Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read 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

Disruptive editing by User:Neuromancer

User:Neuromancer has a consistent pattern of disruptive editing and talk page-inappropriate discussion, most problematically at HIV and Talk:HIV, and as another editor has stated, has "violated nearly every behavioral policy this site has". This user has repeatedly demonstrated an agenda of disrupting HIV-related articles with fringe viewpoints with no substantiation in RS. Despite extensive policy explanations and warnings from other editors, Neuromancer continues to pursue this course, including creating POV forks (HIV dissent, later re-directed, and Alternative HIV viewpoints, currently at AfD) containing synthesis, BLP violations and other problems. The user has been blocked previously for WP:3RR and given multiple warnings at the user talk page and on article talk pages by a large number of editors.

Neuromancer has also contributed several copyright violations, cutting and pasting from copyrighted sources without quoting or citing. This edit contains nine paragraphs copied verbatim from avert.org and a sentence and references copied from another website without citation. Warnings and explanations (Talk:HIV#Copyright_violations_by_Neuromancer, [1]) were ignored, with the user later performing another unreferenced copy and paste from a copyrighted website.

Neuromancer, after threatening to wikistalk ("However, I will be sure to peruse EVERY edit to EVERY article you have contributed to, just on the off chance you have somehow detracted from those articles as well"), has begun to make good on this threat by becoming engaged at Magnetic water treatment (an article on my watchlist), Cancell (an article contributed to by User:MastCell, [[2]) and Medical uses of silver, following talk page interactions, including an accusation of censorship, with a regular silver editor, User:Hipocrite. Each of these editors has warned Neuromancer about a variety of behaviours in the past, with invariably hostile response. The diversity and scope of Neuromancer's disruptions suggests that intervention could be appropriate. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll add my voice, as an involved editor/admin, to the request for some outside eyes here. Neuromancer (talk · contribs) has been active in pressing an AIDS-denialist agenda across numerous articles (representative edit). Issues include:

• Persistent edit-warring (block log)
• Canvassing potentially sympathetic editors ([3]), [4], [5], [6]).
• Most of his non-HIV-related edits seem to be based on Wikihounding; as Keepcalm points out, they're drawn from the contrib histories of editors with whom Neuromancer has been in conflict (followed Hipocrite (talk · contribs) to Dennis Ketcham ([7]), etc).
• Creation of numerous POV forks, including Alternative HIV viewpoints and HIV dissent.
• This sort of thing - not that I'm fussed about having my IQ questioned - it's probably barely above room temperature anyway - but it's a bit grating coming from someone who's constantly accusing others of personal attacks and failure to assume good faith.
• Constant references to a "WP:HIV cabal", by which Neuromancer presumably means editors who hold the "POV" that HIV causes AIDS.
• Very basic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - despite extensive forum-shopping, and hearing a universal rejection of his proposed edits, Neuromancer keeps repeating the same arguments (see the last 5 or 6 threads at Talk:HIV for examples). He's indicated that he's "not going to stop" just because a "cabal" opposes his edits.
• He's cut-and-pasted a long section from an AIDS-denialist website, and then complained of having "hours of research" erased when this was reverted (will find diffs).

I would like some outside eyes on the situation, if anyone's willing. I don't want to be melodramatic, but these are the sorts of challenges that Wikipedia needs to handle effectively if it ever hopes to achieve its goal of becoming a serious, respectable reference work. MastCell ^Talk 21:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at the diffs, talk pages, and assorted miscellany included here, this looks like a case of POV-pushing, with some intransigent statements by Neuromancer. I fear that this is just a continuation of a problem we've seen several times here over the last few weeks (and probably longer) where people with a strong, but minority or fringe POV feel like they are backed into a corner by consensus against them. While I'm not sure that their behaviour is indicative of a block, is there someone who would be willing (and more knowledgeable than I in these particular subjects) to work with Neuromancer to help them understand why their view is fringe and that this isn't personal, its just community consensus that happens to disagree with what they believe? I would also appreciate hearing from both Neuromancer, MastCell, and Hipocrite about their opinions.

On a semi-related note, how do we allow users such as Neuromancer to feel like they have been given an adequate opportunity to have their point of view heard and discussed and not simply swatted out of the air (not that this has happened here...but can happen very easily). While their points of view may be fringe, and not follow community consensus, how do we continue to honour their contributions while maintaining the integrity of WP, and without driving them away?

I'll return to this conversation a little later...its supper time! Frmatt (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that Neuromancer has been resistant to guidance, and has been very confrontational at times. The exchanges on Talk:HIV have been lengthy, but I do think some have been constructive - they've dealt with substantive issues, and resulted in edits that improved the article (only incrementally, though). I have not followed the activity outside Talk:HIV, but those diffs are disheartening. The WP culture takes some getting used to, and plunging into HIV was probably a mistake for a new editor. I'd like to see Neuromancer get some guidance, to understand the difference between disagreement and conspiracy. It's tiring and disruptive when an editor insists that others formally prove numerous well-established concepts that are already supported by reliable sources. -- Scray (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• As someone who's interacted extensively with Neuromancer on Talk:HIV, I agree most with Scray's characterization. Emw (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• As someone who has interacted, discussed, argued, and usually reached something of a consensus with both Scray and Emw (both of whom I have come to admire for their ability to semi effectively deal with me), and whom I have had much more interaction than anyone else involved in this discussion, I would like to to put out there than I am more than open to discourse of policy, disagreement and conspiracy.
• Additionally, I would like to point out that I do not believe there is a conspiracy to get rid of me, or I would already be gone. My references to the HIV cabal are due to this post on my talk page, and is mostly an attempt at humor, not an impassioned belief that "you are all after me..." Thank you for your patience, and I agree, perhaps HIV was not the place to jump into the Wikipedia as I have. But I am here, and trying to make the best of it. Neuromancer (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As the guy who posted that, it was really in response to Mister Hospodar who happened to post some paranoid kind of stuff on Neuro's user talk. It is supposed to be a smidge humorous; it's actually a rather long-standing joke turned wisdom on wiki. However, I chose that link of all the essays on non-existent cabals to highlight that there is no cabal conspiring against you unless you created it. I guess it didn't take the desired effect as Neuro began referring to cabals afterward, rats.

I full well admit that I took and ran, more as humorous jab back at you, and a few others, than anything serious. I don't think there is a cabal, HOWEVER, there are a group of you who very adamantly defend and revert edits on a number of similar pages. After reading your posted words of wisdom, I thought it humorously appropriate to throw it back at you in kind. My references to a cabal have never been more than half-hearted humor in an attempt to lighten the situation. Seeing as how you are the only one who got the joke... Well, crap! Neuromancer (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, well, good to know now then! Thanks for clarifying. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, here are my words on the subject. Neuro isn't the only fellow who's made himself heard towards AIDS denialism on talk pages over the years. In particular though, there has been a lot of passion from him that is very accusatory, and this more than anything began sparking contention.

I really tried to steer the conversation as much as possible to specific constructive discourse about articles in question [8], but largely this opportunity was not taken advantage of. Instead, in response to his broad debates, there have been several clear, spelled out arguments highlighting the faults in the particular angle he takes on AIDS denialism ([9], [10] to name a couple i did). The AfD for the content fork of AIDS denialism alone should be a pretty clear wake up call.

I think he hears and sees them but is still trying to game policy/guidelines in his favor, such as omitting "although content may be shortened or moved if it gives undue weight to a minor point of view, as explained below." to the WP:YESPOV quote in his response below, etc. There has probably been a bit a wikistalking, and cries of censorship/this must be heard/you can't erase history kind of brew-ha-ha, but I like keeping editors more than loosing them so I would love to see mentoring or fostering of better habits than blocks. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears in regards to his below YESPOV quote with relevant (e.g. oppositional to his motives) info omitted, his response is this: [11]. A fairly by-the-book WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It could be that mentoring/fostering isn't an option after all. JoeSmack ^Talk 09:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, Special:Contributions/24.251.114.169 and probably Special:Contributions/174.17.102.170 are Neuro, but he denies the latter here. Sockpuppety. JoeSmack ^Talk 20:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Loudly claims the 24; the 174 geolocates to Phoenix, AZ, where the Fatcat Ballroom & Dance Company is located. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Is an WP:SPI warranted, perchance? Crafty (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Neuro emailed me a protest. If it puts one of these many issues to rest (either way), I think it would be worth it. However, this is right on the line of CheckUser criteria. Up to you. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I doubt CU would be informative. Neuromancer just posted on their talk page pointing out another IP in another region. CheckUser uses the wrong sort of magic pixie dust to determine whether this is IP spoofing, gaming by ideological opponents, off-wiki canvassing, or just one of those things. RBI any account unwilling to discuss and let the AfD run its course would be my advice. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Offtopic part, my bad. - JoeSmack

Oh, and I'd like to respond to Frmatt above because I think it is a step we need to discuss too. For one, I would say that there has been so much effort by AIDS denialists over the years to bend NPOV of HIV/AIDS articles that it has left a somewhat bitter taste in the mouth. I've been patrolling for about four years now, and the last conflict that was this big was Special:Contributions/Sci_guy. Every effort since has felt like a rehash that gets a little tired, thus this tends to be my first kind of question towards the reprise - [12]. So, somewhat WP:BITEY, I would say so, at least for me. Can someone not previously involved in this incident maybe provide how they'd deal with it better? JoeSmack ^Talk 03:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Oooh..."Specious" and "Spurious"...I'm impressed by your vocabulary! lol

In all seriousness, though, I will admit that after four years of that type of thing, my response would probably be very similar. In response to your question, I think that you were surprisingly civil, not overly bitey and all in all gave an appropriate response. I wonder if there might be a solution in creating a subpage that is permanently linked to the talk page...something like Talk:HIV/Other Claims with the notation that this page would contain discussion of other claims about HIV that have previously been discussed, and been excluded as a result of consensus...including the appropriate sources that were considered. This would allow users to see the arguments that have already been made, what the consensus was, and how the consensus was achieved. This would also allow users the option of adding new information and sources that may have come to light recently and provide a talking area that wouldn't necessarily clog up the main talk page. I know that as a (relatively) new user, I would appreciate that, especially in some of the articles that I edit which contain some controversial topics. It may also give new users (at least to that page) the knowledge that there is a place for them to express their points of view and to see what the consensus about them is. Frmatt (talk) 03:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert on AN/I, but my sense is that we should be focused on the concerns raised here about Neuromancer's editing, rather than a side discussion of how to make it easier for new editors of HIV (even though this is very constructive and well-intentioned). -- Scray (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Very true, and I've added it elsewhere.

Brought this offtopic, my bad. Frmatt, that is one idea but i'm wary of having subpages as they tend to get abandoned, and subtalk pages do even more so. I'll look at the username project link you provided, thanks for the feedback. Ok, i'm gonna whisk this into a collapsebox. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Knowing that ANI is not necessarily the place to propose any type of restrictions, I would like to ask Neuromancer if they would be amenable to having an uninvolved editor work with them to help them understand the policies? Specifically, that when Neuromancer finds themselves in an edit/content conflict, that they would invite their mentor/coach into the conversation as someone who is relatively impartial and working to ensure that they understand the policies about WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:POV, especially when they find themselves in conflict. Frmatt (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Email response by Neuromancer posted by 2over0:

I would be most amenable to having an uninvolved editor work with me. I am certainly not trying to cause a disruption to WP. Perhaps an experienced editor/admin, who has not previously been involved in the topics of this debate, would be willing to work with me to fix what appears to be flawed logic. Or at the very least be able to show me a more constructive manner in which to present information that won't be as disruptive as it has been. Who knows... Maybe I'll bring em around to my side? Haha, joking.

end of response by Neuromancer. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If an appropriate mentor steps forward, this would be possibly the best solution, and could be implemented in tandem with or in lieu of the sanctions I propose below. Neuromancer is a bit forceful and currently frustrated, but I think could be an asset to the project if given a little time and help to come to grips with the peculiar sourcing and neutrality requirements here. Any takers? - 2/0 (cont.) 20:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Response by Neuromancer

I assume that I can weigh in on this conversation?

• First and foremost, I have edited in good faith, with the intent to better the Wikipedia in general.
• Secondly, I am not trying to push a fringe POV. This is my understanding, please correct me if I am mistaken...

• Wikipolicy requires at WP:NPOV that “All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.” It further requires at WP:YESPOV that “Article content should not be deleted solely on the grounds that it is "POV"" and that "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints.”

That being said, I have also reviewed WP Fringe Theories Noticeboard, which states:

• Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

I fully understand that there are those who think that questioning the science behind HIV is ridiculous and worthy of censoring, however, there are those in the scientific community, who have published peer reviewed papers, questioned many aspects of HIV, AIDS, and the connection between the two. While the cabal[13] currently editing the HIV and AIDS denialism articles claims a NPOV, and that they do not have to give equal eight to fringe POV, a simple review of their resistance to the inclusion of balanced information, whether it be in those articles, or in separate articles, seems very clear that they are not willing to be neutral on the subject.

As far as "Wikistalking" as Hipocrite has accused me of, I cannot even begin to express how petulant that statement is. While I will admit that I have reviewed other editors contributions, and even weighed in on a couple of the articles that they have been involved in, I am not now, nor have I ever, edited an article simply to "frustrate" another editor. This accusation was posted to my talk page by Hipocrite just this morning. While I do tend to have an interest in alternative health treatments, such as HIV, cancer, etc, I have also edited such articles as the Fort hood shooting. I think it is an unfair characterization to say that I am stalking anyone.

When it comes to canvassing... I fail to see how mentioning to another editor that a discussion is taking place that they may be interested in, is somehow a bad thing. I in fact copied this practice from such editors as Verbal and Hipocrite, who routinely post messages on one another's talk pages requesting input regarding a particular topic of debate throughout the Wiki. I have not requested that they take a particular viewpoint, merely that they have expressed interest in the topic in the past, and may be interested in the current conversation. Here is the most recent example I can readily find [14], or Nunh-huh, JoeSmack, TechBear.

I have not cut and pasted long sections from denialist web sites. I did take a list of factors known to cause false positive HIV antibody tests, which had 64 references, and use it in the site, and the original compiler was given credit. The references did not have any DOI or PMID information, let alone being suitable for Wiki formatting. Each and every one of those references was researched, updated, verified to be on point, and formated by me. I would call that hours of research.

As far as the "creation of numerous POV forks... I cannot agree with that. I have created 3 articles here. 2 on the topic of HIV. Initially, I un-forwarded HIV dissent and created article content there. That was nominated for deletion, and reverted back to a forward, the next day, prior to a discussion or consensus being reached. So I then created a new namespace, Alternative HIV viewpoints, where I published relatively the same article, which has also been nominated for deletion. Again, prior to the AfD discussion closing, the article was wiped and forwarded, and for trying to prevent this, I received a 24 hour ban. How is consensus and discussion supposed to take place when there is no article to discuss?

So, salient points:

• Always in good faith...
• Been Bold
• Ignored all rules, except for personal attacks. (Never have I personally attacked an editor)
• Modified behavior as users have brought potential violations to my attention.

Neuromancer (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope someone realizes that it is highly coincidental that a user who has edited what - 5 mainspace articles has somehow overlapped and edit-warred against people he has disagreements with on 4 of them - and those 4 are in totally disparate subjects, with the note that he has expressed an interest in a 5th, totally disparate subject here. How far does AGF go? Hipocrite (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Incidentally, I became involved with Dennis the Menace because I was following AfD, not you. When you nominate an article for delete or merge, it is common courtesy to allow the discussion to take place for the requisite 7 days. Blanking and forwarding is just rude, and makes any discussion difficult. Neuromancer (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Colloidal Silver has been used in Alternative HIV and Cancer treatments. It is not, as you say, "disparate." I have not intentionally edit warred with anyone. After it was brought to my attention, I changed my behavior. I have been involved in edit controversy in HIV and Alternative HIV Viewpoints. If there is another article you think is relevant, please list it. Neuromancer (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Analysis of Neuromancer's edits: article coincidences

Neuromancer has to date edited 59 unique articles. Comparing edits with the people notified of this discussion by Keepcalmandcarryon indicates that 54 of those have also been edited by at least one person on the list (I am making comparison using different tools and a little inclusion/exclusion counting, so bear with me as they may measure unique article in different ways; also note that I am involved in several places). Subtracting the AIDS-related articles, usertalk, and a few obviously benign cases gives: Aspartame was edited by Keepcalmandcarryon two days before Neuromancer's first edit; Cancell was not edited by anyone on the list in the days preceding Neuromancer's first edit; Fatcat Ballroom & Dance Company was created by Neuromancer; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denialism (2nd nomination) is clear, though Denialism itself was edited by Verbal the day before; Kristian Ayre and AfD are clear - Nm probably got there from ARS; Talk:Dennis Ketcham was edited by Hipocrite earlier that day; Talk:Medical uses of silver was recently edited by Hipocrite and MastCell; Talk:Magnetic water treatment was recently edited by Keepcalmandcarryon, Someguy1221, and me; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catbus had been recently edited by me, but had also been tagged for ARS; Fort Hood shooting and talk had been recently edited by JoeSmack, though that article is highly active right now.

Assuming good faith with respect to the AfDs tagged by the Article Rescue Squadron (none of the contributions were particularly combative except at Denialism which is a mess all around), this leaves: Aspartame, Medical uses of silver, Magnetic water treatment, Dennis Ketcham, and Fort Hood shooting. The last I think can be ignored, as everyone else is editing that article too at the moment, and Nm's edits were not obviously antagonistic; although I do think that there is some confusion regarding wikt:duplicitous and wikt:duplicative. The Ketcham very much looks like an attempt to engage with Hipocrite. For the other three, I do not find the assertion that they were selected without reference to editor to be credible, though I am willing to believe that they find such things interesting. This is again based on X!'s namespace counter, which shows an edit to Talk:Fascism as the clear outlier. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sanctions

Based on the behaviors outlined by Keepcalmandcarryon, MastCell, and myself, I propose that Neuromancer be indefinitely topic banned from all HIV and AIDS related articles, broadly construed, and their talkpages; I further propose that they be admonished to avoid extending conflict to unrelated articles and to not seek out or harass any of the above mentioned editors. These remedies to be subject to review at AN/I or ArbCom, preferably less frequently than every three months. I would explicitly leave my talkpage open for any discussion, as we have open threads there and I am still willing to discuss with Neuromancer.

Alternatively, given the failure to follow obvious community norms such as engaging productively with other editors and not seeking out confrontation, multiple attempts to add content in an end-run around consensus, and multiple instances of copying without attribution, including from patently unreliable sources including virusmyth.com and IMDB, a full community ban may be in order. Please discuss these proposals below. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As Neuromancer has been blocked 48 hours for edit warring, I have volunteered to relay their concerns here if necessary. As always, please refrain from piling on while Nm cannot edit here. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Email response by Neuromancer posted by 2over0:

I am repeatedly requested to find consensus before edits, which I have done on HIV, AIDS denialism, Fort Hood shooting, etc, etc.

The only real issue regarding disruptive editing has been in regard to Alternative HIV viewpoints. I understand that I do not own the article. I understand that it may very well be deleted in the near future. However, here are the salient issues that I have:

• [15], [16], [17], [18] In these edits, the exact same information has been removed each time. Please review the diffs. The entire chapter is properly referenced to scientific publication such as "Applied Environmental Microbiology," "Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences," US patent #4520113, etc. In this edit, there was no regard for the information. There was no consensus reached, or even discussed on the talk page. There is no synthesis. This is not an article that falls within the purview of Medicine. This is an article entitled "Alternative HIV Viewpoints." As it was created, it is not a POV Fork. The idea was to present the claims of scientists who disagree with the current HIV community. There are films being made about these topics. There are papers being published in peer reviewed journals, such as this one in 2008, which dissent on the currently accepted HIV hypothesis.

• • No consensus was reached before wholesale deleting MASSIVE amounts of information. No attempt was made to clean up language accused of being POV. Rather, it was just deleted. Not one person who has attempted to keep this information off of WP has been able to provide a SINGLE citation discrediting the information in this article. Yes, there is a reference to virusmyth.com. It is to source the quote of what certain dissenters believe was wrong with the current information. It's not synth. It's not there to support a medical claim. The reference is there to show where the idea came from. It is one of MANY ideas.

• Rather than editing the article, it is deleted, forwarded, called synth and POV fork, and unsourced. This is not the case. I have spent hours reading medical journals verifying each of the actual medical claims on this article. Granted, I did start with Christine Johnson's list, which she was credited for. But that is a list. Journal references that were no longer valid, or since debunked, were removed. Each citation was verified and wikified so that others could simply click on the ref and be taken to the article.

• I am being accused of doing EXACTLY what my accusers are doing. Except that if you actually read the article, and the references, you will see that this is not synth, or a POV fork. Compare it to HIV denialism and try to find more that two duplicate references. HIV denialism focuses on a POV that HIV denialists have caused harm, have been debunked, disproved, etc. Yet there are no references to where they have been disproved. I have looked for these references, and have been unable to locate any. I have found NON scientific articles, written by journalists, and judges, but not anything from the scientific community. Yet when I present actual scientific published works, I am POV pushing. This is not the case.

• As far as the mad props I have received for being Superman, please review my talk page.

end of response by Neuromancer. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Neuromancer indicates above a willingness to work with a mentor to help them contribute within the project's policies. I think that this could be productive, but am myself both too involved and too unskilled in the area. If anyone is interested in the role, please step forward. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Neuromancer's willingness to accept mentorship is encouraging. However, Neuromancer has yet to recognise their problems with straightforward policies such as copyright violation and sockpuppetry; their insistence that the "other" Arizona IP is not a sock or meatpuppet is, quite frankly, ridiculous. These aren't subtle matters in which a mentor's guidance could help, but I would be pleased to find out otherwise. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not terribly encouraging. I am going to ask the people who have commented on this thread to take another look. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support indefinite broad topic ban per all above, and 2/0. Support full ban as 2nd choice if problems continue on unrelated articles (non AIDS/medical/science - broad topic ban). Verbal chat 19:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• For the record... I did act in good faith. I never got into an edit war on HIV or AIDS denialism. I was accused of using those articles talk pages as a forum, but that was not my intention, and I have since stopped. I attempted to share ideas that I felt were in the general best interests of WP by creating a new article, which was subsequently nominated for deletion, and in an attempt to make sure that that article remained available for potential parties to review, I was accused of edit warring. Fine... I got a ban. I have nominated myself for a mentor, and have a couple of potentials currently. If you feel the need to topic ban me, so be it. If you feel I have been that disruptive on HIV, or AIDS denialism. Ban me. But before you do, go look at my edits to those two pages. Perhaps someone who didn't engage in the same behaviors I am being accused of, such as Verbal, Hipocrite, etc, should weigh in on this before a decision is made. Neuromancer (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for acknowledging I didn't engage in the behaviours you were blocked for. I've already weighed in above. Verbal chat 20:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban. I agree that Neuromancer would benefit from mentoring, but I don't think the latter obviates the former. Neuromancer made some serious mistakes, and has been consistently argumentative in discussing those. Failure to demonstrate insight regarding past events, and pertinacious soapboxing in Talk space, prompt me to support the proposed ban. As I've said previously (above), I have had some constructive exchanges with Neuromancer. I hope that mentoring will help Neuromancer to recognize why this ban occurred, and to rebuild the trust of the WP community in general. --Scray (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - for reasons conveyed above by Scray. It seems like Neuro still feels like this was a personalized issue that happened because users didn't like his views. It also seems like Neuro is still itching for any way possible to get his content back in, and frankly, the reprise of discussion on why policies/guidelines don't support that is getting old. I continue to support mentorship as long as all parties are amenable to it, and additionally that we get a highly active/experienced editor to do the mentoring. JoeSmack ^Talk 21:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as per previous comments. Neuromancer's comments to a potential mentor ([linked by 2/0 above) show a continuing refusal to acknowledge basic policies like WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:SYN. Neuro still insists that the issue with their edits is personal (it's not) and based on likes and dislikes rather than policy (again, it's not). Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

MoonHoaxBat

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moonbatssuck/Archive

MoonHoaxBat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Although he possibly should have been blocked, the stated reasons are bogus:

1. He shouldn't be blocked as a sock puppet, as he admitted the previous names, which had been blocked for user name violation. He claims to have checked the name with User:Jehochman.
2. Unless there were some deleted contributions, he didn't misuse his talk page. I can't tell if he misused E-mail, but he should certainly be allowed to E-mail ArbCom to appeal.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at his specific contributions yet, but his previous names were a built-in editorial, and this one also hints at it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be a single-purpose account, that purpose being to demean 350.org. That fact is reinforced by some of his comments on User talk:Jehochman where the current user ID calls opponents of his viewpoint "Moonbats". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, I still think he should be given an opportunity to select a proper name. The block reasons given are still only a user name violation, which usually results in a request to select a proper user name. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a very new account indeed, and he HAS tried in good faith to change names. I'll have more to say in a moment, but Baseball_Bugs, are you sure about the comments? I don't see him using the phrase "moonbat" in that way, but if you have a diff that would help. He has modified his name to suggest a link to the moonbats of the Great Moon Hoax of 1835, and has disavowed an association with "liberals". If you have dif that shows otherwise, I'll certainly reconsider! —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 08:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This edit [19] tells me everything I need to know about this guy's approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

In all sincerity, I do not understand your reaction to that edit. It actually looks very constructive to me. He is saying that his use of "moonbat" was not intended about liberals, and should only be offense to the moonbats of the Great Moon Hoax. That's why he uses MoonHoax-Bat, and had been doing so for a week before that edit. He suggests trying to find compromise. A number of other edits suggests he is completely sincere about the compromise. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 08:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

He says anyone who found his previous usernames offensive must be a Moonbat themselves. Hardly a constructive comment. Meanwhile, if he is actually a sock of an indef'd user, he can't be allowed to continue the same stuff, no matter what his ID is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Um ... he said that only moonbats of the great moon hoax should be offended. He said this because he has explicitly made his name MoonHoaxBat, not MoonBat, and this is in line with previous comments on his choice of names. I think you have plenty of room to assume good faith here with that edit. I absolutely agree with your point about being a sock of a banned user, but I have so far seen no indication that this is actually the case. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 09:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Moonbatssuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to be a sock for a banned user based on his initial edits. My guess is RJII. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That editor last edited under that name in summer of 2006, but had recent sockpuppets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

RJII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJII/Archive

The user MoonHoaxBat (talk · contribs) has been changing their user name on the explicit advice and direction of other administrators. The final name chosen appears to have satisfied Admins working with this user. See the following exchange:

(An extract from this revision of User_talk:MoonHoaxBat at 16:28, 29 October 2009, before blanking:) Tried! User:Loonymonkey beat me to it. Once again, my two previous usernames were banned for being offensive to liberals. There was no way for me to edit again without creating a third name. The admins who blocked my previous name know about this. I could have sockpuppeted and been anonymous, but I took responsibility and was open about my previous names. --MoonHoaxBat (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC) That's an accurate representation, though the issue is not "offensive to liberals" as much as "likely to cause disruption and breach collegiality". It's best not to label editors at all. We're here to write neutral articles. We should all try to check our personal opinions at the door, and pick them up when we leave. Jehochman Talk 03:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This user was previously advised, in an earlier incarnation, that they are abusing multiple accounts: WP:POINT, and they were told to pick an appropriate username, and stop WP:BAITing and WP:BATTLEing. See the block message on User:Idetestlunarbats. They then picked the third and current name, and have been using now for a week. The extract above suggests it was acceptable to Jehochman, who was the one who advised getting a new name. The users edit history is as follows:

1. As Moonbatssuck (talk · contribs), 34 live edits from 20:31, 27 Oct to 20:42, 28 Oct.
2. As Idetestlunarbats (talk · contribs), 11 live edits from 21:03, 28 Oct to 21:42, 28 Oct.
3. As MoonHoaxBat (talk · contribs), 115 live edits from 00:21, 29 Oct to 01:34, 8 Nov.

It seems to me that we have a new user who is in a catch-22 situation. They got off to a bad start, but they did want to start over. They did attempt to pick a new user name when directed. The attempt to start over is going to run into trouble with sock puppet investigations, but it is clear from the dates above that there was no attempt at sockpuppetry here... only an attempt to move to a new user name when directed. I've looked over the history a bit, and the name problem seems to be blown up out of all proportion. (I might be wrong, but that's my current impression.) However, it is always a bad idea to pick a user name that might be perceived by others as trying to make a point. Every edit then becomes also an implicit message about this point, and I think that is disruptive, and in violation of the spirit of WP:POINT. I suggest we try a new username yet again; one that can't be offensive or confused with the epithet moonbat.

1. Try using something that is plainly just a name. "Fred" is available.
2. Try using "Man-Bat". If it makes people think of anything, they'll think Batman; and furthermore the term man-bat was indeed used in the hoax of 1835. See this extract: Further observation of these curious creatures, [...] dubbed the “Vespertilio-homo, or man-bat,” followed., taken from Great Moon Hoax of 1835

—Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 09:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. He's using "MoonBats" as a metaphor for liberals. I could use "Nazis" as a metaphor for conservatives, except they might not like that, except maybe the banned user Axmann8 who called himself a conservative but actually was a neo-Nazi and proud of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I still haven't seen any diff to indicate that he intended to use moonbats in that way. Again; if there is a dif for this, then I shall reconsider in a heartbeat, but I would like to see evidence. He seems to have been pretty consistent in all incarnations that the moonbats of his username are the man-bats of the Great Moon Hoax of 1835, and not a reference to liberals at all. I have never seen him use "moonbat" in any other way. I'll keep looking, but if you have an actual dif, it would help. Otherwise I still see no reason not to assume good faith in this. I can be persuaded on this, but I do need evidence. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 10:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

In all three cases when the administrators refused to unblock they indicated disruptive editing as well as the account name for reasons not to unblock. Editors should not set up new accounts when they are blocked for disruptive editing. Moonbatssuck's first edits show evidence that he is not a "new user". His first edit was creating a new section with internal links and external references that show a level of experience.[20] His second edit was to revert back to his text[21] and his conversation shows an awareness of WP policies. His editing style seems very similar to RJII and his suspected socks. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Previous discussion is here. Jehochman did approve the name, with some reservations. The stuff about the moon hoax of 1835 is a ridiculous stretch. Moonhoaxbat ("Moonbat hoax") is an expression of global warming denial, insinuating GW as a hoax put over by moonbats.. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 11:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Broad agreement with the filing statement here: it is true that Jehochman OK'd this username after blocking the other accounts, and that no misuse of talk page privilleges appear to have occurred. At minimum, this suggests talk page access should be unblocked. Even if The Four Deuces suspicions are correct, nothing suggests RJII should be disallowed from on-wiki appeal to ArbCom if preferred. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have come round on this issue. I've been looking over his edit history, in all three incarnations, and I believe he is disingenuous. The first reference to the Great Moon Hoax of 1835 that I can see was as "Idetestlunarbats" in this edit where he requests the unblock of that second name choice. He says: "I picked this one to clarify that I dislike the fictional lunar bats of the Great Moon Hoax, not liberals." That fails a basic sanity test; how can you dislike fictions man-bats of a 1835 hoax? This is a clear attempt at plausible deniability, and I withdraw my earlier comments about the name. The current name "MoonHoaxBat" is a better attempt at getting plausible deniability, but not enough. If he is allowed back at all, it should be with a completely new name with absolutely no relation to any variety of moon-bat.

Some of the comments he had made in some places, including WP:WQA where I first got sucked into this, looked very positive at first, such as his offer to withdraw from the page on 350, in this edit. I suspect now this too may have been disingenuous, and made mainly to try and force Ratel into a position of withdrawing as well, which was not appropriate.

His "apology" to Ratel was also insincere. It appears in this edit, as "Idetestlunarbats", in which he claims to be sincere in thinking Ratel would join him in a campaign to deal with "unofficial literature", and then this edit where he objects to be called on it and labeled disingenuous by Tanthalas39.

All told, there is enough circumstantial evidence for me to withdraw any support for the guy. Whether he is a sockpuppet or not, the edit history suggests letting him back will only lead to trouble.

As I said before, the three user names were attempts to change name, not sockpuppetry. I have no view on the suggestion of a link to earlier sockpuppets. Precisely what is appropriate in terms of strict justice, I do not know... but I'm withdrawing since pragmatically I suspect he's better not part of the project and I'm glad you guys are here to deal with this kind of stuff, so I can leave it in your hands. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 14:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Duae Quartunciae - we'd simply be asking for trouble by letting this user edit. Apart from that, it looks like moonbat is attempting forum shopping and trying to make threats. Recommend revoking talk page access and email access. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that I have ever made any threats. If I did (since this was your basis for disabling my Talk page), please provide a diff.--FredUnavailable (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This was what I saw going on in the SPI case. I saw a user, Moonbatssuck, rightly softblocked to change username. The person then tries to change the username to Idetestlunarbats and later to MoonHoaxBat. Including what was amounting to disruption on the 350.org pages, which as indicated above WP:POINT and WP:BAIT, I had to hardblock all three accounts. IMO, we can split hairs over whether this is considered sock puppetry (besides the fact that it popped up at SPI), but I felt the blocks I made were appropriate. I don't think the user was interested very much at all in being constructive. There's likely another sockmaster here (I don't know of whom), as Moonbatssuck's very first edit [22] indicates some good wiki-knowledge, including adding references, wikilinks, etc. MuZemike 17:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Now if the community wants to give the user a good faith attempt to come back (which I will honor if that is achieved, then the user can request unblock with the {{unblock-un}} and request a username change before considering unblocking him. MuZemike 18:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Since my talk page was blocked (for nothing), this is the only way I can communicate. I am willing to go with this name instead of anything having to do with the man-bats of the 1835 hoax, which apparently have a very strong lobby here. As a registered Democrat, I find all these insinuations about hating liberals to be laughable. I must be a real lib-hater, having voted for Carter/Mondale! There are no diffs to back any of it up. And then you're accusing me of being someone who last edited in 2006? Seems rather paranoid. It is possible that in the course of three years someone else came a long with a similar editing style. I agreed not to edit the 350.org page and did not do so again. Again, any diffs to the contrary? Then I was blocked. Blocking my user talk page is equivalent to telling a defendant that he can't defend himself. I wasn't even allowed to submit defending comments on the noticeboard in the minutes between the case being opened and closed. I have been constructive under the previous name and edited several articles, not just the 350 one. I was not DISRUPTIVE, anymore than Ratel (a massive POV purveyor)was disruptive. All I am asking is to be allowed to edit again. And before you bite my head off for being a "sockpuppet," ask yourself, how else can I appeal something if you've gagged my other name? I AM in a catch-22. I have offered many attempts at finding compromise at the 350 page, as you can see by my edits. I was the one told that I have Asperger's, was a Jihadist, Mujaheddin, etc. by RATEL. No discipline there? Isn't that kind of comment both more disruptive and offensive to our actual colleagues with Asperger's or of Islamic faith? Doesn't that created a hostile environment for certain users, by describing Muslims as stubborn nihilists and people with Asperger's as "unable to play nice?" I HAVE NEVER insulted liberals, environmentalists, global warming supporters, or any other group. Those are all projections based on a mistaken interpretation of my username. You have no evidence to support your prejudices, but you block me. You have pursued and bitten a newbie who has tried to make right off his earlier mistakes. I want to appeal this to ArbCom. How do I do that? Out of respect for the spirit of the sockpuppet rule, I will not be making edits unrelated to my appeal. I suppose you will all block me again, because there can be no appeals allowed for this Wikipedian. Banishment forever seems to be the preferred method of correction here.--FredUnavailable (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, only MoonHoaxBat had talk page access revoked (which I didn't do). Creating new accounts to state your appeal is not the right way to go here, I'm afraid. MuZemike 18:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Then forgive me, what IS the right way to state my appeal when my (MoonHoaxBat) user talk page was blocked? That's all I am trying to figure out.--FredUnavailable (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, you seemed to have been able to create a username that does not indicate disruption, so I don't think that is a problem. As far as the other issues I saw, I have to defer to what everyone else thinks should happen. MuZemike 18:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. But I'm still unclear about how I should contact ArbCom. There is something on their page about sending an email, which I did. But I don't know what to send, etc. Is there a form or something that I fill out? I both want to appeal my block and ask for them to remove Ratel's prejudicial and hostile comments about people with Asperger's and Muslims. I am not looking for any discipline on that matter. Thank you,--FredUnavailable (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you should voluntarily refrain from any edits in any wikipedia articles except your own user space, and this discussion, until this discussion is complete. If you do make other edits, I would recommend a new soft block on your new account; not as punishment, but just as a way of avoiding disruption to the project until this is sorted, as provided in WP:CLEANSTART. You should not edit the encyclopedia while there is a block in place, and your block does legitimately restrict you on the basis of disruption, all consideration of identity aside. I'll comment some more shortly. I think we may be able to get this sorted and help you get a new and more constructive start. But you should be patient. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Understood. As I put earlier on my user page, I won't edit outside here or my user/talk page. I'll participate here (if permitted) and wait for the outcome. Thanks,--FredUnavailable (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) This group of accounts shows a lot of similarites with RJII and suspected socks. The following is a summary of behavior that is usually shown by these accounts within the first 100 edits. (Compare for example with recently blocked account Default013). I am able to provide examples of this if required.

