notifying are, by virtue of their having contributed to the WP:Facebook page, inherently predisposed to keeping it, that amounts to a violation of WP:CANVASS because the user is targeting a biased group of individuals instead of just any old neutral, "interested" members of the community.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Out of interest, who else should have been notified to make this "balanced"? The only people who noticed the MFD... are those who constantly participate in MFD. Regular editors who edit articles (and don't waste their time on xFD) probably won't discover this deletion until too late. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a simple notice on the AN (which you created![45]) or any other page with that is frequently read by long-time users who might be interested in the page's deletion would have sufficed. Targeting huge swaths of biased users qualifies as disruptive according to 2 of the 4 criteria illustrated here ("Scale" and the "Audience"). --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

As opposed to the hundreds of biased users who participate on MFD? Alrighty then. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. speaking of appropriate, why would I post to WP:AN? It's not something only admins participate in. That's not the reason AN was created, as I would have hoped you'd have realised by now. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I also have over 4000 articles on my watchlist and don't notice everything that's going on. I do not regard notifying people who are on there as canvassing, simply a courtesy - and neither am I automatically disposed to vote keep as I didn't put my photo on that page. It is far too easy for small cliques to get together on this project to delete material before interested parties are even aware of an xFD, and we don't all watch AN either. -- Arwel (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at this from the sideline for a while, but I now feel the need to share my opinion. TBSDY is obviously entitled to be upset by the MFD of Wikipedia:Facebook. But if he expresses that in speedy closing an MFD completely out of process using just about every argument that shouldn't be used in a deletion discussion, and in creating a sockpuppet to prove a point against a fellow Wikipedian, he is not admin material, and he should strongly reconsider his position here. If his blood starts to boil to the point where he feels the need to do this, he should walk away from the keyboard and take a break. If he instead becomes disruptive (and the sockpuppet account definitely is disruptive), he shouldn't be an admin. Aecis^Brievenbus 02:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

How was it disruptive? I didn't block anyone, I didn't stop The Parnsnip! from editing, I didn't get into any deletion debates with the account. All I did was note the issue on WP:AN/I. I agree, it wasn't the best way of dealing with the situation, and for that I apologise. It doesn't actually change the fact that the sig is misleading.

So you are aware, I've been getting steadily concerned about Wikipedia for a long time, this whole business of taking the WP:FACEBOOK to deletion was really the very last straw. Wikipedia is genuinely not a pleasant place to edit anymore. The amount of bad faith assumption that have been made in this section alone highlights that. Do you think I like the fact that Wikipedia has become such a horrible place? Should I be overjoyed that it is straying from it's original goals? - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the guy is stressed out beyond belief in the real world and let it slip over onto WP. I talked to him on my talk page and I think he just needs a long break, be it voluntarily or via a tough-love block of his IP address he is using now. As it is, he scrambled his password so he cannot use his account anymore, and with it I assume he gave up his admin powers. Seems like it is sort of a moot point for the time being that can be reviewed if/when he asks to resume as an admin?--12 Noon 03:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's clear up something, as you seem to know about my personal life (you don't). I'm not particularly overstressed (I have been sick with the 'flu, but that's just run of the mill stuff), in fact I'm quite excited about my job and the fact that I'm going to have a baby soon (yay!). My frustration is solely on the things happening at a project I used to believe in quite a bit. So real life is great, but watching Wikipedia doing things to destroy itself isn't fun. Being blocked doesn't help, being accused of being a sockpuppet for making anonymous comments also doesn't help (see User:WebHamster's comments [46] [47]), and watching trivia get added to the project to good articles, along with Wikipedia:Service awards, people who make it hard to read conversations by disguising their sigs, and a whole raft of other nasty comments that have been made really make me shake my head. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Know what? You don't own Wikipedia. Wikipedia is what the various users make it and at the root of that it is always an encyclopedia. It's not a social networking site, as much as you'd like it to be. I don't care if you built the entire Wiki from the ground up using duct tape and baling wire. Your shrill, senseless rants here about "loss of community" and whatever else you're on about do not change the fact that you've broken policy, abused your position, and now are trying to save face. If Wikipedia is such a horrible place, why don't you stay retired instead of having a temper tantrum, scrambling your password, and then posting here under an IP? Frankly and in my opinion, you're behaving like a prima donna and I still don't understand how you were ever trusted with admin tools. Your backpedaling regarding your harassing me with a sockpuppet to prove a WP:POINT is inexcusable. No, it's not just a bad choice, it's a violation of a core policy. Your speedy closure of a legitimate discussion was out of process and a gross abuse of admin tools. Now you're here saying you did it all because "it's not fun anymore". TOUGH. Wikipedia is not here to be fun for YOU, it has many many users. If you had posted a polite note on my talk page asking me to change my signature instead of pulling the stunt you pulled, I probably would have changed it. But as it is now, as I have not broken ANY policies with my signature, and since I've registered a doppelganger account as requested, I will NEVER change it. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You won't change your sig, even if it is the right thing to do? OK then. No backpedalling involved, apart from admiting that it wasn't the best way of alerting you to the fact. I have left the project, currently doing a few last things that need doing. Like replying to you, though not sure that from your response it was entirely worth it! Incidently, that deletion of Facebook: a dumb MFD by someone who doesn't understand how things work around here. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• I am quite upset that John254 has been deleting the comments he takes issue with from Ta bu shi da yu off of people's talk pages, including mine. Regardless of how he feels about canvassing or the MfD at hand, THAT is totally, completely, absolutely unacceptable behavior in my book. -- phoebe/(talk) 04:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

As it stands, we have an admin enabled account that is not accessible for the user who was entrusted with the admin tools. I suggest a precautionary desysopping of the account Ta bu shi da yu (talk · contribs), to prevent account hijacking. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Or we could just wait until things cool down and reset the password assuming there's still an e-mail address associated with the account. -- Ned Scott (talk) 06:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like there's not. But I doubt it would be a problem. It's not any more an issue than any other admin account that is no longer active. -- Ned Scott (talk) 07:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible Spam and COI editing by search engine optimization firm

Could I get some of you to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Thwaites. There are possible sock puppets advocating for a bio and corporate article of a SEO firm' CEO and the firm itself. For several years I have kept watch over the SEO-related articles because they are a honeypot for SEO spammers and COI editors. By nipping these folks in the bud when they start articles about their own firm, we prevent them from creating dozens of advertisements within Wikipedia for their clients. An IP editor, first edit, has accused me of attempting to delete the article because the fellow competes with me. Well, I'm in the US and he's in the UK, and we have no connection whatsoever, but I'd rather that somebody else handled this. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see too many "keep votes" there, could you please provide some diffs for this. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 11:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Having seen the thread here I've gone through and added some refs and some more info to the article, seems to be alright as per WP:BIO just noting here so I don't get accused later of being a sock/SPA :P I'm not paranoid, it's happened before. - Dureo 11:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

For example, VivioFateFan, your account was created in late October and immediately started making lots of WikiGnome edits.[48] The activity of this account shows that it's either an alternate account, or a replacement account of an experienced user. You yourself have suggested keeping the article.[49] - Jehochman ^Talk 14:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikignoming- Well, I had to start somewhere, and this seemed the easiest place to start.

Policy knowledge- My "extensive knowledge" of this is only because I have reviewed most of them at least 10-12 times.

Point 2- I have to admit was just laziness on my part. I went under the assumption— without checking the page's history— that the page wasn't sourced before, and now is. I also have to admit that I didn't even check whether the sources were reliable or not in this paticular instance.

I will accept whatever sanctions Wikipedia applies towards me with no complaints.VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 07:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I hereby slap you with the wet haddock that can be found here. You are free to take the haddock and slap me once. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Threats

Resolved

 – Editor has advice for dealing with future content deletions. Nothing more to do. ··coelacan 21:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not one hundred percent certain where to put this, so if this is the wrong page I apologize.

I did a minor edit on the homophobia page that seemed to go against neutral POV which was reverted [[50]]. I’m not particularly concerned about that, as I don’t really care about it, but since then Ctjf83 has been threatening to ban me. Now I don’t know if he can do it or not but he hasn’t stopped. I appreciated it if an Administrator spoke to him about it. I know that trying to do something about his disruptive edits will probably only encourage him but I felt I should at least draw attention to it. I’m not looking for the Administrator to do anything in particular – whatever they see fit is fine. Thanks --24.62.221.173 08:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Ctjf83 did not threaten to ban you, he left a message saying that "you will be blocked if you continue to vandalize". There is a difference between blocking and banning.

Secondly, I looked at the the diff you provided and I can see where Ctjf83 is coming from when he stated and believed that your contribution was vandalism. However, it is my personal opinion, your contribution was not vandalism, but something that clearly needs to be discussed on the talk page before adding to the article.

Thirdly, point 2 brings up the fact that Ctjf83, might have been heavy handed when he posted the warning on your user talk page.

That's my 2¢. --Avec nat...Le Wikipédia Prends Des Forces! 08:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't see the removal of sourced material as a minor edit, and you were quite rightly reverted. While I wouldn't classify the edit as vandalism, it was certainly agenda pushing, which is another reason to revert. Given all the homophobic vandalism here on Wikipedia, I can understand why the other user gave you a warning. He probably wouldn't have were you a registered user. Perhaps you should consider that. -- Jeffpw (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What?! ok, the reason i put vandalism is because i see it as a straight guy who is homophobic, and is offended by the fact that the sourced line says it equals insecurity in men. there was absolutely no threat, just vandalism warnings, which as i think it is vandalism, is the policy to do. Ctjf83 18:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ctjf83, how is what you write after "because" logically equivalent to the definition of vandalism? — Sebastian 20:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

ok, I'll agree i shouldn't have given my personal opinion that s/he might be a homophobe, but I believe removing sourced relevant info. is not appropriate. Ctjf83 20:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• The part I removed was a rather agenda pushing edit to have in the article so I removed it. What I got in return (to use Ctjf83's terminology) was a gay editor who is "hetrophobic" and offended by the fact that some people might think the article needs a more neutral POV and so threatened to have me banned. It's silly and it's uncivil and absolutly goes against wiki policy. That's why I brought the issue here. The article itself is not in question, just the behavoir. --24.62.221.173 (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

as stated above, i never threatened to BAN YOU Ctjf83 07:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps veiled threat would be a better term. But yes, yes you did. Twice. And last I checked you did not remove them or added a comment that you were too heavy handed in adding them in the first place. Until then the fact remains. --24.62.221.173 (talk) 04:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

At Arbitration Nomination Parties in dismissed ArbCom are Re-litigating the case

At User:Raul654's Arbitrator nomination, User:THF and User:ATren, who raised legitimate questions initially, are now re-litigating an arbitration case that User:Raul654 worked on. This hardly seems a fair way, especially since this is the side that was losing every finding of fact, and they are now going after Raul over it and discussing issues irrelevant to the Arbitration hearing, such as User:Cberlet and User:William M. Connolley and their status. It's going on here. --David Shankbone 21:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not relitigating anything. I'm asking questions about why an arbitrator who participated in the underlying content dispute participated in an arbitration notwithstanding a pending motion for recusal, and trying to understand the basis for his interpretation of the COI policy, which contradicts what WP:COI says. But to prevent further harassment from Shankbone (which has included editing multiple mainspace pages related to me, notwithstanding requests from five separate admins not to do so), I will not make any followups. -- Evidence storage (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That's funny, because after you wrote that you posed a sixth question. The ArbCom was dismissed because you left the project. Are you in fact still here? --David Shankbone 21:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

