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

Continuous violation of WP:LIVING concerning a President in office

Sefringle (talk · contribs) has continuously reinserted libellous information on Ahmadinejad article.[1][2] The sources which is used for the information has nothing to do with the information provided. It seems that Sefringle is misusing his support from certain Jewish admins who monitor the article, to vandalize the article contrary to the WP:LIVING.[3] Unfortunately the highest level admins (namely user:Jayjg) not only do not stop this editor, but force other editors who try to fix his vandalism into blockage contrary to WP:IGNORE. [4] (Also removing tags informing the readers about the problems in the article, which will further encourage his violations.[5])

I have noted the wrong claims on the article's talk page as well as the user talk page, failing to receive any response for his edits, either from him or from the certain renowned admins involved in monitoring the article.[6][7]

The following is simply wrong, let alone uncited:

• Uncited and wrong claim of 50% quota - one whole paragraph, see below.
• Uncited claim that a student leader wants to topple Ahmadinejad's government, see below
• changing back elderly Iranians... -> "numerous Iranian..." - contrary to the source which state the former

looking at the paragraphs and sources in question:

In 2006, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government applied a 50% quota for male students and 50% for female students in the University entrance exam for Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmacy. The plan was supposed to stop the growing presence of female students in the Universities. In a response to critics, Iranian minister of health and medical education, Kamran Bagheri Lankarani argued that there is not enough facilities such as dormitories for female students. Masoud Salehi, president of Zahedan University said that presence of women generates some problems with transportation. Also Ebrahim Mekaniki, president of Babol University of Medical Sciences stated that an increase in the presence of women will make it difficult to distribute facilities in a suitable manner. Bagher Larijani, the president of Tehran University of Medical Sciences made similar remarks. According to Rooz Online, the quotas lack a legal foundation and are justified as support for "family" and "religion."

• Persian source: the source says it's a bill proposed by some MPs and has nothing to do with the government and/or Ahmadinejad

An organization numbering 12,000 students led by student leader Abbas Fakhr-Avar, living in exile in the United States, opposes Ahmadinejad and hopes to topple his government.

• source: the person mentions the Ayatollahs regime/state, and doesn't mention Ahmadinejad's government at all. The only thing he says about Ahmadinejad is that "Ahmadinejad is stupid."

I understand that those "admins" involved are not to be questioned, but a warning or temporary block on this user is in the interest of Wikipedia.--Gerash77 20:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

plus what has been told above, please review all the contributions of that user in the main space of WP in that article, clearly violating WP:WTA and insisting on it and ignoring all the calls to honor it. --Pejman47 21:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

For content disputes, please pursue the dispute resolution process. If you have WP:LIVING concerns, please use the noticeboard ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, you are one of the admins I was talking about in my report. Please respect the administrative policies, and don't interfere in matters that you yourself are involved as an admin. Thank you.--Gerash77 22:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What? He's one of the "certain Jewish admins" you discuss above? I read the article and its talk page. You and Sefringle have sources that say conflicting things. This happens all the time when you're writing articles. It's a content dispute, which should be solved by civil discussion. It's unfortunate that your civility seems to have lapsed on that talkpage.

Labelling edits made in a content dispute as vandalism is unacceptable, as is calling someone's edits "Jewish propaganda." Accusing someone of bias because of their religion or ethnicity borders on a personal attack. You should also stop asking questions of type "Have you stopped beating your wife?" as they are unhelpful. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that I don't understand the reason for your furiousness. I did not want to name each one of the admins involved in this vicious violation of WP:LIVING, and defamation of a president in office,[8][9][10][11] was because I know what would have happened if I did. My report is very clear with regards to blatant violations, if you could even have a response for one of the libellous insertions, such as the false 50% quota, which is being reverted by this user, and his support from these "admins" who take out the simple tags we have placed there, then I take back my case. In any case, a look at the talk page and history page of the article would reveal the following admins who are not stopping these violations of policies, and taking sides with the violating party: Jayjg (talk · contribs), Avraham (talk · contribs), Jossi (talk · contribs) and Humus sapiens (talk · contribs). --Gerash77 23:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not angry and don't know where you get that idea. I have no stake in this dispute and am just offering my observation that it is a content dispute, not really something that would require admin tools. I also pointed out that it seems that your behavior on the talk page that is discouraging rational discussion of the dispute. You should confine yourself to commenting on the content of the article and not on the contributors. In addition, as Jossi has pointed out, the place to address WP:BLP issues is the BLP noticeboard. Alternatively or in addition, you could try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have re-checked my posts, and it has become apparent that I never have attacked any Wikipedia editor for their religion or ethnicity, or called any of their edits "propaganda". It seems that my unwillingness to name the admins have resulted in your bad assumptions. Please WP:AGF, thank you.--Gerash77 23:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You accused them of bias based on their ethnicity, which certainly borders on a personal attack, as I said above. Also, you don't, in fact, appear to have called someone's edits "Jewish propaganda" on Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

No. Look at the article: "the Ayatollah regime" "Former President Khatami. 'He was a lie'" (this one I agree with) "President Ahmadinejad. 'Stupid'" ... which part of these Jewish propaganda can be called a reliable source?--Gerash77 01:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You say they introduce material from a source that is Jewish propaganda. Frankly, I don't see a lot of difference. I have no doubt that you are simply trying to get the article to reflect a neutral point of view, at least as you see things. You do seem to be pretty emotional about the topic, though, and this seems to have impaired rational discussion on the talk page. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to say this is not a case for BLP discussions. It is a case of a person continuously violating policies, who has put many uncited WP:LIBEL into an article, and revert those who remove these libellous and uncited comments, and hence require intervention of an admin not involved in this issue.--Gerash77 00:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No. I did not call someone edits propaganda, thats in reference to an Israeli newspaper, please pay attention to details. Furthermore, please see my above post. Again, if you find one source who claims this 50% quota, or that this person says what is claimed on the article, I take back my case. I doubt that you can find it, which is why you are arguing when the case is an obvious wp:libel--Gerash77 00:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to find any source. I am not involved with editing the page. I'm trying to explain to you how to resolve a content dispute amicably. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Further, you are trying to distinguish between "Your edits are Jewish propaganda" and "Your edits rely on Jewish propaganda." I don't see much of a distinction there, but even if there is, use of the term "Jewish propaganda" is not necessary in disputing the reliability of the source and is needlessly inflammatory. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read BLP and LIBEL. The material should be taken out immediately per policies. Constant reversions of the past few days would require intervention of uninvolved admin, hence my report. In any case I thank you for your explanations.--Gerash77 00:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been called a lot of things in WP, but to be called a "Jewish admin", as if that in itself is a basis for an argument against purported incompatible behavior, is totally unacceptable. This is a content dispute and you have to take the steps in WP:DR rather than place here spurious accusations bordering on the irrational, and waste everybody's time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that no one is trying to waste your .. time. I just noted that you as an admin involved in this issue, can't decide on this case!--Gerash77 00:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no case, as explained to you by an uninvolved admin. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

May I please ask you who this uninvolved admin was?!--Gerash77 00:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine, here's an uninvolved admin. Please stop making sweeping condemnations and assumptions of bad faith against an entire class of editors (real or imagined) and make use of one of the links jossi provided you with. This issue does not need administrator attention... Yet. Grandmasterka 05:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite so. I've just taken an interest in that page, and while there's certainly some POV-pushing all round, and a bit of ownership, I've seen nothing that suggests admin misconduct of any kind, let alone anything stemming from ethnic biases. Even if I had suspected the latter, the rules of engagement here on WP firmly abjure me from actually modifying my actions to act on that suspicion. Hornplease 19:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Existence of Jewish cabal

It seems that some have taken my comments above about Jewish admins to think that I believe in existence of the Jewish or Zionist cabal. I hereby state that by no means I meant to have that kind of impression at all.--Gerash77 19:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's another completely uninvolved admin: I don't care, and I don't much think anyone else does, whether you believe in a Jewish or Zionist cabal. Its that you used it as a descriptor, when it is a religious and/or ethnic label; "Jewish admins" simply doesn't parse in any way which is not at least implying an insult of some kind. Whether you believe there is a Jewish cabal, whether you are personally anti-semitic, or whether you think something else about Jews in general, it simply is rude and insulting and frankly, horrible logic to tie those two words together and expect anything but for everyone with any decency and sense to doubt your decency and sense. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the small (but apparently vicious) Mexican dog. Such prejudiced comments have no place in Wikipedia; in an ideal world, nor would the people who make them. I'm continually amazed that Wikipedia tolerates this crap and defends the people who spew it. Raymond Arritt 20:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A reasonable assumption would be that he is referring to people who he think has an interest in a particular point of view on the article. In that sense, it would be the same as saying "certain Microsofties who monitor the Linux article" or "certain Republicans who push their POV on the Bill Clinton article". Unless there is some prior situation with Gerash77, that's what I would tend to think that he meant. —Centrx→talk • 20:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. Unfortunately, it appears that no matter how much I explain the phrase "Jewish admins", which is the same as any other similar phrases such as "Muslim admins", who in no way has a positive or negative implications, there are some who incorrectly assume that I wanted to present myself as someone who believes in the existence of the cabal, or ridiculously enough, I am antisemitic!!--Gerash77 21:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I feel like a suitable badass being part of the Jewish cabal....⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

For examples of how 'Jewish editors' can be easily taken as hostile, look on this page for the 'anti-albanian' cabal. Also, any angry Litvaks may want to consider DUAL cabal memberships. (I'm JOKING!) ThuranX 23:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Where can I sign up for this Jewish cabal? Apparently you don't have to be Jewish to be part of it. (A serious comment: in no way does Jewish when referring to a person mean "supporting a Jewish position," it means you are ethnically and/or religiously a Jew, similar to calling someone a Chinese or French admin. It'd be best for Gerash to apologize and find some other way to express admins who support a particular view, rather than clinging on to a bad choice of words.) Phony Saint 23:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there always a Jewish cabal in every institution? (as one has said apparently... I'm allowed to since I'm jewish) haha. MrMacMan ^Talk 23:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll join the chorus of voices calling for at least a retraction of the Jewish administrators statement and preferably an apology. This site's assume good faith policy requires editors to seek reasonable explanations for each other's actions. This edit dispute had a legitimate basis in conflicting reference sources. The reasoning behind the Jewish administrators assertion appears to be that certain edits might have reflected a particular viewpoint on Middle Eastern politics - from there one editor leaps to an unwarranted assumption that those administrators had a political bias - and another unwarranted assumption that these people were violating WP:OWN and WP:NPOV in pursuit of that bias - and a third unwarranted assumption that the supposed bias originates in these individuals' religious/ethnic origin. Etymologically speaking, prejudice means to assert a conclusion before seeing adequate evidence. I've watched this dynamic operate at Wikipedia before and it really doesn't matter to me which group gets targeted: prejudice is always an obstacle to collaboration. Durova^Charge! 18:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Prejudice, whether of editors, sources or conclusions, is always unhelpful and uncollegial. Gerash, apologise for your phraseology, retract the accusation, and read WP:DR. Hornplease 19:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Because neither of the words admin or Jewish is negative, "Jewish admins" on Ahmadinejad article is not negative as well. It is used to categorize 4 admins, whom I did not want to name individually. Please note that if they were Muslim admins, then I would have said Muslim admins, and I am sure none of you would have mind that. It is very unfortunate that you fail to assume good faith per WP:AGF, because I have attempted to remove libellous and uncited comments from an article on a Muslim president, which contradicted WP:LIVING. Regrettably, this form of bad assumptions and calling a person who has attempted to adhere to to the WP:LIVING per Wikipedia's policies has resulted in severe and disgusting insults, such as being called "antisemitic". With this sort of paradox and negative views toward certain group of editors by assumptions of bad faith, I doubt that this behaviour by some Wikipedians is in the interest of a neutral encyclopedia. --Gerash77 03:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that you Just Don't Get It, and that further discussion of the matter can serve no purpose. Let's all call it a day. Raymond Arritt 03:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I am sorry for this sort of paradoxic response and offensive name-callings from some wikipedians.--Gerash77 04:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You're sorry that the Jewish Cabal is ganging up on you and calling you names? Come on. This is trolling, plain and simple. You know what you did, you just want a pointy stick to poke things with. ThuranX 05:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Gerash, you can argue it all you want, but the phrase "Jewish admins" carries a negative implication whether you like it or not. We're not asking you to censor yourself, but to choose your words carefully, and to avoid making such comments in the future. You are engaging what the political world calls "parsing," and what psychologists call "rationalization," but the result is the same: that after the original intent of your words has been derided and condemned, you then find another excuse and reason to give a sense of mistinterpretation by others. Your continued denial will not obscure the fact that such comments, in whatever context, carry such a negative implication as to be found socially and morally reprehensible. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This thread has served one single useful purpose: to put an editor onto my radar screen. As I stated months ago at Raul's laws, any editor who makes an assertion that is simultaneously wrong on three or more levels is a person who is immune to reason. Durova^Charge! 19:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

So much insults... So many threats. It is not surprising at all...--Gerash77 01:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Threats? Now you're just imagining things. Especially as you started this by labeling some admins as Jewish. Phony Saint 01:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Gerash should certainly have chosen his words more carefully. There is a widespread problem on Middle Eastern articles with a clique pushing what's essentially an American/Israeli right-wing point of view, which seems to be what's going on here; just as elsewhere on Wikipedia there are problems with nationalist cliques, party political cliques, etc, etc. But labelling those cliques by their religious beliefs as "Christian" or "Jewish" or whatever isn't helpful, and it's not an accurate description of the problem. -- ChrisO 22:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that, and if any POV clique is demonstrably acting to violate WP:NPOV or WP:OWN I'd do my best to put an end to the problem. Burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of individuals who allege impropriety. For my own part I rarely edit on Middle Eastern topics but am neutral enough that I sometimes get solicited to settle disputes. Here's one example from yesterday User_talk:Durova#Request_for_help. Durova^Charge! 08:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ya know what; Wikipedia is a hotbed of POV arguments over everything from whether winning the war in Iraq is crucial to the existence of human civilization, to whether an overhead cam engine is inherently superior to a pushrod engine. And most of the groups in these arguments can be easily stereotyped as "Old guys who drive Mustangs and Camaros" vs. "Young guys who drive Hondas" or similar; but whenever it veers near an argument which boils down to "Jews are trouble", "Israel is a rogue state who control the US government", "the holocaust is a lie", etc., anybody who takes the other side, whether they think that Israel is a shining example among the nations or that Israel has made some terrible mistakes, gets lumped in as "the Jewish cabal on wikipedia". Nobody resorts to tarring aybody with "the Arabic cabal", "the Muslim cabal", even "the antisemitic cabal", although they are damn easily identifiable. Nobody argues about "the gay cabal" pushing their agenda on Wikipedia. Nobody tries to delegitimize edits as the product of "the conservative cabal" or "the liberal cabal". But the Jews; they're all acting together, you know. People can post according to whatever points of view they want, but anybody mentioning a "Jewish cabal" or similar is too paranoid to be deemed a reliable editor. Gzuckier 14:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In fairness, a lot of those other supposed cabals have been claimed by editors who were themselves troublesome POV pushers for the opposite viewpoint and some editor or other has tried to pigeonhole me into most of them. I'm not certain whether this thread lets me add Jewish to the claims that my religious views are atheist and fundamentalist Christian, but the honest answer there is none of the above - keep guessing and maybe you'll win the cigar. In the past I've offered to provide a full disclosure of potential real-life factors that could affect my POV on Middle Eastern topics, but so far nobody has requested that I make good on it. Shrug. Durova^Charge! 19:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to ask you Durova; how could you be "neutral" when you can't distinguish a non-negative term and insult, when you call people who disagree with your POV "immune to reason"? What possibly beside being an admin on Wikipedia gives you right to assume that you may get away with any sort of insult and threats, even if you think from your own POV, that I didn't use the right words? Is it possible to humbly ask you why do you think you are "neutral", or would that result in your further insults for questioning your incontestable point of views?--Gerash77 20:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll take this to user talk pages. Durova^Charge! 07:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

