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

ClaudioSantos violates topic ban??

ClaudioSantos has one of the widest topic bans ever issued (see: Wikipedia:Topic bans#Placed by the Wikipedia community. I would like to know if he violated his topic ban by takling part in an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Dowbiggin) about a person involved in the abortion/eugenetics discussion. It is a borderline case, but allowed or not? Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

A topic ban that wide is contrary to reason. I consider an OTRS ticket to be something far past that sort of "ban" - especially since I could readily see significant problems with the BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Note: This would include editing any section of of any biographies that deal with said subjects. does not seem to extend to "opining on noticeboards thereon" as that sentence is clearly the outer limit of the "widening". Collect (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I am free to ask if it is a violation or not. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Nobody said you couldn't ... you were just given an opinion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Technically it could be considered a violation, since a topic ban is intended to apply to all areas of Wikipedia; "Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic." It's not clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise in this ban. And it doesn't seem right to oppose the ban through selective enforcement, if the ban is considered improper then it should be modified or removed after a new community discussion.

However, looking into the history of this, and the discussion that led to the expansion of the older ban that only covered euthanasia, I don't see that this ban was enacted due to problems that occurred outside of article space. So in my opinion, the ban shouldn't extend to AfD discussions. -- Atama頭 02:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It is difficult again. The topic ban is so widely set because he kept searching the limits of his prior topic ban. And that is just what happens here again. But if this allowed, so be it. Night of the Big Wind _talk 04:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, besides his usual rant against Jabbsworth et al, he now also comments on the content of the article about Ian Dowbiggin. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If it was really possible to comment in an AfD without referring to the content of the article, at any rate my comments about its content are not dealing about the banned topics. I did take care of avoid that. But my comments in the AfD, about the article content, exclusively illustrate how the article actually violates the BLP policies and that the controversial edits were made by the expulsed user:Jabbsworth on purpose to discredit this author, in order to remove him as a reliable source in other wikipedia articles (Details and proofs here:). It should be noticed that the AfD was precisely opened because the own subject requested the deletion of the article based on BLP concerns after his entirely unattended (but punished) attempt to correct those controversial edits made by the expulsed user. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter what Jabbsworth et al did. The fact is that mr. Dowbigging never got involved in any discussion but furiously is trying to "tweak the article to his wishes" (polite term for censoring). And what matters at this page, is that you are involved. I get the idea that the admins are allowing your edits, but it is again exploring the fringes of your topic ban. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Just because there is an OTRS ticket doesn't mean he needs to comment on that AfD. Lots of other users around to do so. I'd say this does clearly violate his topic ban, he should be blocked and the counter reset.--Crossmr (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - That's a euthanasia-related piece, narrowly defined, and a clear violation of the topic ban. Carrite (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

ClaudioSantos's current ban doesn't actually include euthanasia. His old ban did (which expired the first of November), but the current ban in effect through April of this year is "to include Abortion, Planned Parenthood, Eugenics, and Nazi related topics, broadly construed, including all biographies of notable persons involved in such subjects, broadly construed". Euthanasia is related to eugenics somewhat but they aren't exactly the same, so according to the ban as written he is not specifically excluded from euthanasia topics.

On the other hand, this particular biography is about a historian involved just as much in eugenics as euthanasia, and is controversial for tying the two closely together, so the topic ban would still apply at this article. Again, though, I'm not completely sure it should apply at the AfD. -- Atama頭 17:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Euthanasia was part of the Nazi eugenics program, so "broadly construed" would bring it into the topic ban as well, in my opinion, not just for one article, but generally speaking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. Just because euthanasia was used for that purpose doesn't mean that anything related to euthanasia would fall under the ban. The article euthanasia itself would fall under the ban, of course, because that article includes everything in the ban except Planned Parenthood (check it out, you'll find eugenics, Nazis, and abortion included) but an article like animal euthanasia wouldn't. Many euthanasia-related articles (the Dowbigging article being an example) do intersect with one or more of the topics that ClaudioSantos is banned from, but that would be determined on a case-by-case basis. If the community feels that he is being disruptive on euthanasia-related articles that would fall outside the scope of his current ban, then that ban can be reenacted, or his current ban can be modified to include it. When his current ban was originally set, his older ban on euthanasia (and interaction ban with Jabbsworth) was still in effect, so it's possible that the intention was for him to remain banned on that topic as well, but I'd hesitate to personally make that assumption. By the way, if anyone wants to know my history with this, I was the person who initially instituted the older ban from euthanasia and the interaction ban (just as an admin closing a community discussion, I didn't participate in it myself of course). -- Atama頭 17:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think euthanasia is the issue here. The article under discussion at AfD contains a section entitled Sterilization which specifically mentions eugenics and its use in fascist regimes (including Nazi Germany). It is that aspect which violates the topic ban. Mathsci (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Please review my closure of an RS/N discussion

RS/N discussions occur under a culture of limited discussions soliciting outside involvement. As a long term RS/N editor, I have taken to closing discussions early that do not fit within the RS/N culture or mission, or where IDHT behaviour is occurring. I recently closed such a discussion. The closure was reverted, and then another editor reverted back to my close. One user is unhappy with this closure. Please review my closure (as stated in the diff) in the context of this evidence for the closure:

Diff notes:

• Movement over previous discussion
• Competence failure to comply with RS/N requirements
• Suggestion that initiator feels free ("If editors here feel this discussion is of no use they don't have to comment.") to ignore RS/N culture 2
  • and related ("draw") battlefield
• tag teaming; (this) and (this) by an involved editor (this) and (this) by the same editors
• editors fail to restrict general discussion 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
• over contribution by an involved editor 2 3 4 5 6 7
  • and noted in dicussion 2 3
• Core points for the closure 2 3 (regarding the business model of the publisher) 4 (regarding currency of RS/N reliability, future reliability can be determined in the future) 5 (regarding publisher quality) 6 (MEDRS context) 7 (journal indexing)

I have notified WT:RS/N; and the user who expressed concern (and reverted my closure), and the user who reverted back to my closure on their talk pages. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I can understand why some editors are annoyed if the issue hasn't been resolved, but personally I think it was the correct call in the end. If the editors want impartial assistance then they need to respect the spirit of the board; there is no way I would read through that mountain of crap just to help them out. Betty Logan (talk) 06:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I also think it was correct to close this. The underlying aim appeared to be to find a hospitable page on which to argue out the editorial policies of a publisher: such discussions could not have answered the specific issue that was raised. Andrew Dalby 13:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments per RS Notice Board action

I assume Fifelfoo acted in good faith. However, his action in closing a NB discussion was ill considered and inappropriate:

General:

There is no standard on NB which allows for an editor to randomly close a discussion, warn other editors, to make judgements about sources under discussion, and/or to make comments and judgments about sources not under discussion, for example (Anderson and Taylor-see closing statements). [1]. The NB discussion was closed after less than a day and a half.

Specifically:

• Fifelfoo's close was based on the misassumption that, "I am closing this as the discussion is moving towards the exclusion of RS/N editors..." Granateple is not an involved editor.

• Graneteple and 7 uninvolved editors (LeadSongDog, Granateple, Yobol, RexxS, Andrew Dalby, David Eppstein, Short Brigade Harvester Boris), with occasional comments by 2 involved editors (Fladrif, Littleolive Oil) made pertinent comments per the specific question posed which was based in the reliability of the publisher, whether a vanity press, and open access publication. The discussion was appropriately online with the issues on the source.

• Tag teaming assumption is based I presume on the idea that Graneteple was an involved editor. He's not. And lining up two editor comments and assuming they are tag teaming is highly presumptuous and in this case dead wrong.

• I did not forum shop as Fifelfoo accused me of. LeadSongDog suggested moving a more general discussion here to the RS Notice Board here which I did.

My concern:

It was inappropriate to publicly criticize an uninvolved editor, Granateple, for commenting, and especially to issue reminders in the manner of an arbitration. This:

-discourages good-faith participation at a noticeboard

-discourages use of noticeboards

-discourages participation by an uninvolved editor such as Granateple

That said, I assume Filelfoo acted in good faith with the best interest of Wikipedia at heart. I believe closing of NB postings needs further discussion. I've opened a discussion here (olive (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC))

I think Filelfoo's problem was mostly the way in which the discussion was conducted. The purpose of the board is to get outside objective opinion, so when the discussion is taken over by the involved editors and made inaccessible to impartial editors it ceases to be productive. If the issue still needs to be resolved, you should restart the discussion but limit yourself to stipulating your opinion on the matter, and the opposing editor can do the same, and then let uninvolved editors judge for themselves. Betty Logan (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

To clarify: The discussion was in the hands almost exclusively if uninvolved editors. Fifelfoo assumed one of the uninvolved editors was involved which was not the case. He in good part based his close on that misassumption.(olive (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC))

• I rely on my impression of tag teaming between you and Granateple; Granateple's gross over contribution to discussion; and the "uninvolved" editors wandering straight back to the topic of the general discussion of the reliability of open access journals. (See diffs above). In particular your attempts to control the discussion (again, diffs above) indicated a stewed discussion excluding outside editors. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Your comment is absurd. You are accusing all of the uninvolved editors of some sort of conspiracy to skew a discussion. That's ridiculous. Attempt to exclude outside editors? They were all outside editors with two exceptions, Olive an Fladrif, Please feel free to accuse Short Brigade Harvester Boris and others of being part of some "stewed" discussion. And control the discussion? You're grasping at straws. My intent was to prevent an escalation of a few angry posts. I made very few posts. My real concern here is that an editor who will skew events as you have here, is closing NB discussions and has taken an advisory rule in Wikipedia , and in doing so in this case is willing to blacken the reputations of all of the editors who commented on the NB rather than admit to a mistake. This is a serious concern.(olive (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC))

Please do not misread my comments, in particular, I am not "accusing all of the uninvolved editors of some sort of conspiracy," I have accused your behaviour and the behaviour of another editor as constituting "tag teaming" and supplied diffs. I have suggested that the discussion wandered off into general discussion and supplied diffs. Your ownership and battleground behaviour excludes other editors—RS/N editors do not need to be invited by an involved party into a discussion on the noticeboard they frequent, and supplied diffs. As you may note from the extensive list of diffs, Short Brigade Harvester Boris' contributions were not contributive to the poorly constructed discussion. "that an editor who will skew events as you have here, is closing NB discussions and has taken an advisory rule in Wikipedia , and in doing so in this case is willing to blacken the reputations of all of the editors who commented on the NB rather than admit to a mistake. This is a serious concern." do you have any evidence for this, or would you like to make accusations without demonstration? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the one who needs to prove something. You have made assumptions and then found diffs to prove your case. I've never met or worked with Granateple. I came to a NB in good faith to deal with a troublesome source, to make sure that whatever was done with the source was compliant. The discussion was civil and helpful with many good comments. I question your closing of that discussion after a day and a half, and I'm telling you your comments about what went on are misguided. I am, as I said concerned because you made some massive misassumptions, closed a case based on those assumptions and warned an editor in the manner of an arb which can only serve to chill the NB environment. I have nothing more to say. (olive (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC))

Awesome!