We are questioning his activities on that case, specifically related to the fact that he didn't recuse from the case, when there is a significant amount of evidence that he had a prior involvement in the case and with one of the editors. The discussion is civil. Is that not permitted? If so, I will cease. -- ATren (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not fair and I think falls under trolling. Raul was part of a clear majority in finding THF's edits problematic, and the case was dismissed for the sole reason that User:Evidence storage, AKA User:THF, left the project. Now that the case is dismissed, and on its way to be decided in his disfavor, he is back and re-litigating it on Raul's nomination. This is clearly abusive.--David Shankbone 21:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I left the project before Raul654 participated in the arbitration, so Shankbone's characterization is fictional. There are legitimate questions about Raul654's position (and participation) in that case, which he has not been able to defend when questioned about it. It's not religating the case, because the case will not be reopened, and I will not return to Wikipedia even in the unlikely event that Raul654 admits that he was wrong to characterize compliance with guidelines as a violation of that same guideline. -- Evidence storage (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that you did not take part in the ArbCom when Raul was taking part in the ArbCom? Is that seriously what you are saying? Because one need only look at your contributions to see that is false. --David Shankbone 21:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. User:Evidence storage is an alternate account of a user who has officially left the project in the midst of an ArbCom case. The sock's userpage states it will be used only to collect diffs. However, the account is currently being used to re-explore issues relating to the ArbCom case, to participate in ArbCom elections, and to comment on WP:AN/I. Given that the account holder was party to an ArbCom case which was dismissed on the understanding that he had left Wikipedia, using an alternate account to continue to revisit these issues is a violation of the "Avoiding scrutiny" section of WP:SOCK. I have blocked User:Evidence storage, but with the autoblock disabled, and encouraged this user to utilize his main account only. If he wishes to invoke his right to vanish and start anew under another username, that's fine, but the new username should not be used to immediately engage in the same line of dispute as the old account. That's avoiding scrutiny. MastCell ^Talk 22:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict. I was about to do the same thing. Good move. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. "Evidence storage" was literally a single purpose account. "THF" isn't blocked and hasn't requested a name change. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who has in general disagreed over at WT:SOCK with Will Beback and Jehochman on the interpretation of WP:GHBH, I'd say that this is certainly a case where avoiding scrutiny is central, and concur with their judgment. Relata refero (talk) 09:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest that any attempt to rerun the arbitration be sanctioned. THF escaped sanction only by "retiring", to come back and try to replay the arbitration on a candidate page is completely unacceptable, as noted above. If THF wants to reopen the case and let it run its course he is more than welcome to do so. I know from past experience that ATren will not drop it once he's decided that someone should have recused, so it may be necessary to close that inappropriate rerun of the arbitration by force. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I missed this discussion yesterday, but have posted in opposition to this block at User talk:Evidence storage. Please see that page for my comments and for responses from THF/Evidence storage and from the blocking administrator. I note in passing that Raul654 is not the only ArbCom candidate who has been the subject of questions about this case on his question page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hambla

Resolved

Hambla, if his/her contributions are observed, very convincingly seems like a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, aimed exclusively at reverting all my edits, whatever they are.

The momentum that convinced me of this user's behavior is his talk page, where makes very short nonsensical replies in a discussion that's obviously going nowhere. To just quote some: "My pants are shaking", "No it's not."; after I invited him to calmly elaborate his edits, he writes things like "So you say.", "You sure?" and "The pot calling the kettle black.". After I wrote in the bottom: "In the end, all your edits have shown 0% interest in Wikipedia, showing absolutely nothing at all (culminating with "Yes they are") and qualify your edits as plain vandalism, hence you are leaving me with no choice but to revert your edits." and he has responded with "I can say the same about you. If you revert me I will revert you. Woop-dee-doo. Hambla 23:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)"

I have indefinitely blocked Hambla (talk · contribs), a recently created, single-purpose account for causing a serious disruption against PaxEquilibrium (talk · contribs), a long-time editor in good standing. I regret the inconvenience you have suffered, Pax. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet. Thatcher131 02:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had worse. Remember User:Afrika paprika... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Negro

there is a vandal/sockpuppet who continues to vandalise the article negro. He has been reported several times in the last 24 hours, unfortunately he can easily switch Ips to evade all blocks that have been imposed. the user is User:Nordic Crusader Muntuwandi (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree about this being vandalism. Rather, it appears to be a content dispute with accompanying edit warring. I suggest leaving the article alone for a bit and attempting to start a discussion on the talk page. For what its worth, if your concern is the picture, while it does contain a nude figure, it's an extremely artistic nude and shouldn't count as disruption in my view. · jersyko talk 23:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

... that said, if this is a sock puppet of an indef blocked user, then you have a point. Additionally, a block or blocks could perhaps be handed out for edit warring. · jersyko talk 23:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not a puppet. Look at the diff of Negro, you will see all I have done is include a picture to support the text which states 'Negress' is almost confined to artwork, and written a clear definition in the first sentence of the article. One should not have to read through an entire article to get a basic understanding of what the word means! --222.155.53.237 (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• User talk:222.155.38.11
• User talk:222.155.43.118
• User talk:222.155.53.237
• User talk:222.155.41.78

are all the same user. You can tell from the ip range and the articles edited. Muntuwandi (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There are only 4,000,000 people in New Zealand. Our IP's don't cover a great range. --222.155.53.237 (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

...and since when did a dynamic IP user get to choose what IP he/she could use at any given point in time? ---- WebHamster 23:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The actual quality of the recent user's more recent edits is debatable, but he is still being disruptive and violating 3RR. Also, apart from the more legitimate content dispute, the same user has repeatedly vandalized[51] [52] [53] [54] the same article. He is clearly up to no good. If this is a banned user (I'm not familiar w/ the alleged puppetmaster), we shouldn't even be having this discussion.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

But the fact that user 222.xxx.xxx.xxx made a WP:3RR report here [55] linking to his own violation and blaming it on Muntuwandi tends to prove that this is just vandalism and harrassment.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

'The fat man" or whoever added those last 2 diffs not me

Duh, you still opened a WP:3RR bogus report on MW linking to your own violations. Did you think nobody would realize?--Ramdrake (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my mistake. I mis-read the complaint as a report by MW against 22.155.xx.xxx and tried to add some diffs showing how many times 22.155.xx.xxx had reverted the article. I have since clarified the report and restored 22.155's original diffs.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

But let's come back to the issue at hand: I don't know if 22.155.xx.xxx is a sockpuppet of a banned user, but he's editing disruptively, vandalizing and violating the 3RR. He needs to be blocked.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

My edits are solid gold, you should feel privelidged just being allowed to read them. --222.155.41.78 (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Can an admin please take a look and block the range for at least long enough that this vandal will stop having fun at everybody's expense? Please?--Ramdrake (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Please do a range block or something? Editor is still waging an all-out edit war on Negro (protection has been requested) and stepping up his harassment and personal attacks as well[56].--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Anon is back, as User:222.155.54.191, and reverting on the Negro page.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I protected the article, albeit clearly the wrong version, in an effort to foster discussion and prevent further edit warring. Clearly the anon is editing disruptively by edit warring and evading blocks. However, this appears to be a content dispute at heart, and there was essentially no talk page discussion on point before I protected the article. I'm open to being convinced that a clear consensus exists to exclude the material, in which case I would posit that the correct path to take would be to semi protect the article to prevent further disruption. · jersyko talk 00:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A follow up: [57]. Please review my actions and explanations if you like. The anon has revealed itself to be a troll. · jersyko talk 00:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Content can be sorted out by non-disruptive users. So a talk page discussion is good. I'm more concerned with the anon's vandalism (stuff about Negros being monkeys, etc.), personal attacks and alleged ban-evading sockpuppetry.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:222.153.97.176the user is back causing trouble again. Muntuwandi (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

As noted above this is Hayden5650 (talk · contribs), a banned neofascist sockpuppeteer. All users are asked to revert him, non-admins to report on AIV at sight, and admins to block as soon as possible. This is not a content dispute, this is vandalism. Thanks, Picaroon (t) 03:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior by User:CBFan

Hello. I've recently noted some behavior by User:CBFan against User:Kingdom of crash and spyro, the former of whom has a long record of uncivil behavior, and the latter of which is a rather inexperienced user. This is especially seen on the page history of the latter user's page, which shows that CBFan is doing nothing other than harassing Kingdom of crash and spyro to make a point. Even in cases where his actions would be justifiable, his edit summaries frequently show hostility, and are unnecessarily bitey. Looking at Kingdom of crash and spyro's contributions, CBFan appears to almost stalk this user, reverting them frequently with the same incivility in his edit summaries. Even at an apparently honest attempt at reconciliation, it was reverted with a rather uncouth summary. I attempted to converse with CBFan here, but was met with a rather uncivil response. Given that this user has not ceased in their uncivil activities, despite blocks and multiple entreaties do so, I'm bringing this issue here to get it resolved, as conversation with this user appears to be impossible. Regards, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If the issue is clearly one-sided, with the attacks coming from only one side, then action can be taken against the guilty party. But if both parties have a history of engaging in back and forth banter, then unless one of them files a complaint, it's best to let them deal with each other without getting involved. SouthFerryRoad (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a reason for deleting everything both KOCAS and you put on my talk page, SBCR. I first became aware of KOCAS when he continually tried to post an un-wanted, illegal and unneeded image in the Crash Bandicoot page. I, along with Freqrexy and Cat's Tuxedo, attempted to reason with him politely about why he couldn't post the image he had in mind (and the reason was because it was heavily edited, by him) and I suggested that a spellchecker may be beneficial. But did he listen to us? No. He blatantly ignored BOTH of us and claimed we were being mean. I will admit that I lost my temper then, but that was a long time ago. It got even worse when he tried to put forward his "Incredible RFA" (as quoted by Sbowers3) when he, yet AGAIN, told lies about me...he claimed I was deliberately picking on him, when I had been trying to help him originally AND that it wasn't just me. If I may quote them, Sbowers3 then claimed that Kingdom had "violations of 3RR, sockpuppetry, inability to write, inability to understand or accept comments by others, and general immaturity." Since then, Kingdom has been continually posting on my talk page, as shown above, yet he STILL refuses to use a spellchecker (even when I re-asked him nicely...I am aware the original blasts were a bit over the top) and he STILL told lies about me, those lies being that I was being a bully AND that I was the only one doing it (as you can see, at least three other members had something to say about him). I removed the comments because I didn't want my talk page cluttered with lies...if anything, HE was picking on ME more than the other way around. My edits were at least attempting to be constructive. Freqrexy was the one calling Kingdom a two year old, yet he blatantly blamed it on me. And SBCR, the only reason I removed your comment was because I didn't find it remotely civil, because the way it was written, it was blaming me and ONLY me for something I hadn't fully done. I know I may have over-reacted, but I won't stand for people telling lies about me. If what SBCR had written had been more civil and polite, I would not have deleted it. But, I'm sorry, but Kingdom's lies are becoming real annoying. That's why I intended to have a break (until I read this, then I needed to bring up my defence).