• Edit political articles about American liberal/conservative topics.
• Enter highly controversial material likely to draw immediate reaction.
• Edit war including violation of 3RR despite warnings
• Use dispute resolution, e.g., RfA, WQA, 3RR, involving maximum number of outside users.
• Extremely argumentative on talk pages.
• Pointy edits.
• Defend actions with ideosyncratic interpretations of WP policy.
• Defend errors as due to inexperience.
• Numerous appeals of blocks.
• Failure to use "Preview" button resulting in numerous consecutive edits.
• Lobbying of administrators.
• Statements that actions are intended to "avoid edit wars".
• Obvious mistakes rare even for new editors sometimes cited as evidence of inexperience.
• Highly persistent.
• Sometimes creates controversial usernames.

Since these accounts were clearly created by an experienced user and have been disruptive, I think we should determine whether they were created by a banned user. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we get a clear set of events here.

• This user had two names blocked because of the name, then hit on Moonhoaxbats, which Jehochman did indeed say was acceptable. So "abusing multiple accounts is not accurate as a block reason".
• Inappropriate username is not accurate either.
• The user then did do a lot of commenting on Talk:360.org. Was any of this blockable? I can't see any diffs suggesting it was, but maybe there are some and, if so, they should be provided.
• The user does not appear to have edited the 360.org article, as they agreed not to
• The user's talk page at Moonhoaxbats was then locked, for abuse which appears to be attempting to explain this [23]

Unless someone has some more information, this is a terrible block. If any user name containing the words "moon" and "bat" are really that unacceptable, then I would argue that Fred should be allowed to go on editing from the current username.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both the above comments. If this is a return of a banned user, then the ban should stay. The evidence seems a bit circumstantial to me, but the fact that the user is clearly familar with wikipedia should be explained. It is conceivably possible that the user has become familiar by using an IP, although it seems unlikely. A formal checkuser might be appropriate; I do not know the procedures. Can you simply ask the user how he knows so much? Can his answer be trusted? I note that he has been disingenuous under the most recent names so I am not inclined to give much leeway here.

On the other hand I also agree that the most recent ban was dubious. It isn't sockpuppetry with the three accounts actually named. There was a clear declaration of intent to change name, and it was done at the direction and awareness of an administrator. It is definitely not appropriate to block for sockpuppetry simply on the basis of "Moonbatssuck" and "Idetestmoonbats", and the case for a link to earlier accounts is so far rather a bit thin. A short block for disruption might have been legitimate, but this is not how it was recorded.

The user declares that they wish to raise formal complaints about user Ratel. I think the user should be instructed to do no such thing and to leave Ratel severely alone. No complaints, to anyone. Just drop it. Joining up just to pursue disputes is a terrible idea, and thr prior history with Ratel pretty much disqualifies the user from being a person who should make such complaints. Forget it. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I will not file a formal complaint in this case. I have faith that other Wikipedians will take up the issue of getting the offensive comments removed. As I've stated all along, I have no interest in "reporting" Ratel for the purpose of him being punished. I just think it is deeply disruptive to the project to have anti-Asperger's and anti-Muslim slurs left up on a Talk page. But I leave that up to others. I have no interest in engaging Ratel, and since I've withdrawn from the 350 page, I don't anticipate that happening.--FredUnavailable (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless somebody else comes up with something else that I'm currently unaware of, I'm fine with it. Please accept my apologies, Fred. MuZemike 22:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I am lurking on this thread. Could somebody with knowledge of RJII ask a checkuser if FredUnavailable == Moonhoaxbat == Default013 == RJII ? Jehochman ^Talk 22:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If checkuser is run it should be between the recent four accounts and the three most recent suspected socks Introman (blocked Sept. 28), Dupledreux (blocked Oct. 14) and Default013 (blocked Oct. 22). The Four Deuces (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with any sort of Checkuser. I just read up on the process and I'm not really sure what it does beyond comparing IP addresses. I don't know if the user in question has a say in whether a Checkuser is done, but if so, I'm all for it. The only RJ11 I know is the old phone line kind. I just checked out the RJII pages and I'll admit that my Talk style is uncannily similar. The main difference, of course, being that I don't have any plans to start pages on "Jewish conspiracies." Sheesh. This places does attract some crazies. I don't want to be associated with any such user. Now I realize why you are all so concerned about me being him.--FredUnavailable (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin actually commented on RJII four years ago.[24] And here is a lengthy discussion where Arthur Rubin opposed RJII in a lengthy dispute about a template that RJII had created. [25] The Four Deuces (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made a checkuser request at SPI.[26] The Four Deuces (talk) 06:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The block log of MoonHoaxBat (talk · contribs) will need to be amended - talk page access will need to be granted back either way, while whether the block reason needs to be changed to username block (as opposed to sockpuppetry block) will depend on the results of that SPI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The RJII pages claim that he and his pals are from Philadelphia. I have never been to Philadelphia, so I'm confident that a basic IP comparison will back me up.--FredUnavailable (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If the CU results are inconclusive (and they very well might be), my suggestion is to give Fred enough rope to hang himself, and see if he actually does. If he doesn't, no harm done. Even if the initial username choices were done in an attempt to be deliberately provocative (which might be the case), he seems to have given that up and absent any other actual disruption I don't see how a further block is justified. -- Atama頭 21:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

How long does it take to do checkuser? This has been left hanging now for quite a while, and that is unfair on FredUnavailable (talk · contribs). Effectively he has a longer block than really warranted by the original disruption. Can this either be wrapped up, or the block removed in the time being? I am sure several people will be watching and that a recurrence of problem will get picked up in short order. But in thre meantime, I agree with Atama (talk · contribs) that the ongoing block is no longer justified. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

CU concluded. FredUnavailable has a clean block log. However, the errors on MoonHoaxBat's account, in the meantime, should be fixed so that this can be marked resolved - the block log rationale (socking) is not justified in light of the facts raised in this thread, CU has confirmed Fred Unavailable is not related to RJII, and user talk page access should no longer be disabled. Can an admin sort that out please? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no official role in this, but I have taken a fairly active unofficial role. I propose to leave a friendly "welcome back" on Fred's talk page and let him know that he can use the account freely again. I will still advise him to forget entirely the disputes he got involved with while using his earlier accounts, and to make a clean start. I'll do this in an hour or two; unless there is a reason given here for not doing this. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 09:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. I have posted a message for FredUnavailable. this edit. I have said that I think there is no longer any problem with him using this account, and that it would be a good idea to start with a clean slate, and not worry about old disputes he had under previous accounts. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy Scott Harris

Resolved. No administrator intervention is necessary. User is new and needs protocol explained. Karanacs (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy Scott Harris is an autobiography or a biography created by the subject's mother, SPA Dharris1844. It was properly tagged with the COI template, which the Dharris1844 removed. Dharris1844 then voted twice in AfD to keep the article. I suspect that Dharris1844 does not understand Wikipedia's rules, but her conduct is very disruptive. Please help. Racepacket (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure admin intervention is needed at this point. — Jake Wartenberg 00:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious editing?

Could someone please review the recent edits and talk page comments of User:Som123. I am concerned we have an excessively passionate campaigner for The Truth!!! and they have been removing referenced material from articles they don't agree with, [27] and leaving threatening messages on talk pages [28] and [29]. I honestly know nothing about the topic at hand, but had noticed some section blanking while on Recent Changes Patrol, and browsing through this users editing history raised some red flags. He may have valid points, or he may be completely wrong, but either way his behavior is interfering with anyone from working collaboratively on the articles he has been frequenting, and I fear that the articles will suffer from this sort of tendentious editing if it continues. --Jayron32 06:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

proof this user has been notified of this discussion --Jayron32 06:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Excessively passionate campaigner for The Truth has been page blanking for some time (2 dozen times approx.) in the Nair article. He is actually removing sourced data which he suspects is against his own political orientation (Communist Party). If you cross check the references, you can see that they are unbiased and truthful as per the Wiki policy. Also, please look in to some of his other edits, like this one. I have no idea how an exit poll by a well known and respected news source such as The Hindu (Don't care about the name, the daily is actually a very left-leaning one politically) can be biased as per the Wiki policy. I think we should stick to writing the truth rather than bending it for political correctness. However I am willing to remove any content if it offends anyone. I purposefully left out controversial issues like the forceful circumcission of Nairs by the Muslims in 1789-1791 period just because of this. And finally, the user has been using his IP as a sock with 164.100.1.17. Axxn (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course a communist raised red flags, what other flags would he raise? In any case, this editor wrote, "Anything which is printed and published as a book is not to be considered the truth. The accepted writings which are authenticated by university-approved research only can be considered as refernces." Making up your own rules in violation of WP:RS is a big no-no. I don't see a bright and happy future for this editor on Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 22:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for intervention/ block/ protection

This is a formal complaint against Hullabaloo Wolfowitz and a a request to have him blocked from the page "Amy Grant" (reasons below). Wolfowitz is a user who has exhibited a longtime pattern of destructive work clearly in violation of the purpose and mission of wikipedia. Specifically, he has recently repeatedly made erratic, destructive changes to my work on a wiki page, "Amy Grant".

His User Discussion page has over 140 sections of complaints against him and his/her work on wikipedia. Yes- over 140. This is a clear, obvious pattern. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz

The complaints are too numerous to mention. The user even admits that he has had trouble following wikipedia policy and has been hounded by editors for his erratic and destructive edits to pages. A quote from his User page: "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is back after a long absence. And after a longer period of silence. I do not know how long I will stay this time. The last time I did what I could to follow policy. But I was regularly hounded by aggressive editors because they did not want to. Perhaps things will go better this time. I have watched discussions and arguments for months."

I request that H. Wolfowitz be blocked from editing the Amy Grant page.

Here is the Amy Grant History page with the latest of the attacks on my work: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amy_Grant&action=history

I am a professional journalist, and this User is running me away from wikipedia. I feel his work is damaging and destructive to wikipedia, to the fine editors and volunteers who create wikipedia, and to its purpose and mission. He is vandalizing pages and apparently is not even willing to discuss these things. I have asked repeatedly to discuss edits with him to no avail.

Thank you for your assistance. I also edit under the name Relax777 (and if that is a problem, I am glad to delete that account and stick with this account.) Dougmac7 (talk) 07:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, so I'll address the Wolfowitz situation shortly, but so you don't get yourself into any other trouble, go read WP:SOCK and get your accounts in order. Frmatt (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Having taken a look at the accounts and edits in question, I have two comments...First, when I made the comment above, I thought that you had pretty much retired the Relax777 account...but you haven't. Therefore, I would recommend at this point that you be blocked for socking until you figure out which account you want to use and go through the appropriate process to do that. Secondly, I would suggest that you take the content dispute back to the article talk page and sort it out there. If you have concerns about a specific user, you could consider starting a Request for Comment/User (RfC/U). Oh...and I'll notify Wolfowitz for you. Frmatt (talk) 07:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

And because you continue to edit under both accounts at the same time, I'm on my way to WP:SPI to report you as you obviously didn't read WP:SOCK or else you don't understand it. Frmatt (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to utilise crazy stuff here, like common sense, but is there any evidence Dougmac has actually seen your posts here? His last contributions were before you started posting. Perhaps it would be good to say, give a new user more than twenty minutes to see and become familiar with the socking policy before you start asking for blocks? Honestly, this is WP:BITE to the extreme. Ironholds (talk) 12:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

And additional, he hasn't "continued" to edit under both at the same time. His last edit on this one was before your posts, his last edit as Relax was yesterday. Are you seeing something here I'm not? Ironholds (talk) 12:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the sockpuppet accusation here. Frmatt, are you suggesting that simply using more than one account is sockpuppetry? The user has admitted that they control both accounts. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've dropped some advice on User talk:Dougmac7#Multiple_accounts. As both his accounts had edited the same talkpage I think an explanation of our sockpuppetry policy was in order. ϢereSpielChequers 15:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me add a few points. This is not a new user; the Relax777 account has been active for more than two years, and has some unusual editing habits, including creating pages, then nominating them for deletion shortly thereafter; it also maintained an unsourced attack page on a named person in userspace (which was speedied earlier today on my nomination). The Dougmac7 account was created just a few days ago, and has been used as a "bad hand" account (for example, vandalizing my user page) and as a means of exaggerating support for his/her side in an editing dispute at Amy Grant. The use of multiple accounts was not admitted until after other socking issues related to the Dougmac7 account were raised on the Amy Grant talk page.
The edits involved in the Amy Grant dispute generally involve the insertion of unsourced/unreliably sourced promotional claims, sometimes borderline copyvios, into the article. For example, this edit [30] added this sentence to the article's lede: "She is the first Christian artist to have a platinum record, the first to have a #1 pop song and the first to perform at the Grammys. It is sourced only to the artist's promotional bio page, which includes this sentence: "She surely did that, achieving such breakthroughs as being the first Contemporary Christian artist to have a platinum record, the first to hit #1 pop and the first to perform at the Grammys." In fact, one of the earliest edits out of the Relax777 account [31] added unsourced promotional/peacock text to that article: "Grant is considered one of the true pioneers of Gospel and Contemporary Christian music. Her influence on Gospel music and the Christian culture in the United States and beyond is sweeping and pervasive. She is widely considered one of the most important, influential public figures in the Christian world today." If the user is going to make promotionally toned edits like this, he/she should expect to have his edits reverted or heavily revised, as he/she is editing a BLP in violation, if not defiance, of core policies like BLP, NPOV, RS and V. As the little note underneath the "Save page" button says, "f you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here" -- a point that's particularly important when the submitted writing ignores key content policies.
The new Dougmac7 should be permanently blocked as a sock. Relax777 should be strongly warned, if not sanctioned/restricted, for both sockpuppetry and for harassing an editor (myself) who was doing no more than implementing mandatory content policies on articles where his/her accounts had violated them. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at this again in the morning, I did not read the edit summary properly, and misread the times. That was my fault, and I will freely admit to that. That doesn't excuse the fact that this user is using two accounts to edit the same articles, talk pages, and violating WP:SOCK by using one account to support the other as evidenced here and here. Dougmac7/Rleax777's socking violates three of the first five points about inappropriate sock puppetry. Since this user has been around for two years, and the first accusation of sockpuppetry did not come from me, but from a user on the article talk page two days ago, then I believe they have had more than adequate time to respond to the accusations. Frmatt (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

And for the record...thanks to SpielChequer for explaining the socking policy to the user, I was probably a little overzealous in filing the SPI last night...and in my earlier comments this morning. I stand by the content, but not necessarily the tone. If the user can show that they have read and understood the socking policy, then I'll withdraw the SPI. Frmatt (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I support the comments of Hullaballoo in this matter. The user Relax777/Dougmac7 has made a frivolous complaint, and does not understand normal wikipedia editing conventions. Their edit comments and discussion at Amy Grant indicate problems with WP:OWN and possibly also WP:COI (see comment with this edit), inappropriately demand all changes (by other people, I presume!) have to be discussed before being enacted (this edit), and inappropriately demand credentials from Hullaballoo to justify his editing of the article at all (this edit). They have artificially inflated their numbers by using the two accounts AND by importing with copy-edit material from another editor out of Hullaballoo's page (from here) and into the Amy Grant page (this edit). Hullaballoo has been working well in the normal WP:BRD cycle, and his edits have helped maintain the quality of the biography as encyclopedic rather than as a puff-piece. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 18:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to those who have responded with constructive input and advice. To those who have an agenda of their own (and not wikipedia's) and those who randomly join in to attack my stance and try to "win", you are spinning your wheels, my friends. Wow, we finally hear from Wolfowitz. The guy who acts like he owns Wikipedia- and runs off people like me (and the numerous other editors he has hounded in violation of the spirit of wikipedia, I might add, which is just as important as the letter.) I will be the first to humble myself. I apologize for my mistakes. I honestly do not spend much time editing on wiki and therefore do not know all the policies. I certainly want the best for wikipedia and all those involved. I have read the sock policy. I have retired the relax777 account. I have invited Wolfowitz to discuss things with me on the Amy Grant talk page. As I hope you can see, I always try to have the right intentions. When someone deliberately hounds my work in a mysterious, erratic fashion (about one week ago, he immediately undid and flagged the only two posts I have done in several weeks- very odd indeed!), and when I see that there are 140 sections of complaints against that volunteer, I defend myself and my work. That reminds me. In all the responses above, no one has addressed the 140 sections of complaints against Wolfowitz (on his user discussion page) and his longtime pattern of erratic actions. IMHO his actions and style are profoundly destructive to wikipedia and the spirit, letter and intent of this outstanding project and movement. Come to think of it, I do not think I will be spending much time on wiki in the future. Life is too short to waste it dealing with the Wolfowitz's of the world. Dougmac7 (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

To let everyone know, after looking at this case on SPI, I have indefinitely blocked Relax777 and blocked Dougmac7 for 3 days. Both accounts were used in tandem for disruptive purposes. MuZemike 05:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

After having read the entire thread above and the actions taken, I don't think I made a very good block at all and has decided to unblock Dougmac7 in good faith that he won't do this again. I'm going to keep Relax777 blocked, however, just to make sure. MuZemike 06:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sal the Stockbroker (again)

To add to this i have made a complaint against user Wolfowitz and his constant redirecting of articles he claims that are BLP violations. When he does this he will not talk about it at all and takes it upon him slef to revert things that have been fixes as in Sal the Stockbroker so i also 2nd any action done against him 98.117.34.180 (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

In this case, I agree. This redirect by Hullaballoo without discussion of a long standing article was completely inappropriate. The redirect goes to a tiny subsection within a completely different article for the Howard Stern show. That's way over the line.

By the way, 98.117.34.180; are you already a party to this discussion under a registered name? If so could you identify yourself so we don't get confused? If not, then welcome to the bun fight and thanks for the input in either case. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have now looked at this a bit more thoroughly, and made this a subsection for Sal the Stockbroker (again). The account given by 98.117.34.180 (talk) omits some relevant information. He has twice previously brought up this same issue. The archived discussions can be found at:

• WP:BLP/Noticeboard/Archive73 section Sal the Stockbroker; issue raised at 17:13, 23 Oct by 98.117.34.180 (talk)
• WP:AN/IncidentArchive572 section Sal the Stockbroker; issue raised at 17:34, 23 Oct by 98.117.34.180 (talk)

Both discussions show only support for the redirect, and the actions of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs); with the proviso that edit warring is never appropriate. There was a specific admonishment for future reference given to 98.117.34.180 which I copy here also:

(Copied from this edit by Nil Einne (talk) at WP:BLP/N, 06:19, 25 Oct) In future, please DO NOT post the same issue in multiple places unless you have waited sufficient time. If you do have to post it in multiple areas make sure you link between both discussions or better keep one place as the primary place for discussion and simply ask people to visit there

I still think that when a long established page is entirely replaced with a redirect to a different page, and then the redirect is reverted, no-one should revert back again to redirect without explicitly discussing the reasons in the talk page. Edit summaries are not sufficient. 98.117.34.180 (talk) had asked for reasons in the talk page as appropriate, and no-one involved ever responded there. That was poorly done, however sensible the redirect.

I have now added a comment at the talk page pointing to these two archive discussions, and would request people to actually use the talk page if this continues at all. Hullaballoo seems to be doing good work, but it would be better he was a bit better at working with people he disagrees with and explaining his actions at a talk page if they have been reverted, in line with WP:BRD. However, this is not a venue for dispute resolution. I don't see any need for administrator intervention here. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 07:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

One quick response; I'll try to get back here later, and I apologize in advance for any curtness resulting from my haste. Despite what 98.117.34.180 claims, I did replay to his question, and he never responded. The exchange is on my talk page [32], where I responded to him about fifteen minutes after he posted. He didn't participate in any further dialogue with me. I didn't, and still don't, see any need to crosspost everywhere he posted the same question. The editor is posting out of at least two different IPs, making it difficult to keep track of his posts, so it's not easy for anyone who "came in late" tocatch everything that was going on. I'd also suggest taking a look at the history of this article, Vomiting, which ended up protected for a while because of the 98.-anon's edit warring to insert edits which the protecting admin characterized as vandalism, and which multiple users strongly objected to. Given several other of his typical requests, eg asking for explicit illustrations for Diarrhea[33] and Menstrual cycle [34], I'd say he's got more interest in the scatalogical/cloacal than in improving the encyclopedic aspects of Wikipedia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said, after looking over this I think you are doing good work at wikipedia. In line with the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I think that you should make a brief comment on the talk page of an article if an edit you make has been reverted and you want to continue to work on the problem. For example, at Sal the Stockbroker:

1. Your initial redirect was this edit at 04:17, 17 Oct (bold, by HW)
2. The first revert was this edit at 16:48, 23 Oct (revert, by 98.117.40.154)
3. A revert to redirect was this edit at 16:58, 23 October 2009 (the start of edit warring, by HW, rather than discuss)
4. A discussion at talk page with this edit at 16:59, 23 Oct (by 98.117.40.154, this is what HW should have done himself rather than re-revert)

There IS an issue here with proper wikiquette. The usual procedure, in line with WP:BRD, would have been for you to start the discussion at the talk page yourself, rather than simply make the re-revert at 16:48, 23 Oct. Note that by this time, no alerts had been raised and no discussion joined. AFTER this we had the reverse problem of trying to discuss too much in too many places. Here are the multiple venues at which the issue was raised in rapid succession by 98.117.40.154:

1. at 16:59, 23 Oct, article talk page. (appropriate)
2. at 17:13, 23 Oct, BLP noticeboard. (premature?)
3. at 17:16, 23 Oct, talk page of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (appropriate)
4. at 17:34, 23 October 2009, Administrators' noticeboard (highly premature!)

The notice given at Hullaballoo's talk page is a cordial and very appropriate request for Hullaballoo to give his reasons for the redirect at the article talkpage, and he should have complied. Hullaballoo, I echo that request, for future reference. I note you have done that now; thanks! But for future reference, when someone reverts changes you have made to an article, and you restore them again, can you please also make it your normal procedure to put a brief comment at the article talk page, rather than rely on edit summaries alone. This is good practice per WP:BRD, and it will also help with dispute resolution if people complain about your edits in future. Give the nature of BLP issues, it is pretty much inevitable you are going to get objections to your work. So please do use the article talk pages when reverts are starting to occur. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There are too many complaints against this user for the matter to be swept under the carpet. I do not believe that a collaborative approach entails one person undoing other people's work and not doing very much else. This is more dictatorial than working with people (I have pointed this out on his discussion page, but it may be that he sees complaints against him as marks of achievement). At the very least this user's edits should be watched and analyzed. Michaelbarreto (talk) 12:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

William S. Saturn

I was wondering if a level-headed administrator might look into the contributions of William S. Saturn (talk · contribs). William has been relentless in his assertions that the Fort Hood shootings were a terrorist attack and the individual suspected, Nidal Malik Hasan a terrorist. He has been repeatedly warned about WP:BLP and WP:NPOV but has not altered his behavior and has edit-warred to push this opinion. I just ask that somebody look into this and respond accordingly. Grsz¹¹ 23:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

For context, William S. Saturn is the same as this guy. I believe (though I stand open to correction) that he started a new account, and after some period of productive editing (six months?) outed himself, and in view of his good editing nobody re-blocked. He generates a lot of good content, but in light of his past socking he should be on a short leash. Steve Smith (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff of the "outing"? --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Here's the thread in which his sock drawer was uncovered. Here's the thread where he outed himself. His story is that the "sockpuppets" were actually another member of his household. I'll leave it to others to evaluate its believability. Steve Smith (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That is not true. There was an AN post on that issue from a few months ago. That was not my account(s). --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you please provide a diff of the AN thread? I ask this, and the above, so that it can be documented as a non-issue. WP:SOCKing is a bad thing, and you shouldn't have to be concerned with such an accusation considering it is, as you state, resolved as not an issue. --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Note that WSS has also been relentless at trying to add the Fort Hood shooting, and Mr. Hasan, to List of terrorist incidents, 2009, which is now protected due to his relentlessness. PhGustaf (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, he's not so bad. I've seen POV-pushers here that could run rings around that guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

And edit-warring, which should have earned a block already. Grsz¹¹ 02:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of this tread, other than giving an outlet for a few editors to vent? --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

To explore whether you should be blocked for edit-warring and general disruption. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not venting, I'm trying to help remove the accusation of WP:SOCKing that's on the table. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The old "a member of my household" story[35] as noted by Steve Smith above. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I find this of great concern. WP:My little brother did it is not an excuse for WP:SOCK. Notwithstanding the user's behavior brought forward by this discussion (which is a separate concern), should not the issue raised by brought to WP:SPI? --4wajzkd02 (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There it is. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There what is? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done with this thread. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As a note, I can't see that he has edited Nidal Malik Hasan. Protonk (talk) 03:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a new(er) article. Relevant pages here include:

• List of terrorist incidents, 2009, where William edit-warred to include the event and suspect, forcing full protection.
• Fort Hood shooting, where he has added and readded (most certainly breaking WP:3RR) to include categories labeling the event and suspect as terrorism/terrorist.
• Talk:Political positions of Barack Obama, where he initiated a WP:POINTy discussion basing his position to add something to the article on an OpEd that labeled the event as terrorism.
• Fort Hood terrorist attack, a POV redirect.

Consensus at all of this pages has been against the POV that William has expressed. He is using opinion pieces as the basis of his argument and refuses to comply to or accept the importance of relevant policy such as WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. As far as the socking issue goes, if it is true (I haven't looked into it) then escalating blocks are appropriate. Grsz¹¹ 04:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave the sock issues to the side as I have not looked into that. I'm involved in the Fort Hood shootings article and debates so cannot act here as an uninvolved administrator, however I think William is editing in an extremely tendentious fashion with respect to this "it was terrorism" idea. There is simply no consensus among involved editors to refer to this shooting as a terrorist incident at this time, and William does not seem to be able to respect that. ANI is not for content disputes, but it would be nice if an admin could talk to William on his talk page and ask him to let go of this issue for awhile since continually pressing it is arguably becoming disruptive at this point. I've previously discussed some problematic editing patterns with William on his talk page (several months ago, on a basically unrelated matter) and he was receptive to the advice, so perhaps a neutral admin could step in here if they are in agreement with the editors above who are seeing a problem. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just taken a gander through his recent contributions, and he appears to have ceased (or at least dramatically slowed) making reversions to the articles in question. Without speaking to the sock issues, I think his present behavior has become more productive. I'm not going to go through each talk page post, but he appears to be discussing, rather than edit warring, at the moment. Do we still need admin action here? Jclemens (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

William has decreased activity. However, other users (Bachcell (talk · contribs)) have been more active and may need warnings of WP:BLP. Grsz¹¹ 17:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

What about the sock issues? Are they actionable? --4wajzkd02 (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

personal attacks

Please help. User Ceha has been doing personal attacks on me lately. Example, [36] He has been harasing me very much because I am persuing action to delete a frauduelent map that he has posted on wikipedia. The discussion about his map had a pause, then I restarted it again lately. I suspect that this is the reason for his attacks on me. Please help. (LAz17 (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)).

I have notified the user of this thread, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 18:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have also notified the user of this thread, at the exact same time as BoP. Great minds think alike! GiantSnowman 18:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I do apologize if user Laz thinks I've offended him in any way. I did not mean to insult him in any way. In this particular case that user have reverted my change without prior discussing it on the talk pages. We are having this discusion for a long time and during that time user Laz showed uncivil and rude behavior (I think that this report unfortunately part of his tactics). Time after time he is calling me a fascist. Last time was 1.November.2009. [37] He was previously reported and warned about insolting persons and calling them names [38].--Čeha (razgovor) 22:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If we can ignore the he said she said, the apology may take us a long way. Can the two of you resolve not to insult each other, regardless of who insulted whom in the past? Also, if you all could speak English on the English wikipedia, it would be helpful, and not just for situations like this.--chaser (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree. I had no intentions of insulting anybody. However I would like that the guy stops calling me a fascist. Unfortunately, I think that is a pretty serious insult. :/ A little bit of civil behavior and we should solve a great deal of our worries. After all this is an encyclopedia :) --Čeha (razgovor) 22:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Much of this, like the comments preceding this for example, looks to be in Serbo-Croatian, in which case I guess you'll need to find a neutral translator to help us out. Or an admin that speaks Serbo-Croatian.--chaser (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that line has not nothing with user Laz. As mentioned before, that user is very rude and uncivil from time to time, and is known for using a lot of swear words (if you find a good translator you can read what kind of stuff that guy wrote).--Čeha (razgovor) 22:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

LAz is not the only one C has targeted, I happened to stumble across a clearly racial remark that C made about me in the same discussion. [39] PRODUCER (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this is clearly overdoing. Did I in any way called you some name, or insulted you? I even apologized if you felt insulted. On the other way you threatened to block my account. And user Laz, which is complaing about personal attacks is insulting me, calling me a fascist even if he was previously warned about that. My behaviour is civil, and I do not have nothing to hide. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ceha is a person who becomes very rude to whomever disagrees with him in any way. He then goes about making a discussion as pointless as it can possibly be. A case in point - once a source was agreed upon on a map, he goes back as if the other person did not agree, and starts the discussion all from the beginning. So, he firstly does not want to move forth in discussions, and secondly, he starts insulting. This is what is the case here. Further, he goes about insulting and bringing up false acusations. I never called him a fascist. However, his map is contributing to fascist propaganda. The man has made a very controversial map of a region that is very very ethnically mixed. He went about doing this by on purpose excluding countless settlements. The map was a disaster, an ethnically motivated POV propaganda map. This was not my conclusion, but a conclusion of someone else. The bottom line is that he is very angry at me for questioning his work of art. Now that the discussion has moved forth and a consensus has been reached that his map is not good, he has resulted to regularly insulting me and claiming that his map is fine, yet countless mistakes have been pointed out to him. We are dealing with someone who edit wars and who is very uncooperative. I think that a ban would be a very just thing to do in this case. Please contact the user Direktor for more information. (LAz17 (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)).

Please do.

User Laz: a) repeated accusations about "fascistit propaganda" [40] Fascistic nationalistic propaganda is where it all lies

b)previous warnings by adminstrators [41]

c) blocked indeffinetilly on croatian wiki because of swearing. [42]

If anyone has any suggestion what to do with this user, I'm willing to listen. If need be, I will again apologize, but unfortunately I do not see that would solve anything. --Čeha (razgovor) 14:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly what I am talking about. I could not have said it better myself. A)Fascistit- notice the use of words. The real word is fascist propaganda, about his map. He is on purpose wrongly interpreting this to mean that he is a fascist- no his map only contributes to that propaganda - if it is intentional or not is the question. Admin warnings? Sure, but look into what they are about. You and I were edit warring. Interesting how you do not mention certain info. I was unblocked on the croatian wikipedia. The user Kubara put on purpose "wrong information". I beat him on the english wiki... it all starts with the source, apparently even he can not make up stuff without a source - though you do that regularly. Lastly, the word "zajebavas" is not messing. In english "nemoj da me zajebavas" means "don't mess around with me". That is what I told him, and with reason - and this is supposed to be swearing? His information was wrong, and if you do not beleive it look at the talk page of the croatian hockey league. (LAz17 (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)).

I would honestly like that someone sees this because it's like living in a paralel universes. What is a person who spreads fascist propaganda? What do the word fascist has to do with Balkans in the end of 20th century?

The guy was almost blocked by an administrator because of his uncivil behavior, but it just edit warring??

And the translation of "zajebavaš" is wrong. It means to fuck around. That is the language which Laz uzes.

As for croatian wikipedia, Laz can you provide link for us to see your behavior? I'm very interested what they sad to you.--Čeha (razgovor) 22:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, user Laz started attacking another user (Polargeo) [43].--Čeha (razgovor) 22:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

1) fascist has to do with the ustashe movement. The movement never died with the end of world war two. It came back in the 1990s. It is at the core of croatian nationalism, especially claims that croatia should gobble up all of bosnia. Your map which shows the croats as overrepresented only fosters that. Granted that your map is not as outrageous as it was when I first started complaining, it is still outrageous. Direktor coming in to mediate the discussion gave you no choice than to fix some of the major mistakes, but there are still dozens of mistakes left. Several people have said that your map is not acceptable. For this you hate me.