I think it's awesome that a civil single-purpose POV pusher can try to push a vanity published journal article into a wikipedia article where they have a massive conflict of interest, then, once totally uninvolved editors realize that the journal article is crap argue for pages and pages about how everyone is just behaving oh-so-terribly, and nothing is done to stop them! That's AWESOME! We should DEFINITELY have more of that! Hipocrite (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

While my personal opinion of Hindawi is that it's not in the same rank as the really top-notch journals (and I'm annoyed at getting spam from them), casting Hindawi as a vanity press is going too far. The editorial board for their journal in my field includes a number of highly regarded researchers, some whom I know well personally. (If you want to check for yourself see [2] and do a Google Scholar search for e.g., Guy Brasseur or Klaus Dethloff.) They wouldn't be on the board if there were shenanigans going on; these are people with established reputations to uphold. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Stating that one journal is a vanity published does not mean the publisher is a vanity publisher. If you have any reason to believe that the "Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism" (ironically named almost identically to Nutrition and Metabolism, wonder why!) is a reliable source, that can be discussed at RSN. It might be - I don't really care or know. What I do know is that anyone who finds an article in "Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism" and thinks it's a good source for Wikipedia was either furtively directed their by someone who is an expert in the field as their meatpuppet, is an expert themselves, has a massive conflict of interest, or is googling for dollars. If olive is an expert, she'd know how to find the OTHER side of the arguemnt (you know, the one that the experts believe in). If she's googling for dollars, then she needs to be topic banned. If she's being directed by someone, perhaps the meatpuppetry needs to end. Of course, we know the answer is that she has a massive conflict of interest, but dare we say what it is? No, we'll be wikilawyered with OUTING OUTING OUTING all day. Hipocrite (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What is amazing here, is that an editor can attack another editor on an admin Notice Board and no one says anything. That seems a conspicuously strange and ironic event. (olive (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC))

Hipocrite - tone it down. I also strongly advise you strike some of your more accusatory comments above.
olive - If you've got a problem with how admins are reacting to a situation, there are FAR better ways to bring it to our attention.
Now this case requires a bit of examination before a newcomer can meaningfully weigh in, and I'm sure all parties would prefer a measured response rather than a kneejerk one. In the interim, both sides should focus on presenting the core elements of the dispute without descending into incivility. Manning (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I have not been uncivil and I have been treated to Hipocrite's foul comments both here and on the RS NB talk page. My sense was to stay out of this after I did present the core element of my concerns, but this foul comment has been siting here for a good part of the day. Normally I would apologize for any kind of forceful language . Tt's not my style but in this case. No. I'm fed up with being bullied. Hipocrite has not been part of this discussion. His purpose seems to be simply to attack and bully. Thanks for your comment, I will take it to heart.(olive (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC))

Note: Olive has been topic banned by arbcom in the past for WP:TE and POV pushing on Transcendental Meditation and it was pointed out in the AE report that she has a conflict of interest, so there is merit to what Hipocrite is saying. N^oformation ^Talk 00:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no merit to bullying. NoFormation. One of the reasons poisoning the well is frowned on is that first , one has to be very careful to get the facts straight, and second one can be lacking in the understanding and nuances of some environments. Editors who edit in contentious areas can be set upon by all manner of those wishing they would disappear. What counts is that the arbitration committee has never sanctioned me for anything. (olive (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC))

User:Noformation - I'm not disputing (or endorsing) any of Hipocrite's claims, just asking that they be toned down a bit.
::olive - you WERE put under Arbcom sanctions by an Arbcom clerk, in accordance with the discretionary sanctions ruling handed down by Arbcom. (For the record I note that those sanctions have long since expired). These are considered equivalent to direct action by Arbcom, so you will achieve nothing by disputing that fact. Manning (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Manning I was referring specifically to the TM arbitration, where I was not sanctioned in any way, nor warned...and NW did not act as a arbitration clerk. Noformation has some of his information wrong and given what has gone on in this thread I'm reaching my limit on false accusations. I would request that you do not accuse me of being untruthful which is not the case.(olive (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC))

You were topic banned by arbcom, I didn't say that it was during the initial TM case so congrats, strawman successfully torn down. How can you state that NW wasn't acting as an arbclerk? What does this even mean? He's an arbclerk, he banned you, he logged your ban at the TM log of blocks and bans. You cannot separate NW's position as an arbiter from his actions in an administrative role and your attempts to do so come off as wikilawyering.

What does it matter when it happened anyway? The fact of the matter is that you were topic banned for bad editing practices and pushing your POV. Further, you were also sanctioned with a 1RR restriction as arbcom believed that you, Timidguy and Edith Sirius Lee tag team reverted edits in order to keep your POV in. You then tried to wikilawyer yourself out of the ban by claiming that you weren't properly notified about discretionary sanctions, and your appeal was denied. This was what, a year ago? And it seems as though you're still pushing your POV. The first three results searching for "User:Littleolive_oil prefix:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement" are the three AE incidents with which Olive was involved (though these do not contain the topic ban, which can be found here). N^oformation ^Talk 02:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I am telling you what I said and what I meant. You can make out of that what you want to, but none of that is true to what I said or meant. Wikipedia is one dimensional. There is no way of explaining the multi dimensional environments which accompany what you think you see. I shouldn't have tried to given what has gone on here. Best wishes.(olive (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC))

I will continue a little bit because of the strange incident with the excommunication. I meditate very seldom.

I think this journal is tolerably reliable and okay, and that it suits the topic, which is limited and doesn’t belong to larger journals. Preliminary findings suggests that relaxation might cause a drop in blood pressure. Not very remarkable, and why should it not be mentioned on Wikipedia? We are not talking about the “Hypertension” article. On the 17th of February 1600 Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake because he dared to say that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and that the Universe is infinite, with an unlimited number of stars.

But the sheeps need a shepherd. Every movement, when it becomes messianic, has its purists and priests, more catholic than the Pope. Take a look at the reputation of Hindawi, and the editorial board of the journal in question. What do we tell the researcher and professors on that board, many from reputed universities around the world? What do we tell Cindy Davis, now at the National Cancer Institute? What do we tell assistant professor M. Shauwkat Razzaque at Harvard? What do we tell Professor Dr. med. Hans Konrad Biesalski at Universität Hohenheim in Germany? This editorial board consist of more than 40 respected researchers, and they also have some self-respect. To say that Hindawi or their journals are unreliable, that is not in accordance with a scientific outlook, as I perceive it.

I hope you admin folks will read through the discussion (rather lengthy) on WP:RS, and judge fairly regarding this unexpected excommunication. Granateple (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This board is for discussing behavioral issues not content. Further, RS/N has already dealt with the source; it's time to drop this. N^oformation ^Talk 02:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine anyone? 67.119.12.141 (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly --Guerillero | My Talk 21:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

Resolved

 – issue is now moot, as other editors have endorsed the RFC. Manning (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

What's up with DC insisting on retaining a two year old "endorsement" on an RFC, when that endorsement was posted by the since effectively-banned user Merridew. I don't see how a banned user's comments from 2 years ago have anything to do with a current RFC. But I might just be dense. I've asked DC to come here and explain this oddity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

And DC is also edit-warring to keep Merridew's comment in there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The validity of the certification is certainly open to question. I suggest we leave it in place, with a note indicating its status is under review and that it should be considered suspended until the question is resolved. Manning (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

As explained in the RFC/U itself, I reopened the request following a WP:AN discussion about a similar situation. The original RFC/U was delisted because User:Ash claimed to have left WIkipedia. It was never closed, simply dormant. I would have preferred to simply relist it, but given the amount of time that has passed and the new user name, I felt that this was the best way forward. I was asked by an admin to include the certifications from the previous RFC/U. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I did ask him to include it because it seemed odd that it was just a link to an old RFC. I also noted that I thought something was fishy and violated process that one of the certifiers being unavailable to confirm if they thought it should be re-opened because they were banned. I don't see why if there is a problem with this user's behavior warranting an RFC, DC cannot produce a second, active, unbanned user to certify with him. MBisanz ^talk 00:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Given the reception I have received so far, I would not ask anyone to add their name to the RFC/U (in fact, I would discourage it unless they wish to be similarly maligned). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It's very moot now that others have come forward and signed on, so all my concerns as to process and validity are satisfied. MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• No opinion on much else in this thread, but since repeating something that's untrue often enough leads to people assuming it's true, a point of order: Merridew isn't banned, effectively or sotherwise. There's one restriction on his editing that he evidently is unwilling to agree to, but if he agreed to it, he could start editing tomorrow without breaking any rules. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• My apologies. He is in a situation such that he cannot confirm if he thinks the RFC should be re-opened, nor can he engaged in collaborative dispute resolution with the subject of the RFC, no? MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• That's correct; like I said, my only interest is trying to shut down the "banned" meme. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• He's been blocked here since June, he's globally "locked", he's been charged with sockpuppetry, and his most recent edits were rev-del'd. That's "effectively banned", in my book. However, the thing that irked me a bit was DC's attempt to hide the point that Merridew has nothing to do with the current RFC. Assuming DC doesn't edit-war against the admin Manning's posting in that RFC, that should keep things clear to anyone looking at it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• I originally had a link to the certification section of the earlier RFC/U. I was asked to cut-and-paste the old certifications in the newer version. Merridew has nothing to do with reopening the RFC/U, but they did certify it originally. In what possible way am I attempting to hide anything? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• I made the point that he's not a valid user anymore, and you deleted it and tried to bury it on the talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• But he is a valid user; he's not community banned or anything like that, as Floquenbeam rightly points out. Reyk _YO! 01:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• "Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page." Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Indef'd users don't get to edit. I didn't edit anyone else's comment. As noted below, others have rendered the Merridew issue moot. So you're going to delete it now, right? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Two current users, in addition to DC, have now certified the RFC so the Merridew issue is now moot.   Will Beback  talk  01:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

What Will said. Manning (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah...just because an editor is banned doesn't mean everything they did is wrong or wiped away (Can't remember what guideline says that, but there is one that says that) Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Once an editor is banned, any and all edits he makes after that are subject to removal, and edits made prior to banning are subject to scrutiny, depending on what the ban was about (copyright violations, for example). Merridew is not "banned", but he's not allowed to edit either - nor is it appropriate for his words to be proxied. However, Merridew's comments are now struck from the RFC, so dat's dat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Page deletion

I had just commented at this RfC/U – I think I was about the 30th person to have done so – to find that it has just been deleted. Isn't that a bit irregular? --JN466 07:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