P.S. I'd also like to note that I may have been going on for a while back then, but that was just that...back then. Back then, I thought the guy was an I.P vandal. I tried to control myself and be politer, but he just refused. CBFan (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

An article, an old OTRS ticket, a user and accusations...

I am a fairly new administrator and I have found myself in an odd situation that I don't know how to handle. I am a party, so I don't want to accidentally misuse any admin powers.

I summarized the situation leading up to this incident in this request for an OTRS review. The reviewer generally agreed with my position, stated here. As a result, I reverted to my recent edit, with a polite explanation; however, the other party (more on this individual in a second) reverted it back claiming that the OTRS review was incorrect. This is where I need to explain a bit further: during the original OTRS back in July, I received an email from this user that made the rather incredible claim that they were working on behalf of USC (I wasn't sure if that was true); I tried to talk them out of making bad COI edits, but to no avail --because of the OTRS ticket I wasn't sure how to proceed (it was my first time seeing one and the OTRS agent didn't explain things very clearly) --but I kept all of this correspondence in case the situation became a problem. Because the same user was now disputing the OTRS with weaker logic, I feel that the line needed to be drawn and finally called out the WP:COI issue. I am now being accused of having an "agenda" against the article subject and the other party has claimed to have contacted the Foundation (which seems a bit outside of standard Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but that's not really a central issue here). Needless to say I disagree and feel my edits stand up to scrutiny on their own: please read the edit and decide whether that's true for yourselves; I'm happy to answer any questions on any of my edits on Wikipedia. I have stopped editing the actual article because I do not want to violate 3RR. The most recent comment from the other party is exceptionally self-damning, including "I have contacted colleagues at USC so they can inform the Compliance Office that you are attempting to harm a student-athlete's reputation and put his family at risk." I should state that I am, in real life, an attorney in Minnesota and from that experience I know this is starting to sound a bit, um, fantastic in both what an organization can or would do --but again, I want to be sure so I'm writing here (I now work in medical device law so "online encyclopedia issues" aren't something I regularly deal with). I spoke with another admin, and they suggested going here (in addition to possibly contacting the Foundation if the other user actually has and letting them know I am happy to answer any questions). I am open to doing anything, as I want to solve this situation. (Alas, I'll be leaving for the night soon, and I hope to make my next step after reading the input here tomorrow) Thank you for reading this situation, I will appreciate any suggestions and input. --Bobak (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If there is information that is hurtful to the subject of an article, then it should not be included if there has been a formal complaint to have it removed by what appears to be the mother in this case. By putting back information that was taken out does appear to violate the original complaint. It would not necessarily be COI if it is to protect someone from being harassed. By going through these edits of yours, I have to be honest, it does appear that you are trying to take both sides of an argument. In one case, you do not want Mark Sanchez to have information included from reputable sources, but on the other case, you want to include information about Mitch Mustain from similar sources. In the instance of Mark Sanchez, those are incidents that appear to have been his own actions, yet you want to take them out. In the instance of Mitch Mustain, those are incidents that appear to have been the actions of other individuals out to attack him.

So I have to state that you do not appear to have a strong argument to put information in the article for Mitch Mustain if there have been complaints to have it removed due to its negative effect on him or his family. You do have quite a history of edit warring and this appears to be the latest chapter for you. You should perhaps recuse yourself from editing this article since it appears that you may have some inappropriate agenda based on your words and editing history. SouthFerryRoad (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There are, as you observe, many issues here, but the first that strikes me is that the edits of Caffehamp, even as they do not strictly run afoul of NLT, tend to suggest that he intends to involve extra-Wikipedia entities in a content dispute. Although there is, to be sure, nothing the Foundation or any individual editor should fear from the involvement of the "USC Compliance Office", neither is there anything actually worrisome about many of the legal threats we encounter here, but we nevertheless block indefinitely because, for one, we (correctly, IMHO) view attempts at coercing editors as quite pernicious and as profoundly acollaborative; since certain of the edits of Caffehamp are of the same character as legal threats, then, and since his edits are confined to Mitch Mustain and Mark Sanchez, I wonder if we might not do well to block, at least until such time as the user clarifies his intent vis-a-vis IRL "authorities". Joe (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I somehow failed to scroll down Special:Contributions/Caffehamp; "confined to Mitch Mustain and Mark Sanchez" is, I now see, erroneous, and since the editor is not, I now gather, a single-issue user committed to pushing a POV contrary to consensus, as first I read him to be, the whole "block indefinitely" thing ought probably to be disregarded. Joe (talk)

In apologizing to Caffehamp for my non-trivial initial misreading of the situation, I have notified him of this thread and asked him to comment at his leisure... Joe (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted, Joe.

In regards to this issue, the main point I am raising here is that the content Bobak keeps putting in clearly causes distress and harassment to a 19 year old student-athlete at USC, which is a concern that has been raised by his family with Wikipedia. That is why there was mention of the USC Compliance Office being informed in regards to Bobak being an alumnus of USC; not a legal threat. Since Bobak attends USC athletic events, they should be made aware that he is the reason why Mitch Mustain's family have disputed information that he has put on Wikipedia that puts them at risk of continued harassment and threats against his family. By including content regarding how there are people who wish to cause physical harm or, even, kill Mitch Mustain's mother on Wikipedia, despite their earlier complaints that such information regarding action by those at the University of Arkansas was damaging to Mustain's reputation and caused distress, Bobak is not only putting Mustain's family at risk, it is considered harassment to attempt to link one set of events to another without knowing the full facts of the situation, especially considering that Mustain's family disputed the issues in an OTRS ticket in July.

As far as using "reputable sources," this again goes back to the initial complaint in July. Those "reputable sources" only present one side of the issue, having come from the University of Arkansas, with Mustain never having made any comments, one way or the other, regarding the situation due to his position. By not speaking on the issue, Bobak has asserted that Mustain does not dispute those facts. Again, according to the OTRS complaint, that is not the case. The threats against Mustain's mother and harassing messages have all come from people within the University of Arkansas' athletic department, while Mustain cannot speak both due to his position and for legal reasons.

Now in regards to Mark Sanchez, if one goes to the talk page of that article Talk:Mark_Sanchez, one sees that Bobak has consistently attempted to remove information that could put Sanchez in a negative light and he himself stated "The issue wasn't about painting him in the best light, it was about how much information violates the principle outlined in Wikipedia:Avoiding harm." Based on Bobak's own statement, he is clearly violating this principal in regards to Mitch Mustain as Mustain's family has asserted that these comments not only harm this student-athlete, it is subjecting them to harassment and puts them at risk. If Mustain is a 19 year old student-athlete at USC who plays football, it is inappropriate to include on Wikipedia information regarding how people affiliated with the University of Arkansas seek to physically harm or, even, kill his mother. That immediately puts them at risk. Likewise, putting information regarding a booster who has harassed him, causing significant distress already, also adds to the harm to both his reputation and his family's well-being.

So Bobak's constant attempts to put information on Mustain's article not only attempts to link one set of unrelated events to other events without knowing the full story, they also harm Mustain's family and put them at risk. They already complained about this issue in July and it was resolved, but Bobak insists on putting it back, yet has long attempted to take out information about another student-athlete at USC under the premise that it causes harm.

This should not even be an issue. If Mustain's family believe this is harmful to a 19 year old student-athlete and causes them harassment, and places them at risk, which they already have, it should not be included. Caffehamp (talk) 06:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I wrote some on this yesterday, but decided to delve a bit deeper today. Let me start off by saying that I have no affiliation with USC or Arkansas and my alma mater did not even have a football team. I do enjoy college football and have contributed to college basketball articles, but mostly stick to popular culture. Looking at my history, you can all see that I have never engaged in an edit war in all my time at Wikipedia and that is saying quite a bit. Whenever I make changes, I describe the changes, with no one engaging in back and forth editing. So hopefully that qualifies me as an impartial observer here.

So after seeing Bobak's user page User:Bobak saying that he is a graduate of USC, I looked up the USC definition of a booster on their athletic site and it is described as alumni who "have been involved in any way with promoting USC’s athletic programs," which would include posting pictures and biographies on sites such as Wikipedia. So based on that, Bobak can be identified as a USC booster, which would make his claims that Caffehamp has a WP:COI to be quite hypocritical. Bobak could be considered to have a COI, too.

I went back and sifted through Talk:Mitch_Mustain and Talk:Mark Sanchez and several things struck out to me. These are two people who are both players in the quarterback position at USC, so I would assume they would be competing against each other in the future. Therein lies much of the problem that I encountered with the two articles. With Mark Sanchez, Bobak has a history of edit warring to portray this Mark Sanchez person in a very positive way, with his main editing issue being that he has tried to remove significant information about what appears to be an arrest in the 2006 season for suspicion of sexual assault. For this Mark Sanchez person, Bobak has tried to change the wording for the arrest to his own POV wording while trying to reduce the information available there on the grounds that it harms that person. With Mitch Mustain, Bobak has repeatedly put in information that makes this Mitch Mustain person come across in a negative way, including putting information that an OTRS request by Mitch Mustain's family believed was hurtful. With that information removed for several months, Bobak has put the information back in.

So all things considered, I would have to say that based on Bobak's editing history of these two football players at his alma mater, it does appear that he favors portraying the Mark Sanchez person in a positive way and wants to remove negative information and factual wording and wants to put in negative information about the Mitch Mustain person that is considered hurtful to his family. I do not believe the information about wanting to hurt this Mitch Mustain's mother should be included. That would be considered harmful, hurtful and stressful to the Mustain family. I also do not see what the criminal view that some people have (which is, quite rationally, very disturbed) regarding Mitch Mustain's mother has to do with inclusion on his article. Based on that, I would have to say this information not only does not belong on the Mitch Mustain article, if it has been known to cause hurt and harm due to an official complaint, it should be removed. SouthFerryRoad (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• I looked up the OTRS ticket. The fundamental problem is that this is subject to multiple, conflicting accounts. The text as included gave only one of them, and also linked to the content of offensive emails. In my view the events are neither significant enough nor well enough covered by properly independent reportage. We should not include this content. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that other editors have looked over the situation, and now please allow me to respond to some comments made about me, which I believe can be tied back into the topic at hand: does the OTRS ticket from July still hold sway over information published in November (which in turn have no negative comment to say about Mustain or his family).

Since my previous actions regarding Mark Sanchez have been brought up, I will address them: my position on the Sanchez article is that as a criminal charge that was not ever prosecuted due to a lack of evidence, I was concerned there was too much information (criminal law issues are treated with different than civil law issues --as an attorney, it makes me a bit more nervous). With that said, the current article remains with CaffeHamp's information because I really can't dispute its current state (it was whittled down through edits back and forth, the only thing I can't say is that it was totally amiable). However, outside of Caffehamp there were incidents (that predate his involvement with that article) that are tied to a single sock-master who was banned but still had a few accounts that were eventually swept by me and another editor (open proxy issue). I have never abused my admin privileges in the content dispute (and we know a dispute does not automatically equal an "edit war" accusation), and I've worked around the information Caffehamp's put in that article. I am treating the issue on the criminal charges in the Sanchez article as settled (and my edit history demonstrates that). An editor should never have to apologize for good faith edits and disputes if they are willing to concede, which I have done. Bringing up this issue is fine, but does pull the issue away from the facts of the Mustain article's situation.