About User:Rbj's chronic incivility again

This seems to be a once every two week topic here, but would someone please keep User:Rbj from abusing others thusly;[12] He's previously been blocked twice for incivility and harassment but continues to insist on attacking others. Odd nature 18:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The edit you cite is indeed unfortunate, but generally admins only take admin action on WP:CIVIL matters that are really a lot more severe. While I appreciate that doing so is a thankless chore, I think that (if he has, as you say, a pattern of harassing and uncivil behaviour) an RFC or RFAr would be the next step. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a cas of chronic incivility. He's rude, he engages in personal attacks, he gets blocked, he behaves decently for a while, and then the cycle repeats. This is about the third time in the last two weeks or so that I have been aware of. I'd say a community block is in order, but then I think I said that when he made the anti-semitic attacks on User:Orangemarlin last week...or maybe it was the week before when his name was brought up here for personal attacks the week before that... Guettarda 19:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

In other words, while the AGF concept is nice and all that, r-b-j needs to g-o as the likelihood of remediation is roughly the equivalent to that of a blizzard in the Amazon basin. •Jim62sch• 20:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you all follow the steps in our Dispute resolution guidelines. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no dispute, Morven. What on earth is there to discuss? If you're suggesting an Rfc, all I can say is it would take days to paste all the diffs for personal attacks and hostility and disruption for this user, who has been asked politely, asked more pointedly, told outright, pointed in the direction of the civility and personal attack pages for his edification, and blocked repeatedly, most recently by me (for calling other editors stupid and lazy) - and although I certainly hope he takes my advice and reads up on civility and discussing the content, not the contributor, and applies it in his discussions with fellow editors - but I'm not holding my breath. The OrangeMarlin incident has never been resolved satisfactorily, and he used the attention on his talk page as a good audience for yet more snarky digs and outright abuse. There are times when an Rfc is simply a lot of time spent so people can say "Look, we followed dispute resolution - we knew it wouldn't do any good, but we also knew if we didn't act like Process Wonks no one would take action" - and this is one of those times. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If you feel a RFC or mediation would be pointless or has already been attempted, you can skip those steps so long as you justify them. Arbcom does accept cases that have not gone through those steps if the reason why not is argued well, or when the problem has been around for a long time without resolution and is clearly beyond RFC or mediation. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom? I wasn't planning on wasting their time any more than I was planning on wasting anyone elses. I suggested community ban when the OrangeMarlin incident happened; see here. I note Avi felt the admins involved were terse, but it wasn't like it was his first offense, or his twentieth; check his block log - and trust me, he hasn't been blocked nearly as often as he could have been. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Rbj is about the most uncivil editor I've ever seen, you needn't spend more than 5 minutes reviewing any discussion section of any article he chooses to edit. He's rude, anti-semitic, crude, dismissive, condescending, and an all around disruptive element. I've seen the administrators here do more for a lot less problematic editors. He claims he's protected by Jimbo Wales, and given the lack of interest in dealing with this person, except by administrators who have either been the brunt of his uncivil behavior, or have directly observed it, I'm wondering if it is true. Yes, I'm still angry about what I believe is blatant anti-semitism. I even filed a complaint, but of course, Rbj doesn't even get his pinky slapped. This is really frustrating. Orangemarlin 05:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we get some diffs for each of these offenses? Thank you. ThuranX 05:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I did diffs. It was ignored. I give up. Orangemarlin 05:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you link to that, then? I'm not an admin, i'm just reading along, but I doubt most admins will spend half an hour crawling through things to find the problems. At least this time, someone's reading. ThuranX 05:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend the hours looking up everything that he's done. But here's the diff to my ANI regarding Rbj. No one commented. [13] Orangemarlin 06:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(Undenting) Here [14] is the last version of that section before it got archived. Lots of people got involved. Lots of people commented, including me. Please don't misrepresent things like that. ThuranX 06:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. I missed ALL of this commentary. I checked once or twice, saw nothing, and it's impossible to watch since there are so many posts to this area. By the time I checked back, it was archived, and I couldn't find it. Thanks. Still, nothing happened. Orangemarlin 06:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just spent 5 minutes reading over the comments on my previous ANI. I do not know how I missed all of these comments, but it still bothers me at the lack of resolution to this matter. I know that several editors and admins dealt with the matter in a very direct manner. But Rbj's attitude was petulant and moved from borderline to distinctively anti-Semitic. I quit reading his responses to the matter, but now that I've looked into it more, the comments that he made in response were offensive to me. How dare he make any commentary on my religious beliefs, whether it was real or not, or whether I did it to make a point to him. I always use G_d in talk space, and have since I've seriously started editing here. And in my private life, I always spell it that way. If I make an edit to the article, it always uses the full spelling, if I must. It is my belief, and I find it offensive on how he chose to respond. But I am just one tiny target of his dysfunctional behavior. He needs to go. Orangemarlin 07:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm bored, let me list out my favorite attacks from this editor:

1. Get an education
2. Accusations of lying
3. Jimbo protects Rbj
4. Passive aggressive behavior
5. Still the most despicable statement from his fingertips

Orangemarlin 07:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Came by to see this thread around, so I'll comment a bit. User:Rbj's actions gave me a bitter taste in my mouth during my encounter with him about the situation regarding the banning of User:Nkras. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

So did my experience with him on the Marriage article. I'm sure I could go back through that and find all manner of him cursing out Bainer and Coelacan, and I believe some others as well. I see very little has changed since then. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Now that i've slept, I can reply to OM's comments above. OM, I read the last thread, and I think you're right, he's being a jerk. I also think that the lack of action last time has led to this editor escalating, as a result of a feeling of safety. As an involved(in wiki, not in this problem) regular editor, I'd like to see some action taken against Rbj. ThuranX 13:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

What action(s) do editors feel are appropriate? I've suggested cutting thru the process mess and simply community banning, but no one has responded - would there be any objections? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Despite many warnings and chances given he appears chronically incivil and clearly the community has about lost it's patience with him, so continuing as-is is not an option. A community topic ban seems a reasonable solution, and one that I would support. FeloniousMonk 17:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A topical ban at least, if not a complete ban; at this point those would be the only options in my view. Is anyone suggesting that an overall ban is too harsh, and that we should just stick with a topical ban? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the behavior occurs on every topic Rbj touches. Before Intelligent Design it was going on at Talk:Homophobia, which even led to Rbj vandalizing someone's userpage. ··coelacan 19:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A community ban is the only remedy for someone who is beyond normal remediation. Enough of r-b-j, one of the most tendentious, disruptive, disrespectful editors I have ever had the displeasure of running across. •Jim62sch• 23:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking a bit deeper into his contributions, this bit of incivility, calling other editors' work "dog-shit", saying "you guys think your own shit don't stink", threatening meatpuppetry, and characterizing another editors' arguments as "bullshit" are all completely over-the-top unacceptable. OK, I'm convinced; support a full indef ban. FeloniousMonk 00:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if my $0.02 is worth anything more than that, because I'm not an admin, but I want him banned forever. But he does claim support from Jimbo, so I hope this isn't temporary. Orangemarlin 01:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't have "support" from Jimbo.[15] He was unblocked by Jimbo once because Jimbo didn't think that Rbj's reversion of the deletion of Nkras's legal threats itself constituted making legal threats.[16] (Was that clear as mud? Sorry.) Long story short, if Jimbo feels that a community ban is fairly executed, he won't undo it. ··coelacan 07:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I know he doesn't get protection. But RBJ thinks he does. See above. Orangemarlin 23:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In fairness, the last time I raised this "threatening meatpuppetry" thing, at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive234#User:Rbj, he argued convincingly enough for me that he was not doing that. I would support a ban on all other counts here, but not that one. ··coelacan 07:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no position on meatpuppetry, and did not suggest community ban for anything but his hostile and disruptive attacks on all and sundry. I see no objections to community banning this eeditor, but he has made only one edit since he came off block, and oddly enough, managed not to insult or attack anyone in that edit. I suggest we take the position that there is community support for a ban, and should he disrupt or attack again any administrator should indef block, pointing to this discussion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I just indefinitely blocked the user, but reversed it after reading KillerChihuahua's comments. The repeated incivility is a major concern; the fact that everyone here seems to be fed up with him was the whole reason that I hit "block" in the first place. But, as KillerChihuahua pointed out, his one edit since coming off his block wasn't too bad, so I'm willing to give him this final chance. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would have supported your block, and concur this needs to be a very final and last chance. This editor has had more than enough chances, and hurt the project and its volunteers enough. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion of Beatle Fab Four

User Beatles Fab Four was blocked for inappropriate username and "consider yourself also temporarily blocked for, and warned about, disruptive editing on Bronze Soldier of Tallinn. This includes edit warring, breaking the three revert rule, and breaches of civility".

Instantly after that, user Beatle Fab Four appeared and started the same edit war. He was again banned.

Then, after a while, same edit warring started from several IP's (links are to contributions list):

• 85.140.211.220 [17].
• 85.140.243.184 [18].
• 84.249.52.136 [19] (also vandalized my user page ([20]), but I am not sure it was him. Same style, though - disregard of Wikipedia rules, writing comments using bold).
• 85.140.211.200 [21] (in this case, it is definitely him: [22]).
• 193.232.195.136 [23] (probably switching to modem).
• 85.140.209.118 [24].
• 85.140.243.52 [25].
• 85.140.209.67 [26].

Also, at some point user User:Nazis Hunter appeared and started same edit warring. User Staberinde requested a checkuser (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Beatle Fab Four), with result "likely" from two administrators.

Now the original ban for Beatle Fab Four has ended and he is back using that nick again.

I am not quite sure what it is possible to do, as this user shows total disregard to Wikipedia rules and authorities (threatening administrator Sandstein, [27], also threatening me with Mossad, but I assume that was an attempt to joke). Bans are not effective, as the user is obviously on dynamic IP and will evade - I'd wouldn't like to apply for semi-protection for the article he stalks, Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, as there have been quite a lot good edits from unregistered users, besides, most of his edits are now on talk page.

In any case, I would like to report him for repeated block evasion. DLX 09:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a Beatle Fab Four. And I'm not a vandal. On the contrary, this DLX constanly tries to purge controversian articles on the political events, avoids controversies rosolving procedures and cherry-picks admins to block users who disagree with him. In addition, he constanly expresses pro-Nazis view in discussions, which I stronly believe is inappropriate in Wiki community. Best regards Beatle Fab Four 13:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop lying. I haven't tried to "purge controversian articles" - give me even one example where I have done that. And my "pro-Nazis" views exist only in your imagination, I deeply dislike both nazis and communists - they are both equally evil, as far as I am concerned. As for "rosolving procedures", please give an example of avoiding those? Asking you several times to discuss your POV changes is "avoiding", apparently? DLX 13:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm anti-communist. So what? There are no exuses for pro-Nazis. They should discuss their views elsewhere. In prison, I presume. Beatle Fab Four 17:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

DLX, you started an edit war once all those not-reliablr sorcess you loaded were nocked-out by reliable one (For example me giving you quotes from the bock written by a Nazi Soldier, Tiggers in the Mudd, and by that nocking you out from half of your claims). Fab Four nocked you even in a more elegant way, giving a part of speach from your Prime-Minister where he admitts that Estonians colloborated with the Nazis. Once you lost, you started runing and complaining to admnistrators who feel bossy but dont even care to learn the case. You try to blame others for stuff you did. If anyone should be blocked, it's you. M.V.E.i. 18:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

So what has that got to do with me? Truth isn't pro-nazi, but denying the truth is worse then being pro-Nazi. And still no evidence of "purge controversian articles", I see. DLX 19:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Beatle Fab Four is the agitator, and edits where it looks like he's trying to pass himself off as DLX [28] are also concerning. (He may be trying to indicate who is saying the things he objects to, his english seems lacking.) ThuranX 13:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I think that was not the case there (ie trying to pass as me), it is his style of editing - he comments into middle of comments by others, removes his own comments etc. At least I don't see that as trying to be me. DLX 14:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(De-indent) I originally blocked Beatle Fab Four (talk · contribs) (previously Beatles Fab Four (talk · contribs)) for disruption (mostly personal attacks and incivilities). I noticed the block evasion, but since he's editing from a dynamic IP, I refrained from blocking the whole IP range so as not to cause collateral damage to uninvolved editors. Nonetheless, in the case of any further disruption by this user or his socks, I will lock that IP range down. Beatle, for the last time: you are welcome to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but you must refrain from attacking others. Sandstein 08:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You didnt even learn the case, if you would learn it you would understand how your speach doesnt fit here. M.V.E.i. 18:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If anyone should be blocked its DLX (talk · contribs) and Sandstein (talk · contribs). DLX started vandalising articles by writing stuff that try to put Estonians coloborating with the Nazis as "Inoccent". He supported those facts with NOT reliable websites. Beatle Fab Four (talk · contribs) and User:Nazis Hunter tried to fight those acts of vandalism by deleting those lies from articles, but DLX started an Edit War against those users, but couldn't win it. He started an argumment on the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn talk page, but when all the "facts" he tried to present were smashed he turned to Sandstein so to block Beatles Fab Four. Fab Four offcourse defended himself. Sandstein, WITHOUT learning the case, blocked Beatles fab for. When i tried to protest, he blocked me to, nevertheless, he didnt do anything to DLX. Yes, in the argument Fab Four made more then 3 reverts, but it was not his fault. DLX was the one who startyed an edit war, and by not following by the 3 revert rule in order to fight vandalism, Fab Four followed a more importent rule, that many administrators seem just not to know http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules so if somthing should be done about this case, is blocking DLX and taking the administratoe role from Sandstein. M.V.E.i. 18:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Now Sandstein tries to fight me in a more "mature" way, saying that images i uploaded to Fab Four are not free domian, while i copied there licence execlly as theye were written on their original pages on Wikipedia. As i said, he isn't checking anything, is that what an administrator should be like? someone who isn't checking licence before he staits somthing about using those images? Someone who blockes people without learning the case? He isn't justifing his status. M.V.E.i. 18:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

How about finally giving some example where I "vandalised" an article? You both keep saying that without giving even one example of that - while my edit history is visible for anyone. I have provably not done anything you claim that I've done - however, you have failed to show any evidence to your silly (and quite frankly, insulting, racist and hate-mongering) claims like "They baltic people feel little, useless. Everything that the baltic countries now have is thanks to the Soviet Unian. Technology, ruads, everything, and that makes them hate soviets even more. In their everyday life they see that all that they have, was made by the Soviets, and that makes them feel small, and that makes them hate the Soviets.", "The Baltic tribes were always considered the most primitive among Europe. You forgot how your Baltic union The Lithuanian Kingdom in the middle ages started a war against Russians? You started it, so relax. The Russians were to soft ith you, you deserved more. Besides, USSR never killed Baltic people (Except at World War 2, but that were Baltic Nazis killed, there not considered people). How excacly did we take your freedom?? We gave you technology, everything.". Do I need to say more about you then "there not considered people"? That shows very clearly what kind of person you are, I think.