2) I have never used or heard the word "zajebavas" as go fuck around. Serbocroatian is a very dirty language. We have words like "jebiga". Jebiga means "oh well". But it can also mean "fuck him". Almost always it is used as "oh well". So, I think you should stop trying to trick our people here in translation.

3) For croatian wikipedia, just go to the ice hockey page. You can see that there is still very much un-sourced fraud information. Kubara has backed down from the fraud on the english wikipedia. Neither of us were completely right, so we came to a comprise halfway inbetween. You on the other hand want all or nothing.

4)Polargeo was not attacked at all. He might have been intimidated with some sources that I posted on his talk page. How can one interpret information as an attack. He made a particular rape in a war article, and I told him why I felt that it was biased, and I gave him some more sources that might help improve the article to a less biased tone. (LAz17 (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)).

Exactly my point.

a) Calling someone or its work fascist is a grave insult and has no place in any encyclopedia, no matter what you though about or how you cover it up. You should be sanctioned for that.

b) No. "Zajebavaš" comes from "jebati" which means "to fuck" it is always a dirty word, no matter in Croatian, Serbian or some hibrid. It is not a word which is spoken on TV or in public.

c) I do not understand what you think that I want, but is that important? You had problems on Croatian wiki because of your rude behavior.

d) One word. Dictionary. And a lot of swearing. Laz, Polargeo is right. You should watch your manners. --Čeha (razgovor) 16:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Khanate of Erevan

Please see page above, it has been the site of edit warring by user Grandmaster, who is apparently on probation from topic editing/reverting on Armenia-Azerbaijan articles per arbitration. Has aggressively reverted and removed cited and justifiable information for POV purposes. Has failed to justify his edits on the topic, and soon after he reverts, anonymous IPS revert to his version or other meatpuppeting Azerbaijani editors. Please look at this page carefully, and recitify. Preferably against user's right to approach topic and protection from anons, as a result of negative language in his edit summaries and essentially vandalism of pages. Fazeri (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Grandmaster (talk · contribs) of this thread. GiantSnowman 19:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The background to this is a far wider conflict caused by uncertainty over the use of alternative names, a conflict and uncertainty made worse by the lack of guidelines about what that section of an article should contain. The arguments are often not really about whether content is valid or not, but whether it is valid to place the content in the "alternative names" section. I would welcome some intelligent administrator advice about how to initiate discussion towards hammering out some guidelines and rules that could be applied to all wikipedia articles, and about what sort of forum that discussion should take place in. Also see this discussion on Grandmaster's talk page: [44] Meowy 20:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It is quite obvious that Fazeri (talk · contribs) is just another sock of User:Hetoum I, who has been involved in massive disruption in arbitration covered area for years. As one can see from the history of Khanate of Erevan, Fazeri reverted the article to the version of Brunotheborat, the known sock of Hetoum, and then reported me here, to mislead people about what is going on. It is funny that he accuses me of using anon IPs to edit war, while all the IPs were in fact socks of Hetoum and reverted the article for him. An admin action is necessary to prevent further disruption by this person. The above report is apparently a retaliation for my report here: [45] As one can see, yesterday Hetoum's ban was extended to 1 year, but since he evaded it again with yet another sock, Fazeri, I think it is time to consider the indefinite ban, since this user is going to defy the arbitration enforcement. Grandmaster 07:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it does seem quite suspicious that Fazeri (the suspected sock) reverted to the same version as the confirmed sock. Recommend that a CU check into this case. GlassCobra 02:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The CU confirmed that Fazeri was the banned user Hetoum evading his ban, the sock account is blocked. [46] Grandmaster 05:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Valeska Suratt

There's a disagreement between User:Wildhartlivie and myself over the admittance of an External Link in the Valeska Suratt article. The link is from a site Forgetthetalkies.com which is supposed to be a site that is on a 'spamlist'. I have no idea of what the previous site to Forgetthetalkies is, or whether the site was a spam site as Wildhartlivie claims. Wildhartlivie says the owner of the site was called Maggiedane and changed his/her name to LalaPickford. Wildhartlivie does not explain how he knows this. The present site , Forgetthetalkies, offers accurate information on subject of Valeska Suratt. The present site appears as a responsible & researched page and offers useful and helpful information to the film researcher. So I can't figure as to why Wildhartlivie reverts this link which appears as a different site from any previous site full of erroneous info or spam. Wildhartlivie, from what I've observed, picks and chooses 'what he thinks' is permissible or appropriate. That's not acceptable in editing Wikipedia is it not? Personal opinions and grievances must be left off editing Wikipedia. A previous example of Wildhartlivie clashing with information I submitted, was information concerning Jean Harlow and her involvement with Howard Hughes and that she had had an abortion of Hughes's baby. The Harlow info came from a published work but Wildhartlivie declared the published author as unreliable. Who is he to say? Is this 'personal choice' thing by users and editors a new trend in Wikipedia? I couldn't find any reason why the 'new' Forgetthetalkies website link couldn't be added to the Valeska Suratt External Links section regardless of the goings on or irresponsibility of any previous website. Well thank you, Ill appreciate any input to settle matter once and for all. Koplimek (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read the past discussions or looked at the website yet. But for reference for others, here are links to the past discussions that I could find. Additional uses of the link can be found here.

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 30#Forget the Talkies
• Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 7#Hollywood Babylon/FTT

--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the material Barek supplied, & considering that this is about whether to add one external link to an article, I'd say (1) this is not linkspam, & (2) because it is to a list of movies that this actress is believed to have appeared in (all of which no longer exist & which is identical to the list at IMDB), I'm not too concerned whether the intent of WP:NOR is being violated here. Moreover, this is a content dispute which really does not belong here; at the most, someone could inform Wildhartlive that she/he is misusing the term "linkspam", & tell you that Wildhartlive should use the reason "duplicate information" for removing this link. You can pursue a resolution for this thru the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but frankly if I were you I'd drop this matter & move on to another article. Life is short & there's a lot of work on Wikipedia in need of being done. -- llywrch (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It would be, at the least, common courtesy if an editor is notified when something is posted here about them. It would also be extremely helpful if someone would stop italicizing my username as if it were something disdainful. I tried to explain clearly that this website, which is a blog, was added to the spamlist after it was repeatedly spammed into multiple articles by the site owner, who uses two different usernames here, User:Maggiedane and User:Thegingerone, and who admitted in the WP:NOR/N and WP:RS/N posts above to being the owner. I also noted that on the blog in question, the same person goes by the username HalaPickford and offered to give him the links that confirm this. Maggiedane also confirmed her ownership of the site which was spammed into dozens of articles on Koplimek's talk page, along with an incivil personal attack to me. I'm really sorry that the site owner finds this personal, but whatever. She was denied both MedCab and ArbCom filings for much the same issue regarding spamming of the website, during which one Arbcom member commented that "From what I can see here, the request for comment should be made on Maggiedane and her edits." Personally published self-researched sites don't fall under WP:RS guidelines, and they specifically fall under WP:ELNO. Calling me a bully and telling me to bite her [47] does not change that. Forgetthetalkies is not a new website, nor did I ever state that, however it is a self-published, non-vetted opinion blog. I also told Koplimek that the identical content, the filmography for Surratt, is available from a reliable source at Moviefone. In short, there is no valid reason to retain a link to a blogspot page that duplicates content available on a site considered a reliable source. That's it in a nutshell. As for the Harlow content, Koplimek made one post to the article, here, which contained controversial content, and did not add a citation to the article, but only in an edit summary, which I reverted here, specifically noting "this sort of content absolutely MUST be sourced *in the article* and not just in an edit summary." Similar uncited content was posted to Marlene Dietrich, Rita Hayworth and Howard Hughes. I also posted to his talk page, including links to learn how to properly cite content, which resulted in a protracted discussion [48] [49] in which he basically dismissed the idea that content about a notable actress having an abortion is controversial because it was published in a source, without citing the source. There was never a discussion about whether a source was reliable, that is simply misrepresentation of the discussion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I took the liberty of notifying Wildhartlivie after reading this post here. I'm not involved in the dispute on the Valeska Suratt, but I'd like to comment on the Forgetthetalkies link as I have removed it from several different articles myself. As Wildhartlivie has stated above, the link has been the subject of discussions on several different occasions because of its inclusion on various articles here. User:Maggiedane first attempted to use it as a source while also adding it as an external link. Aside from that, Maggiedane has freely admitted that she not a published authority on the topic(s) and has a clear COI regarding the link(s). These actions are what led to the finally being blacklisted. Wildhartlivie certainly is not the only editor to remove the link because it simply does not belong here, she's just the one catching heat for it. Further, the only user making this "personal" is Maggiedane and that is evident from the various personal attacks she has made against Wildhartlivie. Since she comments here so infrequently, I suppose she assumes she can get away with it and has been correct in that assumption so far. That said, I fully agree that this issue doesn't belong on AN/I and proper dispute resolution steps should have been taken first before bringing the matter here. Pinkadelica^♣ 23:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Constant unsourced information

Resolved

EddieRox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - following his last block here this user has shown himself unable to enter into dialogue about his edits, which are entirely and remorselessly adding unsourced information to articles. I've just spent ten minutes clearing up his latest mess; block of at least a fortnight requested, plus a strongly-worded note from an admin. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 21:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

How weird. This user has never made any edit to any talk space or user space content. It looks minor at first glance, but I can see this must be frustrating. Have a look at the edit count via Soxred93's edit counter tool. There are 111 live edits, with a few in 2007 and al the rest just recently; and all edits are in article space. The edits don't look like vandalism, but they get reverted and he never discusses. Never seen anything like it. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

So... can an administrator respond to this, perhaps? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 06:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Please? ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 17:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm, since he has been previously blocked for inserting silly unsourced content into articles, has not reacted to this in any way, and now continues to insert silly unsourced content into articles, I've blocked him for a week. Please report to AIV, with reference to this section, or to me should he carry on after his block.  Sandstein  19:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I initially did report to AIV, but was told to bring it here :P ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 19:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Alex Jones (radio host) and BLP

Could someone explain what's wrong with this redacted version of an edit removed by User:Gwen Gale. I don't want to bring a 3RR violation against Gwen, without understanding his reasoning, but it does seem appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I dont see any problem with this at all. talk page comments are considered sacred on wikipedia (too bad the same can't be said about articles) Ikip (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You're mistaken. Unsourced negative content about living persons anywhere on en.Wikipedia is a violation of WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, did you notice Arthur redacted the part that could be taken for a BLP violation in his last edit? I have a hard time seeing why the last edit of his was reverted, except that it wasn't immediately clear that he'd redacted the snide comment, and you though he had just reverted you. I assume it isn't this simple to solve... --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

He did not redact the BLP violation. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, he redacted the borderline part; I don't think what was left is a BLP violation. Once the "and he sort of is" was removed, the original poster isn't saying Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist (and worse), he's saying that's what our article is saying at the moment. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec x3) It's not "contentious" with respect to Alex, it's not negative (which is actually not relevant to WP:BLP), and there are sources. For example [50] (stating that others refer to him as a nutty conspiracy theorist). I'm sure that we can find a reliable source stating that he states that others refer to him as a nutty conspiracy theorist. In fact, it's likely that one of the 7 5 sources in the article lede for "conspiracy theorist" states that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• "I'm not saying their necessarily needs to be controversial or negative comments about Alex or his program, i'm simply saying that there should be more info on the general topics he discusses on his program as to give readers more examples of what kind of things they can expect to find on his show. And yeah sure get some direct quotes from Alex himself too. Perhaps some info on his criticism of Obama, or the 9/11 truth movement, or the NWO. Because in a whole the wikipedia page for Alex just pretty much states he has a show, makes films, and people regard him as a (which in a way he IS) but I think the page could certainly use some expansion, thats all. And a little more biographical info would be good too. " Point to the BLP violation. Protonk (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced negative commentary (moreover original research) about living persons isn't allowed. Without a source, it's a violation of WP:BLP. If someone can source such a comment to a reliable publicatation and post it on their own, it won't be a violation. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I've redacted the BLP vio from the above, I'll not be drawn into posting it. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It's still not contentious, which is the wording used in WP:BLP. Does anyone doubt that people refer to him as a "nutty conspiracy theorist". Does anyone consider the assertion that people refer to him as a "nutty conspiracy theorist" as potentially libelous? (That's not a requirement for it to be a BLP violation, either, but it's closer to being a requirement than being "negative".) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Protonk was trying to trick you into a BLP violation, Gwen, I really don't. I disagree with this interpretation of BLP, and am a little surprised you won't explain yourself more fully than you are. What you removed is a description of the current state of the article. I'm a firm believer in WP:BLP, but removing entire talk page comments when only a portion was borderline, and making people pull teeth to get an explanation, actually hurts the cause; it makes BLP'er look too extreme, and others are less likely to take it seriously. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said, anyone is welcome to add their own reliably sourced post with negative commentary to the talk page (or the article). Gwen Gale (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If there is a BLP violation on a talk page then the better solution would be to delete only the violation, not the entire posting. Also, If there's a dispute over what part is in violation then the editors should try to communicate off-Wiki. We shouldn't put editors in a situation where we delete their text and then refuse to say what was offensive about it. Personally, the only thing that appears to me to be a potential BLP violation would be the word "nutty". It would have been sufficient to redact that word.   Will Beback  talk  23:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it was offensive. Unsourced negative commentary about living persons isn't allowed. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, but all you had to do was redact that one word, not get into an aedit war over deleting the entire post.   Will Beback  talk  23:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverting a repeated BLP violation is not edit warring. Redacting a single word may or may not be enough. Talk pages are not forums for individual outlooks on living persons. If someone wants to bring up something negative about a living person, they must cite a reliable source. Start citing sources or drop it. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The comment you removed was a description of the state of the article. Please read it again. People have to be able to describe the state of the article on a talk page, or there's no point in having a talk page. If you disagree, could you please, as a favor to me, address this specific point? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The BLP violation was not "a description of the state of the article," it was unsourced negative commentary on a living person, which as I've said many times now, isn't allowed anywhere on en.Wikipedia. One can't use a talk page (or ANI) as a WP:Coatrack or otherwise WP:Wikilawyer for unsourced negative commentary about a living person. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing that point. Quote: "Because in a whole the wikipedia page for Alex just pretty much states he has a show, makes films, and people regard him as a...". IMHO, that is a description of the state of the article. I have no desire to be accused of wikilawyering, so I guess I'll move on, but I think you're misinterpreting things. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There are five sources in the article that describe the subject as a "conspiracy theorist". The idea that editors would also need a citation every time they use the phrase "conspiracy theorist" on the talk page is pushing BLP to an absurd conclusion. Do editors posting to talk:Richard Ramirez need to attach a citation every time they call him a murderer? No, and deleting every uncited comment to that effect would be disruptive without helping the encyclopeia or the biography subjects.   Will Beback  talk  23:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This thread is not about a convicted serial killer. Making the comparison is in itself a borderline BLP violation. Calling a convicted serial killer a murderer on a talk page is most likely not a violation of BLP. This is my last warning: Editors who make unsourced negative commentary about living persons, or restore them, will be blocked from editing. Reliably cited negative commentary is ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the exact phrase that was unsourced? Obviously it wasn't "conspiracy theorist".   Will Beback  talk  00:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The specific phrase in question was not necessary in a discussion on improving the article. Alex Jones a living person, and the article talk page is not a forum. Simply redacting the questionable content might have been more efficient, but the actual burden was on User:Iscream22 to bring his post in line with policy. user:J aka justen (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "conspiracy theorist" is sourced, and using it does not violate policy.   Will Beback  talk  00:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Since when? Hitting "undo" to wipe out a user's entire post over one term is just plain laziness, IMO. There is nothing POV or negative about calling someone a "conspiracy theorist" if that is how said person is referred to by reliable sources. This term is used in the lead of the article and is also the name of a category that the article is in. The only quibble here should have been over the n-word (no, not that n-word) qualifier, which could have easily been redacted by anyone, not just an admin, saving us a pile of drama. Tarc (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(reply to both Will and Tarc) The "conspiracy theorist" part wasn't the entirety of the problem; the term that referred to the person's mental state was the issue. user:J aka justen (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If so then the best solution would have been to redact the word "n___y". Overzealous enforcement of any policy leads to unhelpful consequences, such as this thread.   Will Beback  talk  00:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidently the phrase in question is "people regard him as a nutty conspiracy theorist (which in a way he IS)". I'll thank Gwen not to refactor my comments any more. I'm still left wondering how this is such an egregious violation of BLP that it required scrubbing not only from a talk page describing the subject but also from a policy board discussing the phrase itself. I think that discussion of Alex Jones is effectively neutered if we are unable to even talk about allegations that he's a conspiracy nut without having comments redacted by admins. Permission granted to apply common sense to the BLP policy. Rather than wiping out a comment, then refusing to justify it, then edit warring over it then redacting it from a discussion about the edit all while refusing to explain its import, couldn't you just have asked the editor to change the phrasing or god forbid, let it slide? Protonk (talk) 02:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm pretty much a BLP hawk, but I don't think the terms of that policy have been properly applied here. As specifically applied to talk pages, the pertinent text reads: "Talk pages are used to make decisions about article contents. Contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted, and even permanently removed ('oversighted') if especially problematic (telephone number, libel, etc). New material should generally be discussed in order to arrive at a consensus concerning relevance, availability of sources, and reliability of sources." [my italics] This less stringent restriction makes a great deal of sense as applied to talk pages; it encourages discussion and analysis of potentially questionable material, in order to, as BLP says, "get the article right. In terms of BLP's goals, it's much better to air things fully on a talk page than to embed dueling variations on a sensitive topic in the article itself. In this case, the language setting off the dispute isn't any more derisive than can be found in many sources, and is a good faith, reasonably accurate presentation of the subject's reputation in some non-fringe quarters. Here, for example, an opinion piece published recently by a major American newspaper includes the subject in its catalog of "loonies." [51]

Was the comment that set this off poorly phrased? Of course it was, but it was also clearly part of a good faith attempt to determine what the article content should be. The response would have been more effective if the immediate reply was on the order of "Whether he is or not comes down to personal opinion; rather than giving us your opinion on that, because the only content suitable for out article would concern his reputation in the outside world, let's have some examples of published comments that treat him that way." If the editor couldn't back up his/her assessment of the subject's reputation, then it would be time to redact his/her comments and move on.

And of course much of this drama could have been avoided if the comment had originally been presented as, or refactored to, "a proponent of nutty [or perhaps wacky] conspiracy theories," which sidesteps the "mental state" problems. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. As strict as I am on BLPs, I really don't see the violation here. Calling someone "nutty" in a Talk page is common and not a statement of fact. It's not meant to imply an actual mental health issue. Even then, such a discussion would be better off closed as off-topic, rather than removed as a BLP violation (see Talk:Time Cube). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Only the infringing part should have been removed. Unfortunatly the overuse of BLP on this article is a frequent and problomatic concern. No matter how well sourced something that can be construed as negative is on this particular article.. it somehow finds away to be removed due to BLP. the article as it stands is not really an accurate representation of the controversies surrounding this individual. How can you have an article about santa clause without mentioning christmas-Tracer9999 (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Roman Polanski interpreter or referee needed

• Roman Polanski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Proofreader77 (talk · contribs)
• Tombaker321 (talk · contribs)

Apologies for posting here but I'm afraid the talkpage on Roman Polanski is rather spiraling well out of any semblance of collegial cooperation. I've personally been accused of many things but being thick (stupid) is pretty low on the list, yet two editors Proofreader77 and Tombaker321, seem to be locked horns with otherwise other well-intended editors seem to be trying to untangle a mass volume of verbiology - IMHO from Proofreader77 - to try to step through any solution. I think there actually is some NPOV dispute on this BLP but after many days of trying to get a clear/concise "I think this sentence should state XYZ instead of XXX" we still seems to out of balance on the signal to noise measures.

I've first experienced what I feel are some WP:Own-ership issues with Proofreader77 when trying to remove {{BLP sources}} from the article, something that apparently happened many times before. The article seems well sourced but they cited WP:Original Research concerns but were unswayed that we had a more appropriate tag for that. I found that annoying but the talkpage on adding or removing content. Whatever subject along with many others was archived away as the volume on the talkpage can be measured in truckloads, mostly from this editor and those trying to sort out what's going on with them. (Note: struck example that was clearly a different editor)

They may be making good points but it seems veiled in layers of discussion including mark-up and redirects and frankly is all a bit WP:TLDR thus repelling away those who may actually be able to assist. Lately they have been admonishing, both publicly and on their talkpage, Tombaker321 fro removing the NPOV tag from the section, Roman Polanski#Sexual assault case. This is a 32-year old case that remains open and has been headline news for this film director as he was arrested in Switzerland in an effort by the US to extradite and try him for the charges. The content ballooned out of control and luckily a subpage for needless details has staved off much of the drama. There remains some outstanding issues but they, and other relevant issues to improve the article all seem lost in this barrage of words which I remain hopeful are well-intended. Some other eyes on this would be welcome as every time I take a break and then return to it, there seems more ratcheted-up heat than closer to well-spoken disputes emerging. -- Banjeboi 23:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Proofreader77

NOTE ADDED AFTER REACTION: re markup at ANI
A submission to Signpost "opinion" request. Read the one on the left:
User:Proofreader77/Two Wikipedia opinion sonnets linked by "civility"

• Quick acknowledgement that I am aware of this ANI topic. Agree it is certainly time for broader scrutiny. NOTE: The underlying issue may better be addressed at WP:BLPN (a NPOV clarification in the context of a BLP), but the path of how this is progressing amidst some admittedly extraordinary measures (arising from the highly culturally contentious current-events inflamed matter of the Roman Polanski case) certainly has aspects which can well, and perhaps should, be addressed here.

  NOTE: I must deal with some real world matters for a several hours, but will return to give my perspective.

  FORMAL REQUEST: If acceptible, I would ask that complex discussion of the matter be delayed until I provide my more complete initial response. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• NOTE: Banjeboi: paragraph 2

“ I first experienced some WP:Own-erish issues with Proofreader77 when trying to remove {{BLP sources}} from the article, something that apparently happened many times before. The article seems well sourced but they cited WP:Original Research concerns but were unswayed that we had a more appropriate tag for that. ”

Mistaken (wasn't me)

• Probable intended editor 18 October 2009 Sinneed EDIT SUMMARY: (The refimprove was lost repeatedly in the edit warring over the arrest. Restoring it, with its comment.)
• See: Archived discussion: Talk:Roman_Polanski/Archive_5#Refimprove restored - lost in the edit warring after the arrest

(Response status update: I am currently preparing response with diffs/data etc. A complex matter.) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 08:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• ABOUT / WIKIBACKGROUND: Proofreader77 (me) sometimes does current events wrangling. EXAMPLE: The weekend of the Koss rumor about Sarah Palin (on Monday she would reveal her daughter was pregnant to the press, partly because of "the rumor" of something else), I was working the talk page, keeping rumor from being discussed on the talk page (and out of the article) for BLP reasons.

  re Roman Polanski - Very contentious edit-warring/personal attacks ... full lock from Oct 1-8. I began doing what I sometimes do on Oct 3. Lots of energy arrived determined to make the BLP as negative as possible. Lots of aspersions on the character of anyone appearing not in agreement with villification. STORY: I noticed one new editor was so upset by the atmosphere, they erased their user and talk page and began undoing all their Roman Polanski talk page edits that could be undone. I had not witnessed something like that before, and it hurt to watch. So I left them a note, put a picture back on their (erased) user page ... and they came back. Probably first and last time I'll do that. Extraordinary circumstances.

  Extraordinary measures: Banjeboi doesn't understand what I'm doing. I'm not at all surprised. What I do is a complex response to the situation (no, not the cause of it). Although it may not seem like it, I am a sort of practical expert at rhetorical interaction. The BLP NPOV issues of Roman Polanski are very complex, and affected by the set of editors who arrive, given the givens.

  I would like for you to pause now and imagine that I know what I'm doing. That there is a hard BLP NPOV issue to solve ... which has to be solved more complexly than usual. That complexity involves, of course, the editors at hand.

  And what all that text on Talk:Roman Polanski is ... is documenting the issue so it can be resolved.

  The arrival of this at ANI followed the final steps of documentation—including my warning[s] of Tombaker321 for disruption.
  (1st)
  (add documentation +3RR)
  (2nd)

  On that note I pause, save this here, and go to gather the next part of this response. Less words,:) more diffs and data. (to be continued in the next few hours) Proofreader77 (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• What came before:

Stages - how we got to here

(Stage 1) 75K "discussion" of a block quote (lots of logic) Tombaker321 v Proofreader77's blockquote (Primary) probation officer's report (temp?) blockquote (& NPOV)] (Archive/locked unresolved) “ Unresolved Current discussion is locked in repetitive unproductive loop filling up the talk page. Broader issue of NPOV balance probably to be continued in NPOVN in due time. ” (Stage 2.a) TomBaker321 begins to reword and expand (summary) section of Sexual assault case (note: case has own article Roman Polanski sexual abuse case—detail of summary version should be appropriately limited) Proofreader77 documents changes/expansion with topic: :Recent rewording of sexual abuse case (claim: "more NPOV"/disagree) (Stage 2.b) Proofreader77 adds {{POV-section}} - Impetus: Tombaker321 had so-far expanded the summary section ~25% ... and Proofreader77 had experienced what kind of "discussion" would ensue to balance (given that there is no clarification yet of the NPOV interpretation differences which would make discussion something other than futile). (EVENT - Stage 3.a) Banjeboi (as doppelganger: Benjiboi) condenses summary to ~400 words—an acceptible consensus size for summary (which has a main article) (Comment: Tombaker321 believes this to be part of NPOV dispute. But Banjeboi/Benjiboi has no horse in that race. Tombaker321 is outraged.) (3.b) Tombaker321 edit wars to undo Banjeboi/Benjiboi condensing (with another editor - not Proofreader77) 08:48, 6 November 2009 NOTE: characterizes exp. editors condensing of overgrown summary as "weed whacking" 21:41, 6 November 2009 NOTE: Mistakenly believes condensing is part of NPOV process 02:27, 7 November 2009 (ditto) (3.c) Tombaker321 edit wars to remove POV tag (with Proofreader77) 12:20, 8 November 2009 01:41, 9 November 2009 04:46, 9 November 2009 (Stage 4) ANI - Banjeboi goes to ANI to cast aspersions on Proofreader77 :) [stop Proofreader77 from confusing Tombaker321 with all those words?] [for the good of the community!] ... but that is exactly what needed to be done next. The universe works. :)

• What now?

1. Tombaker321 is an articulate new Wikipedia editor who, I would say based on our many hours of interaction, believes strongly in his powers of judgment—and that his interpretation is actionable, and if his interpretation is not being followed by others (at least on some matters), drama will ensue. (NOTE: He has been encouraged rather than restrained by a more experienced editor—who will not be named at present.)

   Guidance: Adjustment of perspective re enforceability of one's judgement. Admonished not to edit war over a tag which says "don't remove until the dispute has been resolved." Do not assume you may make those you disagree with comply with precise specifications defined by yourself. Do not assume everything is such a rush.

   And specifically be informed that a section of an article which has its own article should not be expected to keep growing.

2. With disruptive patterns calmed, we can move to the getting on the same page with respect to what NPOV in a BLP means—as the specific selection of facts are balanced (in the sentences of the summary). At this moment, we are not. Perhaps incommensurable. :) Perhaps WP:BLPN? Or something.

   [CODA] It has repeatedly been said (misleadingly) that I have not provided any specifics. Of course it depends on what the meaning of "specifics" is. The demand has been repeated (as a rhetorical hammer) that "specifics" are completed rewrites of precisely what one wants to see with final refs. Let's be very clear. There would be no POV tag if that was the requirement before one placed it.

   The specifics I have provided are sufficient to convey, most surely to those who have seen the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired (as Tombaker321 has) the information that should alter specific sentences I've enumerated (based on information provided in spoken interviews with prosecutor Roger Gunson and defense attorney Douglas Dalton). I have also specifically mentioned that if the summary of the grand jury testimony in sentence 2 is included, then a similar condensed summary of the probation report should be included providing the rationale for why not prison. Or, as alternative, remove it altogether.

   Those are specifics. But the specific that determines all is the meaning of NPOV in a BLP of Roman Polanski in the culturally contentious matter of the Sexual assault case.

BOTTOM LINE: An experienced editor posted a (primi facie ridiculous) "drive-by tagging" response when I first opened the NPOVD. Tombake321 has kept up the chant as a rhetorical hammer. Demanding "specifics" by his definition. That's really the issue. Tombaker321 appears to believe that he has perfect discernment of what the "NPOV" facts are. We disagree.

“ Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are.

It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. (FROM: WP:NPOVD)

”

That's my POV. Proofreader77 (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Tombaker321

• I am researching Polanski, and editing the topic. I believe a certain base level of information needs to be within the main Polanski reference, that it have quick encyclopedic information regarding what is in the news now, about the events 30 years ago. The content was about 4 paragraphs, which had be hammered out over the course of weeks in discussion. The 4 was reduced to 3 paragraphs, for economy of words only. These deletions were never reviewed, however they instantly became incorporated into a NPOVD which used the 3 paragraph version as the base line. I do not believe this was the intent of the editor who compacted the entry, by deleting specifics. The original NPOVD then suddenly starts with this 3 version as its baseline. I tried repeatedly to restore the 4 paragraph version, as the version for whatever this NPOVD process would be, but could not. I then attempted to gain clarification of what the NPOVD was asking for. I looked at the information about NPOVD and asked for specifics. Bear in mind the NPOVD was raised by the formation of Sonnet couplets.
• After not being able to get specifics, and my requests wholly ignored and the substance not replied to...I removed the NPOVD tag, and gave long details to as to why it was removed. I would spell out my concerns and they simple were not responded to in substance. There was nothing being asked to be done to remedy the NPOVD. However, there was an attempt to cap the amount of words able to be used to 500.
• Proofreader77 started a new NPOVD, to which I tried to show was new, and for the dispute to go forward without the anchorage of the past. Lets start over and move forward, is my logic. I created a new section for the new dispute to go forward. Fresh slate was my thinking. It seems like this olive branch is not being accepted. As it stand now, without clarification of what the NPOVD dispute is....I think the Tag is not serving any purpose....yet the implications of some amorphous dispute, hangs over all. I simply want to know what is the NPOVD? What specifically needs revising, inclusion or deletion? I do not see the 500 word rule as being mandatory. In sum, I want the normal talk and discussion process to work, as it did when we were able to provide 4 concise paragraphs with exceptional review and citations. Much of this sea-saw is simply if we can include, about 5 lines of information that is from reliable sources and well cited. As to the NPOVD dispute, 1rst or 2nd or same, I just want the specifics of what is desired or disputed to be raised clearly, so we can address them.
• I think Benjiboi's raising of his concerns here to be earnest, and well stated. Beyond saying what I have said, and then the history of the talk page, I don't expect to have anything else to offer. I have said what I needed to. --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaker321 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Do we have someone here who is familiar with Proofreader77's native tongue and can translate what this editor is trying to say? Thank you. Hans Adler 15:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for the note on my talk page reminding me the formatting is unusual. See this submission to Signpost "opinion" request. (Read the one on the left:) User:Proofreader77/Two Wikipedia opinion sonnets linked by "civility". Proofreader77 (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That one also lacks translation. This is a collaborative project. Please try to communicate rather than show off your superb obfuscation skills. Hans Adler 15:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I take your response seriously, but also suggest that, as a collaborative project, allowing for the variations of speech of different people is perhaps worth considering. Proofreader77 (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hans, have a look at the edit history & discussion concerning Boke -- which includes this discussion. A few minutes of your time will suffice. -- llywrch (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That was very helpful indeed. Hans Adler 21:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Suggestion (1) Advise Tombaker321 not to edit war over POV tags. (2) Admonish me for my excessive markup and verbosity. (3) Admonish Banjeboi for casting an aspersion on Proofreader77 by forgetting it was someone else they were thinking of (paragraph 2). (4) Mark it resolved. (I believe this trip to ANI probably set the stage for resolving the BLP NPOV issue—or if not, WP:BLPN is the place for that matter. And surely you don't want to read all that, do you.) Proofreader77 (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

  (Must now sleep a good while. Excuse delayed responses.) Proofreader77 (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I congratulate all those who have interacted with Proofreader77 so far on their extreme patience. Is this editor currently under any editing restrictions? I am thinking of something like the following:

• Proofreader77 is not allowed to use any markup other than the most basic things such as italics, bold, lists and tables. In particular, Proofreader77 is not allowed to use colour, all caps, small caps or underlining on any wiki page outside their own user space.
• Proofreader77 is not allowed to make any talk page contributions longer than 1000 bytes and is not allowed to make more than 10 contributions per day to any one talk page.
• These restrictions can be relaxed on a case-by-case basis by a consensus of involved editors.

Would that have a chance to work? Hans Adler 21:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would. First off my apologies for misplacing the odd ref tag issue at Proofreader77 when it was clearly someone else. I was using that as an example of WP:OWNership which I believe is still a core issue at least in this case. I would support a restriction on mark-ups, that seems disruptive in and of itself. I also see lengthy posts and excessive posting as violation WP:Talk which nicely states - When writing on a talk page, certain approaches are counter-productive, while others facilitate good editing. The prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy and consideration. It may not be their intention but I feel like Proofreader77 is simply overwhelming "opposition" to anything they believe is the right way to go. This seems to be suppressing good communication and driving away people who care enough to use the talkpage. As far as I can tell everyone is frustrated and getting Proofreader77 to simply conform more to community standards for talkpage behaviours has to be addressed before anyone can really understand what the content issues are. -- Banjeboi 00:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with your assessment, based on what I have seen so far and my own reactions to this editor's output. This seems to be headed to a siteban, but preceded by a lot of drama due to obvious good faith. In my opinion, if Proofreader77 is unwilling or unable to change their communication style, they will have to be excluded per WP:COMPETENCE. This editor appears to be a personified denial of service attack on Wikipedia's consensus building mechanism. Hans Adler 07:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The WP:TLDR aspect alone may be thwarting more eyes on this. The example cited here which was only 6-7 months ago suggests a real bad fit if nothing else. If someone is simply playing editors here for fools that is indeed dreadful as we all have better things to do. If not I think there is a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Either way it seems deliberate and disruptive. Maybe asking for a few of those previously entwined would help make a better informed path forward? -- Banjeboi 11:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe WP:HEAR has been a factor, and will continue to be. Proofreader77 said:

"I.E., "looking 16 to 18" is not of secondary importance, but primary—something you need to know the moment you see "13"—because the sexual offense was not performed on an abstract number that Polanski knew, but a person appearing older. The medical report read: "Adult female." No she wasn't. But neither was she "Child."