With respect to JzG comments regarding the original OTRS, the media does not have multiple conflicting accounts (especially in the months after that OTRS complaint). Please re-read the information I've added as well as the sources: All accounts, especially in the recent month I cited to, agree. On top of that, the issue that is being argued by Caffehamp is that I am adding negative information about the subject. Here's what's even more odd: the articles do not disparage Mitch Mustain, the people who are getting the worst of these articles are Houston Nutt and the Arkansas staff. He claims the information is all coming from the University of Arkansas: then why is the University of Arkansas coming off so badly in the articles? So this argument that I am trying to "harm Mitch Mustain" doesn't make sense because this is, at worst, a bizarre side show he happens to have been been inadvertantly involved in. So this accusation that I am trying to harm Mustain while help Sanchez is also demonstratably incorrect: nothing I have added about Mustain in any edit has given a negative image to his ability as a football player, a person, or as a future quarterback --please point to cases otherwise and I will be happy to take a look.

Finally: The definition of booster for any university includes anyone who graduated, anyone who is a family member of a graduate, and even broader groups that would create absurd problems in COI and university articles. I am a USC and University of Minnesota alum, I edit a lot of USC-related articles (and players), but I do not feel I have a proven POV issue because I've added NPOV information to every player, almost always with citation (again, I stand by my edit history --not what others summarize it as). Unlike Caffehamp, I do not claim to work for the University or on behalf of the University. Caffehamp has openly admited to writing on behalf of the USC sports information department in an email I am happy to provide to any third party for evidence as well as in this edit. Having him point the COI arrow at me is, well, interesting. My goals on this website are to include interesting stories, but avoid things that could create legal issues; I, in good faith, feel that criminal charges (that were never followed through on) could be dicey if not written correctly, but I did not see (and continue to not see) the negative side of any of the information I have written on the Mustain article in regards to Mitch Mustain himself. I turned the article from a stub into a big article, and any careful review of my edits will show that I have no bias against him --just accusations of bias, which, I hope, other editors here can see or point me to where I am incorrect (in which case I will eat crow).

Thank you for any continued attention. --Bobak (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite honestly, you need to stop your obsession with CafeHamp. It does not even matter if Cafe Hamp is the president of USC, as Joe quite rightly pointed out above, any review will show that CafeHamp has always conducted himself with class and never pushed a POV against consensus, or POV in any way. In fact, this CafeHamp user has always come across as being quite rational and fair, always pushing for accuracy in articles and not trying to link unrelated issues to lead the reader to believe something that may not be accurate. Just accept that your POV was not accepted by consensus and there are people who could be subjected to harm and hurt by your actions. I am saying this as an uninvolved party and am calling it as I see it based on the actions of your edits and discussions on talk pages. CafeHamp cannot be blamed for being anything but calling for accuracy and preventing someone's family from being subjected to harm. In regards to evidence of your bias, the Mark Sanchez article and discussion page is sufficient proof that you wish to inject your own wording and choice of what is included to portray a subject in a favorable way, while ignoring what was really the situation as stated by law enforcement agencies. No more needs to be added to that. So I urge you to stop this obsession that is hurting your credibility. SouthFerryRoad (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Typhoon

The User:Typhoon has been taking a very uncivil approach to his Wikipedia contributions. The user has been taking talk page messages, such as image deletion warnings, very personally. Every single time that a user posts a message on his talk page, it is deleted almost immediately, and replaced with something vulgar, such as the following:

I don't care about WikiProjects, I don't care if I uploaded a non-free image, I don't care about any bureaucratic Wikipedian bullshit, I just want to make my stupid edits and be left alone. If I made a change you don't like, just undo it and leave me and this page alone.[58]

After leaving two messages on his talk page earlier today about image deletion warnings, he replaced his entire page with "FUCK YOU"[59], which I consider to be a personal attack. Later today, another user posted a message on Typhoon's page, and it was removed right away by Typhoon, which lead the posting user to revert the message, and leave an additional message on his page about removing talk page messages.[60] Basically, it is pretty clear that this user does not adhere to policy, nor does he/she have any desire to do so, and has not changed his/her behavior despite having received several warnings. Typhoon's last talk page edit was replacing the entire page with a copyrighted image[61], which I have just reverted. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello there, Dream out loud. A few things:

• he says just revert if you don't like his edits - so, if you don't think his edits are appropriate, just revert as suggested (with good explanations!). Does he then revert and edit war back? Or attack? If not, he is true to his word. If he does, then discuss here.
• He says he just wants to be left alone - so let's do that. But of course, don't fail to carry out WP policies that must be strict, such as image copyright violations.
• He's perfectly entitled to remove comments from his talk page, in fact, doing so suggests he has received the message, which is the point. Do reinstate these messages (and I don't know if this has been happening) would be simply goading him.
• Saying F*** You is a personal attack and problematic. Now, i don't know the circumstances behind it. Would leaving him and talk page alone in his own little world perhaps prevent such messages occurring?

my suggestions is to just get on with reviewing his edits (as he has requested), and removing copyright infringements, and leave the talk page alone. Just some thoughts. Hope to see you around the U2 articles again! kind regards --Merbabu (talk) 06:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

PS, perhaps an admin could post a firm but polite message about any continued violations of image use policy - ie, suggesting a block could be instated. Let him read it, remove it without reverting it back, and give him a chance to comply, and then if there is further image policy violations, further action can be then be taken. Just don't keep reverting his talk page back as that is just provoking him. cheers. :-) --Merbabu (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking into it. Sandstein (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Warning against personal attacks issued. The user may remove messages from his talk page, though. You should let him know that his conduct is discussed here. In the case of continued disruption, please report it to me, to another admin, to WP:ANI or to WP:AIV as appropriate. Sandstein (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Merbabu (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Good to see that he has a sense of humour. --Merbabu (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Andre Douzet Wikipedia

Resolved

 – Article nuked by snowball AfD Guy (Help!) 17:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

moved from WP:AIV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Douzet

The Andre Douzet article on Wikipedia is contributed by his Supporters Corjan de Raaf, Filip Coppens and Andrew Gough who also run websites that promote him - therefore the Wikipedia article cannot be Neutral or Unbiased in nature. Andre Douzet is regarded as a charlatan and a hoaxer in France and I have placed a translated French article in the Talk Page regarding this. My comments in the article that he is a writer of pseudohistorical books and my comments in the Talk Page about who the people are that contribute the article get blanked out by his supporters. Can something please be done about this? Thanks. Wfgh66 (talk) 09:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have it watchlisted, and will revert the talk page blankings if they reoccur. From my understanding of policy, removing others' talk page posts that are not attacks is a violation of policy. I would urge you to add references which support your view that Douzet is a "peudohistorian". Douzet is still alive, so we have to be careful not to violate WP:BLP. I see from the talk page that you have French references. These are acceptable, as long as they are reliable sources. Perhaps you can pull some of the references from the French Wikipedia entry about him?Jeffpw (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• OTRS ticket 2007111710004458 refers. Filip Coppens describes Douzet as one of his authors, and is co-author of some books, so has a conflict of interest. I am having a hard time digging up much in the way of non-trivial independent sources for this subject, help would be appreciated. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• How about WP:AFD? His one dubious claim to notability, in the page history, is that he appeared on some low-brow TV documentary, presumably talking about his supposed discoveries. No article = no problem. Sandstein (talk) 12:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• And fewer than 900 Ghits, as well. Guy (Help!) 12:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Different IPs have been blanking sections of Talk:André Douzet: [62], [63], [64], [65], and [66]. One option is to semi-protect the Talk page, but if the AfD goes through, the problem will be moot. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Bias, lack of consensus and misuse of administrative powers

In the Water Fluoridation Controversy article, User:jersyko has repeatedly deleted, edited and revised information so aggressively and over such a long period of time so as to indicate personal bias. As can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Water_fluoridation_controversy, for 16 months he has regularly and unilaterally deleted information from a variety of editors under the guise that they never comply with various Wikipedia policies. The policies cited for these deletions are usually subjective, but his revisions are frequently made without discussion and always without consensus. Here's a typical diff that has "too much detail": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_fluoridation_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=169091696 IIRC, as one of the original authors of the Water Fluoridation article, he mandated that any alternative or controversial information be forked to a new "Controversy" article, which he zealously guards, reverting and revising when any controversial information is presented. When he's through, the article bears no resemblance to the original. Later, any objectionable portions that still remain are edited again or buried further down the article. Just take a look at the above diff from two weeks ago and the current version. From time to time, this bias and censorship has been noted and commented on by other editors, including at least one other administrator. Jersyko's response is to always demand good faith, even when it hasn't been demonstrated.

I must admit to a certain amount of recent incivility and lack of good faith, but some of this is frustration over his bulldozer attitude that totally disregards any other opinion and an unfounded accusation that I was probably the same person who asked why he buried a section that I was recently defending (which gave him the excuse he was looking for to revert it again.) Allowing an obviously biased administrator to have unfettered control over an article without requiring that he seek consensus or demonstrate a NPOV is not what Wikipedia is about. Libertyinfo (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Though I assumed good faith from Libertyinfo for quite some time, Libertyinfo consistently revealed him/herself to be a single purpose account with a POV-pushing agenda. If anything, I've probably been too patient thus far, too willing to offer a compromise (which was rejected). Good luck with this . . . · jersyko talk 13:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I also note some POV pushing by libertyinfo to the (already messy) colloidal silver article.[67] Skinwalker (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Libertyinfo has also been editing as an anon with a non-static IP. Some of his/her IPs can be found in this subsection of a relevant talk page. · jersyko talk 14:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• I would say that Libertyinfo is an aggressive POV-pusher and we should give him one more chance to clean up his act or conclude that he is not helpful to the process of building a neutral encyclopaedia and send him packing. Kudos to Jersyko and others for trying long and hard to work with this person - seems to me in return he's not interested in workign with anyone who does not accept his POV uncritically. Shape up or ship out, Libertyinfo. Guy (Help!) 14:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• I already gave him a friendly warning which went over his head, apparently. --Haemo (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Haemo, I appreciate the warning and it did not go over my head. But why is no one addressing the central issue here? That being the propriety of one administrator taking it upon himself to delete and revise the contributions of not just myself, but many other editors over a 16-month period, usually without discussion and definitely without consensus. Has anyone even looked at how extensive these changes have been and how many editors have been deleted and revised? Isn't consensus and neutrality what Wikipedia is about? Is it really acceptable policy for one person -- especially an administrator -- to unilaterally and aggressively act as a gatekeeper of information contained in an article over an extended period of time? If it is, then I stand corrected. Libertyinfo (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, consensus is what Wikipedia is all about. You're currently hearing a consensus that your approach is highly problematic. Speaking of consensus, have you made efforts to achieve consensus? My read of the talk page shows you making quite a few accusations and repeatedly focusing on an "opposing" editor rather than the content issues and relevant Wikipedia policies. MastCell ^Talk 04:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Serious IP vandalism and personal attacks in the Istrian exodus article

Could someone take a look at the latest IP User edits in the Istrian exodus article. They destroyed a weeks-long effort to balance the controversial article, between User:PIO and myself, with low-quality very POV edits. The IPs have also indulged in disgusting personal attacks as well, and continued to edit in spite of protests. If I may, I'd like to request the article's semi-protection for the time being.