User:Nazis Hunter and user:Beatle Fab Four are the same person, evading block, something strictly against Wikipedia rules. Nothing excuses uncivility and rudeness. Oh, and sorry to burst your little pseudohistoric bubble, but there has never been "The Lithuanian Kingdom" DLX 18:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There have never been that kind of kingdom? unfortunately, there has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Lithuania you dont even know your own baltic history. And then in turned into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania . I cant give examples because Fab deleted those plces were you vandalized, but if anyone would like, your all welcome to enter the Bronze Liberator talk page, and see the lies that DMX was repeating over and over, and us smashing that with facts and real proves. M.V.E.i. 18:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there was Grand Duchy of Lithuania (please learn to create Wikilinks). That is not the same as "The Lithuanian Kingdom", (there were two Kingdoms of Lithuania, neither started a war against Russia). Also, all Wikipedia pages have a magical thing called history where you can see all changes done by anyone, ever. So, please go now to history of the article in question and show me exactly where I "vandalised" the article. Or otherwise, stop your bickering, insults and lies, please. DLX 18:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I offer somthing better, lets visit the talk page, its full with your lies. M.V.E.i. 20:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the alleged vandalism? Couldn't find any, eh? Stop your insults and lies - and enough of this here. I tried to reason with you on your talk page, your responses were insults bordering on racism. If you want to talk, message me on my talk page, this is not the place for this discussion. DLX 02:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Me liying? And that i hear from a man who said that the Estonian SS didnt kill any Jewe your prime minister even says they did, and that i hear from a man who said Americans fought better then Russians while even a Nazi Soldier from WW2 says that one Russian was like 10 Americans? youve lost man, then and now. M.V.E.i. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.90.101.55 (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

This discussion here has became totally pointless. Beatle Fab Four was caught evading block. Sandstein was extremely generous because usually block evasions are punished with new, and usually longer, block. This is not place to dispute history, so do it elsewhere or not at all.--Staberinde 18:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody proved that I broke rules when I was blocked. But it is not surprising to hear lie again from you. Beatle Fab Four 04:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Counter-revolutionary

Editor User:Counter-revolutionary has made this edit here [29]. I have suggested on his talk that he does not do it again. Perhaps it would be better though if an Admin explained the consequences of such edits. From his page he seems to be upsetting a few others too - perhaps a polite reminder would nip this behaviour in the bud. Giano 12:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it appears thisis not the first incident regarding him and this page. [30] I don't think we can have established eitors referring to the subject of a biography as a "cow" not in main space anyway. Giano 12:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually brought this up before, as he was stalking my edits that day. For example I made this edit to an AfD at 20:08 and he votes 1 minute later. Then when I reverted vandalism to the above article, his edit put it back five minutes later. I have no objections to anyone checking my contributions, as that's why they are logged, but I regard his actions as going beyond that. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm begining not to like what I'm seeing here, [31] especially when one looks at Peabody's talk page. Giano 14:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your link shows General Peabody trying to set up a revert tag team, and here's another one:[32]. But note that he's a brand new user, I guess that's why people are being extra patient. (FWIW, he looks like a genuine noob, too--a sock would know to do these things more discreetly.) Bishonen | talk 14:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

The user hasn't edited since Giano put a note on his page. But just to make it clear that we seriously can't have such behaviour on a WP:BLP page, I dropped a message myself, too. Bishonen | talk 14:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

• The edit, and be aware I didn't write its contents, was a mistake! I shouldn't have made it. --Counter-revolutionary 14:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but I'm quite struck by this. You reinstated an edit by somebody else without reading it...? How does something like that happen? Bishonen | talk 14:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

I think Bishonen is referring to this surprising admission. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It was an error on my part! --Counter-revolutionary 16:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

An error, to be sure. On that point we can all agree. But, it seems, the error is the result of a campaign on your part to revert anything done by One Night In Hackney. He reverted an ignorant, shameful comment, and you were quick to simply revert what he had done without being bothered to look. I find that disturbing, and what I find even more disturbing is that you seem to be motivated to do so by ideology, and not what is best for Wikipedia. ---Charles 22:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• The horse is dead, quit tormenting it. --Counter-revolutionary 13:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This edit summary: m (Perhaps if they could source it...) doesn't look as if it were something you reverted without reading. Corvus cornix 21:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This user seems to be problematic. His user page reads "Leave a message (unless user:Vintagekits)" which is needless uncivil. JoshuaZ 00:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Re. the edit summary; I didn't read the whole thing. There are sources for her children attending a grammar school in NI, obviously not for her being a cow.

The reason I state that Vintagekits shouldn't write on my talk page is that he has "banned" me from his. --Counter-revolutionary 14:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Another hi-jacking

Special:Contributions/Retiono Virginian. Either that, or the user has snapped. Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 18:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hrm. Looks like he's hunting for 'resigned' and inactive wikipedians to hack now? ThuranX 18:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what that was. I think I've cleaned everything up though. Metros232 18:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It's blocked now anyway. Secretlondon 18:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It's unlikely that this user snapped based on his edit summaries in his contributions. I can't be too sure however, can anybody provide checkuser to see if this account is really hijacked? It could be the same person who hijacked all 5 admin accounts.--PrestonH^{(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!)} 18:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

When Retiono Virginian resigned, he created a new account, Eaomatrix (talk · contribs) (see this edit for confirmation of that). The last edit from that account was at 18:08 UTC today. The account hijacking of his old account was 18:14 UTC today. Might a checkuser be in need here? Metros232 18:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm yes. I also have my suspected of who hacked the old unused account. As the account, I asked for everything to be shut down to prevent hacking and it was blatantly rejected. It may be User:Mr oompapa who is responsible for this, as basically I was a target for him as Retiono Virginian, and partially a way to escape him for one was to have this new account. I am not responsible for this mayhem. Perform a checkuser. Eaomatrix 18:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Eaomatrix, I use to edit as User:Tellyaddict (if you do not believe me then unblock Tellyaddict and I'll make an edit to prove it), I was accused of being a sockpuppet when editing as Tellyaddict (shown here) by Grandelkhan, I was not a sockpuppet, yes I edit as The Sunshine Man but dont worry about WP:SOCK, please perform a checkuser to show the truth, and take the worry out of Grandelkhan's head of thinking Retiono Virginian was a sockpuppet of me or vice versus. The Sunshine Man 18:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Eaomatrix, I got a question. How can Mr oompapa hijacked your account? Did you use a strong password?--PrestonH^{(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!)} 18:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The Retiono Virginian account did Not have a strong password, which makes it quite vunrable. However I believe it to be Oompapa because he was always leaving abusive messages for me (many were oversighted as they contained personal information) and he may have clicked on that the account had resigned and comprised it. I'm not sure though, it could be anyone. Eaomatrix 18:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand this. If you didn't intend to use the account again, and in fact wanted it closed, why didn't you set a random password? The failure to take even minimal precautions here is extremely worrying. Why knowingly run an account on a weak password? Why, having done so, leave it exposed? --Tony Sidaway 19:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

After I retired as User:Tellyaddict I had my account indef blocked at my request and my user talk page fully protected to prevent using {{unblock}} as I never wanted to edit under that account again.The Sunshine Man 18:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The edit summaries scream Oompapa to me. However, a Checkuser should set everyone's minds at rest. – Riana_ऋ 18:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell Demcdevit to do checkuser on your original account to see if it is that abusive sockpuppeter, a person who hijacked 5 admin accounts, or some other person.--PrestonH^{(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!)} 19:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Not quite guys, can someone throw out a link to his failed RfA from last month? Reg is just P'd off his RfA snow balled after his comments about Kelly Martin, - check his contribs just before he left, he either went crazy or gave someone his password. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

HERE YOU GO. Anchoress 20:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Still, I highly doubt that he went crazy in his account. He created an account named Eaomatrix a week ago or two before the incident today, so it is likely that his account has been hacked.--PrestonH^{(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!)} 19:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said, he was annoyed. Really, who would want to hack his account? Anyone wanting to cause trouble would just create their own account. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I would quite like to see a checkuser - who knows, if the edit summaries are Oompapa like, Retiono may well have been vandalising on the sly with Oompapa accounts, and when he ran amock on his old account, he mistakenly used the Oompapa style, perhaps in anger. Martinp23 19:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. A user hijacked 5 admin accounts?! Please state who they are, because I must have missed that disscussion, and is that user the same user that you accuse of hijacking this account? Also, is it possible that this user (the hijacker) could have an automated password cracker? I have noticed that sometimes a message is displayed to prevent automated password cracking, but this is very rare. Is it possible to block all of the ips of the abusive user from clicking "Sign in/create account", and prevent him/her from logging in under any username? Should a feature like that be created, to prevent banned users from doing so? Also, for banned users with changeable ips, is it possible to install a mediawiki feature to track a banned user's new ips, and automatically block them both from signing in and from creating an account? Also, should there be a thing that automatically checks the computer of a user (in the form of a cookie, etc, that is not malware) for any password cracking devices, and automatically ban them from entering the account signin/creation zone? Is such a feature possible? Or, do "we" just not have that kind of technology? Thanks. -- AstroHurricane001^(T+C+U) 20:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the stuff you're suggesting is not really possible. However, mediawiki should probably track overall statistics of successful vs. unsuccessful logins and alert the devs to sudden changes, if it's not already doing so. 75.62.6.237 22:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Check Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Admins desysopped. -- ReyBrujo 20:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to drop my two cents in; while clearly something was up with the On Wheels stuff, my accusations of sockpuppetry concerning the time period prior to that were unfounded; I had no evidence apart from a photographer's barnstar given to someone who habitually claimed that copyrighted images were his and released under a CC license. I had suspicions, but no actual evidence. grendel|khan 21:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that Eaomatrix's past is relevant here, and should provide some background to my breakdown of good faith in an earlier comment. As has been admitted to me on IRC (a couple of days ago), Eaomatrix used to be User:Molag Bal, and all associated socks as confirmed by checkuser and the user himself. The user has had three or four "second chances" given to him by various admins. and each time has violated their trust by keeping one account clean, which vandalising on others. It is my concern that Eaomatrix is using Oompapa as his latest vandalism power craze, and as his controbs show, has seems to have had an uncanny knack of knowing which accounts belong to Oompapa, as he tagged a run of about 10 of them. Of course, I am speculating about the user's current activities, but feel that the information about his past should be made public, if only so that users here can determine that he has started afresh and he can go forward with clean conscious, knowing that the community trust him for who his was and is, not just the fraction of his history they know about. That said, I hope that this info gives food for thought, and may change the direction of this "investigation" (IRC logs proving my assertions are available on request, User:Nishkid64 can also verify the user's past, but has not himself seen the evidence of his latest incarnation). Martinp23 22:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems like another Michaelesque situation...and that worked out well. — MichaelLinnear 08:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Might be irrelevant, but User:Retiono Virginia was created and blocked last week as a VOA. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This is almost certainly not a hijacking, and the same as Eaomatrix (talk · contribs). Both users edit from the same IPs, all of the vandalism came from the same IPs they had used before, not a new one as with a hijacking, and Eaomatrix had used the same IP minutes before the vandalism. It seems to me that he just used the move summaries to obscure to try to take advantage of the recent troubles. Dmcdevit·t 08:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Not cool, and quite disruptive. Perhaps help Eaomatrix with their wikibreak [33] with a block for disrupting Wikipedia? Flyguy649^talk_contribs 08:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Far out, that's disappointing. So is Retiono/Eaomatrix the same person as Oompapa? – Riana_ऋ 09:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the checkuser results show that the vandalism on the Retonio account was on the same IP as Eaomatrix. Nothing to do with Oompapa yet.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

THERE. I'M GONE, and not returning. You better be happy now. Becuase I AM NOT this Oompapa troll or Molag Bal. Martinp23 is just some arrogant kid. Eaomatrix 10:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. What, we just block people whenever they feel like it? – Riana_ऋ 10:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Eaomatrix for a month. Vandalism is not acceptable, and then trolling when you get caught isn't either. Moreschi ^Talk 10:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit weird to think that Eaomatrix/Retiono Virginian is Mr oompapa because Retiono Virginian's account did get affected by continuous vandalism from Mr oompapa and was 1 of the reason he left and created a new account and how the hacker managed to find his password might have been something to think about but I don't think it's the same person..It seems dubious though but it definitely ain't the same person..A checkuser needs to be done on Mr oompapa to clear this all and maybe the Admin involved with all this Chrislk02 needs to be brought in to solve this once and for all..----Cometstyles 12:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps - but in the past (you'll have to take my word for this until I have the time to trawl through the relevant categories), Molag Bal/Eaomatrix/Retiono has used accounts later proved to be him by checkuser to attack his other accounts. I can't remember examples off the top of my head, but if you drop me an email or something, then I can send you the relevant IRC logs, should you wish. Martinp23 13:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite strange

This thread on ANI has been vandalised a few times in the past half hour, mainly by one IP and one user. The IP vandalism is like this, [34] and was followed by this post to Dmcdevit's talk, attempting to avoid an IP check as I requested there. The user who vandalised ANI was User:Malcourno, who has blamed the vandalism on problems using Twinkle (despite the fact that the vandalism is identical to some of that done by the IPs). Malcourno is a name that rings a bell with me, and doing a search on my gmail account, I find out that the owner of Molag bal has emailed me from an account with "Malcourno .de-macht" in the from line. So, it would appear the Malcourno is Eaomatrix (emails will be forwarded on request). Now we come to the concerning bit - this edit under the same thread on Dmcdevit's talk page, deleting my request for a checkuser and replacing it with a reference to Yamla (AFAIK, Oompapa tormented Yamla, so is this a link?). It seems to be too much of a coincidence, and does heighten my suspicions about Oompapa/Eaomatrix. I haven't geolocated the IPs, but I would suspect them to be dynamic and/or proxies. Thanks, Martinp23 14:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I blocked both IPs and Malcourno, all of whom were obviously trolling. Checking WHOIS, the IPs originated in the UK, apparently. I'm not techie enough to tell whether they're open proxies or not. Moreschi ^Talk 16:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The user behind Malcourno, Eaomatrix and the rest uses BT internet, which can geolocate anywhere in the country, and is dynamic to the extent that if one unplugs the router, and reconnects, one gets a new IP. Martinp23 16:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Having looked at it again, (and prompted by a bit of vandalism to my talk page, especially) Retiono, et al., is certainly the same as Mr. Oompapa (and Malcourno). Dmcdevit·t 06:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Trust me to welcome the vandals...anyone know if Eaomatrix/Malcorno/Retiono have any more socks, or have we rounded up all of them? --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 07:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Saintrotter (talk · contribs) is using his userpage as an offensive soapbox again, being disruptive

Resolved

 – User:Saintrotter blocked indefinitely

This guy was already warned and blocked once about this. [35] [36], [He keeps putting the Israeli flag next to the name "Palesting" and the Palestinian flag next to the name "Israel". His user page shows an obvious antisemitic bias where he accuses Wikipedias of whing "pro Jewish bias". i thought this was taken care of but I guess not because he's back trying to inflame people. He needs to be blocked for a longer period or time or someone needs to set him straight and i think its safe to quit assuming good faith at this point. he also has a history of disruption using his Rastishka (talk · contribs) account and his IP 82.33.32.160 (talk · contribs).

Here is what hes doing now, soapboxing, causing a disruption with his soapboxing garbage. [37]. Please make him stop! The Parsnip! 20:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked him, for persistent POV pushing, trolling, and soapboxing despite repeated warnings and two previous blocks for doing so. Krimpet (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

What about the offensive material itself, which is still on the user's page? MSJapan 20:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I support the indef block; he was given ample warning the last time. (I was the admin who blocked him.) If he wants to troll, he can do it on some other site. Per MSJapan's comment, I will replace his userpage with the appropriate template. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Support the indefblock. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Also support block. Clearly not a useful contributor by any means. Sandstein 09:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Support indefblock as well, per obvious evidence above. Smee 10:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Support indef block. MastCell ^Talk 15:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblock review of User:AmendmentNumberOne

AmendmentNumberOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an account initially created to participate in discussion of the article on the AACS encryption number on DRV. It may or may not be a sock or alternate account of an established editor, but if it is, I see no evidence of any violation of the sockpuppet policy. This editor's strong position, expressed in more strident terms than necessary, was in favor of keeping the article and publishing "the number" on Wikipedia. After a couple of posts to the DRV, DragonflySixtyseven blocked this account with the explanation that it was "a single-purpose account that had served its single purpose."

Discussion on ANI (now archived here) drew mixed reviews for the original block, and a couple of days later, DragonflySixtyseven unblocked, with the summary "Fine. Let's see if you behave."

After the unblock, AmendmentNumberOne made several posts to the ANI thread over a period of a few hours, claiming that the original block was unjustified and that the blocking policy had allegedly been violated. AmendmentNumberOne's only other post was a thank-you on the talkpage of an editor who had supported him. At this point Ryulong reblocked AmendmentNumberOne, with the rationale "User has only existed here to push a single point of view concerning the encryption key; no attempts have been made to edit a single article in the two days that this account was unblocked. This user is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia." AmendmentNumberOne did not initially post an unblock request, although another user posted on his talk that the matter was worthy of an arbitration case. Initial reaction to the reblock (see same ANI thread above) was primarily favorable, although no ultimate conclusion was reached because the user did not posted an unblock request.