He wants to mitigate in the readers mind, an impression of a child of 13, by inserting in the text of subjective POV appraisals of the girl's appearance. I spent huge time refuting this with pictures of the girl, who really looks 13, and objecting on the concept. The consensus was drawn that appearance of the victim would not be appropriate.

Proofreader77 then asserted that Polanski stated that she looked older, and advocated that the Polanski POV Defense needs to be maintained for NPOV. Problem: Polanski never said this, and actually under oath said he was aware she was 13. Proofreader77 just ignored this (5) or so times I asked him to back up this claim. Again WP:HEAR Proofreader77 refused to acknowledge his own error.

Now we have a general banner of NPOVD, with Proofreader77 saying its all about the "general issue of the POV of Polanski's Defense." What I believe will happen is these already rejected items will be inserted as a defense to balance out POV. Further than a defense position will be crafted out of thin air. Polanski plead guilty, he did not defend the charge of his conviction, the rest are procedural disputes post conviction. The urban myth that Polanski had a plea bargain regarding his sentencing, is 100% refuted by court documents, the entirety of the plea bargain was to drop 5 of the 6 charges. Full stop. Speaking of consensus so few want to get engage in this muddy froth, voting is rendered meaningless.

I believe that the flag waving banner of NPOV dispute without specifics, will be used to Trojan Horse enter back in, items that were already rejected by consensus. WP:HEAR Proofreader77 is making himself to be the orchestrator WP:OWN of NPOV Dispute and process. I am told to "cease X" (I have seen others told to cease Y, which I imagine generated the same flinch as I had). I don't get direct responses to questions, repeatedly, but I see plenty of "Let the record reflect" and "in Due Course" to build a case for summation to some body. Simply said, Proofreader77 is going to use the NPOV Dispute to interject items failed by WP:HEAR. Do I believe that the ambiguous NPOVD Banner is a foot in the door technique, YES. Finally, yes, I do feel played with, I am pretty sure I am on the wrong side of some bad rolls of a (20) sided dice. --Tombaker321 (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

From reading your comment, Tombaker, I think communication is an important piece of the problem here. First, you appear to explain your opponent's position far more clearly than s/he seems to have, & if you are correct i believe I remember what Proofreader is alluding to: many years ago, in either Time or Newsweek, Polanski was quoted as saying he thought the girl in this case looked much older. (Whether or not this ever was claimed in court is another point.) If I am right, then there is a case for saying there is a NPOV dispute here; if a source can be found for Polanski actually saying this, may I assume you would agree that this should be included? Second, & perhaps more important, a reliable & verifiable source must be provided for including alternative points of view, especially when the matter is controversial -- as in this case. One can't simply say "I remember reading in either Time or Newsweek", & expect everyone else to admit there is a dispute. (Along the same lines, if a reliable source were found showing that Polanski claimed he had sex with the girl because he was being blackmailed by the Bavarian Illuminati, then it would be a NPOV violation not to include it.) And lastly, if Proofreader could be succinct in her/his comments & specific in her/his objections, his fellow editors would be more likely to be comfortable agreeing with them, & not suspicious about "foot in the door techniques" because they'd know exactly what he wanted. -- llywrch (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Likebox again

In a recent discussion (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive573#User:Likebox and tendentious_re-insertion of original research) User:Likebox was placed under permanent sanctions (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive573#Results. Specifically,

If User:Likebox makes any edits deemed to be tendentious, point of view pushing, addition of original research, or disruptive by an uninvolved administrator, Likebox may be blocked. After three incidents the block length may increase to one year.

Since then he has continued to act disruptively in exactly the same manner, on the same topics. He has pushed the failed WP:ESCA guideline, hoping to permit via the back-door the exact kind of OR that got him sanctioned in the first place. In addition, he insists that the failed ESCA guideline/essay contain wording that directly contradicts policy, and edit-wars to keep that material in. As an example, note the following paragraph:

When editing or creating an article of any type, editors are expected to abide by Wikipedia's core content policies. Original research is not allowed, anything challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and all articles must be written from a neutral point of view.

One would think that this is a simple and uncontroversial statement of basic policy, but User:Likebox cannot abide it, since it contradicts his own preference to be allowed to introduce OR. Thus he has reverted it out of the failed guideline/essay 3 times[52][53][54] in just over four hours. I noted on his talk page that I considered his behavior in violation of his restriction, and requested he revert himself or I would request administrative action. He rejected my statements, removed my post from his talk page, and told me not to post messages to him any more (as far as I know that was my first and only post on his User talk: page). I'd appreciate it if uninvolved admins could discuss this issue. I'd also appreciate it if his fellow ESCA creators User:Count Iblis, User:Michael C Price, and recently blocked User:Brews ohare could stay out of the discussion, since I'm looking specifically for the views of outside admins, rather than entirely predictable support from like-minded collaborators. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I was one of Likebox's principal opponents in the discussion that resulted in his sanction, and I inveighed against the OR-enabling aspects of the now-rejected ESCA guideline proposal on the ESCA talkpage and elsewhere, so I'm certainly not a like-minded collaborator of Likebox. So I hope Jayjg doesn't mind if I weigh in.

As I see it, Likebox's sanction was intended to stop him from disrupting articles and from wearing out article editors on article talkpages. While edit warring anywhere is never good, I don't think this incident with the ESCA page rises to the type of disruption he was sanctioned for, now that ESCA is an essay.

WP:ESSAYS states "[e]ssays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors, for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval." The ESCA essay in particular sets forth the opinion of Likebox and its other authors (Michael C. Price and so forth). While "[e]ssays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to outright contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace", editors fundamentally disagreeing with the opinions in an essay usually shouldn't change the essay to substitute their own opinion. They should instead write a contrasting essay, or discuss the issue on the essay's talk page; or if they think that the essay contradicts policy so much that its existence in project space is problematic, they should propose deletion or userfication at MFD.

People participating in a revert battle about the contents of an opinion page basically get WP:TROUT from me (and more TROUT for making drama bringing it here to ANI). Likebox is entitled to his opinion even if it's an unwise opinion that contradicts policy. As long as he's not disrupting article editing, if he wants to write essays til hell freezes over, I don't have a problem with that. We don't POV-fork articles, but POV-forking essays (or ignoring them) is a longstanding practice, so warring over essays and bringing down heavy sanctions over them is not that helpful. Less drama please!

I do agree with Jayjg that Likebox's version of the essay is better suited for user space than project space, so maybe the next step is to propose userfication. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 07:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a lot of drama over an essay; essays are specifically designed to represent minority viewpoints. I suggest that Jayjg just calm down and allow the essay to evolve. The essay is not Likebox's essay (and neither am I the essay's creator), it represents the views of a number of editors. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've blocked Likebox for one week - given the sanctions detailed above, and their previous history of edit-warring, I don't regard the fact that this isn't occurring in mainspace (ie on an article) as any mitigation. Likebox's edits have been resisted by other editors, yet they have kept reverting; a clear breach of both their sanctions and the collaborative, collegiate spirit that we are expected to adhere to. Edit-warring isn't a natural, or acceptable, part of the development of policies/guidelines/essays, any more than it would be for an article. Review welcome, as always. EyeSerene^talk 11:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg was clearly behaving in a similar way as Likebox as far as reverting is concerned. If we say that Jayjg's behavior is ok. then surely we cannot sanction Likebox. I think the one week block encourages more edit warring by Jayjg. As Michael said, we need to calm down here. On my talk page I proposed to SlimVirgin that I would be ok, if she would edit the essay in such a way so that in her opinion it could be an essay.

I also urge everyone to take a look at Jayjg's comments on the talk page. He clearly does not understand what the essay is about and he is reverting on the basis of his misunderstanding. E.g. as Likebox tried to explain to him there are no POV issues w.r.t., say, a topic like enthalpy. Jayjg insists of construing everything in terms of the editing disputes on politics pages he is so familar with and refuses to accept that there may exist other kinds of problems on other articles that he is unfamiliar with. The effect of this is that a revert by Jayjg is then seen to be edit warring instead of constructively contributing to the essay. Count Iblis (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The idea that there are no POV issues on articles related to apparently long settled unambiguous scientific fact is unfortunately naive. Some people do not understand the science. Some people are exploring new approaches to the science. Some people believe the "long settled unambiguous scientific fact" is simply wrong, or incomplete, or inappropriate for children under the age of 18. The policies have to apply evenly all around, even in articles where they "should not" be a problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right here. What Likebox and I mean is that the typical problem on such articles is usually of a different nature. Of course, there are also controversial scientific topics, but that is not what the essay addresses. Also you can have problems with cranks etc. But we already have policies to deal with those problems. The essay does not say that other Wiki policies do not apply. I now remember Jayjg saying to me that: "If the essay is not about editing disputes then what problem does this essay address?". And that right after I explained that in detail.

Anyway, when Likebox was put under restriction, I actually argued in favor of a 1RR restriction for Likebox, instead of the vaguely worded probation. Because now if Likebox acts in good faith and Jayjg is edit warring, Jayjg can come here, misrepresent the facts, point to Likbox's probation and bring in other irrelevant arguments so that it looks like Likebox is the bad guy yet again. In theory 1 RR could still mean that you can disruptively revert once per day, but I think in practice a sensible editor would see that this is futile. Count Iblis (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't comment here because it's a bit hard to get an overview of the situation. But now it appears that everybody else felt the same. I must say that what Count Iblis says seems to make a lot of sense. Among the editors working in a specific scientific field there tends to be a general consensus about things that may not be at all obvious to editors from outside that field. E.g. in WikiProject Mathematics, most questions that come up are resolved unanimously with regard to what is best for Wikipedia and its mathematics articles, and with little regard for what the policies say. That's the ideal state. If it worked like that everywhere, we wouldn't need policies.

Sometimes editors who are not experts in a certain science edit in that field anyway. Some are confrontational, and so it becomes necessary to follow standard wiki procedures. But some are editing in order to learn something about the subject, and are happy to learn from the experts: details of the subject itself, but also how people practising the subject approach their field and hence also Wikipedia. It may not be necessary, but I don't think it's totally wrong to write an essay for this situation that explains the scientific method as applied to Wikipedia. Hans Adler 19:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone trying to use Wikipedia as a dating service

NOT YET RESOLVED

Special:Contributions/70.121.37.111. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

What a brilliant idea. I wonder if there's a good way to limit it by location, gender, and orientation? It wouldn't help me to succeed in getting a date with a straight guy from Guam. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the all caps, but I thought someone should note that it was Chaser's page that was turned into an attack page by Special:Contributions/70.121.37.111 at 70.'s user page. In the circumstances, might it not be appropriate to oversight the edits of the now-blocked user? Bielle (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Forbidden (palhost)

This user is displaying admin icons on their user and user talk pages. They have blanked my advice to remove the icons. I'm leaving notice of this post on their talk. Thanks Tiderolls 08:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Indef blocked; obvious vandalism-only account. --Golbez (talk) 08:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: it looks like this is the same user as 70.121.37.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of the preceding section. DVdm (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Also blocked (48 hours). Probably the usual 13-year-old boy with too much time on his hands. Shame, because I wouldn't mind the blow-job he's offered twice [55] [56] but I don't want one enough to commit a felony. ➜❝Redvers❞ 10:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not even funny. Consider a refactor, please. Durova³⁶² 22:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Gross. Lara 02:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

...Redvers, that's warped, chummer. Refactor it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 03:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Drip by drip, this place gets less and less enjoyable and more and more politically correct every day. ➜❝Redvers❞ 07:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Potential suicide threat

Resolved

 – User has made these threats before, and been posted here RBI--SKATER ^Speak. 04:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been reported at WP:SPI that Eggbaguette (talk · contribs) has made a potential suicide threat in the Sandbox. See this diff. Other editors have expressed concern on the user's talk page. I am reporting this here per WP:SUICIDE. Tckma (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Since when has these recurring joke "suicide" messages on Wikipedia become "plea for help" messages? They should be like any other dubious claim made on Wikipedia: delete them unless they come with a proper citation such as a medical opinion about the state of mind of the poster, or a death certificate (and even with proper citations, delete them as non-notable). Meowy 15:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• This is the same user who made a potential suicide threat in the sandbox on 8 Nov (see WP:ANI#Suicide threat (first)). The exact same wording was used - I would not count it as credible. Suitable advice was given on the user's talk page. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Marking as closed, he's made these threats before and I seriously doubt he's gonna do it.--SKATER ^Speak. 15:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears as if he/she's playing a prank; however suicide threats should never be given the cavalier treatment as the person who is threatening to kill him/herself is somebody's child, sibling, parent, or friend, and they could be serious.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it's the same wording because it's the same diff/revision ID. (I searched ANI for "suicide" to make sure I wasn't making a duplicate report, guess I fat-fingered it or Firefox is being wonky with text searches.) Tckma (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Even though at the end of the day the threat is most likely a prank, etc., I see absolutely nothing wrong with a standard practice of running a Checkuser inquiry and contacting the local authorities. It is perfectly consistent with Checkuser policy, which allows an inquiry to be made "where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public" - in this case, the safety of the person making the threat. And local authorities have repeatedly said they do not consider it a waste of time if we contact them regarding a threat. Either the threat turned out to be something real (either a an actual threat or a cry for help) - in which case contacting the authorities is the right thing to do. Or it turns out to be a prank, in which case the local authorities would still be interested, as they take these type of pranks seriously - in which case contacting the authorities is still the right thing to do (and will hopefully prevent that user who is making the prank from doing it again).

At the end of the day, as per WP:SUICIDE, we should take ALL threats seriously, and leave it for local authorities to make a final judgement call, not us - no matter whether we think the threat is real or an obvious prank. Singularity42 (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The content of all these so-called "suicide threat" messages should be ignored, and they should be removed as off-topic as soon as they are noticed. Meowy 19:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Your callous nature is somewhat disturbing. All suicide notes? I know at least one person who has previously made the attempt. Repeated threats are not a joke, they are often indicative of a longterm state of mind problem. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed? Yes. Ignored? No. GiantSnowman 19:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And like I said on the other thread, the essay WP:SUICIDE implores you to take such threats seriously. It does not describe a standard practice to use checkuser tools nor does it require editors to respond in a particular way. If you feel that any threat is a credible threat, then you may respond accordingly. Obviously you need to find an equally credulous checkuser to report IP information to what we presume are local authorities, but you are allowed to do that. Protonk (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

SUICIDE policy should have two options: a) Do Nothing - don't revert, don't block, just ignore it b) Do Something - contact local authorities, talk to user. This would allow repeat suicide message posters to be blocked / banned. 87.114.7.38 (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for more eyes on a volatile situation regarding The Troubles

Recently, User:Elonka placed User:Domer48 on probation with regards to the Troubles Arbitration Case. Domer has stated that he will not accept Elonka's actions (aided and abetted by at least one other user in the area, Vintagekits) and intends to continue editing like nothing happened. I urged him to bring this to ANI or AE rather then do this, but it's his decision, and thus forces my bringing this here myself.

Now the reason that I bring this here, instead of an ArbCom clarification, is two reasons, time wise. A) The sanction is only for 90 days, and by the time ArbCom can clarify if Elonka can place Domer under the probation, a good chunk of the probation will have already expired, and B) This has the chance to devolve very quickly. If Domer edits outside the terms of the probation and gets blocked, well, we have excessive drama.. and if Domer edits outside the terms of the probation and doesn't get blocked.. well we have excessive drama from the other side.

My personal opinion is that Elonka fits the definition of the ArbCom remedy as an uninvolved administrator. any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. (per the terms of the Troubles ArbCom). I do consider it valid (and note that Elonka did apply it to one of the other frequent targets in this area, from the other PoV, so it looks like she's not favoring one side or another), but again, this is my opinion, and Domer has decided to ignore my note as well..

Pre-emptive edit: For VK's continued hostility in the same discussion User talk:Domer48#Probation, I have blocked him 48 hours. I leave it open to review, but VK's taking a volatile situation and trying to see if he can light it on fire. SirFozzie (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

VK is getting blocked so often these days he hardly has time to update his little counter! [57]. MickMacNee (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely its about time an indef block was considered for VK? His incivilities are too frequent, despite being warned/blocked about it so many times. He is obviously never going to learn. Jeni ^(talk) 18:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

His user page states he is retired, & he's been blocked three times since he claims it took effect. As an uninvolved Admin (his name is familiar, but I don't remember having any interaction with him), I second Jeni's suggestion. -- llywrch (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd note that both Domer and Mooretwin, aware of the 1RR on the article, simply made sure their reverts were spaced at least 24 hours apart, and continued to edit war with each other [58]. Which is exactly what the ArbCom remedies were supposed to prevent. If editors game the system to evade general restrictions, there is little option but to add specific restrictions. When you consider how many fronts this same sort of problem editing is occurring on from some of the same editors, I can't really see any other option. Elonka fits the definition of the ArbCom remedy as an uninvolved administrator, therefore I see no basis to discount her probationary measure. I'd also note that this pattern is depressingly familiar. Every single time an uninvolved admin makes a sanction on one of them, the same invested group of editors claim bias and insist that admin is involved. It happened to me (Rockpocket (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)), to Tyrenius (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), John (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), to Alison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), SirFozzie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)... Either the entire admin corps is involved in a grand Anti-Irish conspiracy or else we have to begin to see this tactic for what it is. Rockpocket 17:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Simple answer to persistent edit-warring in this area: Troubles topic bans. It has worked in other areas, I am already considering proposing this for the endless British Isles naming dispute edit-warring, and I see no reason why it would not work here either. Black Kite 18:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Black Kite. Note that I am not uninvolved as have previously blocked Domer and have been accused of harrassing these partisans per RockPocket. Toddst1 (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with SirFozzie, Rockpocket and Black Kite. Elonka is perfectly neutral in this and has made a good-faith effort to enforce our norms. In a scenario that has become depressingly familiar, she has been greeted with abuse and accusations of bias. I'm afraid 'partisans' is the right term per Toddst. Sad. --John (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• I, too, agree. I've not looked at the specific case, but a general topic ban would seem to be a reasonable approach to the problems indicated by the block logs of Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and some other regular participants in these disputes. Such a ban would need to be community-imposed, though, as the case remedies do not allow for it.  Sandstein  21:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree that it's high time action was taken against a number of editors who've learned to get around the current restrictions. Elonka's 90-day 1RR per week probation on Domer is a start. Rd232 ^talk 02:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for Troubles topic bans, starting here and now with Domer48 and Mooretwin, and hopefully ending there too. Not only are they perennial edit-warriors, they often seem to bring out the worst in other editors. The Socratic method may be fine for teaching face-to-face, but it really doesn't work so well on Wikipedia talk pages and especially not when Socrates is selectively deaf. Both of these editors have not hearing things down to a fine art.

The only concern I'd have with a broad topic ban is that the boundaries of the Troubles could conceivably be stretched to cover most Irish topics in the last two centuries or so along with no end of foreign ones. Dedicated edit-warriors could even find things in the realms of myth, pre-history and archaeology that need the Truth adding to them, just as they can in EE or A-A topics. I'm not sure what the answer would be here except that it would not be defining the topic narrowly. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind backing up your allegations against me, specifically that I do not hear? Domer48 is a problem editor who is unwilling to collaborate with other editors. I have often been the only editor to have the patience to confront him. Yet because I am the only one doing this, I get punished - but if several editors confront him, then that is OK. There are several articles on Wikipedia where I have been faced with the choice either of leaving an article under Domer's ownership or reverting him. The former choice is not in the interests of the encyclopaedia. It seems to me that it is convenient to tar me with the same brush as Domer so that admins can say they are "treating both sides equally". I resent the implication that I am on anyone's "side". I am merely opposed to articles being written from a particular POV. The elephant in the room here is that there is a group of Irish-nationalist-inclined editors who have, over time, succeeded in inserting nationalist POV into Ireland-related articles. It is a logical fallacy to argue that someone seeking to redress this must be pushing the opposite POV. Mooretwin (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a bit unfair on Mooretwin. I have problems with his editing as he is aware, specifically the slow edit warring. But in talk page discussions Mooretwin is civil despite provocation, contributes constructively and is willing to compromise. Domer, as noted by several other editors in the past, is almost impossible to work with. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note, Vintagekits has asked for an unblock, would a completely uninvolved administrator (if there's any left) review his edits on Domer's page and review his unblock request? SirFozzie (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not just ban him, per this edit summary. This user celebrates his disruption and we are feeding him. I am tired of the abuse the AGF receives here. We try to be nice, form a community, and provide for dispute resolution and then we let users like this abuse the system and our good will. I propose a community pan on Vintagekits and then we can move on with our live.--Adam in MO Talk 22:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've reviewed his unblock request, and declined it. Since he referred to the blocking admin's logic as "retarded" I think it's safe to say unblocking would be a mistake. I've never come across this user before, but I'm astounded that they have been blocked 31 times. It may indeed be time for a indef block/ban, but for now I am simply declining to undo the current block. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: He is now simultaneously saying he is once again retired, and asking to be unblocked again, based on some hair-splitting about what exactly is a personal attack. He's also refactoring the conversation on his page to remove references to this thread and explanations of why he was blocked. I'm done, good luck finding another uninvolved admin to look at this. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't as done as I said I was because I still had his page watchlisted. After yet another declined unblock, I have revoked his talk page access for the remainder of the current block. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Block Vintagekits indefinitely

• Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Enough is enough, this user is never going to behave civilly. Usually at any hint of an indef block, he goes into retirement, then comes back as soon as the coast is clear, so lets have this discussion regardless. Someone above (as well as myself) proposed an indefinite block, so lets gauge peoples opinions.

• Support block this has gone on long enough. Jeni ^(talk) 01:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - That block log is ridiculous. How did he survive this long? Wknight94 ^talk 01:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

He was indeffed a couple times in the past, and it was tried to keep him in areas where he can edit productively. Also, a few folks decided that any indef block would be quickly socked around, as he did previously (look at the Troubles ArbCom for details of the 15-20 socks he ran through when indeffed last time).. so at least they could keep an eye on him under the VK account. SirFozzie (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

By that logic, how do you know he isn't socking even now? HalfShadow (talk) 01:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

SirFozzie, I did not know about the 15-20 socks, now I am sure I don't want him around. Chillum 01:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

VK, In response to the e-mail you just sent me I am not supporting your indef block because you used 15-20 socks in the past. I am supporting it because you are still abusing our trust even after all of this time. You will note I supported your block before I even knew about your past sock puppetry. This is not about your past, it is about an ongoing pattern of disruption that has no end in sight. Chillum 02:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

VK Please stop sending me emails. I don't need to hear about how much I disgust you. Chillum 02:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Fear of socking is not a reason to keep unblocked. Otherwise, let's unblock User:General Tojo. Wknight94 ^talk 01:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course he is socking now! I'd be very surprised if he wasn't! Jeni ^(talk) 01:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

To Halfshadow: If the Checkuser policy allowed preemptive checkusers, he would be one that I would request to be periodically monitored (especially since his socks multi-voted in an ArbCom election, for example).. unfortunately (or fortunately), the policy prohibits that type of activity, and I haven't seen anything in my return to the area that would make me think he was, so I have to assume that he's not, per AGF. And to the folks wondering how VK's lasted this long, I say this. He's been Houdini in his abilities to come back time and time again. By the way, I ask whatever administrator who will be lucky (unlucky?) enough to handle this.. please do not rush to judgement or close it early/snow, etcetera. Let's do this by the book, and not give any loopholes for folks to claim a rush to judgment or settling of scores, for example. If we're going to do it, do it properly. SirFozzie (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree this should be allowed to run its course. We should do this right and not stop the discussion before the Earth has even spun once. Chillum 02:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support - enough is enough. Rockpocket 01:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Not a net benefit to the project. --John (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support 'Useful' to Wikipedia or not, when it gets to the point that he's literally taunting people about his block log, he's had far too much leeway. HalfShadow (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support He's long since used up any leeway his constructive editing gave him. Time for him to take an extended break from the project. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 01:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Patience exhausted, how long has this been going on? Chillum 01:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support His block log is massive and the numerous unblocks per ANI discussions shows the community has tried numerous times to give him a second chance and he's failed miserably.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 01:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support This editor's inability to play nicely and get along with others has been a frequently recurring theme here - he is most certainly not a net benefit to the project. 31 blocks clearly exhausts any inclination to give benefit of the doubt. Icing on the cake is the clear pride he seems to have in his block log, as demonstrated on his user page. Clearly has not learned from the past (other than how to game the system), ban long overdue. --Xdamr^talk 01:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Like most here, I have had my share of run ins with Vintagekits in the past, but when it was discussed 18 months ago whether or not to remove his permanent ban he sent me a very polite email faithfully promising to change his behaviour and only edit sporting articles in a calm manner. On the strength of this I supported his return to editing. As the saying goes, fool me once . . --Jackyd101 (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support with regrets. 15 or more socks and a history of indefinite blocks, as indicated above, is sufficient grounds, unfortunately. (They were at least matching socks, weren't they? I'm hoping it was an even number of socks too.) John Carter (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Vintagekits and Domer48 have both had multiple "last" chances. Time to end this waste of effort. Support indef'ing both. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support per this diff. Anyone who can say that after 30-odd blocks has no interest in staying around.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

  Make that strong support, as I just received email informing me he was not at all surprised to see me "join the sharks".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

  This is why I only use my email address for identification purposes. HalfShadow 03:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support ensuring his "retirement" is permanent. Rd232 ^talk 02:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose reopen While I understand the sentiment, I oppose the close, it's more wasted time. See my talk page for more. Block is already done. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to close this period. Just let it fade away with the countless other ANI threads. Chillum 02:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm absolutely torn on this one. My logical brain wants to support a ban, but I also know that when VK is good and puts his head down and works on boxing articles diligently, he can do well and is a great benefit to the project. I've known him for years and years on here now & on a personal note, don't want him to reach the end of the road. He's got a foul mouth and a wicked temper betimes and I've blocked him myself enough times (once leading to one of the biggest ArbCom cases evar!) but I know I don't want to see him go. *sigh* - this is a worthless non-ban rationale, I'm sure, but I really need to say it. As it is, the ban is pretty-much unanimous :( - Alison ^❤ 02:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Alison, in all due respect, come on. Just how many last chances does he get? He's been given more than one. Time to stop wasting everyone's time. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, I know. I'm just making a last stand here because I like the guy and because we've all been through the mill for years on here. I used to be his mentor at one time. I've been shouted and cursed at and accused of all sorts of bias, etc, but I'm still sorry to see him go. He's got a really good side when he keeps away from his hot-button articles (all Troubles ones, for example). He's not getting out of this one - I know this - but I just want to put in my word so he doesn't go down in flames as an unmitigated bad-lad, because he's not, y'know? - Alison ^❤ 02:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And I'm another former-mentor of his. We don't particularly dislike him as a person, per se ... just not as an editor of Wikipedia. (Considering the fact that he's sending emails to at least three people blaming all and sundry for his block at the time frame it is across the pond, I would believe that VK is once again editing under the influence).. *sighs*. It's a necessary action, however. SirFozzie (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

When two of his mentors admit he's finally done himself in, it should be obvious to all that he's bit the hand once too many times. Admit it folks, it's over for VK. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(←)Wouldn't re-establish some sort of edit limitation for articles discussing The Troubles be more sensitive? I'm not familiar with his work or behavior in those articles, but when it comes to boxing his work has been first-class. Without him, the boxing project will lose one of a handful full-time users. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That's been tried and failed, several times. Take a look at his block log and other edits. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support indef of Vintagekits, who is an obvious detriment to Wikipedia; enough of nasty edits like this. I also support Elonka's topic ban of Domer48, if not a full indef of Domer48. Dreadstar ☥ 03:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Enough was enough 25 blocks ago.--Adam in MO Talk 04:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support since there are apparently calls for more nails in this coffin. He's sent me several emails loudly proclaiming his innocence in all this and blaming everything on "British sympathizing editors" which is something I don't believe I've ever been accused of before, being half Irish myself. Honestly, after 31 blocks what are the chances he'll suddenly stop being disruptive when he denies he's ever been disruptive in the first place? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose ban I oppose the indefinite ban. reading this it seems that a lot of people are putting personal feelings of dislike in to this. VK is a good editor with a long record on the site. people will get into heading arguements about stuff they are passion it about. A lot of editors are overly sensitive and power hungry imoMbr1983 (talk) 04:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• A similar section to this should be opened up for Domer48 - I could've/would've done it myself, but I'd rather someone else (who's more familiar with the troubles on "the Troubles") decide on exactly how they want to frame the sanction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose ban I oppose the indefinite ban. I get the feeling there is a bit of a witch hunt going on by people VK has rubbed up the wrong way with a number of bad faith comments. As for the socking I wonder how many of them are actually him as I have been accused of being a sock of his before. The main area where I come into contact with VK is on boxing articles in which he is both a knowledgable and useful editor. As a Brit of Irish extraction I understand that issues relating to the troubles can be highly emmotive and I think issues arising from such topics should be dealt with by topic restrictions rather than outright bans. --LiamE (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Its not bad faith comments, its persistent and unrepentent personal attacks, both on and off wikipedia. I don't know about you, but I don't appreciate getting foul-mouthed, abusive, threatening emails. Would you like me to forward some of Vk's correspondance to you? How would a topic ban address this? As for the socking, there is no need to wonder, they were all confirmed by checkuser. Finally, why don't you check how many of his last 5 blocks would have been prevented by such a topic restriction? So do you have another solution that would actually address the issue? If not, why oppose a solution that clearly will. Rockpocket 06:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I think many of the comments above particularly with regards to people being sure he is currently socking look like expressions of bad faith to me. --LiamE (talk) 07:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Uninvolved editor here with a question of procedure as well as a couple of opinions worth a twopence. My apologies if I'm intruding.

Is this case an example of WP:BAN, section 2, bullet points 2 and/or 3? If so it would seem that VK's user and talk pages ought to have the template of ((banned)) instead of just ((indefblocked)), plus a listing on WP:list_of_banned_users. It's my opinion that an official ban would most succinctly summarize the near unanimous consensus here.

Additionally, IMHO, such a long history of misconduct and sockpuppetry would warrant action per WP:ABUSE. Has anyone considered this? WP:ABUSE would seem to be an effective way of dealing with this, particularly after what appears to be rampant usage of sockpuppetry to evade blocks. Also, ditto on the above paragraph wrt. the sockpuppet template.

Anyway, there's my two cents on the matter, just from watching the debris. Again, apologies if my response here is considered intrusive. I just saw the whole thing blow up and got curious.Shentino (talk) 06:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support ban as thoroughly uninvolved. Fellows behavior on my review is borderline sociopathic over a period of years, exactly the sort of person that drives editors away from the project who are more willing to play be the rules. Don't need to see any emails, long history of appaling behavior here was quite enough.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support from uninvolved. The latest outburst a few days ago, their laundry-list of blocks, and having a 'retired' note up on their page while continuing to edit all seem to point to a seriously dysfunctional personality. The 'uhh they might sock if we ban them' point is a nonissue: thats like saying 'well we better not fire Bob because he has a gun and might come shoot the place up'. Regardless of positive contributions in the past / ongoing, if a brand new editor walked in the door and displayed the fits of temper that Vintagekits have displayed over trivial trivial trivial things (a boxer's nickname?) we'd have shown them the door long before. Syrthiss (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose shenanigans. I don't personally have much of a concept of the Troubles conflicts, but I must protest at the timing and the impatience here. Just over an hour after a ban was proposed, Rlevse banned Vintagekits indefinitely. [59] Seven hours later, a ban template went up on Vintagekits' talkpage. [60] Editors in most timezones had no chance to weigh in on the ban at all. Come on, do we need to have a formal ANI rule that a minimum of 24 hours have to pass before a ban or block discussion is closed and implemented? Or can we go by common sense here, please? Bishonen | talk 13:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC).