• Edits: [68]

• Personal attacks (in edit descriptions): [69]
  

Please note that the frase "pitchku mater" means "your mother's cunt!" in the Serbian and Croatian languages.
DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi protection appears a bit hasty right now. If the vandalism continues after warning the ip's they can be blocked (use WP:AIV for a quicker response) and only if they continue vandalism should the article be protected. It is a bit of a pain, but keeping articles unprotected until absolutely necessary is the best policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

These guys switch IPs all the time, so I'm skeptical about blocking, that's why I went straight to the block request. But you're right, the procedure's the procedure. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've issued an only warning, if the vandalism and abuse continues then it can justify semi protecting - but yes, procedure protects us as well as articles. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Greater Albania

I'd appreciate a look at Greater Albania. I've locked it for a week due to edit waring and I have blocked two of the culprits for a quick 24 hours. I blocked User:TheFEARgod and User:Bardhylius. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 15:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

With the absence of the above I don't see much need to protect, hardly anyone else managed to get in an edit recently. I presume the protect is for when the blocks expire? If they resume edit-warring upon the protection expiry I suggest indef blocks until they agree to dispute resolution (or is SPA socks likely?) LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually there was one other editor I considered but his wasn't has bad -- just a judgment call. Otherwise, I agree that indefs could be required. As to the socks, I don't know. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 15:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked IP vandalising user talk page

Resolved

• 152.216.3.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - This user is already blocked but continues to vandalise and make personal attacks on his/her talk page. I reported this on WP:AIV, but the clean-up bot kept removing it, presumably as the user is already blocked. – Tivedshambo (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved by User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry - many thanks. – Tivedshambo (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Known harmful bot

With this edit, HBC AIV helperbot4 removed an entry for the IP 198.237.124.2 from the Administrator intervention against vandalism list. The offending IP had not been blocked yet, and the bot did not make any reference to the removal in its edit summary. When I re-added the IP to the list moments later, it was immediately blocked by admin Dreadstar, indicating the block was justifed, and the bot should not have removed the entry.

When I addressed the issue with the bot operator at [70], I was told the problem was unfixable from a coding standpoint, or that a fix would require "excessive load". The bot is known to remove valid entries (a violation of the bot policy's requirement that bots be "harmless"). The removed entries are generally not re-added until they are caught vandalizing by another editor who can be bothered to add them to the AIV (which may mean a significant amount of extra vandalism). The bot op estimates this to occur about twice a day, and the bot op does not monitor for such mistakes.

Given that the task of removing blocked users from the AIV list is one admins can perform when they apply the blocks, I believe the benefits of this particular task of this bot and its other instances may be outweighed by this problem. I leave it to the admins to determine what, if any, action is called for. — Swpb^talk.edits 17:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

So what exactly do you want done? This bot is extremely helpful and I would think that the errors are very minimal. As he said, it occurs when there is an edit conflict. Given the level of assistance the bot provides vs. the rare problem I wouldn't be too concerned. JodyB _talk 17:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned either. I do not think this is a serious problem. The bots remove a lot of the tedium from blocking users and maintaining the AIV page. Worst case scenario is that it takes a few more vandalisms for a few vandals to get reported again, which can be a problem - but it is not a particularly serious one. The benefit the bots provide outweigh the mistakes they make, by allowing admins to operate more efficiently. henrik•talk 17:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I believe at least that the bot op has a responsibility to monitor for these mistakes, given that they occur twice a day, which seems pretty frequent to me, given that bots are expected to never screw up. When a human editor encounters an edit conflict, they back up and try again. Why can't this bot do the same? — Swpb^talk.edits 18:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a bug with the mediawiki software itself I think. It sometimes fails to catch edit conflicts. It happens with humans too, if I make a post and you save your post very close to mine, it may overwrite yours with mine and tell neither of us that there was a conflict. This needs to be addressed at the mediawiki software level. 1 != 2 18:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think that bots are expected to never screw up? I would like to clarify that if the bot gets an "edit conflict" it will re-read the current version and try again with the new info. The problem is that the edit conflict is not caught by the mediawiki software. Both users are told that their edit went through, but an unreported edit conflict happens. I think it has to do with master/slave database lag. This is something that effects all users and bots equally. 1 != 2 18:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec):::Making two errors per day is only significant when measured against the totality of edits in a given day. Next, you cannot discount the worth of the bots work. Third, the error really cannot be considered harm to the encyclopedia - at least not without a considerable stretch. I suspect the code is freely licensed so feel free to correct the problem and post it to the op. JodyB _talk 18:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If you do come up with a programming solution for this Swpb I am sure the ops will check it out, the source is open. 1 != 2 18:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a programmer, so that option is out. I'm pretty sure bots are expected not to have known screw-ups, but I suppose that's a moot point if the problem is with the mediawiki software. In that case, is that a fixable problem, worth writing an error report about? I would also note that 2 errors per day is the estimate of the bot op - the real number may be higher. — Swpb^talk.edits 18:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the mediawiki software has an open bug report one this. The problem lies in that we use many database servers that don't always stay synced. The problem is really that of resources, the solution may involve throwing money into more and faster database servers. I am not sure, but I think that it is impractical for always wait for a DB sync or page loads would take to long. All theory on my part. 1 != 2 18:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If you do find the open bug reports, perhaps mention the link here. The more people that complain, the higher priority it may be given. 1 != 2 18:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Many thanks for steering me in the right direction. — Swpb^talk.edits 18:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• I just wish I made so few errors per so many hundred edits as it does per thousand... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Williamliew

The above user has made a number of POV and controversial edits mainly on the Tibet article but also on a couple of other articles today. All of their edits are unsourced and clearly POV. I have tried reasoning with them on their talk page and left three of the "unsourced" template messages. I have also left a message on the Tibet article talk page asking them not to keep adding unsourced material and to add a source. However, so far they have simply ignored all these messages and keep adding what are clearly controversial POV edits back in again. If I recall correctly when things like this happen it is the norm to revert the article to the last "good" version and to request discussion on the talk page before any further edits? I have done this, however the user has simply ignord all my messgaes and again added the content, unsourced, back in yet again. What happens now please? I have not reported this as vandamism as I don't believe it is. I just appears to be someone with a very strongly held opinion who doesn't seem willing to discuss controversial edits. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Warned npov4. Next time he does it earns a vacation. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Casual vandalism and POV pushing by User:Bwmiller

User:Bwmiller is a single-purpose account who comes on every few weeks/months to argue about a marina at Greystones, which he is strongly against but which has recently received planning permission. He has added POV statements and weasel words several times in the past, eg. here; and he is a member of the Greystones Protection & Development Association (he personally added their link here), which is a group vehimently opposed to the plans.
His current problem is with the fact that a landfill on the site is 'inert' (meaning non-toxic). Even though there is a valid citation for this fact, the user has twice removed it, here and here. On the talk page he has argued that the citation is not from a "reputable" source, and that information that he says he has heard in an "oral hearing", which he cannot provide any evidence for, should be kept in the article. He then finishes by saying "Frankly, by constantly reinserting the word 'inert' you are making an ass of yourself." which I think is a bit unacceptable. I would ask for either a strong warning from an admin, or a straight block. Thanks. Schcambo (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible RL intervention needed

Resolved

 – I think we've done everything we can here now. Authorities and OFFICE can take it from here - Alison ^❤ 21:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

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

I just tagged Tiffany Ellis for speedy but it appears to be someone's intention to commit suicide. Not sure if we would normally act in these cases or if we can find out more about the author and contact authorities. --Bloodzombie (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SUICIDE. Qst 19:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

After having the deleted text provided to me (as there were no BLP or other issues), I don't believe this is a true account - I believe it to be a sick joke. However, please feel free to further comment here as it is still at a serious level, currently. Qst 19:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no real way to know whether this is some creative-writing student's sick brainchild or if it's serious (we can only hypothesize), so I'd side with caution and treat it as a real attempt. —Animum (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but it looks serious enough to me - Alison ^❤ 19:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone contacted Omaha PD? JodyB _talk 19:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was going to ask - this type of thing is either serious, in which case intervention is necessary, or a hoax, in which case this child needs a good talking to by the local police department. I would be happy to get in touch with the PD in Omaha, if no one has yet. Natalie (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, best not to wait any longer. JodyB _talk 19:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the process of contacting them. Natalie (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I probably would have done, but calls to the USA from England cost a fortune, and the may not trust me, as I'm a minor (only just). Qst 19:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no reason to international dial. Reported, we'll see what happens. Natalie (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Working on it here too - Alison ^❤ 19:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What did the local police service say, are they tracing the IP addressuser account right now, or will they be investigating it at a later date? Qst (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The non-emergency operators were busy so I left a message w/ phone number. I can't call emergency services b/c I'm not in Omaha (my cel will connect to an emergency services for my cel company, or emergency services in Minnesota which is very far away), but I'm going to call back non-emergency in a couple of minutes. If I can't get a hold of them I'll call emergency anyway. I've also contacted the Foundation office through email - not sure if anyone is there on Saturday. Natalie (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly not, as it is only working days - hopefully somebody will be around, though. Qst (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I obtained certain details re. the account (don't ask!) and have contacted their ISP. Natalie has contacted the police, so that's about the extent of what we can do here now - Alison ^❤ 20:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Omaha PD called me back and they're looking into it. A volunteer for the Foundation also responded and has forwarded the information to the appropriate people. This is as resolved as we're able to resolve it. Natalie (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. I have indefinitely blocked Sssadow (talk · contribs) for creating the article that triggered this call to police. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Wiki Florida 2007

Resolved

This user, along with a group of users listed in Template:Wiki Florida 2007 seem to be building a load of unreferenced articles in the userspace. Please can someone have a look at Wiki Florida's 2007's subpages, located here. There is an unusual large amount of subpages, all of which look like articles. I also believe the people listed in Template:Wiki Florida 2007 are sockpuppets of Wiki Florida 2007. Davnel03 19:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The main account (WF2007) is blocked, so I deleted everything in his userspace (random Google checks of several pages has shown nothing). As of other socks, does anybody know their suspected sockmaster, Asadaleem12@hotmail.com? MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 20:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The template looks like a vanity one as well unless such an event really exists. x42bn6 Talk Mess 20:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The template should be deleted, its basically useless. However, the other users located on the template are probable sockpuppets of Asadaleem12@hotmail.com I guess. Davnel03 20:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Asad Aleem is a long-term hoaxmonger. Lately, he's been using the account User:Kevin Hotfury to create a large amount of hoax articles, but since they're in userspace there's not much to be done. He also edits wrestling articles, but I don't know much about that and other editors seem to consider those edits OK. JuJube (talk) 02:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, now I see they're really his socks. Blocked 'em all and nuked their userspace. "since they're in userspace there's not much to be done" you say? Disagree, even userspace is not for publishing boolshit. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 06:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism to Ohio High School Athletic Association and related articles