As the users continued to fume about the block, I suggested that a review could be requested, and posted to Ryulong's talk that I had reservations about the reblock. My comments to Ryulong read:

Hi. I know you feel strongly that the block was appropriate, but I have some qualms about your reblock the other day of User:AmendmentNumberOne. The account was obviously created as an SPA and may well be a sock/alternate account, and I have previously opined on ANI that its approach to a difficult issue was unnecessarily confrontational and strident. Nonetheless, neither a harsh tone on talk pages nor an editor's protesting against his previous block on ANI is, of itself, a blockable offense. I don't see any other user misconduct (in fact, as you noted, there hasn't been any other user conduct at all yet, one way or the other). In your block summary—"User has only existed here to push a single point of view concerning the encryption key; no attempts have been made to edit a single article in the two days that this account was unblocked. This user is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia"—the first two sentences do not constitute a strong basis for a block, and the third is a conclusion based on what I consider insufficient evidence. Under the circumstances, I would have preferred, at a minimum, to allow more time to see whether problems developed before there was any consideration of reblocking. I'm sorry to be critical, and I'd welcome any additional thoughts you may have on this.

Unfortunately, Ryulong does not seem to have been online today, although a post he made yesterday to User talk:AmendmentNumberOne probably summarizes his position sufficiently. AmendmentNumberOne has now posted a formal unblock template request. My view is to unblock, but rather than act unilaterally and in disregard of the prior discussion, I am bringing the situation here. Newyorkbrad 21:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Support unblock. Ryulong blocked the user for the exact same reason Dragonfly had originally provided. The block seems unjust, given that the user was only given two days to make encyclopedic contributions and it's understandable that they would still be riled up about being "unfairly" blocked. I would recommend unblocking this user, and keeping a close eye on the user for the time being. Also, as blocking policy states, blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. I don't see how this block is anything but punitive against the user. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, he could be considered guilty of soapboxing. As to whether that';s a bannable offense, I can't say. HalfShadow 21:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Why unblock? This is self-evidently a sockpuppet of an experienced user. They've made their WP:POINT, time to move on. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the presumption is that accounts are left unblocked unless there is a reason to block them, not the other way around? Newyorkbrad 21:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, and in this case the editor registered a sockpuppet account with a provocative name just in order to troll. There's three reasons in one. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep blocked soapboxing from the very moment of enrolling that username, in addition to all the other stuff mentioned. Could have been blocked for advocacy per WP:USERNAME at very first edit. Also probable sock per JzG's analysis in the earlier thread (and just now, edit conflict). 75.62.6.237 21:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this all comes down to whether AmendmentNumberOne (talk · contribs) is a legitimate, non-disruptive sock puppet, as per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses of multiple accounts, or not. I haven't followed this whole brouhaha very closely, but the number of bytes spent discussing his behavior are not in his favor. Picaroon (Talk) 22:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize as I've had limitted internet access over the past couple of days (I am currently sitting in PBIA while awaiting my flight back to New York). In my eyes, AmendmentNumberOne had a full two days to make some sort of a mark on the encyclopedia, which (as I stated somewhere in one of my replies on ANI or to JNighthawk) that he did not make an attempt to edit any article, not even Puppy. The account itself was never one that was to make any sort of edits on the encyclopedia, and instead make his feelings known about how he feels about censorship (his name being a direct reference to such) and afterwards complain about how he was unjustly blocked by DragonflySixtyseven. In the past thread concerning the individual which has since been archived, my block was supported by anyone in the thread save for one individual, and it was obvious to anyone else that the account AmendmentNumberOne was not here to do anything but whinge and talk about censorship of the HD DVD encryption key. I stand by my block.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support block They are clearly a sock of an experienced user. That, as well as being a SPA are not prohibited, but people are given accounts so that they can contribute to articles, images, templates, etc, not solely to try influence Wikipedia policy on talk pages and DRV. If this is a sock of an experienced user, I don't see why they need an alternate account solely to push POV while hiding their main identity. In the unlikely event this is a new user, then can be unblocked if and when they want to make a contribution to the project, rather than opine on the DMCA. —dgies^t_c 22:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support block. Ryulong's judgement was sound. WP:SOCK#LEGIT allows use of separate accounts for "substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia," but in this case it's clear all AmendmentNumberOne was doing was promoting his point of view without actually contributing to our encyclopedia. Krimpet (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'd just like to comment about this - I'm not an admin, so I'm not sure if I'm allowed to discuss here. The way I see it, is that no clear policy-based reason has been extended for blocking this user - in fact, the reason extended is that the user "doesn't contribute to the encyclopedia". Frankly, I don't understand this - the encyclopedia is more than just the mainspace - it extends to all of the bureaucratic material which backs up that mainspace; and this includes deletion debates and reviews. Let's say there existed a user who solely edited to comment on deletion debate - I could not, in good faith, say that user was "not contributing" to the encyclopedia. The same is true if they only commented on deletion reviews. Like it or not, but these are essential parts of the encyclopedia, and commenting on them in an informed and reasonable fashion can be as important as writing an article. There is nothing wrong with being an informed editor, who comments on issues they feel passionately about, and bases their arguments on policy - even if they choose only to contribute outside the project mainspace.

It doesn't jive with my understanding of how this encyclopedia is supposed to function by blocking such a user, and it definitely doesn't jive to then characterize their attempts to be unblocked as "whining". There has been no evidence advanced that he's a sockpuppet, either. Let the user contribute - and if he actually breaks policy, then take action; not before. --Haemo 22:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

As Haemo said, I don't see where these sockpuppet allegations are coming from. The user's edits may be suspicious, but who says the user is not a legitimate editor who created his account to address an issue he was watching on Wikipedia? I think we should be blocking people based on facts, not mere assumptions. I know assumptions are used when blocking suspected sockpuppets, but when we don't know who this person is (assuming it's a sock), then we shouldn't go around blocking people. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support unblock, as per Nishkid64. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Even if it is a sock, unless the puppet was supporting his/her main account in the discussion, or using it to !vote twice in the DRV, it's not an abusive sock. Unless we have evidence of that, there's no reason to leave the account blocked. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Perhaps ANO can show what he would like to contribute to Wikipedia aside from his personal beliefs in free speech and whatever that number is? Phony Saint 23:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Editors do not have the burden of laying out a plan for future contributions as a condition of being allowed to edit. With due respect to Ryulong, Guy, et al., I still see no foundation of any kind for this block. Newyorkbrad 01:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean it like that... I support unblocking him. But it would probably be more reassuring to the others to show that he does intend to contribute more than pursuing justice against admins who jumped the gun in some sort of WikiCourt case. Phony Saint 02:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• The evidence that this accoutn is a scok is IMO far from compellign, but grantign that, I see no evidence at all of thsi being an abusive sock, and none of disruption. The user was arguing a PoV, perhaps more strongly and stridently than was wise or polite, but that is not grounds for blocking, and neither is complaining about a block on the proper forum. There is no time limit within which uers must edit an articele or be blocked, nor are SPA's forbidden. And if we blocked every use who argued for a PoV, we would ahve far fewwer editors on controversial topics. No policy-based reason has been advanced for this block. Support unblock. DES ^(talk) 02:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• This reflects a problem we have with contentious discussions - namely, that admins are willing to block any SPA who joins in. He may or may not be a sockpuppet, but WP:SOCK certainly allows a seperate account for controversial that people do not want associated with their main account. Support unblock, if it isn't obvious. -Amarkov moo! 02:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support unblock. Soapboxing, while probably not a good thing, is not against Wikipedia policy, even if done by a sock. As long as its not disruptive and doesn't violate other policies such as civility, there is no justification in blocking the sock. There is no rule saying that Wikipedians cannot participate in policy discussions with socks, as long as they are not abusive. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 02:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Soapboxing most definitely is against Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox has been a policy for years. Uncle G 18:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If I need to reiterate, contributing to the encyclopedia is generally considered to be the main space, while the project pages, such as this one, are part of Wikipedia as a whole, it was obvious that A#1 is a single-purpose account created to soapbox and argue. If the user had not had been blocked by DragonflySixtyseven initially, the user would have no reason to contribute to any page. He was originally here solely at the DRV on the article that had the number as the title. Since then, the user behind the account (whoever it may be) solely whinged about the block. This unblock was in place for two days and only after I had blocked the user did the discussion about the supposed abuse get archived. The user was never here to do anything but soapbox and complain about censorship and then adminabuse. I have a feeling that once the account is unblocked, that it will initiate another massive discussion about how I abused my admin tools and not contribute anywhere else.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a whole lot of assumptions on your part, I think, based on very little evidence. First of all, you blocked him for "not being here to contribute" - as has been discussed, that's not a policy-based reason for blocking. Furthermore, as I discussed above, it's not prima facie that a user who doesn't "contribute", by your definition, can't still play a valuable role in the encyclopedia. Past that, your objection is that the user is "whining" and committing "admin abuse" over being repeatedly blocked for this reason. Frankly, that's not compelling, given that a large number of people also disagree with the block. It's totally inappropriate to claim a user trying to be unblocked over a block which is widely debatable is "whining" or "abusing the admins", and it marginalizes the user essentially because he disagrees with you. Am I "whining" about this block? Are my comments "admin abuse"? If so, then there's something wrong with your definitions here - and if not, then neither are his.

Blocks should be based on policy, and not on personal beliefs about what does, and does not, constitute satisfactorily "constructive" contributions, especially when there is no evidence of disruption. Being a single purpose account is not blockable. Only contributing to deletion reviews is not blockable. Asking to be unblocked when blocked without any policy justification is not blockable. I don't see any reason why this user was blocked, and the justification given is not satisfying in the slightest. We have policies to govern blocking precisely to protect the encyclopedia from abuse - admins should try to abide by them, unless there is a clear reason to act on the principle rather than the literal text. --Haemo 06:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"Adminabuse" is generally abuse of administrative actions, not abusing administrators.

That aside, the user was only here to stir up already controversial topics and was blocked for being an account who directly made his way over to DRV. When he was blocked, he directly contacted the admin who blocked and there was other discussion that led to DragonflySixtyseven's unblock and apology. From what I saw, the apology was rejected and he spent the 48 hours that he was unblocked on this message board complaining about how he felt that he was unjustly blocked. Although I generally only apply blocks for non-contributive accounts on those that solely built up their user pages or user talk pages. There is nothing written in WP:BLOCK that states that single-purpose accounts are to be blocked. There's nothing written anywhere on Wikipedia that excessive complaining will lead to a block. However, when all a user does is complain, then that is on the thin line between discussion and trolling. While AmendmentNumberOne's comments were civil, they were all complaints in one way or another even after an apology by the original blocking administrator. I saw no constructive edits from AmendmentNumberOne. He was, in any definition, a troll. While I do know about assuming good faith, when good faith is not assumed by the other, and after 2 days, then good faith is lost.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you look at his contributions you can see that he registered, set up his user and talk pages, commented on deletion reviews, and then was blocked with the reason single-purpose account that has served its single purpose.

His next edit after being blocked was then to request being unblocked, where he asserted My edits have been made in good faith and represent a legitimate attempt to communicate my opinion on the titular subject of an article that I feel is important to Wikipedia. I believe the blocking admin has incorrectly and without reason assumed bad faith on my part. The block was then reviewed, and declined, with the argument User clearly acting in bad faith.

He then proceeded to argue on his user page that he was not acting in bad faith, and cited policy repeatedly to justify this. He was then replied to by User:Yamla, who was the reviewing admin, who accused him of [a] deliberate attempt to get Wikipedia sued by posting information you know will cause the MPAA and asserted this was a clear indication that you have no business being allowed to edit here.

The user then replied, on his talk page to this comments, calling them unwarranted and in bad faith. He asserted he was upset about being accused of disruptive actions, and demanded an apology from User:Yamla.

He then, apparently following the blocking admin's actions, posted a response to accusations made against him on another talk page, which he was unable to edit - namely that user was banned for making a lot of (now-deleted) articles containing the HDDVD string, and for tantrumming about how Digg was being an Evil Awful Censor. As he notes in his reply, this is totally untrue. After no reply for a number of hours, he requested help from any editors, especially to post on this noticeboard. After no action, he commented again, requesting help.

After, apparently, a comment was made on this page, the blocking admin replied here, stating More to the point, I freely admit that I may have misspoken as to the precise nature of the infraction, but he showed up with a Frea-Speach (sic) name and immediately started fussing about in the HD-DVD Decoder String Deletion Review. A single-purpose account if I ever saw one, and I've damn well seen lots of them. The user then replied on his talk page, questioning why he was blocked if this was the rationale, and asking what he did wrong. He continues to comment about his block, citing policy, and asking for justification for his block, and posting related information to his talk page. Days later, he requests help again. He then write a letter to the blocking admin, summarizing his few. A few minutes later, he was unblocked, with the reason Fine. Let's see if you behave.

He then thanked involved users, who agitated on his behalf, and opened an informal complaint on this page, asserting that he was blocked for no reason, and asking for remedy to protect other users from the same treatment. He then reverted a couple of User:Ryulong's reversion of his pages. He was then blocked, with the reason I have blocked this account indefinitely for having no impetus to contribute to the encyclopedia at all. This was created solely to raise issues with the encryption key debate and has not made a single edit to any page outside of the Wikipedia or User spaces.

The rest of this brings us here. Now, frankly, if that is "whining" or an inappropriate use of a user's time, then we have a much more serious problem. I know that if I was blocked for no apparent reason for days, before being unblocked without any serious acknowledgment of what went wrong, my first move would be to bring this up here - and for exactly the reasons he brought it up. I see no reason to categorize this as "whining" or as any sort of conduct that is worthy of a block. We should not expect users who are understandably upset at being blocked for no apparent reason, and then unblocked without any acknowledgment of a mistake to just "roll with it" and move on. --Haemo 07:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I may be missing something here, but what does this project (i.e. the creation of an encyclopedia) gain if we unblock this user? It doesn't seem to me that this account is likely to contribute content nor has expressed any desire to do so. What is the purpose of this sock? Why can the original account not be used to make the posts this account makes? Without answers to these questions, I'm not really sure unblocking is a good idea. WjBscribe 07:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

We gain an articulate, knowledgeable editor to comment on issues? As policy says, there's nothing wrong with being a single purpose account. Frankly, I don't believe it should work like this regardless of what we gain - users should not have to "prove" their worth before being unblocked, if the block was not valid in the first place. That's backwards. --Haemo 08:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is really pissing me off. There is no policy backing up all 3 of his blocks (original, the unblock review, and the current one). None. Zero policy behind it. Follow the guidelines that are in place. They're there for a reason. Haemo has deftly argued the points of this case and I don't understand how anyone can agree with this block. Presumption of innocence? Accounts are not created on a probationary basis. A user remains unblocked unless there is a reason to be blocked. Honestly, have the admins that are agreeing with this block even read Wikipedia policy? This user shouldn't be unblocked because he pledges to contribute, but because he was blocked unjustly in the first place! - JNighthawk 08:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've not really had much chance to edit Wikipedia the last few days, due to other circumstances, so this is really my first chance to comment about the issue.

This user may not be a sockpuppet: he could have heard about Wikipedia from someone else who has an account, and that may be why he knows a bit about Wikipedia. We should WP:AGF unless there is evidence that proves he is a sockpuppet. Just because a new user may know about Wikipedia policy, templates, etc. does not imply they are a sockpuppet - they could be friends of another editor, etc. (although wouldn't that fall under meatpuppetry??) Either way, we should let him edit again - and the single-purpose account policy says there's nothing wrong with it. I agree with Newyorkbrad's opinion on this:

Editors do not have the burden of laying out a plan for future contributions as a condition of being allowed to edit. With due respect to Ryulong, Guy, et al., I still see no foundation of any kind for this block.

If he just wants to edit articles relating to freedom of speech etc. then that is probably permissible per the policy on SPA's.