As I discussed on the talk page previously, no one added evidence that Ash and Fae are the same person. I indicated I would delete it if no evidence was provided in a timely manner. I was told to ask the ArbCom, which I did. In their responses they also did not provide any indication that the two users are the same person. Since the entire RFC/U was predicated on them being the same person, it was an invalid RFC/U. Editors are welcome to start an RFC/U on Fae alone, and they can also request an admin recall. However no one should allege that Ash and Fae are the same person without providing proper proof.   Will Beback  talk  08:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Sheesh. I urge all users to avoid dealing with the ArbCom if they can. They can't be relied on to give honest answers to simple questions.   Will Beback  talk  08:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, this deletion was a gross misuse of the admin bit, and should be considered grounds for at least temporary desysoping. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 08:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Will, suggestion. Undel the page yourself. I don't think the community might see this positively. A timely undeletion would save us this discussion thread. Kind regards. Wifione ^Message 08:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • John Vandenberg already did. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 08:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Improperly certified RFC/Us are routinely deleted. Based on the best available evidence, and numerous requests for more evidence, I understood that the RFC/U was improperly formed and certified. A number of exchanges with the ArbCom led me to believe that there was no identified connection between Ash and Fae. I gave plenty of warning that I'd delete it if no evidence of the connection was added. Only after the ArbCom discussions, and after I'd deleted it, did user: John Vandenberg decide to give his still incomplete input. I sincerely apologize for relying on the ArbCom to give useful information and I promise never to do so again.   Will Beback  talk  08:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue is Wikipedia policies (RFC/U and cleanstart) aren't coherent, so (as usual) discussion and consensus are necessary to resolve the situation. While I disagree with the deletion, I don't doubt WB's good faith; calls for desysoping are over the top. Likewise I'd encourage editors to be nice to ArbCom -- it's a crappy job but someone has to do it. Nobody Ent 11:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The deletion was done in quite bad faith, as Will was threatening deletion using by his personal criteria regarding Fae's identity rather than any question of the certification. A desysop is certainly on the table, but perhaps it might be best to deescalate all-around and just let the RfC mosey along. Tarc (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I had hoped to avoid having to do it on-wiki for various reasons, but I have made a connection between the two accounts at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Fæ#Connecting User:Ash to User:Fae by popular request. I have attempted to find a balance between limiting the amount of personal information disclosed and making a connection that reasonable people could agree was conclusive. Given that the connection between the two accounts was fairly well-known when I re-opened the RFC/U, I had hoped that an ArbCom member would appear to make a suitably vague statement that would put questions about identity to rest. If any admin genuinely had concerns that the two accounts were not connected, I would like to think that the RFC/U would have been deleted immediately instead of allowing it to remain until an arbitrary deadline had expired. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for providing that, which should have been part of the RFC/U from the beginning. We can't just make allegations of serious wrongdoing without providing proof or relying on unverifiable claims like "common knowledge". I'm not sure I understand your reluctance to post evidence of something that you were comfortable asserting. However now that this is cleared up you can continue resolving the dispute over sourcing BLPs.   Will Beback  talk  22:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Block request

Can someone please block User:Russavia for their insulting personal attacks here? I can bear being accused of being a homophobe (in fact I was expecting it), but actually being called a homophobe is too much. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the accusation of being a homophobe, only that your actions may be intepreted as such. That isn't an attack on you. Furthermore, it is not best form to ask for your opponent to be blocked when you are currently in a dispute against them. —Dark 06:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

My only "dispute" with Russavia is that they continue to make flagrant personal attacks. They are not simply saying that my actions could be interpreted as homophobia, they are saying (as in the edit summary for that diff) that it is homophobia. What do you think they mean by "calling a spade a spade"? Can someone please block? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The comments and edit-summary refer to the behaviour, not to the person. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Would WP:WQA not be the better place for this? Either way, you really shouldn't be asking for a block - ask for help/assistance to solve the problem instead. GiantSnowman 12:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

We have a user who just called another user a homophobe, using an edit summary of "this is why what you are doing is homophobic". If you can't see that that is seriously running afoul of WP:NPA, then you have no business commenting in AN/I discussions, honestly. Tarc (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh, suggesting WQA would surely show that I do feel it was inappropriate? Especially as I have been accused of something similar myself (which I ignored, rather than bring it to ANI). GiantSnowman 14:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

DC should be very careful of invoking a WP:BOOMERANG effect here given that, according to Russavia, DC was responsible for posting another editor's home address and phone number to an off-wiki forum in the middle of a deeply homophobic discussion. If that's the case, and I have no reason to doubt Russavia, it's a vile act of harassment from DC. I have no idea why this individual has not previously been banned. He certainly isn't contributing anything of value to the project and he needs to be held accountable for the way that he uses off-wiki forums to attack other editors. Prioryman (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a pretty serious charge, and something we don't accept just because someone claims it. Any off-wiki harassment claims need to be backed up with evidence. Otherwise, those claims are sanctionable themselves. -- Atama頭 00:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, I'm going to quote what you just said, to give you a chance to look over what Russavia said and consider whether you were paraphrasing accurately or (inadvertently) introducing brand new allegations of your own: "DC was responsible for posting another editor's home address and phone number to an off-wiki forum in the middle of a deeply homophobic discussion". Here's a diff of Russavia's statement. Bear in mind that Russavia claims to have a webcitation archive of the Wikipedia Review discussion in question. Perhaps you would like to consult that as well. Perhaps you would like to strike your inflammatory comments? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you link to the wrong comments? I presume [3] or [4] is what Prioryman is referring to. Nil Einne (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear, I'm referring to this statement by Russavia:

Editors should know that DC posted Fae's home address and phone number on WR, on a thread which was discussing Fae in a manner which can only be construed by any reasonable person as harrassment, so their claim here that they are only interested in Fae's Wikipedia activities is absolute and clear BS. (Whilst the posts in question by DC on WR have conveniently been deleted, this does not mean that a webcitation copy wasn't conversely conveniently made before these posts were deleted by WR, so if DC is going to deny ever having done this, they might want to think very carefully before responding to this). [5]

I've asked Russavia for more details and I hope he will provide me (in confidence, since it's not fit for posting here) the webcitation link verifying his statement. If it's not the case then obviously I'll apologise to DC, but if it is true then it needs to be dealt with - and really the only remedy here would be for DC to be banned, as such conduct would be completely unacceptable. The fact that DC has a history of harassing other editors off-wiki makes me inclined to believe Russavia. As for the harassment campaign being conducted against Fae, you only have to look at the top of Fae's user page. It's worth pointing out that DC started the thread on WR that has led to the harassment campaign, so he is not only deeply involved in this unsavoury business, he is its instigator. That in itself is worth considering, quite apart from the outing claims. Prioryman (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman has done a fine job of perpetuating the narrative that I am "harassing" editors, which he does here by claiming it as "fact" that I have "a history" of this (and making me not only a participant but the "instigator" of off-wiki "harassment"). They closely mirror the comments made by Fæ himself in response to his failed request for admin rights on Commons. If this were to be the case, it is surprising that Fæ has not, as I have repeatedly asked, filed any kind of dispute resolution in order that the matter may be addressed. Prioryman has a vested interest in having me sidelined in some way, because I expressed similar concerns regarding their previous account, which is under numerous ArbCom sanctions that do not seem to have been transferred to their current account. I have expressed concern about violations of those sanctions to ArbCom but have failed to get any satisfactory response so far. I await their apology, but request that they strike their comments while they await the archive that they have not yet consulted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

(posted from my talk page) Hi Prioryman, I think it only needs to be asked of DC, the simple question requiring a simple yes or no answer; "Did you or did you not post information, including Fae's home address and phone number to WR, the posting of which then lead to further harrassment of Fae". Let me remind you all, DC has already admitted they did so, and wanted me to post off-WMF links to said information. They were told by another editor that this would be inappropriate, and I agree. But please, ask DC whether they did indeed post such information to WR.

Note to DC -- you may claim that you are not a homophobe, and frankly, it is irrelevant if you are. You have clearly participated on WR in discussions on Fae which are often homophobic in nature, and in the above instance referenced above you clearly gave ammunition for some unknown participant/reader of that WR to engage in harassment on Fae. If you are not a homophobe, fine, but your willingness to associate with people who clearly are, and who are engaging in harassment, and your eagerness to divulge information on the harassee so that they can be further harassed (not 20-25 minutes after saying onwiki to the harassee that you are sorry they are being harassed), surely brings into doubt whether you are such inclined, or whether you are simply sympathetic to their cause. Either way, your conduct offwiki in contributing to harassment of Fae is crystal clear, and makes you as culpable as a person who does it onwiki. And for this you need to be held accountable. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 22:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Delicious Carbuncle harassment and outing: block or ban proposal

The facts, as far as I've been able to establish them, are as follows. Given the privacy issues I've avoided posting a few key links in the section below, but I do have them.

A banned user has been mounting a campaign on Wikipedia Review to get Wikimedia UK's charitable status revoked. In conjunction with that campaign, certain WR users have been focusing on WMUK's officers, including Fæ, who is a Director of WMUK. Delicious Carbuncle has been systematically using WR to harass Fæ, starting no fewer than six threads about him since November 2011. This kind of thing is typical for DC, who has targeted other editors in a similar fashion on other occasions. I have previously presented evidence to Arbcom about his activities (which is presumably why he is trying to dredge up off-topic issues to distract attention - another standard DC tactic).

On 26 December 2011, Fæ put himself forward for admin status on Wikimedia Commons. After Delicious Carbuncle started a WR thread about the RFA, it was heavily disrupted by sockpuppet accounts and users banned from en.wiki.

On 30 December, someone sent Fæ a blackmail threat. He was forced to withdraw his RFA. [Added - there is no evidence that the threat came from DC.]

On the same day at about 19:09, DC posted Fæ's phone number and home address on a new thread on WR at the URL http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=35978 . Fæ publicly noted this shortly afterwards. [6] DC's thread was deleted shortly by WR's administrator shortly after DC posted it. At the time of posting, DC was fully aware of the threat against Fæ, as he had posted about it on Commons only 20 minutes previously. [7]

DC is still continuing his campaign with an RFC on en.wiki directed against Fæ, with an accompanying thread on WR to rally the troops. Since DC started his campaign, Fæ's user talk page has seen repeated postings of personal attacks and homophobic slurs directed against him (see log and comment here for an example). This is a direct and predictable result of DC's campaign on WR.

Fæ has never published his home phone number or address in any context to do with Wikipedia or WMUK and it is not listed in the public telephone directory. DC has admitted that he obtained it from an online database. However, the information in question is not part of a current publicly accessible record, so he would have needed to use technical means to get around the privacy protection.