I've been reverting a lot of vandalism to Ohio High School Athletic Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and associated talk pages lately. Someone from various dialups under tukw.qwest.net has been inserting statements alleging personal and organizational ties to NAMBLA. Buckeyeguy2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also registered an account to make these edits when I had the article semiprotected. They've also been hitting Talk:Linkin Park and I think they've been following around the edits of Maralia (talk · contribs) this afternoon. This is worth a heads-up. I don't want to have to block every Qwest dialup from Tukwila, Washington, since that would be antisocial. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a sock of User:Jetwave Dave. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jetwave Dave and sample any of the example edits listed there for comparison. Ongoing campaign of harassment against another user; he's merely hitting me now because I cleaned up some of his harassment. Maralia (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

User:hopiakuta

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Not resolved, see my comment below. Davnel03 21:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Something is wrong with this user's contribution. Redirects, strange things. Something alien. I don't understand at all. For example Topple. I just can't figure out. sharara 21:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a soft redirect to Wikt:topple. So? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see why sahara is concerned, just look at hopiakuta's user and talk page, some proper weird shit going on, theres tons of bizarre, senseless links and weird formatting etc--Jac16888 (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've striked the resolved tag as it clearly isn't resolved. Something is weird here. Davnel03 21:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I was planning to remove the tag; I simply looked at the link she provided to Topple. EDIT) The only thing I'm getting from the pages is "fraudulent" websites, bad wiki-markup, and the sense of doo-doo-doo-doo doo-doo-doo-doo. However, I think there was a thread in which Hopiakuta was described as using a screen reader.-Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that this user is blind. There's nothing to see here (sorry). east.718 at 21:33, November 17, 2007

That makes sense, I guess. I chatted with him across a few pages and it was perplexing, like English was a third language perhaps. That makes sense, now. I don't know if it's appropriate, though, but could someone who knows him speak with him just about his signature and formatting, if it's possible? I have no idea what the limitations are of using a site like this with a reader as he does, but the grammatical disconnect makes it difficult to follow what he's after, to work with him. If not, no big deal and forget I asked (just tossing it out, if anything can be done to help him and us). • Lawrence Cohen 21:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a Wikiproject on accessibility somewhere; editor assistance might also be able to help. In addition to being blind, I suspect that due to this user being a French/Italian immigrant, English is not this user's native language; they've also admitted to having physical, emotional, and cognitive disabilities. [71] east.718 at 22:14, November 17, 2007

Found it, Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility, doesn't seem very extensive, i would think that this should be a top priority of the foundation itself, to make wikipedia the encylopedia that Anyone can edit--Jac16888 (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I see this user has previously talked with User:Graham87, who is also blind. I have some experience of JAWS myself, through a friend. Would it be a good idea to ask User:Graham87 of he would get together with User:hopiakuta to sort those pages out? I say this because User:Graham87's pages are legible to us lesser beings, and I can foresee this happening again if the pages are left as they are. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

See this discussion and here for more on this. Tvoz |talk 01:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Otto4711

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

Resolved

- All a big misunderstanding. Rjd0060 (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Otto4711 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user seems to have some Ownership issues with Boy Meets Boy (TV series). Due to the 24-hour period, he hasn't technically violated WP:3RR, as he appears to have waited a few extra hours for his fourth revert (likely to avoid the policy breech).
[72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77]

All of these show that the user is reverting edits, which are removing trivia tags from the article, and restoring useless trivia. He received this warning, and replied to it in this edit summary. He received another warning and again, removed it and left this reply on my talk page. The replies he left to about the 3RR warnings indicate that the user fails to realize the problem he is causing, and the policy he is disregarding. If an admin could take appropriate action, leave a comment, or whatever, to make sure the user understands the policy he is breaking, and ask him to stop it, it would be appreciated. Obviously I, and User:Collectonian have other things to do here, and shouldn't have to monitor this users disruptive behavior. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that the user has been blocked several times, but 2 of the blocks are 3RR blocks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

My opinion: This is a content dispute, and should be dealt with on talk page or via a request for comment or other methods of dispute resolution. In particular, I wish there were more discussion on the talk page.  :-( --Iamunknown 21:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk page was already tried, and didn't resolve anything. Otto still removed a trivia tag. As evident from the block log, Otto has a history of 3RR violations and civility issues. Some action needs to be taken. "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive" - from WP:3RR. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I am familiar WP:3RR, but I would hardly characterize Otto's actions as "disruptive". This is, cut-and-dry, a content dispute. The next course of action, if the active editors on the article feel that they have not generated a consensus and have exhausted discussion on the talk page, is other methods of dispute resolution (I would recommend a third opinion or a request for comment), not a discussion thread here and not blocking Otto's account. --Iamunknown 22:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, but quite frankly, I brought this to the Administrators noticeboard for a reason. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I did attempt another method, posting at the Village Pump for assistance and comment, and stepping back from trying to continue to improve the article until I received comments. I also tried discussing with Otto ways to incorporate the trivia stuff into the article and was met with rudeness and a growing sense that he won't let anything to be done to the article that he doesn't like. He has been increasingly uncivil on both the article talk page, in his many reverts and on my talk page as seen here my talk page (and [78]. It is not the first time he has displayed ownership over the article, reverting another editors attempt to tag the trivia section [79], yet at the same time refusing to allow any other trivia to be added [80] , and reverting any change he doesn't like [81][82]. He has not shown any willingness to listen to anyone else or even really discuss anything that he doesn't agree with. Collectonian (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Looks can be deceiving; Despite all of the text above, there has yet to be an admin comment on this - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• I disagreed with Collectonian on whether the information in the trivia section is encyclopedic. It seems to me that someone's military career ending in part because of his decision to participate in the show and the fact that the winners of a dating show didn't take the trip that they won together are reasonably encyclopedic, and all of it is now sourced. Collectonian removed the entire section. I put it back and attempted to initiate a discussion on the talk page while adding sources for the information. Collectonian removed the information again after it was already sourced, which, the last I heard, sourced encyclopedic information should not be removed without a really good reason. He claimed that the information violated WP:BLP, which is simply not true, and then went on to declare that the highly respected LGBT publication Southern Voice was unacceptable as a source because it wasn't "neutral" enough, which struck me as bizarre. He also falsely accused me of vandalism, a stunning failure to assume good faith amounting to a personal attack. I do not agree that three sourced items constitute a problematic trivia section but hey, if it makes people feel better to have the section tagged then so be it. I note that trivia sections are not prohibited but are rather discouraged, with the proviso that a) poorly presented information (which this isn't anyway) is better than no information and b) WP:TRIVIA does not in any way contemplate the wholesale deletion of such sections contrary to what this editor did. Further, under that guideline, "the term "trivia section" refers to a section's content, not its name. A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and unselective list....A selectively populated list with a narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information." Three items of information, organized and sourced, do not in my opinion even qualify as a trivia section under the guideline so why this tempest has blown up in this particular teacup is a mystery to me. If preventing an editor who I'm assuming has good intentions but whose actions are utterly misguided means that I have ownership issues, then I have ownership issues. I stand by my actions and I call into question the actions of the first editor who got this mess going through his wholesale removal of information and the second editor who's now trying to drag admins into a dispute over a trivia tag with phony accusations of "disruption." Otto4711 (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring (between the both of you) is disruptive. Edit warring is evident from the history of the page. That cannot be disputed. It is an obvious fact that you were engaged in an edit war with another user. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And yet you only bring me up on charges. Interesting. I don't consider restoring and sourcing information removed by an editor who clearly has an incomplete understanding of the guideline he's invoking to be edit warring. Otto4711 (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that you were both edit warring. It is obvious for anybody who looks at the history. I only made this rpt about you because you were the one nearing violation of 3RR, and when warned, twice, you didn't seem to care. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

So let me see if I understand. Two editors were in your opinion "edit warring" and I'm the only one you're trying to get in trouble because I didn't in your view express the proper level of contrition?

And to add to my previous comment... if I were really so deeply mired in ownership issues and edit warring, wouldn't I have done something about the other major changes in format that the same editor made to the page? Or maybe it's like I said, the editor took out information improperly and, when it was restored and sourced, took it out again anyway with no justification while flinging about bad faith vandalism accusations. Otto4711 (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know how else to explain it, as you don't seem to understand what I am saying. You can see Wikipedia:Edit war for more info on that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because I don't agree doesn't mean I don't understand. The point still stands that there were two people involved in the situation you're stressing about but you're only trying to get one of them in trouble for it. Otto4711 (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Trivia is fine if it's sourced and relevant (take for example, this GA, which has a one paragraph triviaesque section), but it shouldn't be called "Trivia". Too many knee-jerk reactions. "Notes" would be better, as it solicits less knee-jerking, at least. Will ^(talk) 01:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm fine with calling it "notes" or something else. I have no intention of changing it, however, because I find the notion of being hauled before the tribunal again for it to be far too intimidating. Otto4711 (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Indefinite block of User:TabooTikiGod

Review of the progression of the discussion at WP:AIR will show this user's approach to not be the most collegial... but be that as it may, I construe this as a legal threat. Therefore in accordance with WP:LEGAL I have indefinitely blocked this user pending their either deciding to recant the threat, or to pursue legal action and remain blocked. As always I welcome review of my actions. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive327#Administrator_violating_Wikipedia_policy and User_talk:TabooTikiGod among other places. ++Lar: t/c 22:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I would've done the same thing, and I warned the user about making those legal threats before you intervened. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 22:16, 17 November 2007 (GMT)

Concur. I note that TabooTikiGod was given 20+ hours to respond regarding WP:LEGAL.LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Anon engaging in vandalism after previous warning.

Resolved

This anon has engaged in acts of vandalism after being warned by ZimZalaBim earlier this month against continuing his or her disruptive conduct. Here are two examples of this user’s vandalism: [83] & [84]. Seeing as ZimZalaBim warned the anon that further intentional vandalism will result in the blocking of editing privileges, I think a block is indeed in order. ~ Homologeo (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: Moved to WP:AIV. An admin will deal with it there. --EoL talk 22:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack?

Resolved

I just stumbled across this page: User:Isomorphic/scary. I'm not sure, but it seems like it makes a comment that is a personal attack on another editor:

"Q:What do terrorists and mathematicians have in common? A: AxelBoldt

That statement is preceded by an Image of AxelBoldt. If this is a personal attack, I would delete this page as that isn't what the userspace is meant to be used for. — Save_Us_229 22:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The owner of that page hasn't edited it in two years. Have you tried discussing the matter with them? I suspect it's supposed to be humourous, given the awesome pic of David Gerard on there - Alison ^❤ 23:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done Deleted WP:CSD#G10. Mercury 23:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ally Magazine

User Dparamedi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recreated Ally Magazine, which was deleted as a result of this AfD. There is no sign of if being discussed at WP:DRV, and it looks to me as if they've simply pasted a version that existed before deletion, with the AfD template removed. Would this be appropriate to delete and WP:SALT?