I am going to stick my head over the parapet now and say what I strongly suspect. Looking at the voting patern I suspect canvassing has been going on. Far too many votes in a short period and all of a like mind, and I hazard a guess all with prior with VK. After that point voting appears to be what one would normally expect in such a discussion. Now dont get me wrong those editors are entitled to their opinions on VK but canvassing on a ban discussion and trying to rush it through in the early hours is just not on. I propose that all votes made up to the point of Rlevse premature attempt at discussion closure be discounted and those editors take a step back from this for 24 hours whether or not they were themselves involved in canvassing. Now I know VK does himself no favours with continued breaches of WP:Civil but it seems to me that some people are now actually trying to read WP:Civil breaches as personal attacks in some cases an an attempt to make a minor incident taht could be difused with good humour into a bannable offense. Now I know this is going to go down like a lead balloon and tehre will be claims that no canvassing went on and proof will be asked for which i obviously cant provide but as it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck I will call it a duck, proof or not. --LiamE (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No canvassing here -- I have Domer's talk page watchlisted, so I saw VK's "stop acting like a fucking arsehole and get a grip of yourself you ego maniac", followed after a bit by Fozzie's comment that he had brought it up on ANI. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't canvassed or otherwise contacted about this, by anybody. Have never had any on or offline contact about this -- with anybody. Have AN/I watchlisted. Aside from starting the article on John Ging I don't think i've edited any ireland related article at all. For what it's worth, I'm an Irish American and am generally sympathetic to the Irish side of the troubles. My opinion is solely about behavior.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well done for taking that quote out of context and turning a WP:Civil breach into what looks like a WP:NPA brach to prove my above point. --LiamE (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"Looks like"? You don't get to make personal attacks by claiming "oh, what he really meant to say was...".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In its original context the quote you gave above is certainly not a personal attack to my mind. Its not something I would write as it could so easily be taken out of context as you have proven, but there it is. If I were to write "You are an idiot if you think the world is flat" that would probably be a breach of WP:civil but it isnt a personal attack, if however you then just quote me as saying "You are an idiot" it would then look like a personal attack. You should be very careful about taking a quote out of context as you did above to suit your own ends. Yes it looks very bad out of context and it doesnt look great IN context but it does look better, it must be said. In context it doesnt read as a direct personnal attack to me.--LiamE (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. I suppose it comes down to how Elonka read it -- was it a gratuitous personal attack coatracking on Domer's comment, or a humorous explanation? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Elonka clarified on her talk that she did consider this a personal attack, as the actual meaning of Domer's expression was more like "get a grip on yourself".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• How on earth can anybody think being told to get a grip of themself or a situation is a personal attack? and a personal attack that warrents al this fuss. This spage gets dafter by the moment.  Giano  17:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Nobody thinks that "being told to get a grip of themself" is a personal attack. Many think that being told to "stop acting like a fucking arsehole and get a grip of yourself you ego maniac" is a personal attack. You know this, Giano. I, more than anyone, know how much you have invested in keeping Vk around because you believe he is a rough diamond and you know there was plenty of editors on the "other side" who were as much of a problem, if not worse. But those editors have all been banned now. And the attacks from Vk are now coming in the business of editing sporting articles, and in drive-by comments on other disputes. When we were discussing the the repeal of his last ban, I distinctly remember you saying to me (perhaps by email, or maybe even onsite) that this was the absolute last chance and that you told him yourself: next time he launches that sort of bile at someone unprovoked you would be the first to support his banning. He was not provoked in this instance, he chose to comment on something that had nothing to do with him whatsoever. You are a man of your word, so please stop these desperate attempts to deflect attention from Vk, its below you. Rockpocket 20:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

@LiamE: This is silly. It's ANI. Most or all admins have ANI watchlisted (unless they value their sanity). That's paranoid. Wknight94 ^talk 14:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Silly it may be - but I can hear the quacking. --LiamE (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Who would watchlist WP:AN/I? It would always be at the top of one's list; they just read it on a regular basis. (If anything, I suspect most or all Admins are looking for ways to minimize their presence at this venue!) -- llywrch (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• support ...and that's about enough of that. Tan | 39 14:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Indefinite block/ban Arbitrators or Community need to ammend Discretionary sanctions for Troubles articles to throw out all the chaff.Support extended ban for arsehole comment Þjóðólfr (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose If you're going to unban prolific sockmasters who are just as, if not far more, abusive to other editors than Vintagekits has ever been such as Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), then an indef block of VK is a travesty of justice. Restrict him from commenting on disputes he's not involved in or something and keep him on a tight leash. 15:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support, after consideration. Could have been handled better though. As to VK's editing, the bad outweighs the good. And that ratio has increased since he "retired". Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 16:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support- Enormous Block log, enough is enough.--SKATER ^Speak. 21:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

...and it's Good Morning Europe

• I am thinking long and hard about this; before coming to an opinion, I would like to see the emails he has sent you Rockpocket and Chillum and anyone else for that matter who has received one, before I make my mind up - we hear so much of his threats and abuse, I would like to see some of this "secret" emailed abuse (seeing as Rockpocket is offering to forward them). I don't doubt Rockpocket's word, but those with long memories will remember the plots and Arbcom case to get him banned a couple of years ago when the famous "death threat" email was found not to exist (as VK had protested) and the editor to who it was supposed to have been sent dissapeared off the face of the earth. One thing I have learnt from my dealings with VK is that he is as much a victim as those that fall foul of him - I do though find it rather concerning that Rlevse wanted to close the discussion and inefinate block inplace after only an hour and whilst most Europeans were in bed, is there a reason for this?  Giano  10:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose ban; not sure if I should be voting here but no time to find out. It seems Vk has been blocked for explaining a phrase as he was asked to do! Sarah777 (talk) 10:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. I disgree with the banning of an editor who has put a lot of time and hard work into this project when newbies are often allowed a free hand in creating havoc here. Once again, I strongly oppose the ban.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support. WP:NPA is a policy that everyone on Wikipedia should be following bar none, and putting in some good work on boxing articles (including one featured article) doesn't give us a licence to abuse anyone who happens to disagree with us. If he has indeed been sending out abusive emails, this is very serious, as are his frequent accusations of bad faith against pretty much anyone who disagrees with him. Just as others have stated above, enough is enough. Bettia (talk) 10:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The emails Vintagekits has sent me (claiming to be the oness sent) contain no abuse, I would like to compare them with those received.  Giano  10:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Badgering opposers is generally considered uncivil, whether it's on or off Wikipedia.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose ban For giving an explanation come on, this stinks and we have an email situation again, what are the emails? BigDunc 11:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• One of the most important issues here is that an American Arb tried to rush this through while Europe was asleep, especially as this concerns a very contravertial European editor (known to be closely associated with a very European subject) perhaps Rlevse thinks he is Hilary Clinton or Edward Kennedy - who knows?, but I do know he has behave deplorably in this unseemly haste to dispose of a popular European editor while Europe is asleep. This must NEVER happen again.  Giano  12:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Look below↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓; he was not the only European editor they were after last night. Sarah777 (talk) 12:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to my request for copies of emails on this subject, I have received this from Vintagekits, I mailed back and asked for his permission to post it here - he agrees. It was sent to RLevse half an hour or so ago, perhaps when he get's out of bed, (as we have all been now for some hours) he will respond. I think VK makes a reasonable request and point:

"To RLevse: The discussion about my block is ongoing and as half of Europe has just woken up I think you should allow them the chance the have there say.

Can you a. please restored by block to the original 48hr b. unbar me from sending emails and c. unblock me from using my talk page.

You have left me utterly armless and legless in being able to defend myself against the allegations put.! From Vintagekits

Posted here by  Giano  12:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• European support for this ban, on the basis that my limited administrative interactions with Vintagekits have always involved, on his part, nationalist editwarring, or general unpleasantness, or both.  Sandstein  13:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The above editor makes a point of following my edits and disagreeing.  Giano  13:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

C'mon, the world doesn't always revolve around you. Þjóðólfr (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose ban (pending ArbCom Request) This is not a Macedonia/Balkans nationalist matter; it is a matter regarding English speaking cultural differences - and whereas almost all of those involved in ethnic based article editing in non English speaking related articles can quickly be determined as being on one side or another, the bias' and interests of English speaking editors relating to conflicts in respect of anything regarding Ireland need to be carefully sifted and examined before decisions are made. No permanent ban or restriction should be emplaced unless there is a full Arbitration on the matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at some of the so called "abusive" emails on which this banning rests, I agree with you entirely. Arbcom should be the court to decode if VK's alledged crimes deserve a life sentence, not a group acting under cover of darkness.  Giano  13:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The ban doesn't rest on email, the ban rests on a 31 ("and counting")-block log. There doesn't need to be an arbitration to community-ban an editor who has a history of disruption and incivility. Given the current 21-5 (or thereabouts) support for a ban, there's no need for Arbcom to resolve things.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Feel free to sift through my history looking for bias. You won't find any. And never mind e-mails. If I have to page-down and hit a "next" button to see someone's entire block log, then the e-mail issue is just a distracting sideshow. Even his mentors above can't vouch for him - that's telling. Wknight94 ^talk 14:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Oh come on.. seriously! I can't believe people are actually suggesting that he isn't worthy of a ban, he is one of the most disruptive editors currently on Wikipedia (if not *the* most disruptive editor). He gets chance after chance after chance, and he always ends up back here. Its just his friends now coming here to ensure he doesn't get blocked. Hopefully whoever implements the final block will see common sense and ignore his mob. Jeni ^(talk) 15:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• comment Giano's 'Good Morning Europe' header above was placed at H4 on an equal par with the indef section, which has resulted in opinions on the block continuing in both sections in parallel. I've switched it to H5 to make it clearer they are part of the same proposal, but I don't dare move the opinions into chronological order for fear of reprisals. MickMacNee (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support, per my second above. I don't care if he is a controversial editor: when I look at his user page (which is what most people assume is how a user wants to present her/himself to the rest of Wikipedia), I see a "Retired" template & a count of how many times VK has been blocked. If an editor is retired, then the editor is gone. And if not gone completely, at least not hanging around Wikipedia doing things which lead to being blocked. Lastly, one thing a constructive editor learns early on at Wikipedia is to stay away from the topics which are hot-button issues -- which is why I don't edit articles on contemporary US politics. So there is no reason to tolerate him any longer. -- llywrch (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose This matter was handled very poorly handled by Elonka and others. Their refusal to get consensus is particularly troubling. This isn't the Wild West and we don't need rampaging admins engaging in unilateral enforcements in dark corners of the project. The lack of diffs is also distressing. A combination of Robocop and mob justice at work here. Hopefully the disruption it's causing will be a lesson to those acting improperly. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see any evidence of Vk committing vandalism on articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Well this isn't about vandalism, so your oppose is invalid. Jeni ^(talk) 17:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • (ec)I am pretty sure that vandalism is not the reason for the proposal, so if you don't want this opinion ignored, please adress the rather more obvious issues that people have with him. As a reminder, Jeni's rationale was: Enough is enough, this user is never going to behave civilly. Usually at any hint of an indef block, he goes into retirement, then comes back as soon as the coast is clear, so lets have this discussion regardless. MickMacNee (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    • On the contrary, IMHO an editor who doesn't vandalize a page, shouldn't be indef banned. Thus my 'vote' is valid. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
      • That sounds like a really great idea for an official policy proposal...not MickMacNee (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support ban. This is precisely what happens when we give disruptive editors second, third, fourth, etc. chances—they become vested editors who feel entitled to continue to participate in this project despite their disruptive behaviour. For some reason we continue to forgive these editors, even when their disruption causes more effort to resolve compared to the positive work they do. The end result is still a net negative to this project! I would also dispute the suggestion that his boxing-related edits are beyond reproach. He doesn't seem to understand BLP policy well enough to stay out of trouble on boxer biographical articles (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive72#Audley Harrison, where his comments were none too civil either). During his previous ban a year ago, his Gueracuco (talk · contribs) sock made a cut&paste move (which any long-term editor ought to understand is incorrect), leading to this lovely exchange with an editor who reverted him. Vintagekits is an editor who thrives on disruption and actively seeks conflict. He is proud of his block log. Near the end of his last probation, he taunted his talkpage watchers with a countdown ("be VERY scared"), and hours after the probation ended immediately started rapidly renaming baronet articles, without prior collaborative discussion. Quite simply, he doesn't seem to understand how to work cooperatively with other people, no matter how much coaching and advice he gets. Do not be distracted by the FUD being thrown around, that this is an Anglo-Irish dispute or conspiracy. This is nothing more than a perpetually tendentious editor with whom the community has finally(?) lost all patience. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support, and deal with the socks as and when they appear. Vintagekits has made some good contributions, but these just aren't worth the price of the ongoing drama. I'm sure the void left by their absence will be filled soon enough by others who can hopefully function better in a collaborative environment; in fact, I'd argue that Vintagekits' departure will improve the atmosphere and positively encourage new contributors. EyeSerene^talk 18:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Enough is enough. Given that we're still here after everything that has been tried, I have very little confidence that there is any chance that his behaviour will improve. A ban at this stage should not be a surprise. How many absolutely final no-going-back last chances has he had? Five? Ten? Fifteen? VK has a history of disruption and all prior experience has shown that he will continue to disrupt unless prevented from doing so. As I say, enough is enough. Pfainuk talk 19:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - he's had his last chance. Multiple times, if I read the block log correctly.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 19:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support Indef ban. Disruptive displeasant user with a serious chip on his shoulder that he's not able to take off when logging in to Wikipedia. A review of the block history indicates serious personal issues, violent in text attacks, editing whilst "under the influence" (read: pissed out of his head), random abuse, derogatory remarks through possibly stalking talk pages, POV pushing, edit warring et. al.. Bluntly not welcome. The internet is big - I suggest he takes his deep rooted personal issues elsewhere. Pedro :  Chat  21:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support a ban. I find no merit in the lurid accusations of timing and what not. I'm not pleased that some late discussions about bans have come from contents of emails (come on, how many times does this have to happen?), but there have been more than enough second chances, block reviews, topic bans, etc. Protonk (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support ban - Easy call. AlexiusHoratius 21:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions for Troubles articles

While we have eyes on this ANI thread, I wanted to bring up something else for discussion, the subject of authorizing administrator discretionary sanctions in the Troubles topic area. These sanctions are now routinely authorized in other nationalist topic areas, such as Israel-Palestine, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Eastern Europe, Macedonia, and so forth. However, they were never specifically authorized in the Troubles topic area, possibly because the Troubles case is such an old one (from 2007, when ArbCom didn't start routinely authorizing discretionary sanctions until 2008). This means that there is very little that administrators can do to reduce disruption in this topic area, other than enforcing 1RR or entirely blocking an editor from Wikipedia. However, if discretionary sanctions were authorized, uninvolved administrators could craft much more precisely targeted solutions, such as to simply remove a disruptive editor from one or more articles where they were causing problems. This would serve the project well, as with a discretionary sanction in place, a targeted editor would still be allowed and encouraged to edit constructively in other areas of the project.

The Troubles case has been amended before via community discussion, such as in October 2008[61] and October-November 2009.[62] Now, I'd like to propose one more amendment, as follows (this is mostly copy/paste from other discretionary sanction cases):

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, or any expected standards of behavior or decorum. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question must be given a warning with a link to the Troubles ArbCom case; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This notification must be logged at the case page, as must any sanctions that are later imposed on the editor.

Thoughts? --Elonka 04:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Wording of proposal slightly tweaked per comments below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Discretionary sanctions have worked well in other contentious areas. It should work fine in this one too. NW (Talk) 05:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Could we drop the "or normal editorial process" part? It's a problematic (and cloudy) expression. The most recently closed case adopted a "or decorum" provision instead. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Sounds reasonable. I have no objection. --Elonka 06:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Tweaked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support formally now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Sounds good. Rockpocket 06:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support --John (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support. A necessary tool for intractable disputes.   Will Beback  talk  08:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Conditional Support we need something without any question. However we have people gaming the 1RR system by making multiple different POV changes to different parts of an article that should be reverted, but given the 1RR restriction on an article as a whole any editor taking action risks sanction. We also have editors such as Irvine22 who are regularly banned for varying periods and then simply come back and start again, but move over many articles to do with the Troubles making POV edits, interspersed with reasonable or marginal ones. Any uninvolved admin, unaware of the total pattern of edits might interpret action against such editors on a single article as disruptive. We've also seen confusion over what is or is not a good faith edit with consequent issues over if reversion is legitimate, or if the edit should be amended for a compromise. Sorry to go on a bit, but for something to really work here the "uninvolved" admins are going to have to do some detective work rather than just react to an individual article and the need for that is not clear in the above draft. --Snowded ^TALK 09:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Totally oppose - this merely extends the arbitrary powers of Admins who overwhelmingly come from one side of this "cultural" dispute. The wording is so vague it is a charter for the multitude of editors conditioned by Anglo-pov to impose their perspective even further on Irish editors. Sarah777 (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In the other disputes mentioned there is a much greater likelihood that Anglosphere Admins won't be conditioned to a particular perspective. That is manifestly NOT the case in Irish v. Britain issues - across a swathe of subjects, not all "troubles-related". This is proven beyond argument, over and over. Sarah777 (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarah-Nothing else has worked, that is why this is being proposed. If the editors involved in The Trouble would behave in an appropriate manner things like this would not get proposed. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Point of order: why has this outrageous proposal that will affect dozens of Irish editors not been notified to the people it will affect? Were it not for Vk's latest flip I'd have missed this entirely. Sarah777 (talk) 10:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support and proposal. The method used in WP:ARBMAC2 worked really well. Macedonia is also a hotbed of ethnic warring. Ethnic wars are one of if not wiki's biggest problems. The time for stronger measures is long overdue. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem here is the complete absence of a neutral police force. The current situation is way more preferable from a WP:NPOV than the blanket imposition of Anglo-perspective on all Irish articles. The failure to define what a "troubles-related" article is guarantees that we will end up with all Irish-related articles classed as troubles related. You folk simply aren't thinking. This will be no Macedonia. Sarah777 (talk) 11:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

So - who will notify the Irish editors who will be victims of this regime? And when? After the deed is done? Sarah777 (talk) 11:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And while I'm at it, given how the same group "debating" on my page ended up here so quickly (though there was no notification) can I assume that Vk wasn't the only one writing emails last night? Sarah777 (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support in principle, oppose for now. Additional powers (including initial page bans rising to topic bans) are needed, but deciding them here and now is rash. Firstly, the editors involved in the problem should be given the chance to be part of the solution. As Sarah says, no one has been notified. I'm not saying there should be a vote on the content or a three month long discussion on it, as we need the situation to improve now. But at least give editors the chance to comment and make suggestions. Also, as per Snowded I see no specific solution to the slow edit warring issue. I also have issue with these sanctions being left to "uninvolved" admins. We need input from involved admins who are familiar with the editing of VK, Domer, Irvine, Mooretwin, myself or any other editor involved. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

We should only support extra arbitrary powers for Admins if we are convinced the net result will be good for WP:NPOV. I'd suggest we'd get a better result in the end with yourself and Domer warring than we'd get from some of the Admins seeking god-like powers. Sarah777 (talk) 11:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support A necessary tool for an intractable dispute. Off2riorob (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh...which "intractable dispute" do you refer to? The proposers don't make that at all clear? Off2 - Do you regard Kilmichael as part of the troubles that occurred 50 years later? Sarah777 (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I dislike all of the nationalistic issues that attract opposing sides and constant editing disputes. Off2riorob (talk) 12:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, this is a rush job and involved editors have not received any notification, have to strongly disagree with Stu on the issue of involved admins, some are an integral part of the problem. BigDunc 12:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose pending proper and timely debate Things seem to be moving here with obscene and seemingly planned haste.  Giano  12:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Question - what exactly is the problem which this remedy is supposed to be addressing? We need a clear understanding and definition of what the problem is, before we can decide what the solution is. Mooretwin (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• No surprise to see some of the usual suspects opposed here. Will Domer48 be along in a day or two to add his disapprobation to the list? Well, turkeys are never likely to vote for Xmas. Support of course. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I would wish to amend working in the area of conflict to working in the area of conflict or the attempted bullying of those that do I personally have been bullied by both sides at differents stages in my Wikicareer. Bullying is a catch all term and we should all know it when we see it. Maybe a Wikilawyer will show VK was not directly insulting Elonka; maybe Elonka is a strong enough Character or has amassed sufficient mates to brush off attempts at bullying such as this, but many others (including myself) are not in this position. Þjóðólfr (talk) 12:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support, with the suggestion that any appeals of such sanctions should be handled as proposed in Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  13:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose – This is an unacceptable "solution" given the events that are responsible for its proposal and continuing support vary in their placement by many in the timeline of history. Cloudy definitions and reactionary sympathetic (or is it systematic) endorsements abound here. Israel-Palestine, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Eastern Europe, Macedonia are all well outside the normal personal involvement of major chunks of the sysop corps. The Troubles are much "closer to home" and can't be handled in the same way. I endorse Sarah777's view in her "Totally oppose" statement. Statements from sysops such as "Well, turkeys are never likely to vote for Xmas" are inappropriate, inflammatory and unhelpful to say the very least. Sswonk (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous rationale. This is not a matter to be decided on a discretionary basis; the facts must be teased out from the rhetoric, prejudices and bias' disregarded, and only decisions made as dispassionately as is possible - with the widest consenus available - enacted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Could you explain this rationale in a bit more depth for someone otherwise uninvolved like myself? My understanding of this is seems to be quite a bit different. The first time I commented on anything related to troubles was a few days ago at an AE request and I noticed there were some flaws not just in some established users own understanding of the sanction scheme, but in the very nature of the sanction (which only specified blocks). Other than the problem of editors repeatedly engaging in problematic conduct in that area, what was also clear was that there was a woeful amount of input from the community (which negates the possibility of having a widest possible consensus). On that basis, I supported giving admins the discretion to let editors be subject to page or topic bans rather than outright blocks for the conduct issues in this area. Why should editors from either non-English or English speaking backgrounds be considered differently on this basic conduct issue? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    • My rationale is that this is not a matter where the discretion of an individual admin is going to be accepted by all or even a large majority of the English speaking editing community. Ever. The issues relating to anything relating to Ireland and its culture for the last 400 years is steeped in cultural, religious and political perceptions of the rights and wrongs of events within that history. Any discretionary (for which, read "unilateral") action by any admin is going to be lauded by certain interests and decried by others, depending on what "faction" is being sanctioned. The few truly independent admins will soon be reluctant to act, when their efforts will be viewed and commented upon within the microcosm of (anti)Irish nationalist sentiment. It is, regrettably, an area of such potential disharmony that only truly consensual decision making is going to provide the basis by which resolution will be of any effect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree that the issue here is not comparable to Armenia/Azerbaijan or other ethno-religious conflicts. First, the Troubles are thankfully over and receding into history. Second, as Less Heard van U points out, this is a controversy between Anglophone editors for whom Freud might have coined the phrase "the narcisscissm of minor difference". I think the first thing that needs to de done here is to clearly define what is meant on Wikipedia by the Troubles and articles related to the Troubles. I would suggest that the Wikipedia article on the Troubles, which dates them from (if memory serves) 1969 to 1997 would be a good place to start. I would also suggest that every article that is determined as being related to the Troubles be tagged with the handy template Rd232 came out with a wee while ago. He's full of helpful ideas that fella. So he is.Irvine22 (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Rlevse; utterly fed up with the endless conflict in this area (generally from a very predictable set of editors). That they have taken this long to finally exhaust everyone else's patience is a credit to the tolerance of their peers, but it's long overdue that we do something to salvage this area and open it up to editors who can contribute without bringing along their baggage. To quote Antandrus's perceptive essay, "Every place on earth has nationalists; they are the dupes of demagogues, the tools of conquerors, and a great pestilence upon Wikipedia. Write a thousand good words on an important but neglected figure, and a nationalist will show up to argue over the spelling of his name; his birthplace, ancestry, ethnicity, or category; all in a tone of moral outrage. Look at the "bright" side: they keep our friends in the war industry employed. When some day earth is hidden in its final radioactive dust-shroud, their ghosts will declare: it's not so bad, they got what they deserved. Let the sane among you ignore them, and be good citizens of all of mankind, rather than just an angry splinter of it." EyeSerene^talk 14:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The ethnic/culture (pick your term of choice) wars are wiki's biggest long term problem. The Troubles is a prime example of that. Editors on both sides push their POV convinced that they are right due to centuries of ethnic/cultural conflict. Massive time and effort by many editors has not helped much in The Troubles. Business as usual will not help. Editors continuing the old conflict in the same old way will not help. Until editors on both sides of any of these disputes finally decide to change, nothing good will be accomplished. Until that time, stronger measures are needed to maintain an atmosphere on en wiki where editors can collaborate productively to improve the encyclopedia instead of constantly bickering at the other side and wasting other users' time and and effort in trying to solve intractable disputes because the editors on both sides of these disputes can't learn to get along and produce quality articles because they're more worried about their view not being "twisted". — Rlevse • Talk • 14:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose due to involved admins wording. We've already seen a grudge bearing admin issue a ban he had not authority to issue then abusively block the editor based on this non-existent ban, then he has the audacity to troll this noticeboard during this discussion. The idea that admins like that can issue draconian sanctions in future disputes on their own initiative is ridiculous. There's other involved admins who claim to be all neutral and above board and pretend to be guardians of neutrality and BLP, a laughable suggestion if ever I heard one. Would a guardian of neutrality and BLP claim someone who was in custody awaiting extradition is unemployed? Using that edit as a measuring stick, I presume Nelson Mandela was also "unemployed" for 27 years? There's too many admins who are way too involved with various editors in the underlying disputes, the idea that they have free rein to start using the knives they've been sharpening for a long time is a no-go. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ever heard of reliable sources, and mud slinging? Rockpocket 18:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Please use dispute resolution like the rest of us and stop calling for martial law. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - provided enforcement will be enacted in the same way as other cases, specifically, at WP:AE. Dispute resolution has been tried for years, with little really effective results. Having said that, I would like this thread to remain open for at least some days, to allow the greatest range of opinions. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Such "discretionary" decisions can have a great impact on the direction of content. An editor comes in, doesn't like the content, an edit war ensues, the editor get "removed" and the content stays the same. The "discretionary" action resulted in the appearance of consensus and everyone editing the article is happy but the underlying content issue is not resolved. The problem is people's approach to editing (entrenched positions, suspicion, etc.) but we are here to write and encyclopedia that is balanced and informative. -rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Too many Irish-related articles have become POV battlefields and thier quality has suffered greviously as a result. It's simply not possible to develop an article when any changes contrary to a POV are immediately deleted by ideologically motivated users. The only way to deal with this is to let Admin's have some discretion as to what is good faith editing (attempting at least to be NPOV) and what is genuibne POV pushing. Let me further add, as an Irish editor that I have nver experienced anti-Irish bias from an Admin. In fact, one of the problems in this whole area is a lack nowadays of Irish Admins on WP. Jdorney (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And I wonder why JD?! If they like what you say why would they be biased against you! Sarah777 (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

My reading of it is that the Admns have supported NPOV over partisanship. Users may check this if they want verification. Jdorney (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support, per current standard practice in other similar cases. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoa!

It seems some ban-supporting editors here don't realise that there isn't a even a "Wiki" consensus to impose any ban. Excluding warring editors who have been in dispute with Vk the vote is 50:50 by my count. The original block was a typical Fozzie bad block (I got one once, so I know). There is no consensus for the block, never mind a ban. Sarah777 (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Due process?

At 01:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC) in response to a warning by Elonka on my page claiming the Kilmichael Ambush was "troubles related" I asked her to explain how. No reply. But at 04:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC) this outrageous proposal pops up here without anyone being notified. It would, coincidentally, allow Elonka, Rock and John (all already involved in the dispute) to have unquestionable power to impose their perspective without any need to explain anything! Sarah777 (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And whatever about Vk posting under the influence and letting his true feeling hang out - we got an angry graphic display of where Rock is coming from when the calm surface is scratched. Not neutral, not even close. Sarah777 (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It would help if you provided links so we can all see what you are talking about. I would also be interested in seeing evidence (specifically diffs) backing your claim that these administrators support either side of this debate over the other.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Bit of work there. In the meantime you could check my talkpage for a "debate" I had with Rock last night and tell me how the Kilmichael Ambush is a "troubles related" article. Anyone like to try? Sarah777 (talk) 12:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I received a ban for unwittingly breaching 1RR on Easter Rising which it was claimed is Troubles-related, even though it happened over 50 years before the Troubles. Mooretwin (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Under this proposal you could get a block for making a comment relating to the last Ice Age if some random Admin declares it "troubles related". No explanation need be supplied. Sarah777 (talk) 12:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That has always been the case, as I found out at Easter Rising. Mooretwin (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that all I saw on your talk page was you gloating over an ambush that killed 17 people 90 odd years ago. I think the part of the Request for arbitration you want is the section that reads "To address the extensive edit-warring that has taken place on articles relating to The Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner and British baronets, any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator." (emphasis mine). It seems to suggest that the uninvolved administrator is able to decide which articles are considered related to this topic, although the wording does provide loopholes if one chooses to see them. --Jackyd101 (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If that was all you saw then I doubt your contribution here is going to be very helpful. Tends to reinforce my point about the problem with Angloshhere editors in this area. Sarah777 (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This and this speak for themselves. It's never a question of whether the article concerns the Troubles but only whether the dispute does. Diarmait na nGall could be a Troubles article, if edited the right (wrong) way, so too could Edward Bruce, Henry II of England, cruthin, Togail Bruidne Dá Derga or Cath Maige Tuired to name but a few. I suppose we should be grateful that the Troubles disputes on Wikipedia haven't (yet) plumbed the depths that some others have reached. But "not as bad as the Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute" is not much to crow about. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

All I see there is Rock edit-warring (apparently with impunity on articles that Elonka says are 1RR). But then I guess on Armenia-Azerbaijan we didn't have 95% of the Wiki editors Armenians. And 95% of the Admins policing the dispute also Armenians. Unlike Ireland which is dictated by British or American editors with a skewed view of history. As proven, again, by Rock's comments last night and Jackyd inability to see half the text. Slam-dunk. Sarah777 (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Striking unfair comment about Rock edit warring; leaving what I believe are accurate comments about the partial reading of the exchange by Jack. And Jack, you are a wee bit confused; this part isn't about Vk and his language; this is about giving random Admins excessive power. You really should read stuff more carefully. Sarah777 (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Slam dunk nothing. This is not about race or nationality, it is about showing basic civility to fellow editors whoever they are, something Vintagekits has failed to demonstrate ad nauseum.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have posted links to the Discretionary Sanctions discussion from the talkpage of the Troubles case, WT:RFAR, and in one of the Troubles-related threads at WP:AE. --Elonka 17:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, are they not all troubles-related threads at WP:AE???? Sarah777 (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No ban in effect at this time

• There is a strong appearance of selection bias in the initial comments on this thread. Before we assume canvassing, it is possible that the editors who were first to comment were those who had certain user talk pages on their watchlists. I recommend taking this matter to arbitration immediately. There is no ban in effect; I removed the improper template. Multiple administrators have opposed. The block remains as set, though I do not understand why the user is not allowed to email or edit their own talk page. This thread once again highlights the need for a better venue to decide community bans. They should be done thoughtfully with sufficient time given to accept representative comments. This would avoid the pile on by supporters of one particular view. Jehochman ^Talk 14:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Never mind talk pages ---- most admins - like myself - have ANI on their watchlist. Canvassing is an absurd accusation. Wknight94 ^talk 14:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Also keep in mind several of the opposers are Irish. Sarah even questions herself voting here. two of his mentors even support the ban or seriously question him staying on. 14:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlevse (talk • contribs)

• What impertinent rubbish you talk RLevse, I for one don't have the lightest drop of Irish blood.  Giano  15:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the least bit Irish, and I don't remember Lessheard vanU ever making trouble with The Troubles either. WP:BAN says a community ban happens when no administrator objects. If we count Bishonen too, who probably isn't Irish, and Alison, who is definitely Irish-sounding and -appearing, that makes four administrators opposed to the ban. I think we need to have a discussion about what to do with Vintagekits. But I think if we are going to do that we also need to look at the people in conflict with Vintagekits. It's hard to have a fight unless there are at least two parties. It is not fair to ban one side for bad behavior and not look at the behavior of the other side too. I think we should at least listen to Vintagekits side of the story. (Full disclosure, two of my boys are red heads.) Jehochman ^Talk 14:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Read what I said, I said several, not all, are Irish, and that is fact. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem very interested in race, RLevse?  Giano  16:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't, Jehochman.

The community, through consensus, may impose various types of sanctions upon editors who have exhausted the community's patience:

• If a user has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion at a relevant noticeboard such as the administrators' noticeboard so that the user may be site banned, topic banned, or subject to an editing restriction upon a consensus of users who are not involved in the underlying dispute. When determining consensus, the closing administrator will assess the strength and quality of the arguments.