This is about as serious a breach of privacy as it's possible to get, short of physically stalking an editor. DC knew that Fæ had been threatened. Within minutes of publicly acknowledging that fact he obtained Fæ's private telephone number and home address and posted them to a forum where individuals make a habit of trying to "out" and harass Wikipedians. Given that the campaign against Fæ is being run via WR, there is good reason to believe that Fæ's harasser is a WR reader. The information that DC provided could have enabled the harasser to carry out his blackmail threat.

Posting another Wikipedian's personally identifying information without their permission is a serious breach of privacy at the best of times. When it's combined with the prior knowledge that the Wikipedian in question has been threatened on that same day, it has to be seen as not just reckless but actively malicious. Combine that with the ongoing campaign against Fæ and the word "vindictive" comes to mind.

This conduct is quite simply inexcusable. DC's action amounted to sticking up a sign on WR saying to Fæ's harasser, "here's where he lives, come and get him". Russavia is correct: DC needs to be held accountable for it. In my view, the only remedy that will fit the premeditated, malicious and egregious nature of DC's conduct is an indefinite block or community ban and I thus propose it. Prioryman (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not breaking my Wiki-absence to defend DC, who I think often does foolish and questionable things, in he service of whatever cause he has, but let me give a couple of facts from the Wikipedia Review thread. On WR, DC published an e-mail he'd received from "Ash" in March 2010. That email contained an personal email domain. DC also published the (publicly available) Whois? information for that e-mail domain, in order to show that it belonged to Ashley Van Haeften (who has publicly identified as Fae). Note, I make no comment on whether it was appropriate to publish the information. Unfortunately, the Whois? information not only contained the name, but also the address and phone number of the owner of the domain name. This information was redacted a little over an hour later by a WR mod (note they are not always as irresponsible as people here would wish to believe). Some pathetic "homophobic" remarks followed, made by two unrelated morons, and then a further post by DC stating (2 hours after his original) that he'd asked the mods to delete or hide the whole thread, because (he stated) he realised he should have redacted the information, even although it was in the public domain, and he'd never intended to make AVH a target of real life harassment. Now, let's be clear. I'm not condoning anything here. I'm just not clear what privacy was breached (it WAS all in the public domain, except perhaps for the domain name whiich DC had got from an email Ash had sent him - I've checked the Whois? myself, but I'm not posting any links here), and even what was posted seems to have been negligently done rather than maliciously. Now, has DC been "harassing"? I've not looked at the rest of the evidence here, so I'm not going to comment on that.--Scott Mac 00:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact that DC published a private email on a forum which is notorious for its harassment of WR editors, is grounds enough to question his motives. Did he have permission to post this email? No he didn't. That he then felt that he had to use that email, and information contained in it, to post information to WR, where it is known that Fae has been harassed via, that included a home phone number and home adress, is even more troublesome. Even DC acknowledges that he screwed up. However, this then led to actual harassment on Fae. DC is therefore ultimately responsible, for posting private correspondence without permission, and posting other private information without good reason. He should have foreseen what would have resulted, given that he was aware and acknowledged only 20 minutes previously, that Fae was being harassed, and also being threatened/blackmailed. Whilst he posted information on sites not controlled by WMF, he should have known that on-WMF project harassment was likely to occur, and it did. Therefore, I Template:Support an indefinite block or community ban as proposed. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 00:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Appalling, appalling, appalling. I also Support the community ban proposal for blackmail, breach of confidence, and incitement to real-life harassment. Wikipolitics aside, willfully and directly endangering somebody's personal security is inexcusable. Shrigley (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

But, wikipolitics aside, there's no evidence of any of that. Sure, there was a posting of private communicator in a public (off-wiki) place - that behaviour may be sanctionable, and perhaps there's been what some may view as harassment. However, there's no evidence (or even credible allegation) of blackmail or incitement to real-life harassment. Had there been, it would be a police matter. Probably best to check he facts before making what may well be slanderous allegations about another person. Again, I'm not defending what has been done here but, really, lets not make stuff up.--Scott Mac 02:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you might be mixing things up a bit. The threat, as I understand it, was not against Fæ himself but against Fæ's partner; along the lines of "if you persist with this RFA I'll contact your partner and do such-and-such". In order to make good on the threat, the harasser would have needed to know Fæ's home address. That's what makes this incident so serious; DC, fully knowing that Fæ had been threatened, posted the very information the harasser needed to carry out his threat. DC did not make the threat, but through his actions he facilitated the person who did. It is hard to believe he was completely unaware of the potential consequences of posting the contact information of someone whom he knew had been threatened by a third party. Prioryman (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not mixing anything up. Off Wiki, DC publicly posted information that Fae/Ash had sent privately to him. At the point of posting, he failed to redact information that contained an address (but THAT information that WAS publicly available). He asked for the information to be removed within a couple of hours, but he ought to have taken far more care, given the claim that Fae was subject to off-wiki threats. Now, whether that's sanction-able or not needs discussion - I express no opinion. But, there's seems to be an attempt (without any evidence) to suggest DC has been complicit in blackmail, real life threats, and off-wiki harassment. Now, if there is actually evidence of any of that, I suggest someone contacts law enforcement - and, if there's not, then discuss what's actually here.--Scott Mac 03:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's suggesting that DC has been complicit in blackmail. But he certainly has, through his actions, provided potential assistance to someone making real-life threats. He is also directly responsible for creating an environment in which Fæ has been subjected to weeks of homophobic harassment, through continual agitation on WR. Are you familiar with the practice of chumming - throwing blood and meat into the water to attract sharks? That's how DC uses WR - he chums it to stir up the users against a Wikipedian whom he dislikes. He's doing it now to Fæ and he's done it before to others. I note that the threads that he has started against Fæ are filled with homophobic comments from others, and I also note that he doesn't seem to have made any attempt to rein in their excesses. Prioryman (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem supporting a community ban against DC. Editors like this are detrimental to the project and are easily replaced. Rklawton (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications (2012) - second call

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee.

The Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC") was established by the Arbitration Committee to investigate complaints concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia, and to provide better monitoring and oversight of the CheckUser and Oversight positions, and use of the applicable tools.

Matters brought before the subcommittee may be time-sensitive and subcommittee members should be prepared and available to discuss cases promptly so they may be resolved in a timely manner. Sitting subcommittee members are expected to actively participate in AUSC proceedings and may be replaced should they become inactive. All subcommittee members are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 31 January 2012.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 18:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. - - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks and socking

Resolved

 – WP:SPI is thataway, and no matter where a warning is placed, it's valid (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Ip 94.2.8.11 posted the following comment at WP:Footy Some of these adolescents have clearly struggled to get out of their bedrooms, let alone their backward wee country! [8]. I strongly suspect this to be a sock of User:PorridgeGobbler who waged a war previously against myself and various other users regarding a content dispute over the Scottish First Division. He previously used ip User:94.14.78.108 to post messages to me [9] [10] which ultimately led to it being blocked at ANI by User:Black Kite on 9 August. He then used PorridgeGobbler and was blocked warned about socking and is now clear he hasn't listened to it and is continuing personal attacks again.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Ive had a look for the ANI in archive 9 but can't find it. There seems to be a lot missing from that archive.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Contributing from IP is not socking, please AGF. I am entitled to state the fact that the Scottish First Division is NOT professional. "Waging a war" is embarrassing nonsense. Please comment on the issue not the editor! 94.2.8.11 (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It is socking i also suspect this ip User:94.14.194.24 to be a sock when they posted this comment at WP:Footy back in december.[11]. This is obvious socking previous ANI here [12].Edinburgh Wanderer 23:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

He also started a Dispute res [13] this along with this discussion show [14] there was no consensus for what he was proposing. This is no longer a content dispute just personal attacks and socking further disscusion is welcome but not when users go to this extent to be disruptive. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Technically, editing from an IP can be considered socking; based on our definition sockpuppetry can occur while "Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address". So a defense that it's not sockpuppetry if you edit from an IP isn't a strong one. -- Atama頭 00:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Looking back, you were pointed to DRN because the ANI was pathetically premature and inappropriate. You then threw an apparent tantrum and threatened to "resign" because no admins would close down the argument in your favour. I'm telling you there are legitimate reasons for me having to contribute by IP - no deception whatsoever is intended. Also I have made no "personal attacks". Stop forum shopping and get back to the discussion. Sooner or later the presence of a part-time, semi-pro league on a "fully professional" list will be found out. 94.2.8.11 (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You got blocked at that ANI for personal attacks and harassment you now make the following comment Some of these adolescents have clearly struggled to get out of their bedrooms, let alone their backward wee country! One thats a personal attack and two its a nationalist attack how ever minor. You were warned to use one account and engage in discussion instead you decided to ignore everyone else in all previous discussions and used multiple accounts. Im sorry but there is also a clear competence issue here as well. Please detail the legitimate reasons you have for using these ips other than for disruption. You could easily of taken part in every discussion but when other people disagreed you resorted to this sort of antics. I also note you dont appear to be disagreeing that you are PorridgeGobbler. Edinburgh Wanderer 00:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that the 3 IP addresses here vary in location. 94.14.78.108 is from Nice, France. 94.14.194.24 is from Stansted, England, while 94.2.8.11 is editing from London. I'm wondering what the connection is supposed to be between these three IPs aside from the fact that they have all conflicted with you.