Also, this gives rise to the idea that perhaps the newpage patrolling needs to provide prominent links to deletion logs and previous AfDs if they exist, as this article has been labelled as patrolled. I'm not certain where to take that idea. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've taken this idea to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/patrolled pages. The only thing remaining here is the question of whether to salt. The general indication was that there was a WP:COI issue with the article and staff from the publisher may persist in trying to re-create it. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done east.718 at 23:37, November 17, 2007

86.134.242.89

Resolved

I accidentally blocked this IP indefinitely when I meant to do so for a day and am unable to unblock it. east.718 at 00:38, November 18, 2007

I've unblocked it for you, not sure what the problem was but it took a few attempts to do it myself. It's probably the servers not catching up with the block. Feel free to re-block with whatever time you thinks appropriate. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan. east.718 at 00:45, November 18, 2007

User:Sfacets

Sfacets (talk · contribs) was blocked recently by Blnguyen for brinksmanship at WP:PUI but unblocked when he agreed to discontinue delisting his own images there. Since he was unblocked, he has been generally uncivil at his talk page and at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2007_October_25, where he twice removed my warnings that by inviting other editors to review files he set up on his own server, he was collecting their IP addresses. (According to Will Beback, the text file in his directory includes the comment: "Thanks for your IP addresses.") I have blocked him for 1 week for continuing incivility and POINT violations, but I am posting this here because I have been involved in the back and forth with him, and because it was my comments he was removing. Thanks for your assistance! -- But|seriously|folks  01:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Next time, do not exercise your admin privileges with users you are involved with. There are plenty of admins around to block people that merit a block, so that you do not compromise your position as a admin. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, will do. Sorry about that. -- But|seriously|folks  04:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been involved in disputes with Sfacets, and find him to be one of the most tendentious editors around. This is his third block in a month.[85] When I recently warned him that he violated 3RR he complained that I didn't give him enough time for him to undo all of his reverts.[86] The article was protected, but as soon as the protection was lifted he again restored his reverts. A few days later I reported him again for 3RR after a warning, and he promised to stick to 1RR in exchange for an early unblock, but was edit-warring again within five days.[87] He has long exhibited ownership over Sahaja Yoga, a movement he belongs to, as well as related articles. He's shown bias by adding or restoring poorly-source negative material about rival movements. Sfacets has had previous blocks shortened due to promising to change his behavior, but I think he's actually gotten worse instead. I'll prepare a set of recent diffs later so the community can see the scope and nature of the problem and see if there's a long-term solution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I was not "collecting their IP addresses" - do you have any basis for this claim? You were poisoning the well against me, perhaps in a bid to persuade other editors to agree with your attempt to delete images uploaded by me. — Sfacets 03:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

I think the statement in readme.txt thanking readers for their IP addresses is a pretty good basis. Even though you've recently changed it to avoid scrutiny, it's still in Google's cache. -- But|seriously|folks  03:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I made one POINT edit, and was not uncivil. Not that these are valid reasons for a block. The simple fact of the mater is, I removed edits by this editor, and he/she got anoyed, and is now blocking me, abusing admin priviledges, since he is involved in an edit conflict with me. Sfacets 03:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

While we are at the matter of Invivility - here is a prime example of ongoing harassment by Will Beback. Far from commenting on edits, he appears to make it his mission on WIkipedia to target users, stalk them, [88], [89], ... , and harass them. I have seen many editors complain of this, and once my block is lifted I will ask the community what they think of his behaviour.

Will Bebacks' interpretatio of my edits is flawed, I have been contributing on WIkipedia since 2004, on a variety of topics. Sfacets 03:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Posted on behalf of Sfacets. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets, Will Beback is a respected member of the community and a respected administrator. The fact that he may have opposing views to yours is no basis for a complaint. Yes, you edit a myriad of articles, but you keep making the same mistakes again and again despite a lot of understanding shown by admins that have dealt with you in the past. By now, you should know better: don't edit war; don't engage in tendentious editing; just be a good contributor and stay away from trouble. Otherwise you may end up being stripped of your editing privileges, and not just for a week. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In response to the blocking admin statement that I am agreeable to anything an uninvolved admin believes is appropriate. , I have reduced the block to 48 hours. Sfacets: See this as a chance for you to avoid repeating your mistakes. Next time around, you will be blocked for one month and I do not think anyone will challenge that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If a 48 hour block results in changed behavior then that's the best solution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

User:W.GUGLINSKI

Resolved

 – User was indefinitely blocked by Ryulong. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a single-purpose account that has been going around posting lots of non-notable pseudoscience. Several articles have been created and re-created, which consist entirely of invalid claims to have disproved certain parts of quantum mechanics. Guglinski also seems to mis-understand AfDs, seeing them as a forum for low-level personal attacks and flaming. Observe the current active AfDs: here and here. I've warned the author about inappropriate article creations, but an eye should be kept on him.

I personally would speedy the current pages as being non-notable and advertisement, but Natalie Erin has reminded me that speedying pages that are the subject of active AfDs is generally avoided. In any event, based on his history, Guglinski will likely create additional pages once the current set is removed. Michaelbusch (talk) 04:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Previous AFDs are here and here. shoy (^words _words) 04:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If somebody could talk to this user too, it would be appreciated. Every comment listed on the AfD's for his articles, are replied to by him, a...well....annoying and/or disruptive format. See for yourself: AfD, AfD. There are more I think, but you get the picture. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Has this user made any significant quantity of valid contributions to the encyclopedia, or is he mainly pushing pseudoscience? I refer you to look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Proposed decision which is about a case I recently started. Before acting, I'd like to review the evidence, and I'd also like you to notify the user so he has a chance to comment here. As for the evidence, can you present sample diffs showing the problems. Linking to the AfD's helps, but I'd also like a selection of diffs so any casual observer can see the problem. - Jehochman ^Talk 07:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Shoy has notified Guglinski. The AfDs are most of what we have to go on, because almost all of the account's activity has been adding articles pushing one or another pseudoscience. The rest has been adding such to existing articles. One diff is [[90]]. See Quantum Ring Theory at Temple University's page history before the article is removed - at this point WP:SNOWBALL dictates it will be removed soon. One of his articles (Cold fusion theories) was merely stripped and redirected, so we have this version: [[91]]. Michaelbusch (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The red linking shows that the last article was just snowballed. Ryulong has given Guglinski an indefinite block (see User talk:W.GUGLINSKI). This would seem to be over for now, unless a sock shows up. Michaelbusch (talk) 07:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Mervin 110694

Mervin 110694 has been uncooperative lately, he doesn't want to respond to queries and generally undermines articles with fanboyish edits. He's been also uploading like crazy. Also, his insistence of adding TV ratings for every episode of a 5x-a-week program that hasn't even aired yet (LOL) against consensus and without response/replies in unhelpful. --Howard the Duck 04:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's links to Mervin's contributions and logs for reference

Mervin 110694 (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log)

-- Avec nat | Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  05:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

King James I of England

There seems to be a declaration of edit war on this article, with ICarriere and Korismo colluding to remove sourced material from the article because they don't want his homosexuality mentioned. They no longer seem to care to discuss the issue, and both have clearly implied they will revert without discussing on the article's talk page. Korismo has also been decidedly uncivil on his talk page to a solid editor who attempted to discuss the issue.Some help to keep the Wikipedia process going would be appreciated. Jeffpw (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

ANI is not for resolving disputes. I've protected the article, now you should try to reach consensus on article's talk page or start a RFC. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 08:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking you or anybody to resolve this dispute, MaxSem, and frankly, your protection was not needed at this time. What was needed was a word from an admin on those two user's talk pages about edit warring. Both are novices here with less than 500 edits, and one is not even registered. They seem to not understand or not care about Wikipedia's policies regarding consensus and reliable sources. Further, ICarriere has a talk page littered with 3rr and sockpuppet discussions. I suggest you either unprotect the article or read up on the conflict before you involve yourself in it as you now have. Jeffpw (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sort of tempted to agree. There's no doubt James had very close relationships with men, and there's very strong evidence that he had sex with them (this is all links to the murder of Thomas Overbury, where the prosecution were terrified that details of James's relationship with Viscount Rochester (Robert Carr) would come out in court). This can all be sourced, too, and it should be a fairly straightforward case to resolve. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 09:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And that's just the crux, Moreschi: The original text was diputed as undue weight, even though it was sourced; the article was split and a summary paragraph was written explaining what the daughter article included. The two editors who are edit warring refuse to let that summation stand, even though that was the agreed upon compromise on the talk page. I fail to see why the article was page protected in the non-consensus version, and a heterocentric version by editors with a history of tendentious editing is put into place. MaxSem leaped before he looked, as far as I can tell. Jeffpw (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel that you acquaint yourself with admin actions in relation to edit disputes; MaxSem did exactly what is required - he protected it (in the Wrong Version, naturally) and requested that the parties either discuss it on the article talkpage or take it to a RfC. This board is not part of dispute resolution, it is for requesting admins to use their tools in the proper manner. MaxSem did, and now you can pursue those options.

I suggest that the discussion regarding Rex Stewart and his undue weights be taken to the proper venue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And I would suggest you reread what I wrote. I did not come here asking for page protection or to discuss the content dispute, but rather to ask for a look at the actions of two editors who seem to be colluding. Did I not make that abundantly clear????? Jeffpw (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Academy Leader Blocked

Academy Leader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) came to Wikipedia, and on the second edit [92] demonstrated that the account's purpose was to carry water for Wikipedia's critics, not write an encyclopedia. More from the first dozen edits: [93][94][95]. Within the first dozen edits this account is trolling policy talk pages, advocating for Wikipedia Review, a site that attacks and harasses our volunteers: [96]. Trying to get a link to slander and then discuss it: [97]. Justifies convenience links to harassment: [98].

Trolling an administrator: [99] Advocating for links to harassment sites: [100] Requesting policy RFC within first 50 edits. Is this really a new user? [101] No, it's a sock of Amerique (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Disclosed: [102]

Stirring up trouble at Talk:Martin Luther, although the account never seems to have edited that, or any significant number of other articles: [103][104][105][106][107] Check this one: [108]

Gets involved in promoting an agenda at Gracenotes' RFA: [109] Dang, I supported this RFA, and Academy Leader responded to me: [110] [111]

Continuing through the contribution history to present, I see more of the same. This account has made just 7 mainspace edits of 530 total. [112] There's virtually no contributions of encyclopedic content. On the contrary, this account is used primarily for disruption. It homes in on any controversy and blows smoke.

The account comments to Privatemusings (talk · contribs): "I noticed your recent drama and just wanted to say I was entirely sympathetic to you. Like you, I created this SPA account so as not to let my "political" opinions get in the way of my editing activities. However, I didn't care about publicly revealing my old account when asked about it, as I was dealing with a different set of people than I was previously, and when I resumed editing articles under that handle I rather more rigorously kept this account confined to policy discussions, so less "drama," as it were, seems attracted to me." [113]

For the above reasons, I have blocked this bad hand account indefinitely. The user may continue using the good hand account, Amerique (talk · contribs). Please do not reverse this block without discussion and consensus. - Jehochman ^Talk 08:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I am very concerned with what appears to be another poorly reasoned and inappropriately executed block of an editor account whose only infraction appears to argue viewpoints that differ from that of the blocking admin. I would comment that I am so concerned that I have given Jehochman a warning regarding his disruptive editing in applying blocks without reference to the processes and policies of Wikipedia. My own opinion is that the actions enumerated above do not constitute disruption that is remedied by an indefinite block, but that is not the grounds on which I am disputing the validity of the action taken.