Apologies if this seems overly long, I hope I've helped you with this one - it's a situation that is a bit of a hot potato at the moment. --SunStar Net ^talk 09:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• This was a good block. The username has absolutely no edits in article space and he's done nothing but whine endlessly about censorship. Please don't waste any more time on this idiot. --Tony Sidaway 12:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Concur with Tony on this one. I don't see any valid argument for unblocking this guy. He's not here to write the encyclopedia, he's here looking for a discussion forum to advocate his views on "freedom of speech". This is what Wikipedia is not. --Cyde Weys 14:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Concur also, minus the impolite expressions. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, it is an encyclopedia. Users - and even more so single purpose accounts - who show no inclination to ever actually contribute to the encyclopedia should be blocked. If this account belongs to an established editor, I see no legitimate reason why they should not express their views on this subject under their own user name. Sandstein 14:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Totally silly block, no policies have been violated. Sandstein if you think "Users - and even more so single purpose accounts - who show no inclination to ever actually contribute to the encyclopedia should be blocked" then you should change Wikipedia:Single purpose account to say that. But there is worse, the accusation of whinning is much more important here, one of the reasons for the continued block is the user complaining about the block. That is admin abuse, if the user had been uncivil about it then he should be blocked but to ban the user for going through DR proceedures is an abuse of power. Hypnosadist 14:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

        Disagree with the block by all means, but if in a case like this you're going to go yelling "admin abuse", don't expect to be taken seriously.

        One of the excuses for unblocking this disruptive non-article-editor is that he may be the Wikipedia:single purpose account of an article editor. If that is the case then his views can be expressed without a separate account. The account is not helping Wikipedia in any way and should be blocked. --Tony Sidaway 15:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

        Any diffs of this editor being disruptive then tony? Hypnosadist 15:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

        Does calling someone an idiot not violate wp:civ? Hypnosadist 15:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

      • Its not just this case, many posts on this page have admins threatening users with blocks for trolling or whinning if they complain, this case is just one. This clearly has to stop as it is being used as a way to suppress complaints about how admins do their job and what policies they block under. Note you still fail to offer a policy that this user has violated, if the rules for blocks is "because admin X says so" then say that, if the rules are for violating policy then state which policy this editor has violated to justify this block. All i see are assumptions of BAD faith on behalf of the blocking admins. As to "but if in a case like this you're going to go yelling "admin abuse", don't expect to be taken seriously." thats the problem, first i did not yell admin abuse and second did you stop for a second to consider how this blocking without policies looks to non-admins or outsiders. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hypnosadist (talk • contribs) 15:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
      • I hope I'm missing something but I don't see the disruption. It seems to me that this user would like to contribute to the encyclopedia (by adding those magic numbers) but feels denied that oppertunity due to current consensus. Instead he has been trying to persuade a change in consensus and was blocked for expressing an opinion that most of us disagree with. What am I missing? --Selket ^Talk 15:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, exactly. There has been no evidence of disruption on the part of this user. He was initially banned for being a single purpose account - which is contrary to policy - with additional justification that he was being disruptive and adding the so-called "magic number" to a bunch of pages. This appears to be patently untrue, and there has been no evidence given to support this. When he pointed this out, in requesting to be unblocked, he was told that "he was obviously acting in bad faith", again, without any evidence to back this assertion up. After requesting some actual justification, he was accused of "trying to get Wikipedia sued" and of "acting in bad faith", again, without any justification. After sometime, he was unblocked, with the comment "Meh, I'm being too nice" - and no acknowledgment of any mistake, or explanation for the actions of two separate admins. He then posted about this on this page, lodging an informal complaint, and was blocked for "not contributing to the encyclopedia" - again, another reason for blocking not based in policy.
        • There has been no justification for any of the blocks given - there has, however, been a whole lot of bad faith, outright mistruths, and accusations leveled at this editor with absolutely no support. Most jarringly, in my mind, is the fact that people seem to believe that agitating to be unblocked, after being blocked without justification, and using fallacious evidence, is "whining", and that attempting to get some degree of accountability from admins involved is "whining", and is deserving of a block. That is totally unacceptable in my mind. The onus is not on editors to prove that they meet some arbitrary, undocumented, and undefined level of "contribution" in the minds of any given admin in order to remain unblocked. --Haemo 20:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, my initial reaction upon reviewing this block was that it was not sufficiently supported by the blocking policy or by evidence. Rather than act unilaterally, I posted about this unblock request here. A wide range of views have been expressed, by both admins and non-admins, but unfortunately, no consensus appears to have been reached one way or the other. As in any on-wiki discussion the quality of the arguments matters more than the numbers; but numerically, for what it is worth, there was a slight preponderance of users opining against the block.

This leaves me to exercise my discretion as the reviewing administrator, and my conclusion remains that for the reasons discussed above, the reblock is without sufficient foundation to stand. Accordingly, I have granted the unblock request and unblocked this account, with the hope that this editor will proceed to make valuable contributions. I will, of course, monitor the account. My thanks to everyone who provided input in this thread. Newyorkbrad 21:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. The editor in question obviously has no inclination to work on Wikipedia and the account should be blocked for that reason alone. --Tony Sidaway 15:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I can't THINK of a word to describe that message. I am tempted to start a new discussion revolving around that comment. Funpika 18:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

One idea I have had is whether the voluntariness of the agreement to license one's contributions under the GFDL might be affected by new contributors being prevented from future contribution if they don't contribute in time or enough or to the right area. -AmendmentNumberOne 00:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Newyorkbrad for the time, effort, and thought you put into this unblock review, and ultimately unblocking me. Thank you everyone who argued in good faith both for and against. I plan to make valuable contributions, although after two incidents of unfair blocking, I have grown quite tired. It seems like a good time to sit back, relax, and watch. One last thing, before the opportunity slips away, since this thread does a good job of laying out both sides, I wonder if other editors have ideas on clarifying WP:BITE, WP:AGF, WP:BP and other areas of policy so cases like mine might be prevented in the future. -AmendmentNumberOne 12:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIV should be added to the list as well as admins calling editors IDIOTS is not appropriate especially as admins stand in judgement on civility issues over editors. Also the accusations of whinning need to be delt with, editors have the right to ask civilly for admins to account for thier actions. Hypnosadist 13:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you completely Hypnosadist. Tony Sidaway has been warned about this before. Being called an idiot and other uncivil behavior on this board, along with constantly having the accusation I had done something wrong by not doing something (and of course the serial blocking) is precisely why I feel worn down. -AmendmentNumberOne 00:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support block, I think Ryulong had the right idea. Even if the person is not a sock of an existing editor, the person has the same net effect. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask you the same question as tony, what wikipedia policies has this account violated? Please provide diffs as we've seen lots of false accusations made against this user. Hypnosadist 14:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruption by 24.58.150.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is aggressively edit warring across a large number of articles to delete all links to a certain website, and is falsely accusing the editors restoring the links of vandalism. He recently used 198.36.23.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to engage in similar activities. It may be necessary to place a block of an adequate length on this user to prevent similar disruption. If he were to return during the block with a new IP address, all of his edits could simply be rolled back. John254 13:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Have the user reported to WP:AIV first. Malcourno 13:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a report regarding this user was recently removed from WP:AIV. John254 13:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

And we'll repeat the reasoning: This user has not been communicated with or warned. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this matter has been discussed with this user (editing as 198.36.23.228) -- see Talk:Garrett_A._Morgan#Garret_A._Morgan_references_that_contradict_Brinkster. John254 15:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Linksearch&target=%2A.brinkster.com&namespace=&limit=500&offset=0 The brinkster links appear to be linkspam and cleaning them up is the right thing to do. In particular see http://www33.brinkster.com/iiii/inventions/ to get a sense of what is being inserted into Wikipedia. Thanks but no thanks. 75.62.6.237 00:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Brinkster.com is just a general website with users on it. Your link was dead, but brinkster.com/iiiii/ is run by Ian Taggert and appears to be a well researched website. Ex see: http://www33.brinkster.com/iiiii/gasmask/page.html What exactly do you find objectionable there. It has references, it has links to the U.S. patent site. I assume the objectionable portion is that he doesn't think Garrett Morgan should get credit for being the father of things that he wasn't the actual inventor -- an odd goal for one's life, but not necessarily evil. -- KelleyCook 14:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Miskin

See WP:RFAR#Miskin. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 09:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC) I have retitled this section because the old name was not that great. Picaroon (Talk) 19:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I recently blocked Miskin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a WP:3RR violation. Before continuing to read this paragraph, please view the user's block log. My block was the SEVENTH one he had received for either disruptive editing, or 3RR violations on articles relating to Persian, Greek, or Ancient Greece war related topics.

I initially blocked for 24 hours thinking it was a simple 3RR violation. (There was a section on the 3RR noticeboard on it that contains all the 3RR diffs). However, after viewing the extensive block history, I extended the block to 1 month. My justification? After 6 prior blocks, the user should be PERFECTLY aware of 3RR policy, as well as WP:DE: he continues to ignore the policies. This is not a newbie editor, these blocks are over 2 years.

I was warned by email that the user has "admins in his back pocket" and he would be unblocked immediately. That apparently was the case, he was unblocked within 24 hours, and I received several angry comments on my user talk page about it.

So I'm requesting a further block review. I cannot justify allowing a clearly disruptive user to continuously revert war, REPEATEDLY violate the 3RR, disruptively edit, and continue to do so. How other admins can justify unblocking that, I do not know. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• That block log is really weird. Blocked -> unblocked, blocked -> unblocked with references to IRC chats, etc. Strange! - Alison ☺ 16:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Just looking at the block log, I'd say your block was justified and that Miskin is needing his/her sorry ass dragged before ArbCom.

I'd love to hear the reason to unblock a user who has shown a continual inability to work with their fellow Wikipedians too. -- Nick ^t 16:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, ArbCom sounds like a good place to go from here. I'll help you write up a case if you need help; obviously it's not helping that this guy keeps "getting away" with his clearly wrong actions. --Cyde Weys 16:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with Cyde here. Something's not right. While the user's been around a while, they've been persistent in their violation of 3RR and you'd think that having been around that long, they'd know better. Frankly, the initial one-month block was not unreasonable. - Alison ☺ 16:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Or we could just skip ArbCom and give him a one week block right here right now, with a promise of further escalation if his behavior does not continue. Also, I want to applaud SwatJester for bringing this problem out into the open; it looks like this user was getting away with far too much for far too long. --Cyde Weys 17:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I too agree, the one-month block was reasonable given his past blocking history as a repeated offender. This whole "admins in his back pocket" thing smells fishy. Krimpet (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the large numbers of personal attacks on the page (coming from admins who really should know better), I think it would be advisable for those passing judgment to become more familiar with the facts. The admin who changed the block explained why he did it on Swatjester's talkpage, however Swatjester did not mention his (maybe he forgot). I think Dbachmann makes some good points.--Ploutarchos 16:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oh please, give that old personal attacks canard a rest. Nobody here has said anything inaccurate. If someone has serious problems with their editing behavior and you call them out for it, that's not a personal attack, it's responsible community management. You're not going to sweep Miskin's problems under the carpet again by relying on a strategy of, "But they said something mean!" --Cyde Weys 17:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• So I reviewed SJ's talk page beforehand, as is customary in such matters. My point still stands. This guy should know better. Re. Cyde's 1-week comment, I'll endorse that, with the note that the user sit THIS block out in its entirety this time. They've had more than enough prior warning here - Alison ☺ 17:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the subjects this chap edits in, but his repeated appeals to "western scholarship" are a little worrying. Wikipedia shouldn't reject sources on geographical or cultural grounds. --Tony Sidaway 17:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's slow down a bit here. The reference to "seven prior blocks" is worrying, of course, but (even putting aside the reversal of several of the blocks since that has been questioned), I see no prior blocks in 2007 and only one 24-hour block in all of 2006. As such, the 3RR violation doesn't warrant more than the usual 24-48 hours. This appears to be a good-faith contributor, albeit with some rough edges, and reference to "his sorry ass" should be avoided. And suggesting ArbCom seems quite premature without even either getting the blocked user's comments or considering an RfC. Newyorkbrad 17:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Where did anyone say "his sorry ass"? I'm not seeing it. --Cyde Weys 17:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Above in this thread (not by you, Cyde). Actually, a gender-neutral formulation was used. Newyorkbrad 17:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

At what point do we say "Enough already"? Apparently not after repeated blocks and persistent incivility, to judge by some. Suggest a one-month block at this point, with each subsequent block to be twice the length of the previous one. Raymond Arritt 17:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No case has been made here for "persistent incivility." Newyorkbrad 17:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree broadly with Newyorkbrad here. The fellow's block log isn't particularly relevant. I think Swatjester has encountered a worrying situation here. I do think this should go to arbitration, but not to look at Miskin's conduct alone but at the ongoing warfare on these articles. It looks like a battle of points of view, and that isn't the way we should edit Wikipedia. Perhaps an article probation of some kind might be in order here. --Tony Sidaway 17:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Has there been any prior attempt at dispute resolution? I see some references to suggestions for DR on the user's talkpage, but can't tell if any came to fruition. Newyorkbrad 17:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester's reference to "seven blocks" is disingenious to say the least. As I have argued on User talk:Swatjester, it is my considered opinion that his month's block of Miskin is untenable. His 24h block for 3RR is arguable, and I left that in place. If you take ten seconds to cast more than a passing glance at Miskin's blocklog, you will see that his last block lasted for 38 minutes, back in September, for "unilateral moves" (not 3RR). His last block before that was in December 2005. Some of you admins haven't even been around that long (Raymond calling "enough already" above has been with us since July, and thus at best preserves in living memory Miskin's 38 minute block for "unilateral moves"). Give us a break. Miskin was trolled (his opponent was since permabanned as a throwaway account). He was tricked into a 3RR vio. He is sitting out a 24h block for this now. I daresay this qualifies as "enough" for the case at hand, nothing to see here. dab (𒁳) 17:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm looking at six blocks here as opposed to seven, so you're correct here. I have to say that Swatjester while far from being "disingenious" as you say, did exactly the right thing in bringing the matter to ANI in the interests of transparency. His 24hr block is far from arguable, frankly. - Alison ☺ 17:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'm having trouble seeing why the longer block was undone; one month seems reasonable. If it is to be shortened, it shouldn't be less than one week. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I came across this user yesterday. Aside from being aggressive and pushy in his editing, the level of rudeness shown by this user is more than I've ever seen. For one thing, most of his arguments are, quite frankly, ad hominem attacks and slanderous generalizations. --AlexanderPar 17:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine fine, the seventh block (and 8th) are mine. Six prior blocks are unacceptable still. Furthermore, I'd like to mention that this is my only contact with Miskin or these articles: I've had absolutely zero prior dealings with him before, nor have I ever edited any of those articles. Only reason that this came to my attention was because a user felt that there was some "shady adminning" going on, and emailed me to take a look.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Swatjester (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict) Blocks of Miskin (talk · contribs):

• 2005
  • 4 July, 3RR, 24h
  • 25 August, 3RR, unblocked after 80 minutes
  • 13 November, 3RR, 24h
  • 28 December, 3RR, unblocked after 6 hours
• 2006
  • 25 September, "unilateral moves", unblocked after 38 minutes.