Also, assuming they are the same person, the sockpuppetry claims don't seem to be relevant. None of the IPs mentioned are currently blocked, and neither is PorridgeGobbler. I see claims of harassment and personal attacks, but no diffs to back them up. -- Atama頭 00:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry what are you reading PorridgeGobbler talk page shows discussion about not socking so does other ip that he was blocked on by Black Kite. This diff shown above is a clear nationalist attack [15]. This is qucking so loud you can hear it in the jungle. look through the contributions on the ips and Porridge and it clearly is the same user. This is a sock as clear as day. It was also noted by black kite that they used a dynamic ip[16]. He is also clearly in replies above not denying he using multiple ips in fact he said i have valid reasons for doing so. If we aren't taking socking seriously which is a founding principal here then we certainly should be taking no personal attack seriously.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

(conflict)I think you'll find Porridge Gobbler was blocked (and swiftly unblocked) for some alleged offence which changed as it went along and was never ultimately made clear. It certainly wasn't for "personal attacks and harassment". It appears as though you are deliberately misrepresenting the situation here, in breach of WP:UNCIVIL. 94.2.8.11 (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It is no wonder people who contribute consistently giving there all to this project feel hard done by. They give everything only to be attacked personally and there country. They also have to face someone who uses multiple accounts was warned for it yet they do it again and all they get is the sockpuppetry claims don't seem to be relevant. Please tell me how his use of any account other than PorridgeGobbler which he was advise to use as part of unblock condition isn't a valid concern.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for disruption ip[17] Porridge gobbler blocked for socking [18] and then for harassment[19]. Black kite warning that he must use this account and this only as part of unblock[20].Edinburgh Wanderer 00:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

We can't force someone to edit as an account. One of the founding principles of Wikipedia (and all Wikimedia projects) is that people are allowed to edit without being logged in. I also don't see that Black Kite specifically stated that PorridgeGobbler couldn't edit as an IP, he did say that he could only edit from a single account (which is not an unusual restriction). Again, if you allege harassment from the current IP you should show exactly where the harassment occurred, not link to a page and expect people to find it. The orange box at the top of this page that appears whenever you add a comment reminds you to use diffs. -- Atama頭 00:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

And another personal attack this is exactly what happened the last time.[21].Edinburgh Wanderer 00:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Please explain clearly how these are not personal attacks and why you think its correct that he is using multiple accounts purely for disruption when clearly warned by an admin not to do so again as part of unblock conditions.Edinburgh Wanderer 01:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, here is a formal warning. 94.2.8.11, cut it out. You can discuss matters with editors without referring to them as bigoted adolescents from a wee backward country. Any further comments like that, and I will block you. -- Atama頭 01:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Im sorry but thats no warning at all. It needs to be clearly warned on talk pages also i think other admin comments are required as I'm not convinced that Nationalist comments with a long term history clearly shown should only be warned Thats two attacks in less than 2 hours. Edinburgh Wanderer 01:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Editing from a single account clearly means that account. There is a clear history of editing using various ips to disrupt. If you discount socking which is absurd then you need to look at behaviour the comment he left on my talk page was a clear repeat of the behaviour of before when he disagreed such as this [22] and this [23] when other editors got involved similar reaction at least a bt more polite to adam.[24].Edinburgh Wanderer 01:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Warning accepted. Can we get back to the issue now? This transparent attempt to shut down debate is becoming embarrassing. 94.2.8.11 (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

This was much ado about nothing, until 94.* started trolling EW's talk page. That's quite enough of that. Now, you've had your free shot at Scotland and your free troll of another editor. Feel free to discuss the issue using an IP, if you want, but the discussion needs to be on the straight and narrow from here on out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Honestly as before you were invited to discuss but have no intention of being constructive thats why this happens every time. No apology for your personal attacks and harassment no explanation of why you choose to ignore your unblock conditions. Im sorry but i can take personal attack but not nationalist ones.

Floquenbeam how is breaching unblock conditions not an issue. How is nationalist attacks against scotland and attacks against me nothing. This will end in tears because he will continue to troll and use multiple accounts. If he want to be constructive then he should use Porridge gobbler and that alone and I'm not convinced a block isn't warranted for returning to same behaviour he was blocked for in August 2011.Edinburgh Wanderer 01:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm just not convinced about the socking being an issue; if he's not using more than one account/IP in that particular discussion, I have a hard time getting excited about it. I understand your point of view, but I don't think the use of the IP is a terrible issue. The shot against Scotland and kids in Scotland was not kosher; if it doesn't happen again, I'm not going to block someone for it. The trolling on your talk page is much more serious, and if it happens again he'll be blocked. If he continues to discuss like an adult, then please discuss it with him. If he veers back into childishness, then he'll be blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

(conflict)"Personal attacks" as mild as [25] are an issue for the wikiquette noticeboard. Perhaps a passing Admin here might help to guide EW away from his vexatious and lame attempts to have other editors blocked. Again, I want to discuss the issues. 94.2.8.11 (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I also repeat the above warning isn't a proper warning he hasn't been notified formally on there talk page. Also why shouldn't and SPI be run to see if using other multiple accounts. I just don't see looking at the edit history and edits at all that help the project which shows non willingness to contribute. I really want to be uncivil to you as you have been to me Snowman, DuckisJammy and chris over the last whilst but you don't see me hounding you. If you want to contribute use your username which you know fine well you should be using per your unblock. You clearly don't deny your socking and making personal attacks because the majority are against you is wrong. Edinburgh Wanderer 01:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Love how you miss out all the other personal attacks. it should be noted i strongly suspect there are more accounts out there given a lot of the terms ip used are something a long term editor would use which none of these accounts show. I think a check user should be asked for to clear this up once and for all.Edinburgh Wanderer 01:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not using "porridge gobbler" because, to be honest, it was many months ago and I'd forgotten all about the farcical block and signing up for the account. In any event I have only commented, not edited, with this IP so am not in breach of the unblock. There is no grounds for a "check user". You make accusations of multiple accounts and personal attacks, but can't back it up with any credible evidence whatsoever. Also I note you are canvassing your pals from the Scottish football taskforce again. If anything Admins ought to be issuing warnings in your direction for these disruptive behaviours. And also for subjecting them to this storm-in-a-teacup ANI and wasting everybody's time. 94.2.8.11 (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

If an admin wants to block me then fine but all the evidence plus you admitting porridge gobbler is you account clearly proves my point. You know fine well what your unblock conditions were. A personal attack is not a waste of anyones time in fact calling me disruptive is a farce look who's talking the one who's talking you attacked me and my gang as you call it. There not a gang they are group of editors who work bloody hard to improve coverage of scottish football unlike you with no edits that make a damm bit of difference to this encyclopaedia. You are in breach of the unblock it clearly said use this and this only.Edinburgh Wanderer 02:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Notifying people is a requirement of ANI. I notified the blocking admin from last time. Thumperward who you had an issue with last time who you again posted on his talk page and duck who you also had a run in. Hardly forum shopping. Plus all your accounts.Edinburgh Wanderer 02:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm flattered (if slightly creeped out) that you remember me and the circumstances of our previous discussions so well. Frankly I'd forgotten all about it! Why don't we agree to keep away from one another, as there is obviously a personality clash? I'm happy to delimit my contributions to factual discussion of the topic at hand. Unless you have any actual evidence of "personal attacks" or "multiple accounts" I suggest you do the same. 94.2.8.11 (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would forget you in a hurry. especially people at WP:Footy.Edinburgh Wanderer 02:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Other ip addresses he used some blocked others warnings User talk:94.2.38.154 User:94.4.165.172, User talk:94.2.51.78 and User:94.14.62.195.Edinburgh Wanderer 02:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it is quite obvious the user is sockpuppet, the last time round last time round the user used 3 ip addresses to avoid detection & appear as if he had only been warned once. When in fact he was warned several times by four different users. If he was using a single IP he would having been banned a long time ago. The user tried to appear reasonable by adding his opinions occasionally to discussions & then doing whatever he wanted regardless, adding inappropriate deletion tags to articles, making sarcastic comments, nationalist attacks & personal ones. Initially when user was unblocked he continued to make sarcastic comments for which he was again warned before becoming inactive. The user has now returned with yet again another IP & persisted with both personal & nationalistic attacks. Let me be frank the user is clearly both a sockpuppet & vandal I think it’s about time admins take this issue seriously before WP:FOOTBALL is severely affected once again. What do we have to do warn the user numerous time over his array of IP's while in the meantime he pops up on another IP & continues with his poisonous actions? Don't be fooled the IP can appear both ration & reasonable when he sees fit especially when he's defending himself but in reality he is no more than disruptive nuisance & it’s about time he suffered consequences of his actions. I think this case if pretty clear cut. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, what would you do with someone who edits under various IPs spanning multiple countries? That's not a rhetorical question. My mop isn't wand-shaped. -- Atama頭 04:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

When its clear they are using a dynamic ip i would block the known accounts. Its clear they are the same and its very clear they are here to attack other users. Im sorry but you don't explain why you think the attacks are ok and why obvious socking is allowed here specifically when the user does not deny it in fact openly admits it above.Edinburgh Wanderer 12:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOCK says Creating new accounts to avoid detection and Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address and that The misuse of multiple accounts is considered a serious breach of community trust. He clearly is doing that. And Wikipedia:No personal attacks says the following are considered personal attacks: Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered disruptive editing. He has displayed ageist and ethnic by having a go at my age and ethnic by having ago at my country. Edinburgh Wanderer 12:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) What I would do with this someone who edits under various IPs spanning multiple countries is ignore them.

What we have here is a troll, and a very well fed troll.

This started off as a discussion about whether past players meet project guidelines here. Just a contribution on how to improve a WikiProject? No.

Quick Q&A. Q: what is the quickest way to provoke a Scot? A: call them "Scotch".

Look at the language the IP user uses: This has been pointed out a few times before only for the disproportionate number of Scotch editors...

And at that point I stopped assuming good faith. Then we come to "Some of these adolescents have clearly struggled to get out of their bedrooms, let alone their backward wee country!"

What I see here is comments made to provoke a reaction, under the guise of advancing a discussion. The first response to attention-seeking behaviour should be to ignore it. Alas, we have paid attention; even my comment here is troll-food.

--Shirt58 (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It is clear trolling i agree however he never gets warned properly by admins like what was down above uses multiple accounts attacks other editors he has a clear grudge against scotland. He has started various threads all with the same intention and attacked in all of them when other editors go the other way. If he is being clearly disruptive then admin action is necessary. If we agree its trolling should comments just be reverted.Edinburgh Wanderer 12:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out from the beginning we suspected a pre existing grudge from before at the WP:Footy as none of the edits of Porridge or others have enough history it lead to the belief that there may be other accounts out there. All of the above still make me believe this which is why a said a check user should be carried out to determine this. Its been pointed out to me that it may have been due to the fact that he didn't accept that the league of ireland in which no team is fully pro was not regarded as notable. There is a clear socking on other accounts so an SPI report is appropriate. I can fill an SPI in if deemed necessary would do it now but don't want to be accused of forum shopping although it seems very justified. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

To show why i said he wasn't interested in discussions is that back in august he was constantly told to discuss on talk page but reverted us on the main page constantly when advised to discuss even after he had left comments. one [26] two [27] three [28] 4 [29] 5 [30] 6 [31] 7 [32] and then blocked. Does this look like someone who really wanted to discuss. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

ok my strongly held position that Porridge may have used other accounts has been heightened just now. An editor User:Murry1975 who i have never had any interaction with made the following comment [33] you get all huffy when personal remarks are made towards you. As i have never spoken to him he wouldn't know that. And he won't explain why. Also he went on to talk about irish Leagues something Porridge did with his Ip's. He has never edited the project or edited anything to do with Scottish football so the appearance just now is causing me great concern. Im happy to discuss further with him and other editors if confirmed he isn't related to Porridge. His comments about ANi also reminds me of what the ip stated above. Full discussion found here.[34].Edinburgh Wanderer 14:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Murry1975 has been notified.Edinburgh Wanderer 14:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Please use WP:SPI for the sockpuppet accusations. Nobody Ent 15:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that we are also talking personal attacks which still haven't been given a official warning for just note above which isn't official this is a valid forum as well. I will open and SPI as well but there are other issues still to be addressed here.Edinburgh Wanderer 15:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The IP has been given an official warning. File your SPI. This is becoming disruptive, and quite childish at this point. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