I am unaware of any prior discussion between any parties prior to Jehochman issuing the block; there is therefore no consensus for the block. There has been no specific warnings issued to Academy Leader about the concerns mentioned above, and thus no violation of warnings which would permit the placing of a block. Lastly, the diffs provided are largely historical and indicate that Academy Leader has not suddenly turned rogue nor has developed a recent pattern of editing that required such action.

I hope other administrators will agree that the block is improperly applied, has not achieved consensus (and that consensus is required for a block to be enacted, not for one injudicially applied to be lifted), and should be lifted to permit Academy Leader to join in any discussion on whether the actions of that account is liable for blocking in any case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. Academy Leader, like Privatemusings, is an account that is created just for drama. I would also add that Academy Leader made a taunting post about the real life identity of another contributor, with whom he was in conflict. I am not going to post the details here, but I did make it known to some members of the ArbCom. Basically, he was insinuating that User:X is real life person Y, and while in an argument with X, he posted a link to Y's personal website or blog, saying something like "What a coincidence, they both do this, and they've both had that experience. Maybe they should write to each other." It was taunting. It was completely unnecessary. And it was not for the purpose of arguing a point about how to improve the content of an article. It was simply posted for the fun of trolling. People who are here for the purpose of writing an encyclopaedia don't do that. Academy Leader escaped an indefinite block at the time, but has continued carrying on drama. ElinorD (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU, as I noted above, the user has another account in good standing. He discloses the identity of the other account at User:Academy Leader. That other account is certainly free to come here and dispute the block. Likewise, I have asked you to refactor the "warning" which you admitted to issuing before investigating the facts of the matter.[114] - Jehochman ^Talk 16:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Good block. The early diffs and subsequent behavior show Academy Leader is a special-purpose account for pursuing controversy, and engaging in meta-commentary about process. In other words, it's a drama-only account, not here to write an encyclopedia. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Agree, good block. The encyclopedia is the point, not an afterthought. Account was only here to make a point. Shell ^babelfish 13:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• The block is good. See WP:DE. — Coren ^(talk) 16:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Good block. Wikipedia is not a role-playing game. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent block. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to create or support drama, or play games. Crum375 (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse completely. It is not acceptable to maintain a separate account for tendentious edits and drama. There is no compelling reason why these edits could not be made with the main account. Wikipedia is not a MMORPG. Guy (Help!) 17:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• (ec) Block of this one account was appropriate per WP:GHBH. As Jehochman stated, this long-time editor is free to contribute to this discussion and elsewhere using their primary account. — Satori Son 17:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Agree. The account wasn't making any positive contributions, and was creating or maintaining controvery. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Slow deletions, possibly exploratory, with likely sockpuppetry

• White Devil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Crimson Head (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

White Devil repeatedly deletes information from (among others) Iggy Pop, typically up to last warning, cools it for a week or so, then resumes vandalizing. This pattern seems to seems to fly under WP:AIV's radar as on several occassions they refuse to block because editor "hasn't vandalized after a final warning".[115] [116] It has been difficult to pursuade WP:AIV to give this editor even a short term, "warning" block.

Today this editor tag-teams with Crimson Head for identical edits, which should extend final warning timeouts considerably. As I type this, WP:AIV are sitting and waiting for another vandalism edit that characteristically will not happen.[117]

No idea what White Devil's motivation is, might be testing the system. User deletes and otherwise vandalizes other articles as well. WP:AIV perceive that some of this editor's contributions are constructive. However since some of this user's edits are misinformation, the value of the positive ones is debatable, especially since they are unsourced. / edg ☺ ☭ 09:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This is resolved for now. Thanks! / edg ☺ ☭ 11:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

COI or not COI?

I reported Langbar International on User talk:Satori Son as I thought it attack page after checking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nigelpwsmith . Satori Son reported it on User talk:RHaworth. User RHaworth dismissed it even after saying that the author appears to be involved in 'Langbar Action Group'.

I would like to bring it to your kind notice that same user-Nigelpwsmith went on adding 'Langbar fraud' to Barry Townsley and Serious Fraud Office (UK). I clearly see conflict of interest here. I seek your opinion. Thanks. sharara 10:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You may want to report this at the conflict of interest noticeboard. The volunteers there are very experienced, and the cases remain on the board longer. Something like this may take time to investigate and resolve. As a preliminary measure, I've added {{COI}} to the main article. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't know that WP:COIN board exist. One more curious thing is message from anonymous IP on Talk:Sharara which originate from UK. I wonder how this person searched article created by me and what this person has to do with hindi language. If he had been hindi speaking Indian, he was free to discuss with me on hindi language. I am ready to debate. Langbar is in UK and this IP originates from UK, it makes me suspicious. Thanks. sharara 10:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

National Liberation War of Macedonia

I just came across a revert war gone totally wild (30+ reversions in a day between two users) on National Liberation War of Macedonia. I'm in the embarrassing situation of having realised the extent of the revert-warring only after I'd decided on a revert myself, purely on grounds of preserving grammar corrections, and I IAR'd in then applying short-time protection myself nevertheless. Please see my explanation on Talk:National Liberation War of Macedonia and review as you see fit.

Note that this article is part of the recently opened "Macedonia" Arbcom case, where I'll submit a note on the evidence page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Footnotes

Please see Wikipedia:Protection policy#Content disputes:

During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people.

Like me Omegatron you are clearly not a disinterested party to the reference tag dispute that has been going on for a long time on the Wikipedia:Footnotes guideline page([118] [119] [120] [121] etc). So given that this action was clearly against the above statement in the Wikipedia:Protection policy, I am asking an administrator who is not a party to the dispute to remove the protection or to revert you last edit and reinstate the protection. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Rejected.

Sigh. So I'm "involved in the dispute" because I tried to stop it? Or am I involved because I continued to try to stop it after you kept right on revert warring? Is it possible to do anything as an admin without becoming an "interested party"? Anyone can look through my edits to the page to see the extent of my "involvement".

Philip Baird Shearer has been disrupting this guideline page, reverting to his preferred version dozens of times over many months, and ignoring all the comments on the talk page rejecting his proposal. All this fuss, over a completely trivial point of the Manual of Style, just because it's contrary to his personal aesthetic preference. It's completely ridiculous. What should I have done in this situation? Consensus only works when people are agreeable. — Omegatron 17:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to debate whether you (Omegatron) think that I am disrupting WP:FOOT guideline page" --- I think that the talk page shows that I have been actively engaged with other editors in trying to reach a compromise on this issue -- this is about an administrator protecting a page after making an edit to a version in a section that is under dispute (and which until you made your last edit contained a {{disputedtag}} template). Making such an edit and then protecting the page is a clear violation of the Wikipedia:Protection policy (Content disputes|). I think that if you were acting in accordance with the protection policy you would have protected the page at 23:15, on 17 November 2007 instead of making this edit. By making that edit you restated you previous position and yet again became an active a party to the dispute. As a responsible administrator please reverse you protection of the page now that it has been pointed out to you that you action was in breach of a Wikpeidia policy. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Scam Artist, Conman and Fraud

This concerns the article on Goncz Hi-Tec Pistols which is written by a scam artist conman who has defrauded many people by non-delivery of articles paid for on his web-site which is linked to the person's name in the article aforementioned. This article is written by the person who the article refers to as the Hungarian Inventor, Lajos John Goncz. The article cannot be verified other than by linking to other articles written by this man, except for a dated announcement of a lawsuit against him for copyright infringement which you can see the article has been written to defend his actions.

His ploy is to gather trust at forums and collect orders from his web site. He has been in and out of various forums, including candlepower, survival, and Bladeforum as I kept track of his posting and advertisements in order to intercept his discourse. There are literally hundreds of postings around the web involving goncz over the years and he has himself quite a notoriety, goncz has been involved in promoting himself as a technical expert in firearms, mechanical, electro-mechanical devices and flashlights and he has some history of firearms assembly with a hybrid pistol called the hi-tech, of course. He was basically heckled out of the blade forum but apparently he does deliver some variation of a misrepresented flashlight to some of his customers. It seems he targets those who are out of state for his scams. I believe his name is Janos; He was living in North Hollywood and had a fake business in Las Vegas which is what he uses as a cover operation to run his website.

I have just been contacted by a person named Mark who just lost $4000 by way of non-delivered goods. He is not the only person to contact me, and I am also a victim of his scam, losing $700.

Here is part of Mark's letter: I do not disclose Mark's last name of contact but can contact him to verify everything written here is absolutely true.

From - Chrismar (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Chrismar Chris Mar

The article in question appears to be Claridge Hi-Tec/Goncz Pistol. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

10 ghits, probably not verifiable. Does anyone want to do the honours, as I'm logging off for the night? MER-C 12:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the emails for the reasons cited in the drop-down box. Please don't readd them. Daniel 13:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I've got the AfD nom sorted properly. Having a / in the title is a pain... --AliceJMarkham (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Om Shanti Om (film)

Resolved

 – Reverted by User:BorgQueen. GlassCobra 17:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the turnaround time is on WP:RFPP so I'm duplicating this somewhat urgent issue on this board. Om Shanti Om (film) was protected from IP vandalism, but the proecting admin left the defamatory vandalism in the article by accident. The diff of the IP edit can be found here. —Viriditas | Talk 13:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Appears to have been taken care of. Deor (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Santa Claus

Resolved

There is a removed category (Wikipedians Who Like The Big Guy In The Red Suit) that shows up in the Talk page of the article, and folk cannot seem to find it. Could an admin lend a hand in removing it? To further my own knowledge base, would who ever does so please post here how they found the darn thing? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This edit is where the problem stems from. The userbox automatically adds that category. I've removed the userbox since it has no place on the talk page since it in no way, shape, or form helps to improve the article. Metros (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Beowulf (hero)

Resolved

 – no administrator action required

I moved Beowulf (hero) to Beowulf (fictional character) because I thought "fictional character" was more neutral and more in line with other fictional articles. User:Berig reverted my edits, stating that "There's a difference between legend and fiction". In the talk page, he wrote "Legendary characters, OTOH, like King Arthur and Beowulf have no identifiable original authors and there is scholarship which discusses their possible historic origins." Anyway, I still think "hero" shouldn't be used in the title for the reasons I stated before. If "fictional character" is not suitable then I think the title should be moved to Beowulf (legend) or something similar.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised that CyberGhostface brings the discussion up here without even discussing the new suggestion "Beowulf (legend)" on Talk:Beowulf (hero). Notifying the ANI looks a bit excessive.--Berig (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not an issue that requires any sort of admin intervention. Note the big red letters at the top of this page reminding everyone that this is not dispute resolution. I would suggest that you keep this conversation to the relevant talk page for the time being, as this doesn't even appear to be a dispute yet. Natalie (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)