Swatjester's block was for 3RR, and he argued that the user's block log aggravates the penalty. I argue that this is nonsense. I did not look into recent civility issues. If you want to block him for 3RR, block him for 24h and be done. If you see civility or disruption issues, properly warn the user, and issue blocks if he persists, but don't conflate it with the block log, or the troll-induced 3RR vio. Miskin has served a total of 56 hours blocking time in 22 months, the bulk of it when he was a very new user. I also object to the title of this section and to Swatjester's, I repeat, disingenious presentation of the case. This is not the way to do it. Miskin is a valuable and long-standing contributor. If he has civility issues, he deserves detached admonition and proper warning, not a kangaroo court on his "sorry ass". thank you, dab (𒁳) 17:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree. The block log here (regardless of the 6 or 7 whatevers) shows that the editor simply doesn't grasp the concept of 3RR. You'd think after this long that they would. I'd certainly endorse a 1-week long block at this point, and one which needs to go to term. This revert-war block + unblocking just has to stop. They are not immune to the rules any more than the rest of us and simply applying 24-hours blocks (which sometimes get undone) is obviously not working - Alison ☺ 17:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've managed to be a valuable, long-standing contributor without being blocked once, let alone 7 times. Perhaps something else is at work here? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I also object to my presentation being referred to as disingenuous. I submitted this here for transparency. Would you mind refraining from such accusations? Or does good faith not apply to everyone anymore? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

(EC) There is no such thing as a "troll-induced 3RR vio". If you're convinced someone who's edit-warring is wrong, you seek wider input. If you're right, other people will readily back you up, and there will be no 3RR. If you find people to agree with the "troll" instead, well, maybe you're not as right as you thought you were. There are exemptions to the 3RR for simple vandalism, BLP issues, etc. If what's happening doesn't meet one of those, "I'm convinced they're wrong" is not one. Unless said "troll" has somehow compromised your account, no one but you can choose to hit that revert button. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Section break

I support Swatjester's stance. Last time I checked, having 3RR violations spread over two years is not a valid excuse to have a short block. Rather, it is a valid reason for the direct opposite; to have the block lengthened since this user knows policy and is deliberately violating it. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 17:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• • the blocks are spread over four months, followed by a 17 month period with no 3rrvios. Why do people keep harping on the 2005 episode? dab (𒁳) 18:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • Then that only makes his current behavior all the more suspect. He should have learned not to edit-war, yet he still does it, and gets blocked for it. It does not matter if it was done two years ago or two days ago. Your continuing defense of him is based on time, which is not a valid excuse. Does having blocks two years ago allow him to forget that he isn't suppose to violate 3RR? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 18:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Ok - I'm going to be bold here and extend this editor's block to 1 week for repeated violation of WP:3RR. This is not a month, nor is it 24 hours. The message that revert-warring and 3RR has had enough time to have become understood, yet it has clearly not been. In light of previous offences, this is entirely justified. I am ignoring any comments re. emails and whatnot as they are simply hearsay at this point. I am focussing on this editors past history here re. 3RR. - Alison ☺ 18:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

look, it's easy to keep a clean block log if you don't descend into the swamp that are nationalist infested topics on Wikipedia (I might add that I've spent more than two years in this swamp and still have a clean block log, but tempers are varied, and it's not for lack of people trying to have be blocked). I repeat, the 2005 blocks should be left out of this. If you're going to block Miskin for disruption, do it, but not after fair warning. This has nothing to do with 3RR at this point. Incidencially, if anybody still thinks I am "in Miskin's back pocket", you may want to review the archives of Talk:Ancient Macedonian language where I was significantly involved in the "breaking in" of Miskin from a trollish newbie to a valuable Wikipedian in good standing. In my book, Miskin has been blocked without warning. The 3RR block didn't need a warning, this new block for disruption would have needed one. Look at his talkpage, he gets a kind note regarding the trolls on Battle of the Persian Gate, then a "tireless contributor" barnstar, and in the next section he is slapped with a one week block for disruption. That's not acceptable practice for me. If you like warn him that further incivility will result in a 1 week block. dab (𒁳) 18:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm over 3 years here myself. I've been intensely involved in both vandal reversion and dealing with POV on Irish Republican/Nationalist articles for a long time now. So far, no blocks whatsover. I'm ignoring anything to do with admins/pockets/emails/whatever. The guy was out of line here and was being disruptive. He's done so repeatedly before. A 1-week block is entirely justified, IMO. A 1-month block is certainly not. - Alison ☺ 18:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• No one here gives batshit about whatever awards or honors he has if he violated policy. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• And another thing, referring to my efforts here as "patent bad judgement" on that user's talkpage, apart from being phenomenally rude and out of line, isn't helping matters at all. Further, if the editor has a problem with my block, they can just use {{unblock}} and state their case, just like anyone else. Another admin will review accordingly. I am so not impressed with this at all - Alison ☺ 19:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The first 6 blocks weren't adequate warning? What about the 3RR vio noticebohttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit&section=48ard complaint?⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This fellow definitely knows enough about the three revert rule: he has made comments about it recently on the relevant page: [38] [39] [40]/ --Tony Sidaway 19:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, people are being a bit too harsh on this user. I believe I have seen instances of greater leniency in more serious cases. I am especially wondering about the "repeated violation" argument: if someone violates the 3RR-rule a couple of times in 2005 and then once again almost one and a half year later, can it still be considered as part of one pattern of 3RR-violations (as I get the impression that this is the case in this discussion)? And does this also imply that a user could be permanently banned after, say, five or ten years on the base of one violation despite a clean record of several years? Iblardi 19:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that depends on who ones enemies are. Apparently people are not allowed to improve on Wikipedia; their newbie mistakes stay with them forever. Reverting a troll running on open proxies (i.e. a likely sockpuppet) [41] should not count towards the 3RR. It just rewards sockpuppetry. What do we have WP:IAR for?--Ploutarchos 19:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's ignore the 3RR rules, after all they only apply to others and not to us ... right? It's quite possible to deal with sockery/vandalism/whatever wihout breaking the rules. I and so many others seem to manage just fine. Maybe we could keep a list here of editors who are allowed to break rules and those who are not. That way, we can avoid "patent bad judgement" in the future. Ugh! - Alison ☺ 19:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean I now have a lisence to use untraceable sockpuppets running on open proxies to rv war? Should it be allowed? As it's impossible to trace them (unless the user "slips"), how else can they be dealt with? Also, misrepresenting another's position like you just did is such a lame tactic. I would have expecet better from an administrator.--Ploutarchos 19:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

And with that comment you just misinterpreted all our arguments. Congratulations for calling the kettle black. Anyway, has anyone noticed that when admins crack down on such violations, they are heckled for the constantly frivolous charge of "admin abuse," but when we start cutting slack, we are accused of over-leniency? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Another section break

Oh god, not IAR again. Inevitably it's always brought up to avoid policies. Here's the rub: I did EXACTLY what I was supposed to do per WP:3RR and WP:BP. Quoted relevant sections from Blocking Policy: "Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking (particularly with respect to blocks for protection) but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking. Users who have been made aware of a policy and have had such an opportunity do not require further warning."blocks for all types of disruptive behaviour are typically for 24 hours, longer for successive instances;,blocks on types of user accounts considered disruptive are typically of indefinite duration;

and 3RR:

"Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations., Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any edit warring, even if they do not exceed three reverts on a page in 24 hours. "If an editor violates the three-revert rule, they may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours, or longer in the case of a repeated violation. Many administrators use escalating block lengths for users with prior violations, and tend to consider other factors, like edit warring on multiple pages or incivility, when assigning a block."

Oh, and also, "Administrators should not unblock users blocked by other administrators without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them." and from WP:WW "Possible indications of wheel warring are:.....An admin takes it upon himself to undo another admin's actions without consultation."

Honestly, what the hell is going on here? There's clearly overwhelming support for the block, both from other admins, and by freakin policy. And yet, I'm told that I'm "not allowed to indefinitely block for the 3RR". Let alone that my block was only for 1 month, policy says otherwise. Then, I'm told by a non-admin to go read blocking policy, which supports my actions. I didn't believe the allegations that there was an "admin in this user's pocket" at first, but I'm starting to believe them now. Something incredibly fishy is going on. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can only speak for myself, but I thought a one-month block for this editor was outlandish, and I'd never heard of him before this afternoon. Newyorkbrad 19:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Before we get to the point of painting Miskin as some kind of saint, I think you should look at his remarks on Battle of the Persian Gate dismissing opposing viewpoints with trollish comments like "you know that you're POV-pushing, so it will only be a waste of our time" , "Don't make me laugh", "Don't let your imagination run wild", "What can I say, this is for laughs". From my limited experience with Miskin on this topic, he is as much of a nationalist as one can be. --AlexanderPar 19:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Listen, Swatjester and SouthernComfort. What I'm asserting is that edits made by open proxies are illicit as editing through open proxies is forbidden under WP:NOP. Such edits should be revertable and reverting them should be exempt from the 3RR (as the policy says such edits are "banned", so reverting them should be like reverting a banned user). As far as I can tell, this is the only was to enforce the NOP policy. If users see they cannot use them to revert war, they won't do it. Anyway, I don't expect you to understand; people rarely admit they're wrong. No one is perfect on that article (in fact people are worse), and I'd be very interested to find out who was behind the open proxy.--Ploutarchos 19:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you dragging the topic of open proxies into this conversation? We're not even talking about them. Please get back on topic and not go off in tangents. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It is the topic. Miskin was reverting what proved to be an open proxy [42]. Honestly, don't you read what I wrote?Ploutarchos 19:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You conveniently left out User:AlexanderPar, with whom Miskin (and you) was having a content dispute with, though 3RR was not breached in respect to AlexanderPar. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Funny, however, did Miskin rv him (and/or another legitimate user) more than three times? No.Ploutarchos 20:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You just repeated what I said earlier. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you read WP:3RR? Show me the part that says "reverting open proxies is an EXCEPTION TO THE RULE"? I'll wait. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That's where IAR comes into play? If you don't invoke it, you are rewarding a breach of WP:NOP.Ploutarchos 19:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"reverts to undo actions performed by banned users" is, in fact, in the list of exceptions enumerated in WP:3RR. WP:NOP states "Open proxies are banned from editing Wikimedia projects". I'll let the wikilawyers figure out how to do the math, but the idea that 3RR doesn't apply to open proxy edits doesn't seem crazy given the above. 75.62.6.237 02:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Again per, 3RR "Since edit warring is considered harmful, exceptions to the rule will be construed narrowly." If you ignore this rule, you are rewarding edit warring, which is FAR more dangerous than a proxy. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Not quite considering that the open proxy user was most likely a party to the existing edit war. So you are also rewarding a breach of WP:SOCK for rv warring purposes. In fact, your approach encourages edit warring by open proxy sockpuppets.--Ploutarchos 19:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you know that for sure? No. That's pure speculation. That also ignores the fact that we can simply block open proxies, problem solved. But Miskin made a conscious decision to edit war, instead of reporting to an admin to block the proxy. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a realistic possibility. Open proxies are not allowed to edit, period. Allowing them to edit and treatign open proxy edits as legitimate just created more and more potential for edit warring. Miskin for example next time he wanted to rv war, could do it with an army of open proxy socks, his opponents do the same, and then there is ten times more edit warring. Do you want me to give you an example of that happening? See Republic of Macedonia on 3 April 2006 (that sticks out in my mind it was so blatant).--Ploutarchos 19:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been following closely but I choose not to comment. For the example you were trying to find, check the recent history in Odorheiu Secuiesc where an anon user seems to be reverting himself! In fact, it was two editors who chose to pick the same open IP!! That was the funniest instance that comes to mind ("funniest" in the sense of "black humor" of course). NikoSilver 20:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Also who is the Southern Comfort person you keep referring to.

Your justification is inadequate. Miskin could not have possibly known that he was reverting an "open proxy", and he CHOSE to violate the rule. --AlexanderPar 20:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It's sufficient ground to overturn a block though, don't you agree, SouthernComfort?Ploutarchos 20:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not SouthernComfort, but no, it is not. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to bear that in mind. The problem with it though, it that by treating open proxy edits as legitimate, it'll encourage people to use them more for single purpose revert war socks.--Ploutarchos 20:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Miskin did not indicate his knowledge that he was reverting an open proxy when he was edit warring. You are only using the hindsight bias. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, your approach rewards violating WP:NOP (and likely WP:SOCK), whereas mine rewards reverting "banned" edits.Ploutarchos 20:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Which violation harms Wikipedia more: edit-warring, or using open proxies? Please get the priorities straight first. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I say using open proxies for edit warring is worse that straightforward edit warring.Ploutarchos 20:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I'd say that edit warring, whether using open proxies or not, is equally harmful and should not be treated differently. --Iamunknown 20:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Both are harmful and neither is okay. If an open proxy edit wars, it will be blocked for being an open proxy and/or for edit warring. If a non-open proxy editor edit wars, he will be blocked for edit warring. I don't see any confusion here. --Cyde Weys 20:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think that open proxy reverting is a violation of the policy WP:NOP (and potentially in all cases, of WP:SOCK), whereas rv warring plain, merely violates a guideline? I didn't know that 1 + 1 offences = 1 offence. Interesting logicPloutarchos 20:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Haha, the funnniest of all is that the anon users with the same IP in Odorheiu Secuiesc technically did not violate 3RR because it appears like it was one who was reverting himself to avoid it! NikoSilver 20:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Blatantly violating policies and blatantly violating guidelines merit equal dealings. Creating a false dichotomy between policy and guideline in this manner is reprehensible. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You're resorting to a straw man argument, misrepresenting my position. I say that violating a policy and a guideline (or two policies or two guidelines) is worse than violating one guideline.Ploutarchos 20:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Then I apologize for my mistake. But you are still wrong, because violations are not necessarily compounded by additional violations. We don't work like the courts with mandatory sentencing rules here. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, we work on what's practical and common sense. It's better to discourage edit warring through open proxies than to discourage normal edit warring (of course both should be discouraged). The reason for this is that normal revert warring can be regulated. Once an open proxy sock is blocked, the puppetmaster just creates another one, whose edits will still be treated like those of a legitimate user and reverting them is subject to the 3RR. Open proxies are banned, they should be treated as such.Ploutarchos 20:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Miskin edit-warred, and therefore he was blocked. He has edit-warred in the past, and therefore the block is longer. The open proxy thing has nothing to do with this, since Miskin gave no indication that he knew he was reverting an open proxy. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I repeat: Open proxies are banned, they should be treated as such. Please read WP:NOP where it says that open proxies are "banned" and WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits. Oddly 3RR is disregarded when reverting a banned user (e.g. User:Bonaparte) even when there is no conclusive evidence (e.g. checkuser).--Ploutarchos 20:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The point here is that there is no indication that Miskin knew that he was reverting a user from an open proxy at the time. The fact that the user edited from such a proxy was only discovered after a checkuser was performed later. Therefore, Miskin was not intentionally reverting a banned user. The idea that, if a user's edits were later found to have come from an open proxy the person reverting them is then exonerated, is fallacious. Will (aka Wimt) 20:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't make any difference. Once it emerges that it is a banned edit, 3RR should not apply for reverts of that edits. Example:[43].Ploutarchos 20:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) That example which you have just given was a banned user. Unless I'm mistaken, this was not a banned user but merely a user editing from an open proxy. There is a marked difference between reverting edits by a user who is not banned (but is later found to have edited from an open proxy) and reverting edits which are (in many cases obviously) those made by the sockpuppet of a banned user. In the latter case, it is a fair assumption that the reverting user might realise this to be a banned sockpuppet. But in the former case, there is no reason why the the reverting user would suspect the edit to have been made from an open proxy. Will (aka Wimt) 21:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

To make things clearer, we block on intent and context, not after-the-fact apparitions of apparently exonerating facts. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

In the case I mentioned, that didn't happen. Alaexis reverted the banned user's sock before it emerged that it was a banned user (you can see that for yourselves). Why the double standards?Ploutarchos 21:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Which banned user's sock? I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that this was the sock of a banned user; all I see is that this was a user editing from an open proxy. Will (aka Wimt) 21:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about the example. Back to the point: open proxies are "banned" per WP:NOP. They should be treated as banned.Ploutarchos 21:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No they shouldn't. Miskin had no idea that this user was editing from an open proxy and had no evidence that this user was banned (and indeed this user appears not to be banned). Therefore, Miskin intentionally edit warred. There is no evidence to suggest that had this user not been editing from an open proxy that Miskin wouldn't have edit warred. The exception to the 3RR is very specifically reverting the actions of banned users. And to do that you need to know that the actions were performed by a banned user. Will (aka Wimt) 21:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. In the example, Alaexis didn't know Tiraspolitan was a banned user. It conclusively emerged later after a checkuser. Nevertheless, his reverts of Tiraspolitan were not counted in determining a 3RR violation, even though they were made before it emerged.Ploutarchos 21:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I've become entirely bored by this argument, but in my mind there's a very clear difference between a banned user and a user editing via a method that is banned. All I see here is that there was an obvious intent to edit war by Miskin and there are a few people who will do everything possible to find some loophole to get him unblocked. Will (aka Wimt) 21:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that "loophole" has worked before (of course I consider it a very widely invoked exception). And as far as I know, a ban is a ban.Ploutarchos 21:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Who is "SouthernComfort"? --AlexanderPar 20:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A pleasing alcoholic drink? --Cyde Weys 20:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request posted

Mishkin has now posted a formal unblock request. I would reverse. Newyorkbrad 21:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I would only reverse for pending arbitration. But it's not my call. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I support reversing the block. It has been proven that one of his reverts was reverting an edit made in defiance of the ban imposed by WP:NOP, so that revert shouldn't count.Ploutarchos 21:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