How is it childish and no he has not been officially warned. I fail to see how a user who openly admits above he has socked is childish.Edinburgh Wanderer 15:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User:PorridgeGobblerEdinburgh Wanderer 15:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've seen this flagging up several times in my watchlist, and have observed the conversation thoroughly. As it has of been no business to me I refrained from saying anything. However from things being said, it is starting to sound like a group of kids in kindergarten fighting over who's turn it is to play in the sandpit. EW you requested that the IP be warned. A warning was given above. Now you're demanding the warning be more official. At the end of the day, a warning is a warning regardless of how and where it is issued. When you stated a warning be issued, then why not be more specific and say "official" and not leave it open to interpretation? We're all human at the end of it all, and not equipped with in-built crystal balls. I have noticed several editors give their input and advice on this topic, and from what I see in response from EW is throwing the rattle out of the cot. Isn't best at this stage to just drop the stick and walk away from it all. If it was me in a situation like this, I'd have took it on the chin and moved on. A lesson learned is a a lesson earned. It isn't the problem along the way that make us or break us. It's how we learn to stand and face them that makes the difference. Wesley Mouse (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok first of all as far as I'm concerned a warning should be given directly to the user. The reason I'm so moved by this is his previous behaviour towards me was harassment that just about led to me giving up editing which I'm thankfull i never. The behaviour here was similar to what he started before and I'm extremely concerned he will start again. When an unblock says you must use this and this only all i can see is he is in clear breach of this and none of the advice on this page explains why this isn't the case. In all honestly I'm sick of people making nationalist attacks. This has happened repeatedly to me not just in this case but in others. Its just not on and is something thats needs dealt with more strongly across the board and this isn't happening ever. Dropping the stick is very hard when it keeps happening. I will back off but explanation is required about why they feel no action is warranted re socking.Edinburgh Wanderer 16:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Yes I agree that nationalist attacking comments happen everywhere, even in everyday life. But if we were to all start having these rants about it, then we'd be smacking our heads against a brick wall. I hear nasty homophobic comments in my day-to-day life, some of them even aimed at me. But by ignoring them and moving on, I know within myself that I have taken a bigger and bolder step than the person making the attacking comments. To walk away and ignore things like that shows who is the better person in it all. But choosing to stoke the fire instead of dropping the stick is just making the matter worse than it needs to be. Don't take the bait and be the victim. Show your bravery by ignoring the attackers and showing them who is better. Remember the saying EW "what goes around, comes around". Karma is by far the best form of defence. Wesley Mouse (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Brother of article subject - deletion of sourced content.

Jocelyne Couture-Nowak was a professor and one of the tragic victims of the Virginia Tech Massacre. An editor, User:Just, who has identified himself as the brother of Couture-Nowak has begun making edits to both articles. Firstly in the Virginia Tech Massacre article, the editor removed what appears to be straight forward detail of what occurred in Couture-Nowak's classroom. [35] The detail was properly sourced, but the user removed the source also. No comment was made.

Later in the Jocelyne Couture-Nowak article, again the user has removed sourced straight forward detail of events of the tragedy, in this case how it specifically related to Couture-Nowak. [36] The source was The Washington Post and again that source was removed. No comment was made. When the edit was reverted, the user reverted with the comment "Contents of deleted section irrelevant for this page concerning my sister Jocelyne Couture. Other edits will follow shortly."

I left a note on Just's talk page suggesting they read the Close relationships section of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest that explains potential bias issues when editing articles. User Just seemed quite defensive and included the ironic statements, "The question is all about consolidation of pertinent and relevant facts put forth in any Wikipedia page. If one is to write any superfluous detail which may lend to bias, confusion, or promote ambiguity, then such content should never be allowed on Wikipedia."[37]

The user seems to believe there's a "bias" involved with this content existing and promises to make more edits. I don't know what to make of this. The user doesn't seem to have a lot of experience with WP and might be unfamiliar with some of the website's standards. Perhaps administrators who are familiar with WP:COI issues might want to weigh in on this. --Oakshade (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Just has been editing WP on the VTM for a long time. Your diff shows he did not delete sourced material from the VTM article but rather added a sourced line about deaths and injuries in room 211. What is the problem?

The edit of the Jocelyne Couture-Nowak article does alter the narrative, but the dispute is about the article content and not Just's behavior. Just is at two reverts right now. You've pointed out the COI. You can point out 3RR. But take the content dispute to the article's talk page and get it resolved there.

Glrx (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Just registered in 2003, but has had only 52 edits since. That's not a lot of experience.

You are correct about the VTM article. I have struck that paragraph. The the problem of removing sourced content from the Jocelyne Couture-Nowak article stands. Again there could be WP:COI issue here. When the brother of a deceased article topic begins removing sourced content that has been there for years, that's a problem. The issued has been taken to the user's talk page, but the COI issue still exists. --Oakshade (talk) 04:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

While a source was given for the deleted phrase, it is not clear that the content as presented was adequately covered by the source. The deleted phrase presented it as a fact that Violand told Couture-Nowak to barricade the door, while all we learn from the source is that he recounted telling her to "put that desk in front of the door" – and while we have no reason to think he made this up, personal memories of such events are notoriously unreliable.  --Lambiam 13:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

If contents of Wikipedia is to derive from relevant objective facts which are pertinent to a subject in question, then for the sake of brevity, relevancy, and coherency among other things, content which conflicts with the relevancy of the topic should never be allowed, especially where it provokes a conflicting issue regarding the underlying rationale behind the usage of the deleted contents. Where there is a conflict of relevancy the impugned details should never be published, regardless if those details derive from "reputable" sources. I respectfully submit that the quality of edits of a registered editor should take precedence over the quantity of edits. I dare believe that my future occasional edits - including the rationale supporting them - shall continue to be perceived as "Just" and according to guiding and evolving principals of Wikipedia directives. Thank you all for your assistance in making Wikipedia more notable. just (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Block not recorded in the block log

Explanation given (block is in log but not visible to all); per WP:DENY best to not prolong this. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I saw the totally unacceptable post at the start of this user talk page thread. I checked the block log and was surprised to see it was blank. Knowing that a username that declares an editor "=F4g" cannot be acceptable, I requested a block at WP:UAA. My request was removed by a bot in secoinds on the grounds that the user is already blocked indefinitely, yet looking again at the block log it remains blank. Why would an indefinite block not appear in the block log? I obviously wouldn't have wasted time suggesting a block for an obvious attack account if the log had shown action was already taken. Would someone please explain how and why blocks can be missing from the logs? EdChem (talk) 03:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC) The log action may have been concealed due to the gross unacceptability of the username—so the user is blocked, but certain classes of editors aren't able to see that a log entry exists documenting the block. —C.Fred (talk) 03:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC) The user is blocked. You can't see it in the block log because it has been changed or otherwise hidden from view to diminish the harm done by the name. Note that while the actual diffs are revdeleted, Fæ has copied the content to his talk page. I suggest that this thread be collapsed to avoid repeating the same slur in the username. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Would someone please explain to me simply why a block log showing that an editor with a grossly unacceptable username has been blocked increases the harm that a block log showing that an editor with a grossly unacceptable username is free to edit does not? Remove the posts from view I understand, hiding the block I don't. EdChem (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Suppose an attacker creates user "[well known person] is [some offensive term]". If the attacker is blocked and the name logged for the world to see, that is a win for the attacker (which encourages further attacks). Johnuniq (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Is this standard practice for blocks of offensive names? Or was this a decision in just this particular case? Maybe because (if memory serves), the editor also blatantly tried to "out" Ash and/or Fae? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC) For example, this one,[38] from this past November, which was blatantly over the line, but no attempt was made to hide the block log. However, it was not directed at another user. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC) This one,[39] which was directed at me, doesn't have its block log hidden either - but it also wasn't an insult as such, but merely a lame attempt at copycatting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC) I think there is a difference between a username that may offend some editors and a username that targets a specific user and contains offensive slurs. I believe it is common for the latter to be removed from view, as the username itself is the problem. In this particular case, the targeted user has chosen to copy the revdeleted attack on their talk page, which makes the revdeletions and username hiding ineffectual, and drew the attention of the user who opened this thread. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC) That makes sense. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Every so often I go through and rename most of these accounts to a random string and then have the log suppressed so that there is no evidence the user ever existed. I've been meaning to request a new database query of names and will try to get around to it later this month. MBisanz talk 17:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Good deal. I'm taking the liberty of re-boxing. Revert it if you want. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat

Resolved

 – Indef'd under WP:NLT Manning (talk) 09:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I am involved and cannot block the user myself. I would like an uninvolved sysop to review the legal threat currently sitting on my talk page and act accordingly, see more specifically "If it is proved that you are knowingly costing the campaign to lose exposure, (hence lost revenue) because you disallowed the article based on you own inability to follow through, then you may find yourself financially liable". The whole conversation with this user has been unproductive, but that's not the point : if I'm financially liable to anything, then I need to be made aware of it through the proper channels. Until then, this stands as an unacceptable legal threat. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I do believe a week is long enough for him to read the relevant policies and redact his threats. If not, I am able to give him a longer break. —Dark 08:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing, thank you! CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, a week is not good enough. Legal threats are normally blocked indefinitely, until or if the threat is withdrawn. This one is not only a blatant legal threat, but also a blatant attempt at using wikipedia for marketing reasons. A single-purpose account with no value to wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Bugs is right. This is a clear-cut legal threat, and hence an indefinite block is the only option. Manning (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

"If it is proved that you are knowingly costing the campaign to lose exposure, (hence lost revenue) because you disallowed the article based on you own inability to follow through, then you may find yourself financially liable." Goodbye... Doc talk 09:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Indef'd under WP:NLT. Manning (talk) 09:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks from a passer-by who noticed this when the week-long block had been given—I thought that was quite inappropriate under the circumstances. Johnuniq (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Requesting block of IP of banned user User:Picker78

Resolved

 – user blocked. twice. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The 79.107.38.160 is a sock of banned user User:Picker78 who has a history of attempting to avoid this ban. See User:Foot Hunter, and User:Dionisia Bekri. As evidenced in this comment on my talkpage, [40] (since deleted) he blatantly explains who he is. Please get rid of him. Thank you. Lost on Belmont (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, this is Picker78. I would like to say that my blocking (as Picker78) was unfair and based on an edit that I never did. I can explain this further. 79.107.38.160 (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

IP blocked. As a prolific sockpuppeteer and edit-warrior, nothing "unfair" about their block. Acroterion (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Rubinkumar, rollback, and competence

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

Rubinkumar has requested the rollback tool four times within the past 10 days on-wiki, and at least twice on IRC. He clearly does not have enough experience fighting vandalism, and thus was told to request it at a future date. I notified him that repeated requests could lead to an ANI discussion resulting in a rollback-request ban or a block on his talk page. He asked about the concerns raised by reviewing admins, to which I responded with a list of their concerns. He then proceeded to lie to me about his editing history, claiming that he has "over 100 edits reverting vandalism." He has a history of incorrectly tagging articles, such as a {{lead too long}} tag at stub Ojas a few days ago.