The part you're referring to says that if no admin overturns an indef block, it's a de facto community ban. If the community at large specifically imposes it, it's valid, even if some admins oppose.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Jehochman, all that is required for a community ban is a community consensus as with any other restriction - what you talk about is a de-facto community ban, and unfortunately, it is not the same thing. I have no view on Vintagekits conduct in particular which is why I haven't voted on that discussion, but the reason I'm noting this is so that both types are not confused as one and the same; experienced admin should take greater care to avoid misrepresenting both policy and practice as it currently exists. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The discussion is ongoing. There is no statement by a closing administrator yet, so there is no ban. If no administrator had objected and this were a quiet discussion, theoretically, a ban would be effective. Jehochman ^Talk 15:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Right, but when making a section like this, care must be taken to ensure that emphasis is on the de facto bit because that is the only outcome that is certain. Users may misinterpret this as indirectly closing that proposal off as no community consensus and starting off with the other one below, rather than as one that suggests the discussion is still ongoing. Of course, in contrast, a comment on the user's talk page could be misconstrued as the community consensus as already being enacted, even though discussion is actually ongoing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Saying there "is no ban" is a bit like looking at a zebra and saying "there is no such animal". The current consensus is in favor of the ban and he is blocked indef with a ban template on his page. Perhaps consensus will change later, but until/if it happens then yes, there is a ban. ^Chillum 15:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no ban, Chillum because what we had was a group of mostly Americans ganging up on anm Irishman while most of Europe was asleep. Maybe VK should be banned, maybe not, I have yet to exppress an opinion. However this bullying was highly suspicious, that so many arrived so quickly with no dissent. That Rlevse was so quick to impose a ban proves him at best unfit to be an Arb, he should have at least srealise how things would appear when Europe, no to mention Ireland, woke up. We expect [removed personal information] may act in a small minded way like this - an Arb should not.  Giano  15:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That is the funniest thing I have ever heard! "a group of mostly Americans ganging up on an Irishman while most of Europe was asleep" If you look at the userpages of the first few people that made comments, there is a good mixture, including England, Scotland, Canada and very few Americans. Then again, anyone that dares oppose anything Irish is automatically accused of having bias etc! Heard it all before and not interested! Check your facts Giano. Jeni ^(talk) 17:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh I do apologise, when I was at school Canada was part of North America, I had no idea it had drifted off into the ocean. Many other editors had Category: USA or USA citizen or whatever on their user pages, I asumed that meant they were proud to be American - never mind an easy mistake.  Giano  17:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that nationalities are automatically invoked when discussing these issues (typically in a kneejerk manner, based on prejudice rather than a firm understanding of the nationalities of the people involved)? Also, you found this discussion pretty quickly this morning. Its funny how only those who support Vk's ban are accused of canvassing, while the rest obviously just spotted it on their watchlist. Rockpocket 18:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've no idea why Rlevse decided to call it a ban rather than an indef block, (any dissenting admins please feel free to overturn it on the basis of being a block not a ban, but on current evidence that move would only end up in one place anyway), but for Jehochman to claim they saw no reason why VK's talk page was protected and email disabled, is odd to say the least. Suffice to say the evidence for why was in the permanent record of the talk page's history. Nobody should ever trust the 'as is' version of VK's page to determine what actually happened, especially not when, as now, he has had his talk page privelages restored, and is free to refactor it as he likes, which he does often. Also, suggesting the measures taken to remove his privelages meant he had no way to defend himself, after two already declined unblock requests no less, is utter nonsense, per the appeals policy. MickMacNee (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • That's been undone, so the point is moot. What I meant was quite simply, after preventing a user from editing their talk page, it makes sense to summarize the reason there. Otherwise, it is odd to hold a discussion about somebody and not give them a chance to respond (such as by posting a statement to their own talk page). "There's no need to heard from the defendant because they are guilty as sin" is not how we should approach things. Jehochman ^Talk 17:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    • So your only justification for all of these comments is that nobody had bothered to outline for you here why his talk page and email were disabled, and you couldn't be bothered to take the few minutes to investigate for yourself? That's pretty weak tbh. As already pointed out, he had his chances to respond using the privelages of talk page access and email, and after their protection, he still has an avenue open to him to post an appeal. Your characterisation of what actually happened regarding his 'right to a defence' (and since when was ANI a courtroom btw?) is not accurate at all. MickMacNee (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Another proposal

How about Vintagekits is explicitly allowed to edit boxing-related articles, but is otherwise topic banned from The Troubles for some period of time. That would allow them to do what is most helpful to Wikipedia, while hopefully keeping them away from further Troubles trouble. Thoughts? Jehochman ^Talk 15:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - Its just another way for him to worm his way back in. The indef block is for the best. And consensus is pretty clear in the ban section above that a ban is what the community wants. Jeni ^(talk) 15:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(@ Jehochman) Yes, because he conducts himself so much better when he is discussing boxing articles. Syrthiss (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Was he causing trouble, or was he being hounded by traditional content opponents? I am not able to tell by looking at that thread. Jehochman ^Talk 15:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion about nicknames in boxing articles is just that, a discusion. It has been opened up to get the views on people from a WP:BLP perspective as well as the boxing perspective. As far as I know there has been exactly zero bad behaviour in that discusion. The fact is Audley Harrison does indeed have some negative nicknames which are well used by press and public alike and some editors object to the article/infobox including negative nicknames while others think they should be included so as to maintain a NPOV. As I have said before I know VK gets in to plenty of WP:Civil scrapes some of which are blown up to become WP:NPA breaches and perhaps some where actual WP:NPA breaches but the fact remains where I have come into contact with him.... on boxing articles in the main... he is very knowledgable and useful editor. --LiamE (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• A lot of users have noted that they supported a site ban due to the block log - why would they consider this proposal better? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Echo chamber. "He's been blocked before, so he must have done wrong" is a poor argument. We need to look at the conduct and see why he has been blocked so many times. Has he been damaging articles? Has there ever been an RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vintagekits, to document the evidence of wrongdoing? Jehochman ^Talk 15:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    • That's not a poor argument at all. It's called interminable disruption. If you'd like to build a case against a ban, go ahead, but you're not offering anything to refute the ridiculous block log other than hypotheses of baiting and so forth. Clearly there has been no RFC because his "disputes" are so blatant as to get him immediately blocked. There is no Wikipedia:Requests for comment/General Tojo either. Wknight94 ^talk 15:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
      • • • • [Redacted] LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC) (Actually, it was an excellent example of how real world history and WP invested viewpoints can cause problems. Anyhoo, personal apology winging its way to Wknight94 - thank you for the quick responses. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC))
              • Oh. No, no, no - I was referring to long-banned vandal General Tojo (talk · contribs) with his hundreds of socks. Sorry for the confusion. Wknight94 ^talk 21:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
              • (edit conflict) See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/General Tojo. I am sure no reference to the historical General Tojo was intended. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
                • Correct. The point being that RFC's are often for people on the borderline. People over the borderline - who are simply blocked because they are so clearly in the wrong - don't get RFCs. They just get shown the door. Wknight94 ^talk 21:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm still on the fence technically so the above answer is more definitive than the possibilities I was going to provide:

1. A block log consisting of over 50 entries that demonstrates repeated conduct problems over the duration of 3 years (particularly relating to being uncivil and disruptive editing) may be the documentation of wrongdoing such users are using?
2. Perhaps those users also think that it is a timesink to go through all that if his contributions are not helping the editing environment to the point he is being blocked for the same conduct over and over, despite knowing it is inappropriate?
3. Going back to an RfC/U may appear as a mockery to dispute resolution, given that attempts were made to deal with some part of the conduct via arbitration - the final resort?
4. People don't tend to want to go backwards? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

When a single user has behaved badly, an RFC is a logical step. I'm not sure why that was not done before. There is an appearance of intense lobbying by content opponents for blocks, rather than actual good faith dispute resolution. That makes me uneasy about enacting a ban. Jehochman ^Talk 15:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• This proposal reminds me of the time VK edit warred on a boxers' article over his nationality, using as a supporting reference, the colour of shorts he wears. You don't heve to be Einstein to guess what the colours were, or the words he used to describe the people opposing him in the 'dispute'. MickMacNee (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Jehochman's proposal.  Giano  15:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Its been tried before: User:Vintagekits/terms.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jackyd. Tried before and failed. VK has been given multiple chances and there is nothing to show he truly wants to reform. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Until Rlevse's suspicious behaviour has been investigated he should be recused (or banned) from all comment on VK and The Troubles.  Giano  15:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope you're being sarcastic. Rlevse is not corrupt. He does, however, have a green signature, as do you. Jehochman ^Talk 15:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. While the support of his friends is admirable, they would be better off working with VK to reform his own attitude than to try and invent ways for him to weasel out of a ban that he is on the edge of bringing upon himself. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 15:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Would have been a good suggestion 2 years ago. At this stage there is no confidence here that such a measure would alleviate Vintagekits' deep-seated behavioral and attitudinal unsuitability for this project. --John (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • You have a point that things may have been allowed to go on too long without remedy. There should have been an RFC at an earlier stage, and perhaps better protection from baiting. I am uneasy about this discussion because we aren't even giving Vintagekits a chance to defend themselves. That does not seem fair. Jehochman ^Talk 15:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Then unblock him temporarily, per Wikipedia:BLOCK#Temporary_circumstances_unblocks. Rd232 ^talk 16:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No, silencing VK from defending himself was decided by a roup of mostly Americans and Rlevse during the night.  Giano  16:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that was the intention of Rlevse, though it was the practical effect. We should let Vintagekits post a response to their talk page which can be copied into the section below. Jehochman ^Talk 16:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ahh yes, the classic persecution complex defence... Resolute 17:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• It's been tried before without success. The problem is not VK's politics. It's that his default mentality, upon encountering dispute, is to edit war. Ban away: after umpteen million last chances, it's clear we're wasting our time. Moreschi (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi! Aren't you the chap who wrote an essay calling for the banning of anyone who opposes Anglo-American nationalism? Sarah777 (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Okay, but can we give the guy a chance to post a response? Jehochman ^Talk 17:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Didn't work last time, why would it work this time? Moreover, the last 5+ blocks wold not have been prevented by such proposal, so how would it solve the problem? Rockpocket 18:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Óppose' as the phrasing leaves the matter of potentially troubles-related boxing articles in limbo. I don't know if there are any myself, but I would expect a partisant to find some if they exist. Would not have objections to allowing the editor to construct such boxing articles in userspace and have someone else, preferably an admin but possibly a respected longtime editor, move the new content from them into mainspace if they are found to be without problems. John Carter (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What the hell is a "troubles-related" boxing article? This is getting bizarre. Sarah777 (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, with your own comments, such as the one in which you accuse Moreschi of wanting to ban anyone who disagrees with him, it may even be crossing the line into unacceptable. I urge you to confine your comments to the relevant subject, and refrain from unsubstantiated allegations and insinuations regarding others. John Carter (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Jehochmans proposal. Allow Vk to edit boxing related articles, and be robust in sanctioning any displays of temper or intemperate language - these are not "cool down" blocks but the removal of disruption from content disputes. Vk may or may not learn to curb the excesses, and thereby his continued participation in content building. I would only be happy to allow Vk to participate in Ireland related articles once there is an indication that he is able to participate non disruptively in other article space (and even then there may be consideration given to participation in Troubles related article space), and as such would not provide a specific time limit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Proposal has been tried before. Civility and temper issues have persisted over three years. That's not going to change. VK's latest escapades were involving a British boxer (and a derogatory nickname which was given to him) which spawned three or four ani sections and a bunch of ill-will. As I said, an indefinite (as in permanent) block is not a step that I personally LIKE to see, but it is necessary. SirFozzie (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Response from Vintagekits (awaited)

I request that this discussion not be closed until Vintagekits is given the chance to post a statement in response to the concerns raised in this thread. Jehochman ^Talk 16:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

He is already able to edit his talk page again, and has already made numerous comments. If you want a specific statement recorded here, can you please expedite it? As above, I stongly suggest you do not allow a simple tranclusion of his talk page, due to his penchant for refactoring it. Either he can post by proxy, or be temp unblocked, or some other method I don't know about yet, but as it is, this section is just hanging at the moment - thus I've added 'awaited' to the header in the mean time. MickMacNee (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits, could you post an official statement, and we'll copy it here for you? Jehochman ^Talk 17:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved administrator, I support VK making a statement and it being included here for discussion prior to closing. There's no reason for excessive haste, with the current block there's no damage being done at the moment. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Concerns about NuclearWarfare and Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at CSD

Resolved

 – Nuke has apologized on the project talk page for naming names, and has indicated it will not happen again. No further action seems warranted at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need an editor called NuclearWarfare giving people username blocks? That's pretty bitey too. 87.114.7.38 (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

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

(NOTE: Sorry for my previous edit, I'm having some issues with my browser) It seems that the admin NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) has openly violated WP:POINT (not to mention handful of other policies) and striven to deliberately bait myself and admin RHaworth (talk · contribs) at newpages. Yesterday, an article Matrena Balk was created and repeatedly recreated by what I believed to be a newbie editor with the account Matrena balk (talk · contribs). The article did not credibly assert the notability of the subject and it was tagged A7 as a result, with very readable and pertinent twinkle notices being added to that account's talk page. The article was deleted multiple times by admins and then recreated multiple times by the same account without any real improvement or attempts to assert notability. At one point I redirected it, this was reversed by the ceating account and I redirected it again with somewhat of a rude comment due to my frustration with the "newbie" to read the many notices on their talk page or to ask for help.

Today, I find a note on my talk page taking me here. It seems that all along, the Matrena balk "newbie" account was an unannounced sockpuppet/alternate/role account created by NuclearWarfare in order to make a WP:POINT and to deliberately bait myself and RHaworth. (The Matrena balk account added a notice to their talk page specifying it is an alternate account after all of this nonsense took place). I have never heard of this "Newbie treatment at CSP" Wikiproject but if their regular activity is to create secret role acounts to entrap newpage partollers into certain types of behavior than that project needs to be discontinued post haste. I have a feeling this Wikiproject and this behavior has something to do with the recent negative media reports that new page creation has slowed on Wikipedia. And, shockingly, it appears that ArbCom has given approval of this. Please forgive my Irish temper, but I do not see how violating WP:POINT, WP:SOCK and deliberately entrapping others in such a way that constitutes real harassment is helpful to the project. Rather, I find it massivley disruptive, a blatant violation of WP:AGF, POINT, SOCK, and others. <>Multi'‑'Xfer<> (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NEWT is not about baiting and entrapping anyone (has anyone indeed suggested any kind of sanctions or admonishmnets to you over your actions?) but is designed as a fact-finding experience with the aim of increasing our awareness of issues that newbies may face. In fact the guidance at that project specifically discourages naming anyone as part of these experiments. Unless someone has told you off for your actions or has threatened some kind of "punishment", my advice would simply be to not take it personally as it was not intended as such. Shereth 19:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well that's lovely, because both myself and RHaworth were named openly at the linked discussion and my frustrated questions there were met with snark by User:SoWhy. I do not care WHO "authorized" this, secret role accounts are NOT ACCEPTABLE. And how can ArbCom approve a Wikiproject whose aim is to deliberately violate multiple longstanding policies? It's disgusting and reprehensible. It's a kangaroo court with "special secret powers" and it disgusts me. Once again, how is it ok for editors to create role accounts and entrap fellow editors? And why has ArbCom given approval to this "project"? I do not care about adminishments or sanctions, I care about sneaks, trickery, subterfuge, and public floggings at notice boards. <>Multi'‑'Xfer<> (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you elaborate how saying "I do not assume that ArbCom would allow any activity that would consist of policy violations of the kind you mentioned" can be considered "snark"? Regards SoWhy 19:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Multixfer, a simple quick rule of thumb I have found useful, is that the number of negative words and images in an editors comments usually is a good indicator of the editors willingness to work towards comprimise. The more negative words, the less the editor is willing to work together. "violate" "disgusting" "reprehensible" "kangaroo court" "special secret powers" "disgusts" "sneaks, trickery, subterfuge, and public floggings". Wow. Instead of attacking editors for revealing the way you typically treat new editor contributions, maybe you should reevaluate your potentially negative role in helping wikipedia grow. Ikip (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I reject this explanation in its entirety as it assumes the NEWT project is correct in operating secret role accounts. I did nothing wrong and using trickery to find "problems" with "behavior" is not the proper way to go about things. Why should I compromise with someone who seems to have engaged in trolling with sockpuppets to prove a WP:POINT? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• As a point of order, ArbCom neither endorses nor specifically approves of this project. Editors have been notifying the committee of alternate accounts created during the project so that they cannot be mistakenly believed to be disruptive socks, but noting the accounts is the extent of the involvement of the committee. — Coren ^(talk) 19:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

  I would have thought that using an alternate account to pretend to be a newbie in order to troll admins for responses and waste the time of other good-faith editors meets the definition of "disruptive socks". Just sayin'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Without looking at the specifics of this situation and how they handled themselves, one of the first examples given for legitimate sock use at WP:SOCK#LEGIT is for longterm users to create new accounts to experience how the community functions for new users. I am guessing that if this group is deliberately pushing the edges of bad sourcing, bad grammar, bad formatting, and questionably notable subjects, they're very likely to find the response that they're thinking they're going to find. --Onorem♠Dil 20:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, they are all attempting to behave like "normal" newbies. I personally think they're being a little to naive in their impersonation but not out in the field: most of the socks have been behaving much like a random well-intended newbie would (and sometimes to a poor welcome indeed). — Coren ^(talk) 20:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't put too much stock in that exception. It was added to the policy, without fanfare, just a month ago: [63]. By an unsurprising non-coincidence, WereSpielChequers added this loophole to the policy just two hours before he created a fake-newbie account ( [64]) on the very first reported day of their 'newbie treatment' project. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that wording was in the article consistently (as far as I can tell) from February 2004 until it was removed this July by Kingturtle. WereSpielChequers then restored it on the 6th of this october. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the user of this thread, something Multixfer should have done. Taking offense to NEWT is a mistake. It shows us a huge problem with the way we have all been handing things (remember that decline in new editors everyone was wondering about?). If you made mistakes, you are in good company. Don't take it personally. We are trying to help the project, not hurt anyone. — Jake Wartenberg 20:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good-faith attempt to assess our false-positive rate in article tagging. Since all the articles created appear to pass the guidelines, I don't see the problem with doing this with an alternate account. However, trying the same approach to assess our false negative rate (creating articles that don't meet the criteria) would indeed be disruptive. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome of this discussion may be, I think it should apply to all members of NEWT. Singling out NuclearWarfare is unfair, unless he was doing something that no one else had done. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He was the only one who created the article multiple times since his was the only article deleted multiple times (which is the approach a newbie often takes if the deleting admin ignores them and noone told them about DRV) but apart from that I also see no reason to single him out. Regards SoWhy 21:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the lesson we should be learning is: Be nicer to new people than we clearly have been doing. Instead of finger-pointing by dragging this to the noticeboards, take a look at how situations are conducted, and try to improve on them. This is something everybody can learn from, and I for one am pleased that this problem has been so clearly highlighted. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The point of the project (which I am not even a part of) seems to be identifying areas everyone in Wikipedia can improve, by identifying bitey and snarky actions by new page patrollers and admins. It seems that multifxer's main complaint is that he was caught doing something he shouldn't have done (treating an editor he thought was new in a not-so-welcoming way). The entire goal of the project, one which everyone who values contributions should support, is to improve how we treat newbies. It is not to "entrap" or "bait" admins into doing something wrong and then sanctioning them for it. The bottom line is NW, with his "new" account, was treated in a way by multiple editors which clearly violated WP:BITE. Perhaps instead of screaming about entrapment editors should examine their own behavior, and question whether it was appropriate regardless of whether the account was really a new editor. The Seeker 4 Talk 21:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It really concerns me that Multixfer felt the need to bring it here, when in fact he was the one clearly in the wrong biting the newbies! If any sanctions were to be applied, I'd argue they should be against Multixfer if anyone. The behaviour highlighted is completely unacceptable and I am now very concerned that this user is patrolling new pages! Jeni ^(talk) 21:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Somebody who uses WP:ROLLBACK to revert a WP:PROD tag removal [65] really ought to think twice about bringing the incident to wider attention. Rd232 ^talk 21:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, this was the state of the article at the point at which Multixfer redirected it. It was in similar condition when the page was A7 deleted. Durova³⁶² 21:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

What an excellent idea. I certainly notice that new users are not treated as well as they should be all of the time. Using Wikipedia "as a new user" is a great way to find such problems. This should be commended. Chillum 21:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

On the plus side, this thread reminded me to create the article on HOTHEAD (gene) that I was thinking about writing for some time. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is such a great project. Wikipedia:NEWT#Jake_Wartenberg.27s_experience strikes me as a reasonably likely outcome. This seems like a whole lot of fun (And exposes bad practice pretty efficiently), but we can get overzealous. Protonk (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that reinserting a WP:PROD tag is a violation of the rules, unless the deletion was as part of clear vandalism. Nonetheless, the WP:A7 tagging and deletions were clearly correct. Even the claim of being "Catherine the Great's favorite" doesn't seem to be an indication of importance or notability, although that one is at least marginal.

I don't think anyone has behaved well, other than those who merely tagged and deleted the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually the A7 criterion clearly states "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source." The stub asserted that the biography subject was a favorite in the Russian imperial court. So a cleanup tag or a request for references would have been appropriate, but the article was not speediable. Durova³⁶² 22:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure myself, since it didn't say she was "a favorite", which is almost an official position, but just that she was part of somebody's household and was greatly liked by the Empress. Seems arguable both ways, so probably should have gone to AfD, but I could also see the argument that you could tag this as having no claim of notability (being liked by somebody famous isn't relevant to notability). Tim Vickers (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I've started a thread here about calling out users in NEWT. — Jake Wartenberg 22:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing with Jake that specifically putting individuals out on front street isn't the best solution here. Durova³⁶² 22:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no harm in adding the names to the detailed experience reports since everyone reviewing the article will find out about those names anyway. I agree that they should not be in the overview (WP:NEWT#Results) though which is what most people will read. Calling out users in such a project may be embarrassing but a detailed discussion on a specific case (i.e. a experience report) requires that we invite those users to it to allow them to reflect on their editing in this situation and as such their names have to be mentioned. Regards SoWhy 22:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I've commented some questions and tenative objections to the project at Wikipedia talk:Newbie treatment at CSD. I believe this issue needs a centralized discussion area and some community wide discussion. Shadowjams (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The correct way to study how newbies are treated isn't to play dumb and generate work for other editors and admnistrators. The correct way is to look at the pool of existing, honest, legitimate newbies' experiences. Pull a random sample from the user creation log, and check their article edits, article creations, and deleted edits. (Alternatively, start with the page creation log, and look for pages by new editors.) The data are already available; it isn't necessary to make up fake newbies.

If the objection to that is, 'Well, then we won't know which edits are from legitimate newbies and which are from trolls playing dumb'...then you've learned something very important about the experiment that you chose to conduct over the last month. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Properly handled, secret shoppers can offer extraordinarily good evidence about how well or poorly a process functions. We just aren't properly handling it. Protonk (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I am beginning agree with TenOfAllTrades the more I see about this project. I find Protonk's argument strange given that all interactions (except for deleted ones) are public (and even the deleted ones are available to admins, of which the majority who seem to be interested are). Shadowjams (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me attempt to allay that confusion. this paper describes an experiment where economists invented fake names and generated thousands of resumes in order to determine whether or not businesses would respond differently to equally qualified "black sounding" applicants as they would "white sounding" applicants. Obviously if you just measured employment between black and white americans you would get a result which could be muddied by class differences, self selection, macro effects, and so on (i.e. if you just looked at the rate of article creation). If you just asked the companies whether or not they discriminated (i.e. asking admins/taggers if they are nice to newbies), you would get the obvious response. But testing this directly showed that the response differences were large and significant. It would not have been helpful to report the names of the HR employees at the various firms in the paper. It would hard to justify even offering the names of the companies, but the experiment itself is valuable and informative. Likewise, a process like NEWT should generate data like it has been doing, but report in the aggregate, unless some particularly egregious response comes up, where an editor could be poked on his/her talk page (rather than shamed in some more "public" WP page). Protonk (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make that argument, you're going to have to tell me what data these fake newbies will gather that isn't available through proper spadework involving existing logs of genuine newbiews. Incidentally, the use of 'real' newbies rather than fake ones has the added side benefit that these 'researchers' might actually be able to directly help newbies with genuine problem situations. Of course, all that's more work than just going out admin-baiting. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's easy. Fake newbies can create articles of a relatively uniform nature on a subject they know will meet our inclusion criteria. Real newbies create articles for a variety of reasons and in a wide range of quality (and obviously with little relation to our inclusion criteria). Using fake newbies removes a number of data problems and zeroes in on what really concerns us, false positives. Without using them, all we get is one crowd saying "WP is mean and our numbers are dropping, this is all because of the meanies at CSD" and another crowd saying "most of what gets deleted is shit and we delete tens of thousands of pages per month". Protonk (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much the same difference, isn't it? Chief distinction I see is that doing it the way they've been doing it generally results in new content. Another benefit might be its somewhat inflammatory nature - by being somewhat embarrassing to the folks caught out, it gets the project and the problem more attention than it would receive if it were a dry statistical report posted in a big block on a noticeboard. Nathan ^T 23:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a red herring. They're perfectly capable of creating the exact same new content using their primary accounts. And since they wouldn't be pretending to be newbies, they'd do a better job of it, saving hassle for other editors. If, as I note above, they had instead worked on problems encountered by real newbies, they could also be protecting and improving content, and solving real problems instead of fake ones. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Here's what I'm not seeing here: a clear request for administrator intervention in this matter. Although ArbCom did not endorse the project, they were made aware of it. While there may be some issues with the way this was handled, I don't see any need for any blocks or anything, so why is this being discussed here exactly? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The OP claimed multiple violations of various policies. Doesn't look like those claims have been substantiated, but there was an initial request for intervention. Nathan ^T 23:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• One issue raised here was my edit to wp:sock, I'd just like to draw people's attention to the thread that I first started on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry#restoring an example. I wasn't inventing a new part of that policy - merely restoring a useful example. If people don't think that this sort of thing should be allowed can I suggest we discuss it there? ϢereSpielChequers 23:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I am currently busy and unable to comment at length here. Fortunately, my workout this afternoon has helped calm me down significantly. However, I will state the following: 1) I DID NOT bite any newbies. I "bit" a secret role account of an established editor who appeared to me to be behaving in a sneaky, disruptive manner. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, I've done absolutely nothing wrong. 2) I absolutely reject the claim that this article met guidelines. It was correctly speedied multiple times because it did not assert the notability of the subject. 3) It's true that NuclearWarfare isn't the only problem here, the real problem is this NEWT project. I'm currently debating whether or not to send it to MfD but my RL duties will have to come first, I'm afraid. An interesting point I will make before leaving for a few hours: If this account has been a genuine newbie, and someone had simply come to my talk page and said "you were too hard on this person, be more patient and helpful inthe future" I would have listened and taken the advice to heart. Instead, we have subterfuge and drama. So, consider how valuable a project like NEWT really is. EDIT: My use of undo to reinsert a prod tag was a simple mistake, as you'll see on the very next edit I redirected it. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 23:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You are openly refusing to learn anything from all this, even though you acknowledge you would have learned something if NuclearWarfare was an actual newbie - I don't see the logic in that. Wikipedia is already known by non-editors as a place that is hostile to new people, and I think your reaction to all this is only cementing that stereotype. Rm999 (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This process is a very good idea. The basic mechanism has been endorsed by the WP:SOCK policy for a very long time, and with our shrinking user base, things like this are essential to the future of Wikipedia. Following actual newbies is also a good idea, but a problem I have found when sticking up for actual newbies is that some of them end up being actually disruptive. When this happens, it tends to undermine the point and vindicate the newbie-biters. So doing this with editors who are already known to edit in good faith is useful. rspεεr (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, so far wp:newt has resulted in the creation of over thirty articles, and has identified a number of problems at new page patrol, speedy deletion and the welcoming committee. If anyone is concerned about the way it is running please come and discuss your concerns at Wikipedia talk:Newbie_treatment_at_CSD. ϢereSpielChequers 00:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Block request

Resolved

 – IP blocked - Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Can some kind admin please re-block 24.109.207.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? It's the main IP of lovable but persistent sockpuppeteer Swamilive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It might be a sensible idea to check for any accounts created by that IP since the block expired. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

1yr hard block applied, only one account was created on it the IP during the time it was unblocked and it's already been blocked. --Versageek 21:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Versageek! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

User Name Issue

Since going into retirement, I have periodically come back to check on a couple articles that are important to me. I have found on my watchlist today the user Neuralhomer. This is obviously done VERY close to my username. Some of the edits the user has made are vandalism and should be reverted, but I worry more that this copycat account and mine legitiment account will be confused for each other. I would ask that the admins investigate this new account and see if there user is here to be constructive or not. Thank you. - Neutralhomer (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith - whether or not any of those edits ought to be reverted is up for discussion but they are clearly not vandalistic in nature. Consider contacting this user and asking if they would be amenable to either a name change or putting a notice on their userpage to make it explicitly clear that they are not you. Currently there are no obviously bad-faith edits by this user nor any obvious intent to impersonate you. Shereth 19:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made Neuralhomer (talk · contribs) aware of this discussion. GiantSnowman 19:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Is he editing pages that you used to edit? If so I would say it's likely not a coincidence. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Person creates an account today[66] and immediately starts messing with radio station templates, an area Neutralhomer worked in. If vandalism was also involved, I'd say block immediately; otherwise, tell person to choose a new username. Person also somehow managed to create several new templates. I thought this was not possible for an account too new to have been autoconfirmed, but maybe I'm wrong. I just tried creating a template (without being logged in) and couldn't. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have edited a couple of the templates he did in the past, but not recently. I do feel the name it not a coincidence. It is essentially my username missing a "T". While I normally am not bothered with this, I feel since I am in retirement that it could cause people to think I am socking (to confirm I am not, I would welcome a checkuser...you will find me using an IP account...not the one above...for a couple edits). - Neutralhomer (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, barring evidence to the contrary we cannot jump to the assumption that there is any nefarious intent in this situation. I can find no evidence that this account intends to confuse editors into thinking that they are you. The simplest course of action (at this point) is to kindly ask the user to rename themselves or clarify the issue on their userpage; there is no need for drastic measures such as administrative intervention or checkuser. Now, if the user had been contacted and had refused to acknowledge the issue while still editing that might call for further action but right now this does not require admin intervention. Shereth 22:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks pretty nefarious to me. If the user changes their name promptly to something that's clearly not confusable with another editor, though, it'll be resolved. rspεεr (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This username hardline soapboxer agrees that it's a name that needs to be changed. If there's any crossover between NeutralHomer's and NeuralHomer's editing the new editor may need to e blocked if they don't agree to a change. FWIW NeutralHomer could probably have got a swift, hard, block if theyd reported this at the (out of control trigger happy) username boards. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser shows the following are  Confirmed sockpuppets:

1. DelayedBrick (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
2. Yay999 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
3. CP992 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
4. XPL883 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
5. Neuralhomer (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
6. SuitiganBigBoy88 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
7. ProdConn9095 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
8. VeiraMyers9908 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

 Confirmed matches for each other,  Likely matches with the overall group:

1. GoalKeeperGate (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
2. MaxJebel99 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
3. ToughCookie89 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
4. LeFanz882 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

 Confirmed matches for each other,  Likely matches with the overall group:

1. Carry3Over (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
2. SallyRider898 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
3. ProudAmericanAuto (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

 Likely match with the overall group:

1. PlantWaves898 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

That's a lot of sudden activity. Might be useful in evaluating the situation. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Zermelo's theorem

Resolved

 – No probs. Abecedare (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I split out Zermelo's theorem (game theory) from well-ordering theorem, as it clearly doesn't belong there. However, I'd like confirmation that I used the appropriate tags to retain GFDL, per WP:SPLIT. I don't think there's a problem, but … — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine as far as licensing goes. Abecedare (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Review a block?

User_talk:Thewtfchronicles#CS_Independance_of_the_Seas_.28sic.29. Please note that the user has removed my blocking template (I did add one).[67] Regards, —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Fully endorse - User was previously warned on his talk page by Abecedare that a block could used if he did not desist his inappropriate CSD tagging. That warning came after several of us had advised the user his taggings were problematic. He continued. This behaviour is disruptive and off-putting for newby editors. LadyofShalott 21:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, unblock request declined. LadyofShalott said all that needs to be said. Chillum 21:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• (after ec) I am familiar with the users inappropriate CSD taggings and I, and many other users have advised/warned him about it. Given that the user has largely ignored the advice, I completely support the block. My only cavil is that perhaps the block should have been indefinite - with the provision to unblock immediately if the user commits to refrain from CSD tagging for say a month - till he is more familiar with the norms. Abecedare (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. Enough people tried explaining it first, without success.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - 4 or 5 warnings plus an extended (ultimately failed) attempt at explaining it to him didn't work.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 22:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

While a new account, this is evidently very far from a new user. The account was created on the 7th, and within a few dozen edits was welcoming new users, quick-fire undoing, using (and substing) the appropriate vandalism and csd templates, correctly navigating the process of nominating for AfD, and quoting policy on AIV. The reasonable assumption of good faith we afford new users clearly does not apply; this person is not new. Their facility with our procedures and policies shows they're quite familiar with the CSD policy and the rest of deletion - they're so obviously flaunting them because they want to, not because they don't know better. Blocked twice in four days, with a torrent of warnings, I think this shows the person intends disruption. I'd suggest an indef block on the basis of repeated and evidently wilful disruption. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse - Constantly calls Truth or Square an "extended SpongeBob episode" while many people (including me) tell him/her to read the noblility guidlines. See Talk:SpongeBob's Truth or Square. Rowdy the Ant talk to Rowdy 22:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

  What does WP:PEERAGE have to do with SpongeBob?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse and echo what Abecedare stated about the length of the block. I attempted to engage this user in conversation about their CSD nominations, and the fact that their rapid editing was maybe not giving the articles the attention they deserve, but despite my (and several others') best efforts, this user entirely refused to engage in conversation and basically takes a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT approach whenever someone tries to work with them. Frmatt (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse block and would endorse longer term restrictions on CSD activity. Also - agree with Finlay McWalter - this is definitely not a user.  7  02:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

7, did you mean a "NEW" user? or just a user? I did ask that question on their talk page and they replied that they had edited a few years ago but forgot their password. I took that at face value and didn't take it any further at the time. Maybe it is worth pursuing with the user at this point? Frmatt (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Hippo43 stalking my talk page and wikihounding me

I brought Hippo43 here before for his constant watching over me and interfering and disruption to places I contribute. Now I caught him basically admitting that he watches my talk page and that he came to a place I contribute to because of he found it on my talk page. For quite awhile Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines I have been working on changing the guideline to reflect that bold and italics are not shouting and do have good purpose if used correctly; I felt the original wording to be overkill (and regardless of everyone making it about capitals I never had an opinion on that, I cared about bold and italics). From day one I was clear the reason I wanted the change was that I had recently been told that using bold and italics was "shouting", something I do feel is tweenish and teenagerish (as do alot of internet users my age). During a discussion at Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means I had the caps lock on during typing for work, came back to the internet and wrote my edit summary, accidently having my edit summary in caps; not intentionally to make a point. A non-involved person "warned" me about it on my talk page. Less than five minutes later Hippo43 showed up at that policy talk page for the first time at the guideline talk page and started supporting the "status quo" side, then showed up at the "talk page guidelines" guideline and stated that I wanted to change it only because I was just warned about using caps as yelling; which he probably didnt notice that I'd started that discussion long before, when I was accused elsewhere of "yelling" when using an occasional word in bold, which is my style. This shows that he's been watching my talk page and goes around to different locations that I'm involved with for the express purpose of frustrating me; this is the very definition of hounding and is unacceptable; he had never been active in either discussion and then suddenly shows up only after noticing something on my talk page!

Now to make it clear to everone I am not talking about just this one incident! There was confusion last time I brought Hippo here. Last time I took Hippo here my case was thrown out as most of you looked only at that one case, and declared in his favor due to the circumstances and threw in as support for his side the fact that Albany, New York had a "may be too long" template. I did some editing to that article, and looked into the policy/guidelines about that issue, removed the template per Village Pump discussion in which the only two who responded agreed that the template wasnt required for Albany. Hippo of course reverted my removal. Luckily an admin and at least two or three other editors on the talk page were able to revert Hippo and give me a consensus on keeping it off.

This all started with Siena College and a dispute over whether it is in Loudonville or Newtonville (consensus of editors has always been that it is not clear and both may be mentioned. Hippo dissented saying "only consensus of sources matter, not editors") from there because many editors pointed out Loudonville is a hamlet not a town as he tried to write into the Siena College artricle he attempted at the Loudonville, New York page to say "it is a town unless you can show a source that specifically states it is not a town. Again consensus of editors told him NO. Then he moved on to Administrative divisions of New York, where he has continued to harrass my contributions. Anything that puts his "viewpoints" in past arguments in jeopardy and make me look right automatically brings him. Now any discussion I am in that in "his opinion" Im doing something wrong he shows up. I will not be wikistalked, and dont need to be "watched" by anyone, especially not him.