As I've made clear above, I don't think that fact is relevant to any unblocking decision. Will (aka Wimt) 21:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been before. An admin chose not to count reverts of banned edits for the purpose of 3RR even though the user in question did not know they were banned at the time.Ploutarchos 21:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That was entirely unrelated to WP:NOP. A banned user is likely banned because their edits are disruptive and so it follows that any of their future contributions can be reverted. The same is not true of a user who has edited via an open proxy. I have not seen any evidence that a user editing via an open proxy has ever been a reason for another user to have not violated the 3RR before. Will (aka Wimt) 21:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A WP:BAN in a WP:BAN, as I said before.Ploutarchos 21:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ploutarchos is not an admin. You do the crime, you do the time. I think unblocking will set a bad example for the community, punishments are supposed to be severe enough to deter the violator from repeating the same violation again. --AlexanderPar 21:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Alex. Tell me, what do you think of evading ArbCom article bans through sockpuppets?Ploutarchos 21:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you be more specific as to what you are trying to say here. --AlexanderPar 21:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman ring any bells? Also, see WP:SOCK#Circumventing_policy to make sure you know the implications of what you're doing.Ploutarchos 21:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't ring any bells. It seems to me that you're trolling to change the topic, but I'll give it a wack anyway. What are you accusing me of, exactly? And on what do you base your accusations? --AlexanderPar 21:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What does Ploutarchos's status have to do with anything? Non-admins are encouraged to contribute on the AN pages. I would weakly support a reduction to 48 hours, but I don't think there is sufficient support for a straight unblock, which, if executed, would be a slight to two administrators. There is no consensus yet that this was an unwarranted or bad block; that IMO is the only reason for a straight unblock. Anchoress 21:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought only administrators could vote to reverse the decision. --AlexanderPar 21:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but anyone can comment on it. Anchoress 21:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Miskin hasn't been blocked for 3RR in over a year. He has repeatedly said that he didn't consider it a 3RR violation and the first admin to decide his case when he was reported to WP:AN3 said it was not a revert and he shouldn't be blocked. Swatjester then streched to rules as far as possible to interpret an edit as a revert and blocked him for a month. This seems more like an honest mistake on the part of Miskin to me than a deliberate persisten 3RR violation.Ploutarchos 21:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

So? He broke the rule, he got blocked. He broke the rule before, he got blocked longer. Seriously, enough with the emotional pleading here. By the way, Alex, we don't punish. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Straw man argument again? It's also questionable that the rule was actually violated. Looking at the diffs, I don't see it. The first admin to look at his case thought so as well. Science fiction when deciding 3RR cases is a bad combination IMO.Ploutarchos 21:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Straw man? Where? And it's always questionable if there is a cabal or not. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain how exactly Miskin violatred 3RR? Also, see this [44].Ploutarchos 21:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit-warring the now-blocked editor. And why do you ask for the obvious? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Addendum Just because one admin says so doesn't mean that I, and other admins, can't dispute it. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with reversing the block. I've followed this chain but have not commented. The User's 3RR block log is one thing; his contentious editing and abrasive style don't merit leniency. There is short shrift given to civility on Wikipedia these days, and he needs to take some time away to learn how to communicate in an educated-setting, which is what Wikipedia aspires to be. I also think a group of admins should discuss with Miskin the tone he uses in what is meant to be the building of an encyclopedia, not a pissing contest. Besides, he doesn't even give reasons for why his block should be reversed, just repeats that they should be "reviewed" which, which is restating the request to have the block reviewed. I'd like to see Miskin stick around, but I'd also like to see him mature in his manner of discussion. --David Shankbone 21:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with reversing the block, he's been blocked 7(?) times before - he knows what he's doing and knows if he edit wars, he will get blocked. 1 week seems to sum up what he did fairly well. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)`

• Hopefully Miskin learns his lesson and just creates a new account. There is no point in building up a history of good behavior on this one. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

When did the "electric fence" get knocked down? 3RR has always been a goal, not a right. Somebody who's been blocked and warned repeatedly about edit warring knows what the purpose of the 3RR rule is, and it isn't to give somebody the right to edit war three times in every 24 hours. Whether he's technically violated three reverts plus in 24 hours, he's edit warred, and has been warned and blocked before. He knows better. The block should stand. Corvus cornix 22:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely. The block should stand. If anything, we're too lenient on edit warring and incivility; we shouldn't be shy of using admin tools to deter such conduct. -- ChrisO 22:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The block rationale cites the 3RR violation and (ancient) history of same; civility issues aren't mentioned. I have counselled the user to change his editing behavior per the discussion on this thread, whatever happens to the block. As I mentioned in the sub-thread below, the initial reviewing admin didn't even believe there was a 3RR violation. A borderline situation might warrant 24-48 hours given a prior history, but I consider the one-week block here excessive (and the original one-month block truly outlandish). I find it difficult to believe that the events of today would not affect the editor's approach, and if problems continue, then a longer-term block could be considered with far less dissent than currently exists. Newyorkbrad 22:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• As someone who has both edit-warred AND been incivil in the past, and been blocked for it, I found them highly effective tools for me to examine my behavior, and improve it. --David Shankbone 22:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternate accounts and disturbing behavior

The following statement by dbachmann concerns me "it would seem justified for you to begin editing under a new account (using only one at a time of course). That basically seems to me to be encouraging evading a block. Dbachmann, what is going on with you? You unblock without even consulting the blocking admin (a violation of blocking policy at [[WP:BLOCK, and the guideline at WP:WHEEL), and then you encourage him to get another account to bypass his block? This is very disturbing to me. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I must say, that is a popular opinion this day [45].Ploutarchos 22:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the implication was that the user should get another account to bypass the block. It was to get another account so that future edits won't be unfairly evaluated based on a "long history of prior blocks" most of which the editor characterizes as newbie mistakes from a year and a half ago. Personally, I would prefer to see the editor continue editing under his current account, but as indicated I have serious reservations about the current block. Newyorkbrad 22:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, then no issues. However, it doesn't read that way to me. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You're not the only one. However, because of humanity's basic instinct of never admitting error, we'll remain remedyless.Ploutarchos 22:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Will you stop with the glib comments? The vast majority of commentators here agree with the block. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't support block evasion; I suppose he can sit out a week, then create a new account, assuming this block is not overturned. But why keep a black mark on your account if it will be held against you forever? That's just foolish. I'm just saying that if we have a punitive, unforgiving system (and I think the block you gave was certainly punitive and unforgiving) then people will act to avoid being punished, and I don't really blame them. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think anyone is engouraging block evasion around here. Obviously those administrators were speaking for when after the block has expired.Ploutarchos 22:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann wasn't encouraging block evasion, he was suggesting that Miskin serve out the block and then start over so he wouldn't get blocks from 2005 held against him. Miskin's manner of editing is distinctive enough that he'd be recognized under a new name, though. At any rate, like Newyorkbrad, I have strong reservations about the length of this block, and think it should be no longer than 48 hours. It seems clear to me that the block is as long as it is because of Miskin's abrasive personality rather than the 3RR violation in and of itself. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It's questionable whether there even was a 3RR violation. As Miskin has pointed out on his talkpage, the initial reviewer at AN3 found no violation. Granted that edit-warring can be sanctioned even without a 3RR violation, I don't find this situation sufficiently aggravated to warrant a block for that a certainly not a one-week block. My view is still in favor of reversing or reducing the block. Having said that, I have counselled the user that whatever happens with the block, he should address the perceived civility issues and moderate his style of editing to take into accounts the comments that have been made here today. Newyorkbrad 22:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't think there was a 3RR violation. Miskin's third revert [46] comes after Dharmender6767 was indef blocked as a sockpuppet. And as noted, the admin who initially reviewed the AN3 posting found that the fourth "revert", [47] was in fact not a revert. Now, if you want to argue that Miskin was acting against the spirit of the 3RR rule, fine, but I don't think that justifies a 1-week block. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That's incorrect. The third revert came after Dharmender6767 was blocked for 3RR, he was was apparently indef blocked one day later. This is all besides the point though, Miskin made two partial revert after that. --AlexanderPar 23:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction on the timing of Dharmender's block, but I don't think those "partial reverts" qualify as 3RR violations. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the 7 blocks, I know an admin who's been blocked also 7 times, but these 7 blocks weren't an obstacle to his easily and with a formidable amount of votes obtain adminship, and rightly so. I'm probably the admin that's more often interacted (and clashed) with Miskin, as it's almost two years I know him, and I can say that Miskin, while he remains often too confrontational on talk pages, has made enormous progresses, as from his block log should be blatantly evident, and has become a quality mainspace contributor; punish him for misbehaviour committed in 2005 - when only few of the presents here were active in wiki - seems to me incredibly cruel, and more imoprtant, of no help to the encyclopedia. I see that you're a very fresh admin: this may explain part of your passion, and what I read as an obvious misjudgement. I must admit that also your tone isn't perfect: comments like "I didn't believe the allegations that there was an "admin in this user's pocket" at first, but I'm starting to believe them now. Something incredibly fishy is going on" would be nice to avoid, especially considering that you've readily warned (correctly) Ploutarchos to be less exhuberant. Sorry, but I have to stand with Newyorkbrad, it's not even clear Miskin violated the 3RR, and while I'm not against blocks when less than four reverts, I certainly find a week too much, and agree with Newyorkbrad and Akhilleus.--Aldux 22:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect Aldux, I don't think you're honoring Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You were involved in this edit-war, and took sides with Miskin. --AlexanderPar 23:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If its for that, I should be recused for having a (very) long records of quarells and dispute, so I may be considered to have good reasons of resentment against Miskin, to a level that nobody has here. As for Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, maybe you should consider reading it, instead of giving the link.--Aldux 23:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you should be recused for having been involved in this edit-war in support of Miskin, using vandalism-fighting tools to revert edits that were not vandalism. [48] I like you as an editor, but I don't think your involvement here is appropriate.--AlexanderPar 23:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is totally out of line. We're neither discussing Aldux's use of the tools here, nor the article content. We are discussing Miskin, and they are not exactly buddies as everyone knows here. As for the diff, I think you should know better. NikoSilver 00:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice examples we are setting here:

1. defying original admin's reasoning [49]
2. defying reviewing admin's reasoning [50] (who btw has confronted Miskin in other subjects)
3. defying WP:NOP that explicitly states that open proxy edits are WP:BANned, and WP:3RR that states that reverts on banned don't count
4. defying that Miskin's block log has been clear of 3RR for 2 years, with a brief intervening block for "unilateral moves" that was later revoked (as old as 6 months ago) [51]
5. defying that the 3rr itself is a borderline case regardless of the WP:NOP issue (see 3d rv vs 4th alleged rv and rationale)
6. defying precedent that such cases where rv's of WP:BANned edits are exempt [52]
7. defying that 6(!!) esteemed admins here have questioned the block (Seraphimblade, Dbachmann, Newyorkbrad, Christopher Parham, Akhilleus, Aldux)
8. defying that all supporting admins accuse Miskin of irrelevant offenses (vague incivility insinuations in other venues), for which he hasn't been warned and for which no diffs have been brought forward (a.k.a. his block shouldn't stand)
9. and now for people consulting him to erase his past ([53] [54] [55] and Dbachman) because the rest cannot disregard it as they are supposed to...
10. if not to resort to open proxies himself since legitimate editors suffer the same consequences

...and punishing him for a week over all that! Congratulations ladies and gentlemen. NikoSilver 00:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Did I hear something quack? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Do I look like an [accidentally unlogged] WP:DUCK? Thanks for the good faith. Or maybe we should also punish Miskin for avoiding his block now eh? And I don't get it, are you arguing that anon comments are illegitimate here? Should they be intimidated at sight? NikoSilver 00:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. The tone of the (previously-anon) comments seemed strangely...blunt and combative. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A Wikipedia problem: Block logs in perpetuity

This discussion raises a valid problem: there is little reason why a block log should remain a "permanent record." Even though I think Miskin's abrasive editting style deserves a week-long block, I find it very problematic that block logs are never expunged. This is something that should be changed, lest the only way for a person who has "grown up" in how they edit forever have years' old blocks follow them around for the rest of their Wikipedia life. It's pretty ridiculous. I think block logs should be expunged every 365 days. I think dragging up two year old blocks is unfair to any editor. Are we going to bring up three, five, or six year old blocks as Wikipedia ages? These things will outlive bankruptcy filings? --David Shankbone 23:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The admins should do their work like they are supposed to. Historic blocks may be interesting for unrelated issues. I also think it is not technically feasible. NikoSilver 00:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we all understand that editors' habits change over time, so we don't hold very old blocks against people whose more recent editing is unproblematic. The question of expunging old blocks came up in the Giano arb case (the first of them, I think) and the result was that even a block that everyone agreed was incorrect didn't get expunged. 75.62.6.237 01:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It was, in fact, eventually expunged, but you are correct that it was not immediate. Picaroon (Talk) 01:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sadly unsurprised at this point that Swatjester should attempt to squeeze as much "incriminating" evidence against me out of my comments in order to be able counter my "disturbance" at his attitude with "disturbance" on his part (metoo). My comment to Miskin, as anyone following the discussion will recognize, have nothing to do with recommending block evasion. In the unlikely event that this isn't self-evident to everyone except Jester: I was rather objecting that a long-standing contributor should be made to go through this sort of nonsense because he did show some disruptive behaviour, back in 2005 (I remember this case: I would have blocked Miskin myself then, but I was involved in the article). My comment reads: If our overworked admins these days cannot be expected intelligently read a block log, duly making a difference between a stale history of 16 months ago and more than redeemed with valuable contributions, and a history of permanent troublemaking, it may be better for a user with a log of historical blocks to start over with a clean slate. dab (𒁳) 10:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

IMHO the fact that we are discussing the possibility of such a valuable and long standing admin as Dbachmann resorting to idiotic (not to mention suicidal) gestures such as instructing a blocked user to evade their blocks, is a sign of utter deterioration. NikoSilver 10:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The deterioration is also evident from the fact that we have come to the point of discussing expunging block-logs so as to forcefully make admins disregard them, as is their duty. NikoSilver 10:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Few of these arguments make much sense, since a person only need go through the five-second process to expunge their block log themselves by creating a new User name. What it does is penalize stability in the User names; if a person wants to shed their former poor behavior, they can do it themselves. The "technically impossible" argument doesn't hold much water with Wiki, and in the technological age; absent any hard knowledge it is impossible, this is just musing. If a person changes their user name, then all the arguments above fall to pieces. Instead, we should look to reward improved behavior by not dragging out the past and using it against people all the time, and look at their present contributions. Using either light, Miskin's block would still hold without having to talk about what they did years ago. --David Shankbone 13:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional input from the blocked user

I have requested and received some additional input from the blocked user (see final thread on User talk:Miskin). The unblock request remains pending and at this point I am inclined to commute the block to time served (and keep a close eye on Mishkin's upcoming contributions). Newyorkbrad 00:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I support this idea. I think the case for this being a 3RR violation is not strong, and I don't think that it's right to issue such a long block based on behavior that occurred over a year and a half ago. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Brad, I'd be inclined to support that conditionally that if he violates again, it's indefinite block time. That allows him to continue editing, and if he wishes to be constructive he has one (and only one) last chance. Without that condition, I'd have to lean against unblocking. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Keeping an eye on this editor and telling him be careful, no problem. "If he ever makes a mistake again, indef" would be a bit much. Newyorkbrad 01:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

How about "make 'mistake' again, one month"? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Depends what kind of mistake. Prearranging these things in advance rarely works. There will certainly be enough eyes on this editor, without giving those (I don't mean admins) who don't care for him a target to shoot for. Newyorkbrad 01:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The "mistake" I meant was another 3RR violation, if I wasn't clear. —Kyриx (什麽呢?) 03:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this. The vast majority of the administrators here have endorsed the one-week block (19 administrators!). The reduction of the block would be against consensus, and in violation of WP:WHEEL if not implemented by Alison. --AlexanderPar 01:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