I then went ahead and checked his editing history after my last reply on his talk page. I noticed he replaced an image of an elementary school with a digitally-altered image (which looked awful, IMO) that removed people, a fire hydrant, and a pole in the foreground, but he did not attribute the work as required by the license, and I deleted it as a copyvio. I received this message today in which Rubinkumar threatened to "raise a discussion about" my behavior, "get another administrator to revert it," "REPORT YOU TO AIV," and gave me some "useful links" as if I'm the inexperienced user. I am requesting a review of Rubinkumar's behavior, and maybe a review of my image deletion, as Rubinkumar does not appear competent enough to edit Wikipedia and is being disruptive. This edit, in which he reverts a good-faith edit on his talk page by another user, only to make the same edit immediately after, shows the disruption I am referring to, among other edits. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I have checked the edits for this user, and he/she dosen't seem to have done anything wrong. I think that the edit this user made on their own talk-page was fully okay. After all, its their OWN talk page. IAmWarrior (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

And who are you? Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked IAmWarrior indefinitely as a DUCK sock of Rubinkumar. Note the first version of IAmWarrior's talk page where he claims to be Bongwarrior, and then the third edit above showing behavioral similarities to Rubin. I haven't blocked Rubinkumar yet, as I'm waiting for their response here or confirmation via the autoblocker, however the standard block for this sort of thing is one week on the master account. Anyone's welcome to apply that if they feel it's appropriate and I'm not around, if not, I'll probably do it later unless this turns out to be a mistake on my part. No comment on the incident this section focuses on though, I haven't looked into it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Creating a sock to support oneself at ANI, and claiming to be an alt account of an admin? I don't see any reason to wait for a reply, there is no explanation that can excuse such manifest acts of bad faith. I'd personally favor an indef block, this behavior brings to mind several other recent users with competence problems (unhealthy obsession with "leveling up" clueless sock puppetry, trying to take credit for more experienced users' work, general incompetence at actual editing, useless warnings to other users, etc) . Having long dialogues with them just prolongs the inevitable. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I see you've blocked now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for stepping on your toes, but having dealt with several similar cases recently it has become clear to me that users with these types of issues do not benefit from a "wait and see" approach as it gives them the impression they will be given infinite "second chances" whereas a block makes it clear we are serious. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Good block, in my opinion. Thanks, Beeb. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

No stepped-on toes here, I agree with your assessment and I did invite anyone to block away if they felt it was warranted. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Yopie

I hope that I have come to the right place now.

The user Yopie has been involves in several disputes and complaints. Here is a selection:

• 2009: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive109#User:Yopie_reported_by_Lucas_.28Result:_Protected.29
• 2010: User_talk:Yopie/Archives#Blocked
• 2011: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive151#User:Yopie_and_User:86.101.110.57_reported_by_User:Nmate_.28Result:_Semiprotected.29
• 2011: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive111#User:Yopie

For many years, the user

• has misused various functions, especially by that he, in combination, reverts legitimate and/or rule-supported edits and threatens his opponents with 3RR,
• has demonstrated unwillingness to contribute to clean and neutral articles of academically good quality,
• has demonstrated disruptive patterns of behaviour.

The cases 2 and 3 in the following complaint in Wikiquette assistance, which is among several reactions against this, broadly describes the problem, which remains unchanged since September 2011 and earlier: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive111#User:Yopie

As concrete and recent examples, I would especially draw the attention to False titles of nobility and Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester. The last-mentioned is a so-called BLP. Despite rules stating that challenged (poorly sources, biassed, etc.) content in BLPs must be ‘immediately removed’ and must not be re-added without discussion, the user has re-added it.

I allow myself to suggest that administrators, independently of me as a user and of my limited explanation, seek to investigate the user’s broader history on Wikipedia in order to determinate whether there exist problems that require a solution. Indications are strong for that the user is related to problems which have consisted for a considerably long time and which, without administrators’ intervention, likely will continue as before.

 — Breadbasket 18:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless there is an urgent problem requiring an immediate blockturns out he's blocked right now for edit warring. I don't think you are in fact in the right place. WP:RFC/U would be the correct forum for an in-depth discussion of one particular user. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh trust me, Breakbasket has been advised a half-dozen times about WP:RFC/U, but refuses to listen (simply deletes my posts from his talkpage). In fact, he's gone off and filed an ArbComm case. He has forum shopped all over Wikipedia today, from AN/3RR to here, to RFArb. It's becoming blockable in and of itself. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so he's into Australian throwing sports. Gotcha. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

User:GlamMetalANIKILATOR

GlamMetalANIKILATOR (talk · contribs) is a classic example of a genre warrior. Their entire contribution history consists of making POV-based genre changes without any explanation, discussion, or reference, leaving maybe 3 edit summaries out of about 80 such edits. They have received & ignored multiple final warnings for this behavior from multiple other editors, yet they've never been blocked. Time for a block, IMO. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I am very temped to indef block but since I might have done a revert in there, I will save this for another admin --Guerillero | My Talk 22:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Three "final warnings" in the same month for this activity is a bit disturbing, and I agree that some form of action needs to be taken against this user... not as punnishment, but as a means of protecting the articles and their content.  -- WikHead (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked one week for disruptive editing. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Unacceptable edit

Resolved

 – Blocked by Salvio (with my support) pending a redaction/apology. If redaction/apology is given, then he may present his grievance against the other editor, and the admin body will review it fairly and impartially. Manning (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Lecen (talk · contribs) recently made this post, which I've said on his talk page is unacceptable. As I've said there, I would have blocked him for that already, but I'm not sure I can be totally objective here. Lecen replied at my talk page here. I'm not sure exactly what needs to be done here, but I can see that something needs doing. There is some background to this, but that edit by Lecen really crossed so many lines I don't know where to start. The following edit also needs reviewing. I'll put a link from Lecen's talk page to this thread. Carcharoth (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Do I have the chance to explain myself or decisions will be made without bothering to learn what were my reasons? --Lecen (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless your explanation also contains an apology, I don't think it'll make much difference... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Since I'm being judged and condemned without hearing, you may call in the firing squad. --Lecen (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It might help your case if you would post a diff as to where someone actually threatened to snuff you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The reason you're notified about this discussion is to give you a "hearing". Instead of asking what you can do and complaining about a result that has not yet been reached, why don't you "explain"? Salvio is just giving you fair warning that on the face of it your comments look awful and trying to prevent you from digging yourself deeper into a hole.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

He said it wouldn't make much difference, so what could I do? Let's begin, then. Give me 15 minutes, please. I need to write it down. --Lecen (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Might I add that the following statement opens up an even bigger can of worms: "Even less when I know that a highly respected FA writer is thinking on opening a RfC about her" ([41]). Since when did FA writers become part of plots to block users due to differing opinions? Whatever happened to WP:AGF?

Either I'm being paranoic or there is something going on here bigger (and much uglier) than it seems at face value. I hope Lecen can explain. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, he said to give him 15 minutes to find that diff, and now it's been more like 20. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You guys need to show a little respect here and allow the man the time he needs to prepare his statement. Thank you. --Dianna (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

10-4 on the little respect. We're showing as little respect as possible. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

horrifying statements & his failure immediately to apologize at ANI merit at least a one-day block (and perhaps the usual indefinite block that can be removed by contrition and a pledge to avoid sexist insults, etc.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

What explanation is imaginable? That nearly all-powerful demons threatened to sacrifice an innocent child or aliens threatened to vaporize the earth unless Lecen violated NPA with sexist insults? Save such explanations for freshmen philosophy!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

People you need to stop posting here. He is busy writing his own eulogy. --Dianna (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Now there's some little respect. Kudos. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

"Need"? Let him write it on his talk page. WP doesn't tolerate sexist insults.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I've reviewed the comments presented in the diffs here. Where do you see evidence of sexism?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The sexism can be seen in a subtle manner. For instance:

• Case 1: "I wonder if she has a family, boyfriend, or even a dog." ([42]). So, women need boyfriends to keep them sane?
• Case 2: "We should buy her a puppy nonetheless" (same diff as above). Women need puppies to keep them busy?
• Case 3: "Nevermind. It would be a bad idea. She would end up eating the poor puppy in a fit of rage" ([43]). A terrible case of female hysteria?

Of course, assuming good faith, he probably did not mean to be sexist. However, that his statements can be seen as sexist (which, I believe to have demonstrated that they can be seen as such), is another matter. Note that I am not accusing Lecen of sexism, but I do see a reason as to why Kiefer.Wolfowitz finds his statements sexist. Considering Lecen is already blocked, unless this will somehow "accumulate" to his block, this explanation is pointless. In any case, I was writing this prior to him getting blocked, and I do believe it is important to at least be aware that, given the accusation of sexism, there do exist reasons to believe Lecen made sexist comments regarding Sandy.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Case 1: No. If Sandy were a man, just substitute girlfriend, and it's the same. Case 2. Same as Case 1. You're adding your own gloss. Case 3. It's bad enough people believe hysteria is sexist, but at least there's an argument for that position, but you want to read sexism into "fit of rage"? Now, Lecen may be sexist (I haven't a clue whether he is), but there's no evidence of it here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Assuming Sandy was a man, then my argument makes no sense. The key assumption for my argument is that Sandy is a woman. I italicize "argument" because I am using it in a logical sense, not as in me actually trying to argue with you. You can be certain that I analyzed the matter prior to posting it, and I also exchanged "female" to "male" (which made me doubt as to whether posting the material would be relevant). What I realized was that Lecen knows that Sandy is a female (or at least he thinks that), and then assuming he is trying to be aggressive (which goes against WP:AGF, which is why I am not making a formal accusation; better evidence is obviously required), the outcome is that the statements are in fact sexist. On the other hand, if he was trying to be aggressive towards a man, he probably would not be making mention to "puppies". Alas, this matter is really beyond the purpose of this ANI (which is already resolved). Nonetheless, I would love to discuss this on our personal talk space (I enjoy logic). Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

My comments

I have no direct contact with SandyGeorgia, this must be made clear right at the start. Although I have successfully nominated several articles leading them to raised to FA standard, I was not involved in the ongoing FAC crisis.I din't take part in the discussion on the FAC talk page, nor did I took part of the discussion here, between SandyGeorgia and Wehwalt. To be frank, I simply don't care about it. For some reason which I'm not entirely aware of, SandyGeorgia has been nurturing a sheer hatred toward me for at least a month.