I know this is long, but this has been going on for over a year, I'm fed up with it; he's won arguments simply based on people not wanting to "fight" him again. I hate to bring them into this and hope they arent upset by it, but asking the following users about the issue at Siena College/Loudonville/Newtonville might be helpful in this- User:UpstateNYer, User:Juliancolton, User:Doncram, and User:Daniel Case; for the Albany too long template case- User:ZooFari, User:AFriedman, and UpstateNYer. I request that we each be banned from contact with each other. I have worked hard on working and IMPROVING and constructive edits at Capital District related articles within Capital District Wikiproject where as Hippo's only "contributions" to those articles have been to disrupt and attack mine. I have lots of flaws, I'm agressive and abrassive; but that shouldnt allow Hippo to think he has a right to "supervise" me and frustrate anything I work on that he doesnt agree with.Camelbinky (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the relevant policy I bring this under is WP:HOUND which states- "Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." I believe it is clear that this is what Hippo's intentions are.Camelbinky (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Odd that Camelbinky (talk · contribs) has only edited Hippo43 (talk · contribs)'s talk page to inform him/her of this discussion. That seems like the place to start. Toddst1 (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Correction - since Since April. Toddst1 (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I dont understand Toddst1, you want me to continue to have a dialogue with someone who has failed to listen everytime I have asked him to stop this? Have you bothered you to read his archives on his talk page or the history, or the talk page discussions at the articles I listed? I'm confused as to what you wanted me to do regarding his talk page. I've asked him not to edit the articles I work on, he accuses me then of "ownership". I've asked him to stop what he does. He wont. This isnt the first time I've asked him. This has been over a year this is going on. I've been in discussions with him. Contact some of the users I mentioned. Could you clarify what I did wrong. I want this resolved but if I'm doing something wrong please tell me. Your post was a bit cryptic for me.Camelbinky (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There is indeed plenty of discussion in Hippo's talk page archives. I'm sure Toddst1 just overlooked that. Equazcion (talk) 23:12, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I've done some cursory checking and found that stalking is a possibility here, but I'll leave it up to better and more diligent people than I to make a determination; I'd also like to hear from Hippo43 before saying anything definitive. On Camelbinky's request that the user's be "banned from contact with each other", I'm not sure how that would work, unless you were both topic-banned from the pages where these disputes have arisen, and I don't see that happening. All I can see coming of this is a stern warning and administrative scrutiny over Hippo's future contributions, if it is determined that there was a violation. That's not say we shouldn't discuss it here -- I do think we should -- but the resolution you've suggested doesn't seem feasible. Equazcion (talk) 23:40, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know where to start with this garbage. Camelbinky's sense of time, in particular, is a little out. His claims of "over a year" and "less than five minutes later" are both wildly inaccurate. His talk page is on my watchlist because of previous (disagreeable) conversations, and I noticed someone claim that there had been a personal attack (User:A8UDI), so I looked into it, followed some links and made a comment on a project talk page. I'm not sure what I'm being accused of - making a legitimate comment on a page Camelbinky was involved at? I come across the same editors all the time. Was I uncivil? Did I make a personal attack? Was I disruptive? No, no and no. If I wanted to stalk him and "disrupt his enjoyment of editing", I could simply watch his contributions and criticise him for all kinds of crap he has written. I have better things to do. --hippo43 (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, only a tiny percentage of my edits are in any way related to Camelbinky's interests. Likewise, the vast majority of his edits have not attracted any attention from me. If I had any intention to stalk or hound him (I'm not sure of the difference) I could easily take a much more active interest in topics he is active in - New York's Capital District, for example - and pick fights all the time. Again, I have better things to do. --hippo43 (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Camelbinky, could you post a list of the pages where you believe Hippo43 has "followed" you to? It's a little confusing to dig through all of those histories and contribs. Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 23:48, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)

The "warning" posted on my talk page was at 22:38 and then at 22:46 Hippo43, which is 8 minutes and for the first time, goes to Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means and comments in opposition to me; then the next day goes to Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines and posts in opposition to me again this time stating that the reason I am there is because I was just warned about capitals being shouting (which was the day before, but I started the thread on the guideline page weeks prior, so his accusation was completely unfounded). As I stated his involvement with me started at Siena College, moved to Loudonville, New York, and Newtonville, New York, which caused him to start watching my edits at Administrative divisions of New York, and then when I brought him here last time he went to Albany, New York to disrupt my attempts to improve that article and remove a template that he felt supported him in our past AN/I dispute but was wrongly stuck on there so when I removed it I'm sure he felt that I was doing it for the wrong reason, but as others pointed out the tag should never have been in there in the first place. Watching my talk page and deciding to "investigate" or go to places because I had a discussion somewhere or because I got warned is clearly a type of wikihounding, in my opinion Hippo43 pretty much admitted to doing it and as to why when he said "I could simply watch his contributions and criticise him for all kinds of crap he has written"; which I find uncivil and a personal attack and would like to have that added to the things he has said and done. At Siena College he blatantly stated he did not recognize a consensus of editors, just the consensus of the sources; this was not civil behaviour and was warned by the three admins (four as one was promoted soon after) that were on "my side". Saying that I write "all kinds of crap" is his motive for following me. I ask all who read this to look at Capital District, List of incorporated places in New York's Capital District, Tech Valley, Port of Albany-Rensselaer (GA status) all articles I created or completely rewrote; all four are 90% me (with much gratitude to those that helped, I am not denigrating them, I thank them every day for their help), check my user page for others that I have done that arent "crap". He can say what he wants about my opinions, but my editing contributions by calling them "crap" is over the line and typical of his opinion about me, his problem is that he thinks I personally need to be watched.Camelbinky (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to Hippo's comment "I could watch his Capital District articles", he does! That's where Siena College, Loudonville, Newtonville, and Albany are all in! That's where it started, so his idea that he doesnt get into what I work on is ridiculous; he has never added anything meaningful to any article in that entire wikiproject (as the cofounder and one of the three most active members I should know, since almost every article with that wikiproject tag is on my watchlist). Capital District articles are the only ones I work on! So, yes if I see Hippo at an article it is going to be a CD article, which I still have no idea why he has showed up at any of them, and has only gone to any of those articles after our first dispute at Siena College, any time he has shown up at any Cap District article it has only been in opposition to me, he has never gone to one otherwise. As for Siena College, it was 8 months ago. So yes I was wrong about 5 minutes and 1 year in time spans; it was 8 minutes and 8 months. Does that make this any less legitimate that he's been hounding me for over 8 months instead of 1 year, or that it took him 8 minutes after finding something on my talk page to going to where a discussion I'm involved in is located? Camelbinky (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Saying Camelbinky has written 'crap' was not a personal attack, but justified criticism of some of his writing. If I thought Camelbinky needed to be watched, I would watch him - I don't. His sentence "I still have no idea why he has showed up at any of them" just shows his arrogance and sense of ownership of this material. --hippo43 (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Camelbinky wrote above "so his accusation was completely unfounded." There was no accusation - this is some very skewed thinking on Camelbinky's part. I made a legitimate and inoffensive comment on that page, to explain what I felt Camelbinky's view was about. --hippo43 (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It wasnt a "legitimate" comment as you were commenting on my motives, which you couldnt have known and showed your ignorance about by claiming it was because I was just warned about using CAPITALS and that it was shouting, and therefore I wanted to change the policy. By mentioning the capitals=warning problem (which occured the day before) you showed you had not even read or looked at when the thread was begun, by referring to Rd232's proposal in a way that seemed like I was opposing it you further showed no knowledge of what was going on because Rd232's proposal was in fact a compromise effort on his part to get the policy to address my concerns but still keep the essense of it. At every instance you show your contempt for my editing, I would put my best four articles up against yours any day to a judgement on who is the better editor if your problem is that you think I write "crap"; if you have no interest in CD articles, why show up at them at all? It's not ownership I'm showing, its concern for things I care about being ruined by someone who has ulterior motives. Why get involved with the Albany, NY article's "too long" template when I removed it? I can give you the benefit of the doubt and good faith that you thought I was removing it because of our dispute, but when AFriedman, UpstateNYer, and ZooFari (people who actually work on CD articles) told you "no" you pressed it; your problem I believe is that you dont give me good faith on my editing, perhaps if you take my talk page off your watchlist and stick to articles you know about and can add constructive things to instead of worrying about "Camelbinky sticking in crap" to CD articles you wouldnt ever see me. Your job isnt to worry about if I'm putting in crap and then to stop me. All of my articles are within a very active wikiproject and all my new articles are posted clearly for them to look at, all big rewrites are undertaken with their OK, I have them helping me as I help them; no one need you "watching" me. Which is what you have done at multiple locations, if I put in "crap" someone else can take care of it. (your response now I'm sure will state "Camelbinky doesnt know what I am interested in or not or what knowledge I have", if you had knowledge about the CD area then you sure havent shown it the numerous times I've asked you to contribute any meaningful help)Camelbinky (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hippo, do you think you could respond regarding the specific pages Camelbinky listed, and tell us how you ended up on those pages, if it wasn't due to camelbinky's involvement? PS If someone called my writing "crap" I'd take that as a rather personal attack, albeit on the lower end of the spectrum. It's uncivil at the very least. Equazcion (talk) 00:45, 12 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I guess you're right - although it wasn't a personal attack, that phrase wasn't civil, and I shouldn't have let this entirely uncivil complaint get to me like that.

I came across Siena College (about 8 months ago) because I wanted to find out some info on the college, then noticed some strange wording in the article, cleaned it up and found myself involved in an extremely lame, long-winded and unpleasant edit war/discussion. This involved me reading, and editing, the Loudonville, Newtonville and Administrative Divisions articles as they were related to that issue. It also apparently led to Camelbinky taking a dislike to me and developing a kind of paranoia that I'm out to disrupt his work. Out of my interest in these articles (I presume - I really can't remember) I made an edit to Albany, New York in July this year, adding a tag to an unreferenced section - this was two weeks and four intervening edits removed from Camelbinky's previous edit there, and attracted no comment from him, but meant the article was now on my watchlist. Then last month, Camelbinky took exception to another legitimate edit I made there, reverting his addition of trivial information about library storage. He made a complaint here - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive569#Help_again_please- - which was unanimously dismissed as unfounded, as my edit was obviously beneficial to the article.

So none of my edits to these articles were motivated by Camelbinky's involvement. I believe he sees 'Hippo43' on an edit summary or discussion page and assumes I'm out to get him, and doesn't give the slightest thought to whether my edits are valid. His long rants directed against me suggest to me that he is not thinking about these rationally. He has failed to take into account the many times that edits of his show up on my watchlist, but that I agree with, so don't revert or get involved with. Again, if I wanted to pick fights with him, I'd watch his contributions and get involved at any of the many articles he edits. Indeed, I've often avoided taking part in discussions where he is involved, particularly at content policy noticeboards. He and I generally find ourselves on opposite sides of arguments about reliable sources, verifiability, original research etc, and I have generally chosen to avoid getting drawn into this kind of argument with him, as he has tended to take disagreements with me rather personally. I have better things to do. --hippo43 (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, complete misrepresentation of events. He has a habit of doing that, as he has been repeatedly called out on doing, lately by User:ZooFari at the latest debate at Albany, New York where ZooFari pointed out Hippo was misrepresenting what the guidelines actually said and stating things that werent there. His edits at Loudonville, Newtonville, et al were all in opposition to my edits which came first, I've been at each article before him and he has never never never just gone to a CD article and contributed, only to remove or "clarify" my edits. He, very late in the discussion at Siena College brought up this "I was looking for information on the college" argument for his reason there when several of us asked why he was there, we all had good reason and actual knowledge regarding the college and its location; when pressed "what information were you looking for?" his response was "it wasnt in the article", and then when asked "why didnt you add it?" his response- "its not notable"; our response was "then why were you looking in Wikipedia in the first place?" no response. He has not contributed any new information to any of these articles despite pleas to be helpful. If he had been helpful there would be no animosity; User:Doncram and I had gotten into an argument and then became good collaborators because we added information and helped each other (and bonded in our opposition to Hippo); this idea that I'm paranoid after one argument is his excuse and only something he started bringing up after I mentioned in an argument that I have a form of autism and other issues, ever since then he has this "its in Camelbinky's head" and thinly disguised it as an attack on my psychological emotional stability. He claims that the "too long" template was perfectly fine, if it was why did several other editors all agree with me that it wasnt? Why did he go to the Albany article in the first place (one I have long worked on) to put that template in and not to add any information? He doesnt contribute, he weakens and finds faults in others. As for noticeboards, he has never contributed to them except maybe twice (again in opposition to me and only on ones that directly related to our arguments and would weaken his viewpoint if it went in my favor) so the idea that wants to comment and intentionally stays away is bogus (I generally tend to be on the majority side at RS and OR noticeboards, and I dont know of any V noticeboard; so is he admitting that his views are the minority? I even got to incorporate into WP:V a new subsection based on my views I put into the RS/N). There are lots of threads at each noticeboard and VP that I dont get involved with, why dont we see him comment at any of them? I want him to stay away from any Capital District article, that is what I want. He has nothing to contribute, he has only edited to hurt my contributions or remove them.Camelbinky (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And I'd like to point out he pretty much admitted to "watching" me as he states he sees my edits and has seen ones he agrees with...why is watching articles he doesnt contribute to? Because he does not contribute to any of the articles I have created or contribute to... so why are they on his watchlist? Most of my edits are to articles I create from scratch, I'm a bit scared that he may be watching me through the user contributions button and looking at everything I do, that's how it sounds from what he wrote; I'm just going by what he himself said and to me it sounds creepy. I'd like a topic ban keeping him from CD articles, I see no problem with that as he hasnt added a shred of information to any of those types of articles and I am one of the heaviest contributors to them; that would keep us pretty much 100% apart. I dont think that is unreasonable, and could easily be enforced as if he shows up at one I just could let an admin know to enforce the topic ban. Perhaps Hippo43 would be kind enough to voluntarily state that he would stay off any CD article?Camelbinky (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC) addendum To clarify since I stuck my statements above that of Equazcion's earlier statements- Equazcion's question is directed to Hippo43, and is not in response to my question to Hippo about a voluntary ban.

What about Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means and Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines? Equazcion (talk) 02:16, 12 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I explained above how I arrived there. --hippo43 (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it looks like Hippo43 went to those discussions to comment just after Camelbinky.

I visit this ANI discussion after noticing this rather insulting edit by Hippo43 at Camelbinky's page, and figured that meant trouble. It is similar to Hippo calling Camelbinky's edits "crap", which they are not. Camelbinky above accurately notes that Camelbinky and i somewhat bonded in response to what we both found to be obstinate edit warring by Hippo on the Siena College article. I haven't studied it, but my general impression is with Camelbinky that Hippo has not contributed meaningfully in Capital District articles and any continued participation by Hippo in anything there would appear to be more to bait Camelbinky than for any other purpose. Bottomline, I don't see why Hippo should be following Camelbinky's talk page and following Camelbinky around. Hippo, why not just agree to drop Camelbinky's talk page from your watchlist and agree to stop following Camelbinky around? It is indeed an aggravation for Camelbinky and there is no useful point to your being the one to disagree in some way with Camelbinky in conversations involving other editors who will come to reasonable decisions. Hippo should just stop it, IMHO. doncram (talk) 05:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if Camelbinky could explain in detail what I'm supposed to have done wrong. I simply don't have time to trawl through the badly-written rants above and try to make sense of, and answer, every point. If there is a case against me, it needs to be presented in a clear and orderly way - can you please provide a list of specific complaints, each with diffs and each quoting the area of policy I'm slleged to have infringed?

I certainly won't agree to "stop following Camelbinky around", as I've been doing no such thing. --hippo43 (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

From my own recent experience I think Camelbinky could do with some overseeing, and so could sympathise if someone was looking at what Camelbinky did. Camelbinky as far as I can see seems to divide the world into us and them and try and recruit people to fight against them with no holds barred. I think one warning on the user page would have been in order before bringing this charge. I don't believe that any apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor has been established. I think this whole business should just be thrown out and counted as a warning to hippo43 to try and avoid anything that might be construed as hounding and to be light on the edits. It seems a bit like restricting a person from doing what's right to me but one has to do that to a certain extent to get along with others in wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't see the grounds. I guess the administrators must have some better tools for checking something like this out. Dmcq (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

← Hippo43, you said you've explained how you arrived at Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means and Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines, but I don't see that explanation here. I could have overlooked it, but either way.

Those two pages are what concern me the most in relation to the stalking claim, because aside from the verifiability policy, you've never commented on or edited any other policy until you decided to dispute something Camelbinky said/did at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines, nor did you participate in any essays at all, until the same occurred at Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means.

I'm not all that concerned about the Albany articles. If Hippo followed Camelbinky to those, I think that could reasonably be explained as covering all related issues on related articles. There's nothing wrong, as far as I'm concerned, with addressing the same point on multiple articles, even if you're only doing it due to the involvement of one other person. If someone introduced information I thought to be false in Star Wars, let's say, and I got into a dispute with him there, I might then go check Empire Strikes Back to see if the same user was "stirring up trouble" there too, and the dispute would then carry over there if he was. I'd see it as my duty to make sure my opponent in the dispute wasn't laughing and editing away on other articles with the "false info" while I sat stupidly watching a single article.

There's nothing particularly wrong with that, as long as the articles are indeed related. It's the articles that are not related that are the concern. If it's likely that an unrelated page was sought out specifically for a user's involvement in them, that's a hounding concern, and I'm seeing that at Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means and Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines.

Granted this doesn't constitute something long-term or worthy of a block, however I would say it is worthy of a stern warning. Since I've not been completely uninvolved with Camelbinky I don't think it would be appropriate for me to deliver the warning, nor even decide definitively if one is deserved, so I'll again defer to other uninvolveds, if any ever do actually show up in this discussion. Equazcion (talk) 19:51, 12 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Saving Grace (2000 film) edit war

There seems to be an edit war going on over the inclusion of a fan video mention in the article lede. Maybe it should be semi-protected. MotherFerginPrincess (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I see about a half-dozen edits from IPs on that article over the last eight months. Usually you'll see that many in a single day before it's considered to be enough disruption to warrant semi-protection. The edit war itself is about the slowest I've ever seen, spread out over months. I really don't think protection is necessary. There isn't even a discussion on the talk page, if there's really a dispute, start up a discussion there. -- Atama頭 01:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Ani medjool

Unresolved

This nettle still needs grasping, please do not archive until this is resolved. Mjroots (talk)

I'm bringing this here because I feel I'm out of my depth with this. The editing of Ani medjool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been raised with me by two separate editors on two separate occasions. Deborahjay raised an issue with Ani medjool's editing with me on 17 October (further details). The editor was nominating Commons files for speedy deletion. I issued a uw-generic4, which was later removed by Ani medjool as delete lies.

Today, Hertz1888 raised an issue on my talk page about Ani medjool's editing (see most recent contribs of Ani medjool). I do know that Ani medjool is subject to the WP:ARBPIA case and has been notified of this. Therefore I'd like to leave this in the capable hands of more experienced admins than myself to take any action that is felt necessary. I will notify Ani medjool that the issue has been raised here. Mjroots (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Notified Mjroots (talk) 09:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have only taken a quick look at Ani medjools editing today at Golan mountains, and as far as I can see, there is nothing wrong with his edits. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• [ NPA redacted ]

I think the crux of the recent editing issue is whether or not the Golan Heights are considered by the Wikipedia community to be a part of Israel or a part of Syria. Mjroots (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

An article on a winery is definitely not the place to discuss an area's political or legal status. The whole purpose of wikilinks is to make it possible to find more information on a linked subject, such as Golan Heights. Tomas e (talk) 12:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at some of the edits in question. While some of the changes made by Ani medjool may be debatable, I do not see them as disruptive. While it is perhaps incorrect to change the category at Petroleum Road, for example, to read simply Category: Roads in Syria, it is perhaps equally incorrect for it read as it did before Ani medjool's changes as simply Category:Roads in Israel. The Golan Heights is considered to be Syrian territory that is Israeli-occupied by most of the world. Israel's annexation of it is not recognized as legal anywhere except Israel. All of these articles need to be reviewed. As a quick neutral fix, I might suggest they be categorized simply as being in the Golan Heights, without designating them as either Syrian or Israeli to avoid taking sides in this territorial dispute. Alternatively, they might be categorized as being in "Israeli-occupied territories" to reflect the majority worldwide POV on the matter. Tiamut^talk 14:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I do nothing but correct false information propigate by misinform editors. Golan is Syria not israel. If United State build winery or ski resort or military base in israel or other country we not say it located in United State, we say it located in country it build in. The same be truth in this situation. If jew or israel state choose build winery in SYRIAN territory it do not make it part of israel! I also think the ADMINISTRATOR who instigate personal attack on Supreme Deliciousness should be admonish by wikipedia, because as admin and respect member of wikipedia, the editor should know not to make personal attack and should know difference between personal attack and regular response. I question neutralness of admin because of his personal attack against editor who not share same view has him, and there fore this admin do not belong making decision in this case. Ani medjool (talk)

Comment The redacted comment was not intended as a personal attack on Supreme Deliciousness. It was a statement of fact re SD's POV. It was also made clear that the SPI referred to cleared SD. If it came across as a personal attack to SD the I publicly apologise to him for the remarks. It's not a question of neutrality here; I don't know enough about the Middle East and the background of individual editors in the ARBPIA case to be able to deal with this myself. Which is why I've raised it here and am happy for other admins to deal with the situation. I myself will not be taking any action against you, Ani medjool. Mjroots (talk) 06:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment—It is clear that Ani medjool's edits are not simply controversial and disputable, they are pure vandalism. For example, in this revert, he removes a category and insert a controversial statement but also with improper spelling. He has also made a disruptive edit to a template, which is especially problematic. I wouldn't mind participating in a discussion about the content of the edits, but don't feel that User:Ani medjool should be allowed to continue these making edits like this until he has had time to familiarize himself with Wikipedia and its policies. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Counter-Comment I haven´t looked at Ani medjool contributions in general; but if someone call the Golan for "Israeli-occupied", (as Ani medjool did), then this simply cannot be labeled "disruptive". After all, it is the internationally recognized position. Reading what the BBC writes about notation might be educating: [68]. Regards, Huldra (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Counter-Comment - Poor spelling/grammar/capitalization is not vandalism. Don't get me wrong; I'm not stating that he should be allowed to continue editing (he doesn't seem to be cooperating terribly well, which is necessary), but I just should hope that any action taken would be solely for the preservation of wikipedia's article standards, rather than based on any assumptions of vandalism or other malicious intent. (a fine hair to split, perhaps, but I think important) 139.57.101.207 (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

English not my first language, I sorry you have problem with my spell and language skill. It not vandalism, the edit I make, because international community recognize Golan Heights be part of Syria that currently under military occupation by israel. This do not change fact that place in article be located in Syria and not Israel. Vandalism be disruptive false insert of material to article, I just attempt to correct false information with truth: that Golan Height is recognize as Syria not Israel and there fore article about thing in Golan Height should be attributed to Syria and not israel. If other editor do not beleive this be Syrian and instead it be part of Israel, i stop making edits. But i request discussion because this important issue that has for long time not be addressed. Ani medjool (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Ani medjool, you have edit-warred, POV pushed and politicized many non-political articles. For instance, at "Talk:Falafel#Images" you and another editor complained that the falafel photos taken in Israel should be removed because of the fact they were taken in Israel. Furthermore, your comments on that talk page telling me that I should "cease cry and cease play of traditional "poor me. poor jew" wolf call" are not constructive. Those actions, and others, have made it very difficult for editors to Assume Good Faith when dealing with your edits. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 02:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - When looking through his previous edits, it is more than difficult to assume good faith. It's impossible, as it is clear that he is incapable of putting aside his political beliefs and contributing positively to Wikipedia. He isn't here to help the website; he's here to spread propaganda. The best example of his intentions is one of his past reasons for edits: "the picture in ramallah is good enough, its better than the one in jew city". -- 99.253.230.182 (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment There is no doubt that this editor has a strong anti-Israeli POV which he regularly pushes. He also has repeatedly made offensive comments against Jews. However, in reference to the specific issue which caused this thread to be raised, there has been collective violation of NPOV by multiple editors which has resulted in the pervasive categorisation of places and properties in part of Syria as Israeli. (Claims of items such as roads and wineries as being Israeli-owned are problematic due to their being constructed on illegally confiscated land and therefore there alleged Israeli ownership would be regarded as in violation of multiple motions of the Security Council and other internaitonal legal bodies.) Ani Medjool's highlighting of this problem is a positive contribution to the project even though some of his behaviour justifies repeated short bans. His conduct problems should not be used to prevent the pro-Israeli npov-violations in Golan-related articles from being addressed.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - regardless of the status of the Golan Heights (that's another debate for another time & place), it seems to me that this editor is indeed anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish, and these beliefs are affecting his editing ability; Wikipedia is meant to be neutral! GiantSnowman 17:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment Lest there be any doubts remaining as to this editor's blatant bias, this should set them to rest. The Golan categorizations are being dealt with. The question remains as to whether this editor can be trusted to edit articles having anything to do with Israel or Jews with any semblance of neutrality, objectivity and good faith. I think the answer is clear. I suggest a topic ban. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think based on all of the above, it is clear this can certainly be invoked to ban this user from I/P articles and topics. If it is not yet at this point, when will that point be reached? The Seeker 4 Talk 19:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have moved this back from the archive, because it is still unresolved and the problem is still continuing. See, for example this edit and this edit. This is starting to get highl anti-Jewish, and becoming offensive (if it isn't there already). Singularity42 (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• This got archived automatically, meaning no one commented on it for 24 hours. At that point it ceases to be an "incident" and becomes a festering problem. Seek other methods of dispute resolution, please. Protonk (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Hopefully the behaviour will improve. Otherwise, I think arbitration enforcement is the only place left (I just reviewed the logs, and it looks like he was cautioned back in December 2008). Singularity42 (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Jwesley78

Jwesley78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Persistent incivility and edit-warring by the above user on Groupon, its talk page, his and my talk pages and edit summaries. He was taken to task about this by Atama apropos the WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASS, and other violations that Atama I or others have alleged, but Jwesley refuses to acknowledge or reform.

Claims that "any non-constructive edit" can be considered vandalism. (But that's absolutely untrue. Reading WP:VAN, it is strongly stated that the edits must be deliberately disruptive, and says, "Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism." The policy tries to make it very clear that the edits that the IP were making were not vandalism.)

Seven examples where my edits were falsely called vandalism: (diff - this was the first interaction) (diff) (diff) (diff with misleading edit summary - a delete J marked as an undelete. (diff "Reverting vandal") (diff Second AIV, the result which should have given him pause and/or resulted in an apology (and is mis-marked as a minor edit)) (diff But no, he falsely reports me for vandalism again.)

The user does know how to revert good-faith edits. But labeled my GFEs as vandalism 7 times. If I wasn't 'just' an IP (but, say a non-anonymous editor), I'd be way more pissed off by the unjustified disparagement.

He overrode my edits to my own talk page here : [69] , [70] , [71] and [72]. (Some of these are also edits of mine he tagged as vandalism.)

In contrast, I try to admit when I'm wrong about content or policy (3RR), instead of pretending to go on break.

Insists his vandalism accusations were not uncivil (diff). Needs to be set straight on that, more forcefully than Atama's attempts have done. If we don't enforce policy, the we don't really have policy. --98.248.113.11 (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

_{I've informed Jwesley78 about this thread. -- Atama頭 00:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC). Thanks for doing that for me. I was looking for my round tuit. --98.248.113.11 (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)}

I better chime in here since I'm involved. I've been trying to keep this from escalating. I got involved in this from a posting at WP:COIN, which led me to Talk:Groupon. I cautioned Jwesley78 about inaccurate vandalism accusations made when reverting the IP and when posting a report at WP:AIV. I then cautioned the IP about strong language on Jwesley78's talk page. I've made attempts to settle this matter, because the original reason for this whole dispute (some controversial text at the Groupon article) has already been concluded after discussion. But for whatever reason neither side wants to let this lie. I've let both editors know that at this point they can just walk away; both of them have made mistakes, but there's nothing unforgivable. I don't think this report is necessary, but I guess if it brings in an outside opinion it can't hurt. -- Atama頭 00:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what to say here. There are a few of points on which I admit fault:

• I misunderstood Wikipedia policy about IP talk pages. I was under the impression that they were not to be blanked by the IP user. Under this assumption I reverted his edits to the IP talk page.
• I wrongfully called this edit vandalism, but noted on the IP's talk page that my revert was based on a violation of WP:NPOV
• I was too aggressive in reporting this IP to ARV: 1, 2, and 3.

For these actions, I apologize. Other than these three points I feel that my edits have been fair. You can see the discussion on Talk:Groupon has been civil. And even the discussion that occurred on the User Talk:98.248.113.11 have been relatively civil.

I'd also like to point out that 4 times I had to remove the same content of his from my User Talk page (1, 2, 3 and 4).

Jwesley₇₈ 00:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to Jwesley several times recently (for example, see 3, above), and [[Talk:User:Aatama]] : We actually have a civility policy, WP:CIVIL. It tries to show what is meant by uncivil behavior. Often when people say "uncivil" on Wikipedia, that doesn't mean raging like a maniac (which a lack of civility often equates to in the "real world"), it just means violating what is laid out in that policy and similar behavior. Uncivil behavior can include inappropriate edit summaries (specifically mentioned in the policy) and reverting somebody who is blanking their user talk page. Even though this has been pointed out and is in an official policy, Jwesley does not accept it. I regret that, after Jwesley78 repeatedly added the same content to my talk page (diffs in opening statement), I gave him a taste of his own medicine (not realizing that, in doing so I was doing roughly what he did with respect to 3RR), however I did not add the same content 4 times. I restored and added varying content removed based on unfounded claims of vandalism. I appreciate the (much overdue) apology however. If what Jwesley has done is fair, then WP:CIVIL is not policy, because he just violated it at least 7 times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.113.11 (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm detecting some funny business going on. Why was User:CCritic responding as if he was IP:98.248.113.11, and then IP:98.248.113.11 overwrites his signature? Jwesley₇₈ 02:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Here CCritic refers to the "IP" in the third person, implying that it's someone other than him. Jwesley₇₈ 02:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Honestly, I don't understand how this issue has gotten so big. How could he be so offended by what I've done? I'm really not angry at him or anyone else. Jwesley₇₈ 02:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• How is an IP user who's only been actively editing for 2 days already voting in AFDs? There's no rule (that I know of) against it, but it seems obvious this IP was an experienced editor at some point. He seems fully knowledgable of Wikipedia policy of Civility, but didn't understand why his edit violated NPOV? This whole thing smells fishy to me. Jwesley₇₈ 03:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No funny business, other than you trying to attract attention away from the topic of this ANI. One is supposed to be able to open notices on COIN anonymously. That's why it's suggested to sign with 5 <sic> ~ chars, not 4. --98.248.113.11 (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Jwesley, I think you need to read WP:Newbie_treatment_at_CSD, espcially the article it links to. Somehow, you need to learn/accept what does and does not constitute vandalism. You called me a vandal about a dozen times* (while violating policies left and right) so I got quite offended. It's hard to characterize your apparent lack of comprehension of that without being rude. --98.248.113.11 (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

*Well, you called my edits vandalism, but after the first few accusations, it becomes a distinction without a difference.

Ok. So you thought I had a "Conflict of Interest" with the Groupon article? I had never even heard of that site until recently. Jwesley₇₈ 04:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for calling your edits vandalism. It was a mistake on my part. I will try to be more careful. Jwesley₇₈ 04:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is nobody else commenting on this? We need a 3rd party to give more perspective on our situation. Jwesley₇₈ 04:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention this: User talk:Acalamari#Jwesley78. Jwesley₇₈ 05:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• It has been 12 hours now (since submission), and not a single Admin has commented on this issue. If I'm going to be censured for my behavior, then I'd like to receive my punishment. If my behavior has been within the bounds of Wikipedia policy, then I feel that I have been harrassed unnecessarily by this anonymous user (who has an amazing amount of Wikipedia knowledge). This whole issue has been a headache for me, and has made it uncomfortable for me to patrol RC. Jwesley₇₈ 12:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You have been advised to be especially wary of calling edits "vandalism" when they are not - which you had been doing. As such, the complaint was valid. No further comments needed to come forward, and claiming harassment when the issue has been appropriately dealt with is probably the wrong idea. Learn the lesson and move on - the rest of us have. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, when I called the anonymous user's edit vandalism, it was not the 3rd time the user had edited an article. He has an amazingly thorough knowledge of Wikipedia. (I didn't even know about WP:Third Opinion until I saw his admitted "puppet" CCritic using it.) In any case, the user has been around long enough to know how to deal with such issues. If he felt that I had improperly labelled his edit, he should have come to me in a civil manner, and we would have talked about it. I think I would have had the decency to apologize for the mislabeling. Instead his first action is to contact a Sysop to ask for my Rollback privileges to be removed. This is not the behavior of a normal IP user! Since this was how he chose to respond before even talking to me, the label of WP:HARRASS is appropriate! Jwesley₇₈ 12:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If mislabeling vandalism is my worst crime, then Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts would be the proper forum for this discussion. I have not misused my Rollback privileges, so the Admin's noticeboard is the wrong forum anyway. Jwesley₇₈ 13:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Really, stop begging to have rollback removed ;-) The removal of rollback is something often discussed right here in this forum. You were WP:BITEy, you mislabelled edits as vandalism, you were a little uncivil, and you were a little tenditious about it. You have apologized. The admins have obviously accepted the apology, and unless you keep pushing it, there will not likely be any further actions. Sure, parts of this could have gone to WP:WQA, but the rollback issue belonged here. Really, going after the person who validly reported you is not going to end well ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

italictitle template

Is it okay to use {{italictitle}} on an album's article? Btilm 01:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you bring this up at the talk page of the template, there in fact is a current discussion that might be relevant. -- Atama頭 01:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Btilm, why did you think that this was an incident requiring administrative attention or action? This question could have been asked on the Help Desk, couldn't it? Bencherlite^Talk 16:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Dolfrog adding his on-line research collections to articles

A user, Dolfrog (talk · contribs), is adding his on-line research collections to articles. Many on-line databases have options where you can save specific, even sorted, search results and establish a fairly permanent link to them. It's a useful function. This user has a number of such collections, listed on his user page, and is adding them to articles.

Another user has a problem with this:[73] original research, lack of community consensus, non-official external link, etc., etc. Can someone deal with this issue? The other editor is discussing the issue with Dolfrog, but not making any ground. I don't think Dolfrog means poorly, but he's determined and hard to reach.[74][75]

There may be a place in an article to post the stable, notable, research collection of a known and identified expert in the field, but not anonymous, uncredentialed, wikipedia editor's research collections. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with both Ip69 and the other involved editor. The best way to deal with this is probably to simply keep reverting the edits - and to keep gently telling this editor that Wikipedia is not the place to further his personal agenda. At some point, he will either get the point or will be blocked as 3RR/edit warring. Tan | 39 03:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:EL: "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should avoid: (9) Links to any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds."[76] The Four Deuces (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Having read the above rational explanation of how Wikipedia wants to work, then i have no problems complying. The real problem is the initial complaining user who seems unable or unwilling to explain things in a way that I can understand. I have communication disability Auditory Processing Disorder (APD) which causes me to be dyslexic, which the complaining user chooses to ignore. My only agenda is for a greater scientific understanding of the underlying medical causes of dyslexia, to help enable the greater awareness of APD. Due to my own disability I am not really able to actually edit Wikipedia articles, but i can provide the required research to support others who are more able copy editors and paraphrasers. So this was just a way of referring future editors to my research paper collections as a form of reference not as definitive answer to anything. dolfrog (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Kmweber's AC candidacy

Resolved

This does nothing but incite unnecessary drama. Re-closing procedurally. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User conduct RfC is thataway.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
{{resolved}} Durova362 04:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Before this dissolves into the "OMG Sceptre's making a thread about Kmweber STALKER!" argument which is bound to come up, I have serious reservations about this candidacy, for several reasons: By rights, Kurt shouldn't even be editing. Once you exercise the right to vanish, you don't come back. Kurt's views on the Arbitration Committee are well known and this is obviously a troll candidacy. Kurt almost got banned 11 months ago, partly because of his candidacy last year (the most opposed in ACE history), personal attacks, disruption, and off-wiki harassment. Technically, his candidacy last year was invalid as he was banned from editing metaspace during the elections. I don't think Kurt has matured enough to warrant a clean slate, and thus I believe that any actions that took part the day he left are treated as though they happened yesterday. I honestly believe that he's returned just to troll Wikipedia during the ArbCom elections. You all know what the best course of action is... Sceptre (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC) With respect to Durova, I don't think sending this to RFC/U would do any good. It's hard to get stuff done there at the best of times. It's harder when the person you're trying to RFC has an ungodly amount of protection from the rules. Sceptre (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC) When it comes to the candidacy, I highly doubt that with that platform he will get elected, so why not let him run? I say we treat it with the "I" in RBI. As for having vanished, I don't see a problem with a return if (and only if) he can keep from behaviors that would get him blocked. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 05:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Because even allowing him to edit makes a mockery of the behavioural policies and general rule structure we have in place on Wikipedia. Sceptre (talk) 05:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Uh. Who fucking cares. Just don't vote for him. Protonk (talk) 05:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Reigniting the ban proposal Support, per above. Sceptre (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Oppose, too many bans currently Tan | 39 05:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Counter-proposal I propose that Kmweber be banned from the Wikipedia namespace. This will prevent trouble for himself and others and allow him a second chance, since most of the trouble was from the Wikipedia namespace. However sparse, I do see legitimate encyclopedic edits from this account Triplestop x3 05:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC) We tried that. It failed. Sceptre (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Editor adding unusual section to Fascism

Resolved

 – User blocked by Golbez for disruption, talk page privileges revoked by Mjroots. Should he continue after the block, report to Golbez, Mjroots or to me for indef.  Sandstein  13:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously not resolved. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Franklinbe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Franklinbe continues to insert a section into the Fascism article that is an incoherent conpiracy theory claiming the US government is "Fascist Government #1 Worldwide".[77][78] He has set up an RfC[79] and has applied for mediation[80] despite no support for his section. None of this is constructive. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That indeed might not be 50% proven, so not ready for an encyclopedia. If anyone should've told me it was this little detail, I would've let it out.
Beeing raised katholic, with a US Nuke in my backyard and secret forces operating after Hitler Shot himself, I like some Truth. And since it's out here it's time to make some links as Our Wiki Founders wished for. End of the World in 2012? Good or Bad? Belgium is not the one who started talking about Change. --Franklinbe (talk) 05:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

A cursory glance at the user's contribution log shows that his sole activity thus far has to constantly insert that one section into Fascism. Additionally, the comment above clearly shows his thought processes, for better or worse. --HubHikari (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[81]. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, I believe you are slowing me down in life. Check the IP adress before you make idiot comments and vandalising someone elses work.--Franklinbe (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Asserting yourself will not make you thin, nor pretty. --Franklinbe (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyne else feel that the editor needs a reminder about no personal attacks for these comments, and others on his talk page? Tony Fox (arf!) 07:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Author (Franklinbe) is picking the wrong article. Suggest he takes his efforts to the article on Neo-fascism. Problem solved. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If Nazism belongs to the article (fascism subgroups), I believe this sub-category belongs there (Fascism) to. --Franklinbe (talk) 07:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm. It must have occurred to you by now that you are very alone with this belief... no? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Since you're prob 'In' with America. The next Fascist Cunt that deletes an article (stub) on a system that is besad on equal liberties, could get shot in a lot of countries. --Franklinbe (talk) 07:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If I can't say that, what is the use of America anyway? --Franklinbe (talk) 07:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I see your basic misconception. Wikipedia is not America. In America , you certainly have the freedom to "not give a fuck" as you so eloquently put it on your talkpage. On wikipedia, we do give a fuck, and that fuck is called "consensus." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem is that the 'talk' about fascism and the right to have a 'non-brainwashed' brain from birth, is in fact a discussion that has been going on for over 2009 years.
Some indeed have problems with the fact that most people are wise enough to take the right decissions. But as a former Belgian Politician once said; "Enough is Enough". --Franklinbe (talk) 07:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: Please put a little efford into life and look at Gladio. That will shut you up for a year or 100. I hope. Otherwise, I'm always in for an interesting conversation. --Franklinbe (talk) 07:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Restating the point: Should you decide to re-insert material to this or any other article without consensus, your edits will be reverted. If you revert more than 3 times in a 24-period, you will be blocked. Issue resolved. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of that. That's why I will only check this page once in 'a while'. --Franklinbe (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wich means every day for the next couple of days, 'cause I'm having Fun here @ Wikipedia. Keeping an eye on the Timer though. ;) --Franklinbe (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Did any of you seen 'InGlorius Basterds' by Quentin Tarantino? --Franklinbe (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I did, yesterday. --Franklinbe (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This Song Is Not A Rebel Song This Song Is Called 'Sunday Bloody Sunday'. --Franklinbe (talk) 07:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the 'Resolved Part' about? Am I still in highschool? Not aloud to critique or ask 'difficult' Questions? Why do we Vote? --Franklinbe (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is 85% of the World Laughing AND (Googelisious) all of the Birds Signing (Fascist) Louder Than Ever (bit of Philosophical Wisdom and Poëtic Creativity') before? --Franklinbe (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Remember that every edit you make is noted (or to be found). --Franklinbe (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of that. That's why I will only check this page once in 'a while'. --Franklinbe (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wich means every day for the next couple of days, 'cause I'm having Fun here @ Wikipedia. Keeping an eye on the Timer though. ;) --Franklinbe (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Those that believe to have the right to ask for Respect, should think about the Responcibility that comes with it. Thereby I give all of you 14 Days to come Up with a Good Explenation why my part of the article should be Deleted. If you believe that this is not acceptable, Please get in touch through my Talk Page or file a complaint with WikiMedia. 10Q --Franklinbe (talk) 09:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Every Second I Think about this, is a Second on your Account. That is what I Believe. --Franklinbe (talk) 09:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on the evidence provided in this section, his contributions as well as this diatribe following his recent 48 hrs block, was it not about time to consider if this user should get an indef? Even with the best of faiths I have a hard time imagining this user being able to contribute anything worthwhile to this encyclopedia. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have to agree with Saddhiyama. He has no concept of neutrality or of what material is encyclopedic. He seems to add incoherent content in the most inappropriate places. He doesn't listen. He doesn't learn. He doesn't take advice. He misinterprets advice as oppression. He gets angry and abusive. Whether or not he is being intentionally disruptive, it is clear that he is highly disruptive to an important and sensitive article (one that has a genuinely important RfC ongoing which we should be giving our attention to, not dealing with this nonsense). I didn't report him myself because he seemed to have moved from adding inappropriate content to articles to arguing on various talk and project pages. This seemed to show some respect, if not understanding, of our policies and processes. My hope was that this was a prelude to him either gaining understanding or else getting bored and going away. I am dismayed to see that he then went back to adding blatantly inappropriate article content and also seriously ramped up the incivility. Once he got blocked he just continued ranting on his talk page. All he wants from us is a place to rant. We are not here to provide him with a free soapbox. There are plenty of other places he can go for that. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I've revoked his talk page editing privilege. Let's see what happens when the block expires. Support an indef block if he doesn't learn from this. Mjroots (talk) 11:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That seems more than fair. Do you think we should clean up the mess he has made on the various talk pages and project pages, or just leave it as it is? --DanielRigal (talk) 11:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say leave user talk pages to the user concerned, they are free to remove of leave the comments as they see fit. Leave project pages to project members to deal with. Offensive comment tend to say more about the commentor than others. Mjroots (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Apt time to point to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I upped the block to indef, but he'll be able to edit his talk page in a couple days. There's no reason to let him back before he commits to actually doing something constructive. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Indef sounds entirely appropriate, Wikipedia is not a substitute for therapy. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

This is continuation of "Admin help needed" above: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_help_needed

User Breein1007 who opened his account today have once again deleted the Jubata Ez-Zeit article. At the Neve Ativ talkpage he says: "as usual you are " [82]

First of all the source is accessible and reliable "Arab Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Golan and co-authored by Declan Gannon, legal researcher Al- Marsad, and Dr. Ray Murphy, senior lecture Irish Center for Human Rights." If he didnt feel it was reliable or wanted to removed the article he should have asked at the talkpage.

The fact that a new account does something like this says something. I am now asking, how do I revert it so the article Jubata Ez-Zeit‎ re appears? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way I reverted Breein1007's Jubata Ez-Zeit redirect to Neve Ativ. That seemed way to bold. The source looks fine and the pdf loads. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPI is over there. Mjroots (talk) 13:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

lol supreme deliciousness you must be a lonely guy to spend so much time spreading your rubbish about me. It makes me feel special though :)Breein1007 (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

Interested editors are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. SecurePoll was recently used in the Audit Subcommittee election, and has been proposed for use for the upcoming Arbitration Committee election at this current request for comment (RFC). Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Dougweller (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Reversal of Complex page moves

Resolved

Can someone advise how best to revert a complex series of page moves that have been carried out against consensus at the Wakefield article. For reference, the debate about the proposal for such moves is here. Your attention is drawn to the final paragraphs of the debate. Thanks, LevenBoy (talk) 12:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Reversed per WP:BRD. As ever, the next step is further discussion. I haven't examined the arguments enough to form an opinion myself, but it is clear that opinion is split on this, with even possibly a majority against the move. Black Kite 15:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior by Rndxcl

Resolved

 – Blocked. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Rndxcl (talk · contribs)

Constant uncivil behavior by Rndxcl [83] [84] [85] [86] PRODUCER (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User notified of thread. No attempt at discussion of this behavior appears to have been made on user's talk page.  Frank  |  talk  13:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Warned by User:Dougweller.  Frank  |  talk  13:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Rndxcl is a single purpose account that, as of this comment's posting, has made 35 edits since June 2007. Rndxcl is a very aggressively political contributor whose contributions are more intended to engage in soapboxing and real-world political debates rather than attempting to improve the encyclopedia. His edits are at times very inflammatory and directed against Muslim people of former Yugoslavia. Either way, they're not helpful. Here's some examples:

• [87] - "wikipedia is the most antiserb tool out there", "were it not for the media markale square massacre would be painted in its true light, being the selfinflicted PR wound that got the serbs bombed to hell", "you think the fucking media is worth sourcing?"
• [88] - "muslims are capable of slaughtering their own fucking people"
• [89] - "This article is in dire need of deislamofication"
• [90] - "You practise beheadings, just like Your child raping prophet", "whiny little protoserbs"
• [91] - "but clearly you are right and the Serbs are the root of all ills in that Bosnian hellhole"
• [92] - "Lol well, you must be very careful of what you say when muslims are around"
• [93], [94] - "Calling this a massacre of 8000 men and boys makes it sound as if the muslims were using child soldiers, which they probably were"
• [95] - "You idiots"
• [96] - "you piece of shit muslim revisionist", "Won't separate the women from the mujahideen. Nuh huh. We'll kill them too! even the kids!", "Srebrenica was amazing by the way"

The project is not helped by letting this editor continue spreading his polemicism in articles of already volatile nature. It's not even an issue of civility, this is an issue that needs to be remedied by employing a decision reached at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2. The arbitration case decision for single purpose accounts states:

• "Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project."

Therefore, this user should be given a specific ARBMAC2 warning that further disruption will result in a topic ban from all ex-Yu related articles with a subsequent project ban if the topic ban is violated. There should be no tolerance for people using Wikipedia as their political or religious battleground which is all this user has done in the last 2 years. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that WP:AGF is being stretched pretty thin here, but a review of the entire history of the user's talk page shows exactly five edits, and two of them were today. The first of today's edits was an "only warning" regarding personal attacks. Given the diffs, that may be appropriate, but...how is a user (new or otherwise) supposed to understand the community's expectations if no effort is made to explain them? I don't think it's unreasonable to explain what we expect before blocking or banning a user for not meeting those expectations. What will it take, another 3 or 4 edits and a day or two?  Frank  |  talk  16:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The "you piece of shit muslim revisionist" insult occurred four days ago. An only warning is appropriate here. A smidgeon of useful contribution is not an excuse for bigoted abuse that blatant. One doesn't assume good faith in the face of strong evidence to the contrary. Durova³⁶² 16:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope it didn't appear I was suggesting that it was not appropriate to warn about that edit. What I mean is that if all these diffs exist, why is it that they weren't previously brought up with the user at his talk page rather than here as a venue of first resort? I agree AGF can only go so far, but we do have a process and if everyone assumes someone else has explained it to the user and in fact nobody has...we're not preventing or even reducing disruption. I daresay that it is the very rare edit indeed on this page that has ever done so.  Frank  |  talk  16:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No one has to explain to anyone that this behavior is inappropriate. We are not required to teach users to not say "you piece of shit muslim". Had I arrived on this scene prior to this thread, I would have indefblocked without any process. Tan | 39 16:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue of tendentious editing in the area of ex-Yu topics is severe enough to have warranted two arbitration cases in two years. It is waaaaaay beyond the scope of AGF to assume that someone who refers to other editors as "you piece of shit muslim revisionist" and promising to kill children (however sarcastic the comment may have been, it's highly inflammatory) may not know that what he's doing is hot helpful. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of editors of different political affiliations editing ex-Yu articles on a daily basis. Minor skirmishes are impossible to avoid but major disruptions have proven to be cripling to article development as well as being extremely detrimental in advancing a level of civility between the editors of conflicting opinions. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating a "shoot first, ask questions later" type of indef-blocking anyone and everyone who may remotely be in violation of civility and NPA policies. But the ARBCOM cases have brought forth decisions that allowing openly extreme violators to operate under the guise of AGF while we go through the beaurocratic process of incremental template warnings can create irreperable damage and renewed hostilities between opposing editors. It is not in the best interest of Wikipedia to keep assuming good faith when it's difficult to find a helpful contribution among the many racist examples of inflammatory polemics. It is left to the discretion of any uninvolved administrator to issue warnings and remedies but it's not unheard of to indef-block someone who's here clearly to stir the pot rather than to help us build an encyclopedia. Hankz1982 (talk · contribs) was indef-blocked as a disruptive SPA account with only three prior edits to his talk page. Mihalis (talk · contribs) was indef-blocked as a POV pusher after seven edits to his talk page in a period of three years. Further disruption from Rndxcl should not be tolerated as a simple civiliy issue to be dealt with in the form of incrementally lengthened blocks. A clear warning pointing him to WP:ARBMAC and WP:ARBMAC2 needs to be issued. Additionally to those warnings, if anyone feels up to the task of educating this editor in the policies and guidelines of our project, by all means feel free to do so. But further disruption from him should most certainly not be treated the same as someone like yourself, Frank, losing your temper (hypothetically speaking, of course, I can't say I've ever witnessed this) and telling someone to "f off". You are an asset to this project and such infractions need to be addressed but they are not serious. Someone who spends most of his time on this project spouting off unveiled racist comments is not an asset to the project and his prolonged exposure to the topics at hand can easily jeopardize the relative peace and quiet that exists at the moment. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a silly debate. This user has made more than one edit that should result an instant ban on all editing. These are outlined by PRODUCER at the start of this thread. Then follows a limp discussion about warning notices. This level of abuse and racial hatred should face zero tollerence. We are not talking about a few swear words and some name calling. Polargeo (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The editor has been warned and I fully support immediate indef block if any remotely similar edit comes from the user. I will not object if another admin feels such a block is already warranted. I understand the alternate points of view but further discussion (if anyone cares) is best conducted elsewhere, such as my talk page.  Frank  |  talk  17:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please as Frank mentions can another admin consider blocking this user indef. We should not tollerate this thankyou Polargeo (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Indef blocked, racist trolling and abusing other editors with few constructive contributions. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User:DinDraithou

This editor is reverting, across a range of articles, any references to the work of popular science writer Stephen Oppenheimer, on the basis that Oppenheimer is "wrong", "unqualified", or "out of date" - [97]. This is debatable, but he seems unwilling to engage in discussion and relies on assertion that his own views are correct. Because this issue applies across a range of articles, centred on Genetic history of the British Isles (an article title which itself has connotations, which may be related to this dispute), it would be useful if an eye or several could be kept on these articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Chaotic situation going on now - articles being redirected all over. I suggest a block is needed, to allow reverts to the status quo ante, and some sensible discussion to take place after a cooling off period. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please inform this user about this thread, per ANI instructions. Thanks! Tan | 39 16:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you not just do it, in future, maybe? I'll do so now. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 16:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Tan | 39 16:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

An example of Wikipedia administrators at their finest! ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 17:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I was joking with the "no". Call me lazy. Thanks for taking care of this. Tan | 39 17:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 17:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, should have been me. :-( Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It takes two to edit-war, and you're surely one of the two, so doesn't everything you say about DinDraithou apply equally to you? If you can't agree between the two of you, and it seems unlikely that you would, try a third opinion or a request for comments. I'm not going to waste anyone's time by commenting as I have prejudged the dispute. (A large degree of genetic continuity is plausible enough, but Oppenheimer's book is laughably bad. I mean that quite literally as I laughed out loud at one point while reading it. That got me funny looks on the underground.) Do we really need Sykes and Oppenheimer fangirls (or boys) adding their opinions, dumbed through the filters of newspapers and magazines, to every possible article, especially when there is no effort to add academic sources or dissenting views? Probably not. But edit-warring won't solve anything. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No one used the term "edit warring" above. The issue is redirecting without consensus (in fact, there seems to be consensus against it, although I am not positive about that). The process is be bold, revert, discuss, not be bold, revert, re-revert, erase attempts to discuss at talk page. I don't see where Ghmyrtle has even come close to edit warring. Tan | 39 17:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Would here do? BRBR is not quite the same as BRD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, okay. I acknowledge your point here. But again, it was Din that broke the BRD cycle. Tan | 39 17:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Ghmyrtle is omitting that there has been considerable discussion, for example in Talk:History of Wales. Stephen Oppenheimer is a pediatrician, not a geneticist. DinDraithou (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit clash) Also see this warning (16:41 hours) posted to the talk page of User:DinDraithou which User:DinDraithou deleted (16:42) one minute later, without any form of acknowledgement or discussion. -- PBS (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to acknowledge something on your talkpage before deleting it: the deletion is taken as acknowledgment that you've read it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

A point I have already made to User:DinDraithou on User talk:DinDraithou which was also deleted. -- PBS (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)On the other hand his books are bestsellers and seem to be taken at least somewhat seriously. He may be wrong, but he is not a crackpot. That someone is originally trained in a different field is not sufficient grounds to dismiss them completely. You need better arguments. Hans Adler 17:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This in fact started when I was followed around the place by a persistent POV ghost possessing otherwise fine users to revert my actions, which I had explained. DinDraithou (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

None of this excuses your moving articles without discussion -- putting 'political concept' in the edit summary is not sufficient, and in light of the other disagreements looks confrontational. Dougweller (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

An "explanation" in a talk page of one article some time ago - agreed by some editors, and not by others - does not, in my view, go very far towards justifying today's actions. But moving on... There are two issues here. One is the title of the core article, which was called Genetic history of the British Isles and is now (?) called Genetic history of Britain (even though it contains text on Ireland). In my view this should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force, which exists to try and resolve these issues. The second issue is over how Oppenheimer's writings should be dealt with. My view (expressed at Talk:History of Wales#Population genetics) is that "that should be discussed at the Genetic history of X article, and whatever is ultimately decided there be rolled out for consistency across other articles including this one. This is clearly a contentious issue and it makes no sense to me for editors on one article to take a different view on that controversy to editors on any other. My own opinion is that Oppenheimer should be referenced, and those with counter-arguments should be referenced - readers should be given sufficient information to make up their own minds." And I didn't edit war. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the arguments you've made in talk pages on these issues aren't terribly good, supporting of bad articles and bad science, and thus you are difficult to communicate with, like a parent defending a child who has committed an adult criminal act. I feel like I'm the arresting officer. DinDraithou (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit clash) The point is not whether the article Genetic history of the British Isles is or is not hog-wash. That should be resolved talk:Genetic history of the British Isles. This is a question of your DinDraithou behaviour in deleting links to the article Genetic history of the British Isles and then re-deleting them when they are restored over a number of articles, and coming close to breaching 3RR on Historical immigration to Great Britain.

without any attempt at consensus (using WP:RM) you have made a controversial move "Genetic history of the British Isles" to "Genetic history of Britain" and then repeated if when it was reversed (After my warning on your talk page). [98]

• 16:43, 12 November 2009 DinDraithou (talk | contribs | block) (40 bytes) (moved Genetic history of the British Isles to Genetic history of Britain over redirect: political concept)
• 16:44, 12 November 2009 Ghmyrtle (rv undiscussed changes) (undo)
• 16:47, 12 November 2009 DinDraithou (moved Genetic history of the British Isles to Genetic history of Great Britain: see talk history where already discussed) (rollback | undo)

--PBS (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I give up, since the list of ferocious defenders has now grown to three.

But be aware that User:DinDraithou/Genetic history of Ireland will eventually appear and force some critical changes. DinDraithou (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no-one reverted DinDraithou's moves in defence of Oppenheimer's theories. The moves were reverted because they were made without consensus. If DinDraithou has any WP:RSs refuting Oppenheimer's theories, it would help the case immeasurably. Many editors are sympathetic to DinDraithou's viewpoint, myself included, but he needs to cite references. Daicaregos (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The battle here is against "celebrity" being where it shouldn't. "Celebrity" is unfortunately not refutable, and so will simply have to be replaced with the right material, which is a fantastically laborious process. Population genetics 2001-2007 was all about celebrity, and then came Karafet et al in 2008 with properly done dating. I will discuss it in the upcoming article. Some users here I believe are a little bit into celebrity pop genetics, and that influences their editing decisions. DinDraithou (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki doesn't work

Interwiki in all articles is completely broken! What has happened? Kubek15^{T CS} 18:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but all interlanguage and interwiki links are broken across the entire project.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 18:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait, it works now.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 18:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't! See [99] for example! Kubek15^{T CS} 18:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Purge the page cache and bypass your browser's cache.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 18:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, it works fine now. Kubek15^{T CS} 19:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Redlink

So, under the edit box there's a redlink for Foundation:Terms of Use with the text "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. See the Terms of Use for details." Someone should correct that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.85 (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

See section immediately above this one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced content issue

Currently I have an issue, no idea where to put this seeing as I'm not chummy with any admins around so here it can go. On Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends and List of Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends episodes someone seems hellbent on making sure a unsourced DVD release date remains in the articles even though it's most likely false given it's been removed several times since June. For a while it's been that an unsourced date was on both articles then replaced by an equally unsourced one, recently they were removed due to lack of sourcing. According to the person who routinely readds the offending content their argument is that "Wikipedia has stated months ago that Season 3 will be released at this date" hence why recently a different date was readded from an edit in May. Basically it comes down to someone who figures they're working in the article's best interest by thinking that Wikipedia is completely factual and accurate and old edits are as good as any other source. Now, why I brought it here is because it also involves more factual inaccuracies which doesn't help as it becomes a mini-editwar and talkpage discussion has been attempted but has failed so far so I'm thinking either protection or rangeblocking as this IP editor is useless to warn as they hop onto a new address if any warnings land on the IP's talkpage. A check suggests that they're on a /19 range so it seems doable but not a good idea just yet whilst a semi-prot for the articles concerned seems to be good but I worry the editor will be back immediately after the prot expires and if I had gone to WP:RFPP I'd have been declined so any suggestions or actions to take?

Tl:dr version: anon editor is intent on adding bad release dates to two articles, reverting is becoming too much hassle as it becomes a small scale editwar between anyone who's involved, came here to see what can be done. treelo _radda 19:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

UMD vandal strikes again

The UMD vandal has struck again, this time at 129.2.112.111. I've attempted to extend the rangeblock that we placed on 128.8.x.x to the 129.2.x.x range (since it seems that they can and will strike again), but I'm not sure if it worked. Here's the log entry: [100]. Did that block go through, or did I spectacularly fail? (And if I failed, could someone fix it?) SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Best I can tell, it worked. Toddst1 (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Kusamanic and sock puppetry

Resolved

 – As there is already an SPI ongoing, there is no need for this cross-posting. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Kusamanic is always removing the contributions of other users from articles about Chile: [101];[102];[103];[104];[105].

This user is trying to sell the idea that White people are a majority in Chile. When somebody posts a sourced information claiming the opposite, or post pictures of non-White Chileans, he removes the informations and pictures and accuses other users of vandalism, etc. 190.208.87.126 is probably his sock puppet, that he often uses to remove the informations from other users as well. This IP number is currently blocked for edit-warring. I opened a sock poppet investigation here and I hope some administrator can conffirm the sock poppetry from this user. Opinoso (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Kusamanic of this thread. GiantSnowman 20:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, With this user have been starting had many problems that does not respect the sources (see below) and his obsession with Chile. For this and other similar reasons has been often block also being warned by his constant personal attacks on other users, as we see here[106] [107] aside has been responsible for a "public trial" against me, as we see here. [108] [109] [110] It is why I call it sabotage to my image. Also, I am accused by User:Opinoso the use of puppet accounts, apparently without knowledge of the policies of Wikipedia, which refers to "Sockpuppet", who are the users who have multiple accounts registered to engage in vandalism or to avoid Blocks. This is obviously not my case, I have never been blocked in more than 1 year working for the Wikipedia.

• Disagree: In addition, all started after a consensus achieved by the User: Likeminas and I, which after a few days the User:Opinoso again changed the information that was reversed by the User:190.46.53.155 to a previous edition of consensus. Then the User:Opinoso again changed the main information of the article Chilean people, and adding information without giving the exact page that you can confirm the information. [111]

• Brief argument about their lack of neutrality: User:Opinoso doesn't act in good faith in each case. It imposes his personal opinion for on the mentioned sources and he has an appreciation preconceived on the population from Chile according to his point of view like we can observe here. ←Of course my personal opinion is not a source, but I have been to Chile myself and there's no way that 60% are Whites. Even in the areas of "German settlement" of Southern Chile, the local population looks more Amerindian than anything else→[112] Without respecting the sources where they write of a white majority in Chile that varies from 52,7% and 90% to the population´s. [113][114] [115][116] finally remarking that Chile is amerindian-mestizo like he writes here in one of its summaries of editions saying this without any source to back it up.Chile is mostly Amerindian-mestizo.--Kusamanic (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for block review

Can an uninvolved admin take a look at NathanielDawson (talk · contribs)? I support the block due to the edit warring, and pointy disruptive editing, but would appreciate it if the block were reviewed by non-involved admins. The blocking admin was Spinningspark (talk · contribs), who was involved in an editing dispute with the user at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Submarine cables. The blocking admin did invite a review of the block [117], and is being completely open about the issue ... but I still feel that an uninvolved admin's input on the situation would be beneficial. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified both NathanielDawson and Spinningspark about this thread. GiantSnowman 20:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please also include a review of the block of user:CasesBased (an admitted sock) user:83.170.113.97 and range block on 83.170.112.0/21 (block evasion). SpinningSpark 20:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It is clear to me that the blocked NathanielDawson is evading the block with numerous socks, so I've protected this page. I'll go on record as saying Spinningspark should have let someone else make this block as s/he is a highly involved admin. I haven't figured out whether the block is warranted. There's a lot to sort through. Toddst1 (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You might start with the history of Submarine communications cable, where there is a 3RR violation, even if you ignore the IP/sock edits. - MrOllie (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it seems like NathanielDawson deserved blocking for a variety of reasons, just not by an involved admin. Toddst1 (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Oversight enquiry

I am well aware that Wikipedia loves cencorship, but why are half my edits to this page now oversighted? Explain withing 5 minutes whoever did this and explain it here. I would not bother posting here VK they will only blooduy oversight it and hope you don't notice. Giano  21:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That confused me, too. You were claimed to have made an edit revealing personal information: after it was removed, the diffs between the addition and removal were oversighted. All the content after your first edit is still there, we just can't look at the intervening diffs. (My apologies for stating that as a fact in my initial edit.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

what personal information, I have revealed no personal information on anyone, there is more to this, and I want to know what Giano  21:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Beats me, I can't see it either. Whatever you said was replaced by "[removed personal information]" in line 1484 or so.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

How dare you lie like this to hide the truth of what you lot have done,I have revealed no personal information you bloody appologise at once.  Giano  21:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

How dare they lie loike this, I want to know who has oversighted this? who and why  Giano  21:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Which edit is missing I demand t know.  Giano  21:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on finding out what I can about this situation. Please, everyone, let's take a couple steps back while this is getting worked on... SirFozzie (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw the edit before it was oversighted. Someone was under the impression that the person named in your contribution (as a clearly hypothetical example of a stupid person) was a real person whose privacy you were outing. He is, of course, the same "person" whose name and origin from the capital of the state of Idaho is mentioned in the quotation in italics at the top of your talk page, so of course for consistency the entire history of your various talk pages must now be oversighted. As must this edit. What an over-reaction. The name was removed by DerHexer, but I don't know who oversighted the edits. Bencherlite^Talk 21:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no full edit is actually missing -- it was just one phrase that was replaced in the first diff.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Whio are they lying and say I out who who these are all lies I demand to know  Giano  21:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You're becoming incoherent. Please calm down. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not resolved, I want to know who oversighted my edits and why, I don't even know whjere fucking Idaho is.Randy from Boise has been on my page for a year,so why decide to oversight him now .  Giano  21:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If you require more information, please e-mail arbcom-audit-enlists.wikimedia.org with a description of the page involved and when the edits were made, as detailed in Wikipedia:AUSC#Procedure. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Too late for your secret emails nowm, you should have emailed me when you were hiding whater it is that so offended you.  Giano  21:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You're worried you said something to offend me? Please put your mind at rest, I pay you very little attention. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You lot are something elese entirely, I have never in all my years here come across such crass stupidity in all my life, who has oversighted this and why - [118] and it had better be good, very good, I am not dropping this that I promise you.  Giano  21:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Very curious, indeed! There seem to have been 30 consecutive edits oversighted, from a whole range of editors. They are consecutive, and the time shown when I access the Revision History was between 11:43 and 12:50. Did someone make an error? Bielle (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You copuild say that, and they are all too cowardly to admit it, assuming it was an error, which I strongly doubt.  Giano  21:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have asked DerHexter on his talk page to justify his use of the oversight tool shown by Giano above [119]. I agree with Giano that this is very disturbing, and seems, on the face, exteremly over zealous (at best). Pedro :  Chat  21:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It was a total abuse of tools in effort to make me look bad as though I out people (or worse) who knows? They hoped I would not notice - well I did, and now I want some answers. I have outed nobody!  Giano  21:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Giano - This seems to clearly have been a mistake, based on what people are saying was removed, but a mistake and not some sort of intentional abuse of you. I have not seen DerHexer in conflict with you previously, and a misunderstanding about the content is the most obvious explanation. If you believe DerHexer had some sort of conflict of interest or malign intent please take that up with Arbcom. But not everything that happens to you is an intentional abuse or attempt to bully you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder what the other 19 editors who were oversighted think? Sarek, Durova, jehochman and Tanthalus are but 4 more of them, Bielle (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The thread was not going the way some people wanted it too clearly, so any excuse and discredit me, well I am not discredited, I have been told the reason, and it is so laughable that were I not so angry I would be rolling on the floor, they insult my intelligence, no one could be stupid enough to beleibe what they are saying.  Giano  21:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a mistake by DexHexer, with 34 consecutive edits from 21 different editors across 4 or 5 main discussion threads, removed in one broad stroke. I doubt that it is some sort of censorship conspiracy against GiacomoReturned. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

So why are they telling me I tried to out somebody when I did not?  Giano  22:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Jesus, it was a mistake, will you calm down? Protonk (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone familar with you and Wikipedia would think that oversighting a bunch of your contributions on ANI could possibly contain what you feel about a particular situation, as you have in the past prolifically followed up on mailing lists and other venues when you felt censored on-wiki.

Either DerHexer is completely ignorant of that - and mind-blowingly clumsy - or this was an error.

Again, if he was someone who had been in regular conflict with you there would be more cause for alarm. But the only explanation which makes sense here is a misunderstanding and mistake.

If he's been in conflict with you a lot somewhere that I didn't notice, let me know, but I don't recall any. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(multi ec) A mistake is a generous use of words. Can I suggest incompetence? Has anyone with a meta account asked DerHexter to sort this out? This gross misuse (or abuse .... but I AGF) of sensitive tools needs speedy resolution. I agree Giano often percieves actions to be aginst him when they are not in fact against him at all, but this kind of inempt action certainly adds no credence to the functionaries of this, and all, wikimedia projects. Pedro :  Chat  22:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(multiec) I agree that this appears to be a mistake, one that the Wikipedia:Global_rights_policy#Stewards was designed to prevent from happening. I suggest that someone fix the mistake posthaste, before Randy from Boise unleashes his hordes of Greek Skeletons on us, and then we can proceed to solving the problem going forward. Hipocrite (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) There were two apparent mistakes - one, that there was personal info needing oversight, and two, the wide swath of stuff deleted. I am not familiar with the oversight UI - I haven't got the tool here on en.wp and haven't run it on private mediawiki wikis I have run. So I don't know what might explain the specifics for the latter. The former seems to just be a misunderstanding, based on not knowing the origin of Lore's quote etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

So why are they telling me I tried to out somebody when I did not - with no explanation and no apology? They hoped I would not notice.  Giano  22:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Because "they" are asleep and less than fluent in engrish. No one informed and reasonable currently thinks you violated anyones privacy. Hipocrite (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Giano - who has accused you of trying to "out" someone, and where? GiantSnowman 22:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone familiar with en.wp and you could possibly have any expectation that you would not notice, Giano. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This may all be a mistake. If DerHexer believed that there was personal information leaked, then every edit in between the posting of that information and his removal would have to be suppressed, as otherwise, someone could look at an individual revision and still see the personal information. If there was no personal information leaked, which I do not know, then DerHexer made a mistake that is easy to fix. Calling his actions clumsy and inept adds nothing to the resolution of the situation and merely criticizes a hard-working steward and local oversighter as of the last February 2009 election. Can we all take a step back please? NW (Talk) 22:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Giano - chill. This is, I feel, a cock-up by DerHexer. A grave one, and an issue we need to take to meta I agree, ideally to remove incompetence like this - however not something aimed at you as an editor by any means. I feel reasonably confident in that. Pedro :  Chat  22:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

From where I sit this is a series of misunderstandings that have been made worse at every turn by inflated rhetoric, assumptions of bad faith, accusations of incompetence, and otherwise insulting commentary. --Tznkai (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see how screwing up use of oversight is anything less than incompetence? Or perhaps you think it's a competent use of the tool Tznkai? Pedro :  Chat  22:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You're begging the question, but the simple answer is that this may well turn out to be a mistake that anyone, and by anyone, I mean you and everyone else here, also would have made.--Tznkai (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, let's wait and see what DerHexer has to say first. Given the time difference, he may well be asleep now. Waiting a few hours for a reply isn't going to hurt anyone. The issue has been raised and will be given due consideration in time. Wikipedia is 24/7/365 but people aren't. There is no rush here. Mjroots (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As an addendum, since my comment was possibly misunderstood, I mean the following:

1. I know, more or less for a fact that this was a series of misunderstandings

2. I know, more or less for a fact that it has been repeatedly made worse because of anger, confusion, and nasty words, and is likley to again worse if the peanut gallery here continues to level charges of malice or incompetence in any direction.

3. I am not talking to or about any one editor in particular. If you have any doubt, assume I am talking about you too.--Tznkai (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)