How do I know that? There was a discussion a few weeks ago right here, at the Administrators' noticeboard, where an editor complained about ed17, an administrator who closed a move request. I was indirectly involved because I voted on that move request. However, even though she didn't take part neither on the move request, nor had ever shown any kind of interest on the subject being discussed, for some reason she appeared out of nowhere and called for my block and threatened me by saying that she would open a RfC about me. See here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive735#Premature RM closure of John VI of Portugal

These were her words:

• "Why is it that admins hestitate to ... well .. do what admins are supposed to do? And why is it that Alarbus, who has all the hallmarks of being a returning editor and who shares a position with Lecen and Ed on the FA director issue (and a review of their editing histories and talk pages shows that Alarbus came to support Lecen over the "Wehwalt for FA director" issue-- a phrase first seen from Alarbus on the Lecen issue are now editing on the same side of a conflict? As Lecen has already shown, there is an abundance of articles that refer to John by his name in English, this is the en Wiki, and we have naming conventions here. That there are slightly more sources that refer to his Portuguese name than the translation to English is irrelevant to the issue: there is an abundance of sources that support his English name and that translation, so it should be used on en Wiki. WP:SOVEREIGN says "Monarch's first name should be the most common form used in current English works of general reference ... " English! Feel free to point out what I'm missing. And by the way, besides the curious nexus of the apparently returning editor Alarbus suddenly supporting Lecen's content positions after they came together on the FA issue, there has been a long history of canvassing on this suite of articles, so again, why the heck aren't admins looking at the things they're supposed to be looking at: disruptive behaviors, returning editors with a possible agenda, possible meatpuppetry-- is it rocket science or did we not have an arb finding a few years ago about coordinated editing? Why must we have an RFC when we have policies and conventions? Why are admins unable to sort this here and be done with it? SandyGeorgia"

And also:

• "More background: before I knew him at FAC, I had edited with Lecen at Hugo Chavez. While we share views on what has gone wrong in that article to make it POV (the who, how and why it came to ignore reliable sources to become a pro-Chavez hagiography), Lecen was so argumentative and disruptive on the talk page that he effectively shot any effort to NPOV the article in the foot, using the talk page for long anti-Chavez rants, leading me to recuse on his FACs, where he then went on to alienate reviewers and delegates alike with the same intransigent, IDHT, argumentative and confrontational style,[94] leading him to sour grapes at FAC, leading to Alarbus's post about the Wehwalt for FA director campaign. Lecen is very difficult to edit with, which is why he's having a hard time getting FACs reviewed-- he argues with everyone about everything. So give the poor fellow who came here with a legitimate issue a chance; solve the problem. SandyGeorgia"

I repeat: she didn't take part on the discussion and I was not the reason of the opened thread. In fact, there weren't a single moment where she and I had exchanged any kind of conversation. She appeared out of nowhere and asked for my block. Read the text and you'll see that she claimed I'm disruptive and no one wants to review my FACs. In fact, according to her, I have an "intransigent, IDHT, argumentative and confrontational style". Keep this in mind.

Time passed, and she and I had not a single moment where we bumped into each other. Accoding to her, no one can tolerate me. Then, why was I interviewed on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-01-16/Featured content a little more than ten days ago? Because of this interview, Maryana from the WMF came talk to me, and gave her support. See here. Out of nowhere, SandyGeorgia appeared, and complained to her about her remarks and again started accusing me. See here and here. Notice how rude, aggressive and ironic SandyGeorgia was to someone whom she never met and because of something that had absolutely nothing to with her. Again, and to someone who didn't know me, SandyGeorgia appeared out of nowhere to defame me.

I repeat again: I was not discussing with SandyGeorgia in any place, I was not arguing with her, nor anything similar. In fact, I believe the last time I talked to her was a few months ago on her own talk page, where I gave her my support for something she had passed through. However, we aren't done yet. I'm right now taking part on another move request, where I complained about the other side. Why did I made complaints? Well, because they were using sock puppets, canvassing and erasing comments[44][45]. One of these editors made a threat on my talk page and I asked him to stop bothering me. He was quite angry and went to complain about me on Wikiquette. Because I was complained about his side use of sock puppets, canvassing and message erasing. What did happen? SandyGeorgia appeared out of nowhere. She ws not taking part on the discussion, nor has even demonstrated any interest on the subject being discussed. What did she do? She defamed me and threatened to open a RfC about me.[46]

As you can see, it has been months that I don't talk to her and for some reason which I'm not aware, she keeps harassing me, defaming me for people who don't know her and who don't me. What about my comments? Well, I made a joke. It's quite obviously I wasn't serious. Or do anyone belives that she would be capable of flying to Brazil to kill me? Does she now my adress? Has anyone here seen Brazil? It's the size of USA. I was clearly joking and it's quite obvious I don't believe she would be capable of eating a puppy. I made a joke to a friend so that I wouldn't waiste my time arguing directly to her. As all of you can see, I wasn't talking to her (the last time occurred months ago) and she was not involved in any of the discussions I was taking part of. She is clearly wikihounding me, harassing me and defaming me. Others would have lost their temper a long time ago, but I chose to make a joke. --Lecen (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

@Lecen,

That is an unacceptable cop out. You didn't apologize for stating that she needed to get a boyfriend or a dog or engage in the real world. Just hit the road.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Humor depends on a shared context between the teller and audience; user talk pages are open to the entire community. Your personal attacks and speculation about her were not appropriate. I'd suggest you remove them immediately, apologize, and never do it again. Nobody Ent 00:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

So, there is nothing wrong with whas she did and has been doing? --Lecen (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: Out of curiosity, where did I made sexist remarks? --Lecen (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting one-sided account, Lecen. But I'm stil curious: where did I, in the words of Bugs, threaten to "snuff you" or anything close? Since I most certainly have lived in Argentina, worked in Brasil and throughout Latin America, and frequently travel there, your post is most disturbing. Did you miss that the crux of the matter is that you suggested that I might kill you???

Some of Lecen's other recent activity (in fact, it was the WP:WQA where I'm a watcher that alerted me to the requested move, which is on a topic involving two countries I've lived and worked in) include:

1. Here, Lecen tells another editor to "learn his place" (while flauting his FAs), and
2. Here, he encourages BATTLEGROUND for a young editor who had just made his peace with another editor.
3. The post to Maryana was about her claims of bad faith as they relate to groups of other editors-- something that WMF employees shouldn't be doing.
4. FAC had quite a time with Lecen (see this sample), so these latest behaviors are not entirely surprising.

I don't see a retraction or an apology, or even an acknowledgement of the gravity of his statements, and don't know why this is still going on, but I do know that we can count on Diannaa to defend Lecen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you explain why, since we haven't talked for months, you've ben appearing out of nowhere to defame to people who don't know me? And if Diannaa can't be here, neither can Kiefer.Wolfowitz, who is your friend. This "learn your place" comment was made to the person I mentioned early, whose side was using sock puppets, canvassing and message erasing. --Lecen (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

He is? Thanks for letting me know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I admire SandyGeorgia's contributions on WP, and I address her with the respect due her for those contributions. I suggest you do the same.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Lecen, I have carefully read your explanation, but I don't think it's good enough. Nothing in what you've described warrants those attacks. You don't have to apologise, forced apologies are meaningless, but I strongly suggest you redact those posts. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Salvio. We are discussing Lecen's conduct. Even assuming he was provoked, the comments are unjustified. So, Lecen needs to understand that and take remedial action. As a separate matter, if he has a complaint against Sandy, let him bring it. But first he needs to correct his own behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Lecen - There may well be a deeper issue concerning Sandy Georgia that merits investigation. However Wikipedia does not recognise the "she hit me first" argument. Even assuming that you had been outrageously provoked, your response is still not acceptable. You have clearly been here long enough to know the correct procedures for complaining about another editor's conduct. So in summary, this current issue only concerns the statements you made about Sandy Georgia. Even if every allegation you make about her conduct were true, this still does not justify your statements. Hence you have no option but to retract them, and apologise for any offence caused. Once that is done, then if you wish to open an incident with us about the conduct of Sandy Georgia, I assure you it will be examined fairly. Manning (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I will be glad to apologize, and even erase my comments, if SandyGeorgia also apologizes to me for having openly defamed me to people who don't know me and if she promises to stop wikihounding and harrassing me. As you saw, I don't even talk to her, I don't even contribute on the same articles as she. All I ask is to her to stop defaming, wikihounding, and harassing me. That's fair. --Lecen (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not fair. I've just blocked you for a week for displaying a battleground mentality. As usual, review is welcome and fellow admins may tweak the block. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Lecen - I have been trying to ensure your fair treatment. This case is about YOUR conduct, which the admins have concluded is unacceptable. Your response above is basically just a reworked attempt of the "she hit me first" argument, which I have already said doesn't work here. Also using the language "defamed" is specifically identified in our NLT as a bad practice. While I am probably a bit softer than Salvio, I must support the block decision. Please indicate a willingness to redact your original statement, indicate to us that you understand that YOUR conduct is unacceptable, and then we shall move on. And I repeat, once that is done the issue with Sandy Georgia will be examined fairly and impartially. Manning (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No mention of me here five days ago, or here three days ago, or here two days ago ... shall I continue? "Defaming" you sounds somewhat Wikilawyerish, especially when coming from someone who says he's a lawyer. Wikihounding and harassing? Lecen, I lived in those countries. I watchlist WP:WQA. Expecting an apology from me for editing the 'pedia when you suggested I might kill you, when you know from our editing together on Hugo Chavez that I do know my way around South America? (I started this post before seeing that Lecen was blocked, so will go ahead and post it, FWIW, but done.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything sexist in assuming SandyGeorgia is a female editor? If this is well known forgive that I am out of the loop, but my take on the username is a reference to Georgia and its often sand laden countryside. My76Strat (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Sandy is a gender-ambiguous name.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Lecen appears to be accepting his block. I've advised him that if he abides by our request for redaction and apologizes for his conduct, then we will listen to his allegations about Sandy Georgia, and review the matter fairly and impartially. Conversely, if no redaction is forthcoming, then I am neither inclined to lift the block or hear his grievance. Until then, the matter should be considered as closed. Manning (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring on South Vietnam and North Vietnam

Could someone take a look at the recent edit warring on articles North Vietnam and South Vietnam? This involves IPs 24.52.193.213 and 24.52.193.213, and myself. My talk page has been caught up in this dispute, as you can see here. Perhaps these pages can be semi-protected or protected until this issue dies down. Kauffner (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm asking now: why do you mean that North VIetnam was "client state" while South VIetnam was not? I don't really understand what you mean. 188.113.91.110 (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack

A vile PA on T.Canens [47].Murry1975 (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeffed. Thanks for reporting him. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)