While I oppose a straight unblock, I am willing to tentatively support a block reduction. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am against unblocking. I found him very rude and uncivil. Altough I had no previous conflict with this user when I started a discussion with him/her , He/She started atacking me personaly and accusing me of being nationalist instead of responding to my reasonable discussion. Because he got blocked for persian gates battle I want it to be clear that he had broken 3rr elsewhere too. He obvioulsy violated 3rr in Last stand but I was surprised when he was not blocked.(Arash the Archer 01:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

I'd hazard a guess that Miskin understands the concerns brought up here and will be careful from now on, even if he is reverting open proxies. (Discussion above suggests that most do not view that as a 3RR exemption.) So I think we should unblock with, as Brad said, the time he has already been blocked as the extent of it. Blocking is not punitive, and I don't think there is anything to prevent; if it turns out there is something to prevent, he can be reblocked. Picaroon (Talk) 01:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Miskin does understand the concerns brought up here. Look at User_talk:Miskin#To_Swatjester, 2 3RR violations in 2 days, and he still refuses to acknowledge any fault or take any blame or make any promises to improve his behavior. I think he has to learn his lesson the hard way, Wikipedia shouldn't be rewarding such behavior.--AlexanderPar 01:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the person who reviewed the 3RR violation, he unambiguously and clearly violated the 3RR AGAIN after the report was filed (but before my block). See here. He clearly does NOT understand the 3RR rule, otherwise he wouldn't have broke it multiple times, and STILL complains that he "did not 3RR vio": while it's clear he unambiguously DID violate 3RR, without touching the fact that he STILL violated the spirit of 3RR. Remember you're not entitled to 4 reverts per day. Apparently, he thinks that. I have to agree with AlexanderPar. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support the block remaining in place. It has been shown clearly that he was in violation of 3RR after being fully aware of the rule. He has been blocked more than a handful of times before, and no good editor should ever break 3RR more than once, whereupon they are informed about it and never do it again. That it was an open proxy has no bearing on the block whether he knew about it or not (and there is strong evidence to say he did not) because even if someone is editing from an open proxy, that doesn't make reverting their edits exempt from 3RR - if they are using an open proxy, report it, have it blocked, then continue editing without that disruption. The arguments that his history of blocks some time ago is being held against him unfairly would only hold water if he was squeaky clean now - however he isn't, has not been shown to have learnt anything from any of those blocks and consequently an escalation in the length of the blocks is appropriate. I do not at this time support a indefinite block, or the threat of one as condition of unblocking. I don't believe he has reached that stage yet, but he is getting very close to that or an arbcom case. Viridae^Talk 03:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't learned anything? His behavior has been more or less acceptable for nearly 18 months during which he has thousands of constructive edits. Had he switched account names at that time he would have a track record of equal length and approximately equal quality as the original blocking admin. It troubles me that numerous admins are unwilling to put aside his early troubles, and are willing to dismiss thousands of constructive edits over the past year. The episode suggests our community has become unforgiving and incapable of accepting reform. I would say Miskin is an excellent example of someone who has learned something and has substantially reformed himself, which is not to say he is without error, but even arbitrators pick up a 3RR violation now and then. If we are incapable of forgiving and forgetting then there is no point in users attempting to reform; hence my point above about Miskin simply making a new account -- why try to reform yourself if the community rejects such efforts out of hand? Miskin's response to this whole situation has been unfortunate, but in my view unsurprising given Swatjester's initial action. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That the original month long block (although in my opinion excessive) was reduced with no consultation whatsoever with the blocking admin is serious in itself, but that the user has continuing support despite policy being clearly shown to be against him leads me to believe that a certain admin should not involve himself in any further blocks or unblocks of this user. There is quite obviously a conflict of interest here. In future I ask that they refer the matter to this board or another uninvolved admin. Viridae^Talk 03:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry Alison, I wasn't refering to you) Viridae^Talk 03:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• *sigh* - as the current blocking admin, I'd like to say that while I would personally be opposed to lifting the block at this time for numerous reasons, I would certainly defer to community opinion here. Given that the matter was brought here in the first place by SJ for that very reason, that is the most appropriate response. Having said that, I have to say I am disappointed by the way this whole issue was handled here by numerous people on all sides of this heated debate; the assumption of bad-faith on behalf of others, the incivility, the making of grossly inappropriate comments on the talk page of the blocked user in question, the email campaign that started up. And on it goes. While blocking for 3RR violation is not meant to be a punishment, I don't feel the user in question has learnt from this experience. My one-week re-block was done in good faith to prevent this whole issue getting out of hand, which ultimately it ended up doing anyway - Alison ☺ 03:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that much of the tone of this discussion has been regrettable (to say nothing of an "e-mail campaign," which I know nothing about). My strong view remains to reduce the block to time served at this point with a stern warning and some monitoring, but I was waiting for your comments. At this point consensus appears to be that the block stands, and I will not unblock overtly against consensus. I say that with regret, in part because it appears we may wind up losing this editor permanently, and that would not be a good thing. Newyorkbrad 03:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

yet another section break

Honestly, I think the way the block was originally imposed is inappropriate. Miskin was reported to AN3, and the admin who originally reviewed the case said there was no 3RR violation [56]. User:Mardavich then posted on SwatJester's talk page, requesting SwatJester review the case: [57]. To echo some of the language used above, this may not be a technical violation of the forum shopping language in WP:CANVAS, but Mardavich certainly violated its spirit. The news that there's been an "email campaign" for the block doesn't make me comfortable either. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Brad, I appreciate your waiting. And yes - I can see from your perspective re. unblocking. However, I will defer to community opinion on this one. I note, though, that Mardavich's behaviour was inappropriate as it was ostensibly "admin shopping", and that kind of behaviour hurts everyone. Not impressed. It would be a pity if the blocked user chose to leave as a result of all this, but that is ultimately their decision - Alison ☺ 04:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't "forum shopping", I did nothing out of the ordinary, the closing admin had made a mistake which he later recognized and regretted[58], I had asked him to review it[59], the admin wasn't available, so I asked another admin what step I should take next [60]. That's not forum shopping. Akhilleus's got it all upside down! If there's been an "email campaign", it's been to get this user unblocked, the disproportionate number of editors/admins involved in Greek-related topics showing up here out of the blue (such as User:Akhilleus) is a clear indicator of that fact.--Mardavich 04:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Imagine that, an admin showing up at the administrators' noticeboard, out of the blue. By the way, on what basis are you saying I'm pro-Greek? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I reworded my comment to avoid the ambiguity. --Mardavich 04:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's nice of you to change that. However, you still seem to be claiming that I'm posting here because I've been urged to do so through email. What basis do you have for claiming that? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

But that's not what I said. I didn't single you out, I said a disproportionate number of the individuals coming here to support Miskin also happen to be involved in Greek-related topics which appears to be out of ordinary. That's a simple observation. --Mardavich 05:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's true, you didn't single me out. You said I was part of a group of "editors/admins involved in Greek-related topics showing up here out of the blue", which is a "clear indicator" that there's an email campaign to get Miskin unblocked. I suggest you refactor that comment, or provide some justification for saying that an email campaign drew me (and whatever other editors you were thinking of) to this thread. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Your brought up the topic of "email campaign", not me. I just made an observation based upon your statement. --Mardavich 05:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus, you'll note that the original admin who said "no violation" has since changed his opinion, he now states there was a clear unambiguous violation. See User Talk:Sam Blacketer. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that post, but I'm confused by it, and I hope that Sam Blacketer will explain his comment further. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hope so too, but it seems pretty clear to me: At the time of the inital 3RR request, Sam found no violation. By the time I saw the request, there had been a clear violation. Upon notifying Sam, and over night, he saw that after his initial decision there had been a clear violation, and he changed his opinion to "violation occured". That's how it reads to me, ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused. Are you saying that Miskin made another revert after Sam looked at the 3RR request? As far as I can tell, Miskin didn't make any edits to Battle of the Persian Gate after Sam decided there was no violation. Am I misunderstanding what you're saying? --Akhilleus (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

After I had filed that 3RR report, User:Miskin had made yet another revert within the 24-hour frame-work. --Mardavich 06:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

So, um sorry to jump in well into the conversation but I've got two things I feel I need to add. 1) I think that wen admins start debating whether one another are pro-whatever on an unblock request, the process has gone horribly awry. 3RR blocks are given out, not because of content disputes, but because of disruptive behavior during content disputes. Our discussion here, as to the appropriate duration of a block, should be about conduct not content. Therefore, this discussions' participants' POV should be totally irrelevant. 2) We seem to have lost that blocks are meant to be preventative not punitive. This thread is one of several examples going on right now. My final opinion on the matter? I think Miskin deserved a block, just not a 1 month block. I don't know what the right number of days is. I don't think there is a right answer. But, this user is not a "SO-AND-SO IS GAY" vandal. This is someone who has made positive contributions over several years. I think it is important not only to prevent him/her from edit waring now, but also to encourage him/her to continue making positive contributions in the future. --Selket ^Talk 05:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd love this to make positive contributions. Nobody's trying to scare him away. We're trying to get him to follow the rules, which he thusfar refuses to do unless it suits him. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I should say investigating this potential 3RR violation is by now making my ears bleed. When I closed the initial report it seemed to me that the central 'approach' issue in Miskin's reverts was whether the Battle of the Persian Gate should reflect the Encyclopaedia Iranica or the 'western consensus', with Miskin a supporter of the 'western consensus'. He had three clear reverts, but the edit at 18:44 looked more like a compromise: it demoted the 25,000 to 40,000 estimate to merely being "the western consensus" rather than stated as fact. For that reason, and the fact that I don't believe the 3RR should ever be used to stop editors being bold and trying to find a compromise, I held the 18:44 edit not to be a revert and closed as no violation (although Miskin was clearly sailing close to the wind).

Following that reasoning, I think the 10:21 edit was a revert, because the effect of it was to elevate the 'western consensus' about when casualties were inflicted into a clear factual statement in the article, in line with Miskin's previous reverts. For this reason there was a 3RR violation. I think that a 1 month was extreme, because Miskin's block history shows no 3RR blocks since 2005, and I disagree with SwatJester's comment in the block log that Miskin has "clearly no intent of editing constructively". He is a combative and forceful editor but he was discussing on the talk page throughout. Sam Blacketer 08:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Getting something out of this issue

OK, there is a point of contention here, policy-wise, that has been generally unadressed. WP:NOP says that "Open proxies are banned from editing Wikimedia projects." However, that page is a copy from the Meta page, Meta:No open proxies, which means that "banned" does not necessarily have the same connotations it has here. As far as I know, open proxies are not immediately reverted, so they cannot be exemptions from the 3RR. Does this need to be clarified somewhere? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think your interpretation is correct; open proxies are banned in the normal colloquial sense, and they are blocked as discovered because of the potential for damage. There is no reason to revert constructive or good faith edits from open proxies, though such edits may be few and far between. I don't think this needs to be clarified any more than it is; I think most of us can recognize that attempts to evade this issue on a purported technicality are a red herring. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That's totally irrelevant to this topic. As discussed before, Miskin could not have possibly known that he was reverting a registered user on an open proxy. If we make an exception in this case, edit-warriors will cite it and ask for an exception when excessively reverting newbie users that may—or may not— turn out to be using an open proxy. --AlexanderPar 09:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

nobody disputes Miskin should have properly served a 24h block, and I never did "unblock" him in spite of what Swatjester would have you believe. But seriously. Dharmender6767 (talk · contribs)? Does it really matter if this account was editing through an open proxy? This sort of new user joining an edit war triggers "sock attack, semiprotect" in anyone half familiar with nationalist trolling campaigns. Disclaimer: I do not endorse Miskins position in the edit war. I am saying it is obvious he was reverting a troll. And still deserved a 24h block for technical 3RRvio. As opposed to a one month block and a rude threat of permaban. dab (𒁳) 10:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:RFAR#Miskin. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 09:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblock for ArbCom

As a anrbitration request has now been filed, I think it is only fair that Miskin is unblocked to defend himself, that is not me questioning the 1 weeks block, but it seems to make sense in light of how things have moved forward. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have copied his opening statement to the case page from his user talk page. If the case is accepted, he can post evidence on his talk page as well. Although, with the current arbitration case backlog, a week's delay in posting his evidence would likely not affect the outcome. Thatcher131 17:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless an arbitrator requests it, I'm not sure unblocking is a good idea. Miskin is free to participate in the case while blocked, either by adding a statement to his talkpage which can be copied to the Arbitration page or by emailing ArbCom. WjBscribe 17:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe an unblock would be appropriate in this situation. Please see my statement in the arbitration case, including a motion which I have addressed to the arbitrators. Newyorkbrad 17:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed to Miskin that I will unblock his account, provided that he only edits the arbitration pages that he is involved in, if he edits other pages, I will immediately reblock the account - the block is punitive if he agree's to the condition. I will unblock the account; firstly, if Miskin agree's to this, and secondally, if there is no clear community outrage at me doing this. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked Miskin upon condition he only edits arbitration pages related to his case, any other edits will result in his immediate reblock. I have asked NYB to forward an email to ArbCom explaining my reasoning. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense, though after May 19 (18:10 UTC to be specific) he should be free to edit generally once again, since the existing block will have reached expiry. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, and I explained this to him. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Sorry to bring this up again, but it seems to be a continued problem. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers and Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera have come to (what I and others view as a) consensus that infoboxes are not necessarily wanted on composer biography pages, and it is fine to remove them when you come across them. User:Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett) strongly disagrees, and doesn't seem to think a WikiProject should come up with a style guideline to apply to articles which it tends. There have been slow-moving edit wars on a number of composers pages, and what I see as WP:POINT-driven editing and WP:3RR gaming of a number of pages by Andy Mabbett. Members of the WikiProject have not been perfect either. In view of previous arbitration regarding Mr Mabbett, including that he was limited to one revert per article per week I wonder what the appropriate action is. Can the previous arbitration be added to at this point? Note that Pigsonthewing recently came back from a yearlong enforced break and has returned to fractious editing. It is possible also that some articles need to be protected until this matter is resolved - see Michael Nyman, Steve Reich, and Philip Glass. Unfortunately, it is possible that if these articles are protected, the fight will move on to other classical composer articles. Obviously, as an involved admin, I cannot protect them myself. Mak (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This debate has been characterised by multiple breaches of WP:OWN, false accusations, and dishonest claims to have both consensus and policy support in cases where there is no such support (as I have made clear), from multiple members of the two projects concerned. I have raised these concerns on ANI and elsewhere (e.g. [61], previously. I have also suggested methods of compromise, which have, it seems, been dismissed out-of-hand. I have recently (but prior to the above) made appeals for third-party input in the hope of resolving these issues. The above also misrepresents my views, not for the first time in this matter. Andy Mabbett 21:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we ought to ask the readers what they think. As a reader, I find the infoboxes to be very useful for "at a glance" details. Others will no doubt disagree.

Either way, I don't think this necessitates protection and as you say it will only move the battlefield elsewhere. It's probably going to take dispute resolution or blocks tbh, preferably the former. I've also observed WP:OWN issues with the two projects mentioned, it has to be said; I doubt very much whether it would be fair to paint this as a story of abuse on one side only. --kingboyk 21:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy for some form of dispute resolution - as I said, I've recently asked for third-party input (I made a point of doing so using very neutral language and look what the response has been). The following two comments show the unacceptable tone taken by some of the others involved perfectly; there have been no "POINT" edits, and my knowledge of classical music is neither something for others to guess at, nor relevant to whether or not consensus is achieved - raising it (not for the first time) is another facet of ownership. Andy Mabbett 21:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop refactoring this discussion. If you're going to reply to my points, reply to them after my comments.--Folantin 21:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd second what Makemi said. Mabbett is an immensely unhelpful, uncooperative and often downright aggressive editor with a penchant for WP:POINT violations if he doesn't get his way. He appears to know very little about Classical music so I have no idea why he is so obsessed with composer bioboxes. After he didn't get his way at the last ANI here, he went out and made some particularly ludicrous edits on opera articles [62]. Insisting opéra comique be merged with comic opera is like including Bombay duck in a List of birds of India and 60 seconds spent reading the articles would have told him as much - but obviously that wasn't his priority [63]. The Composer and Opera projects aren't the only victims of his charm offensive either - check out these recent examples of his helpful attitude [64]. --Folantin 21:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I endorse Mak's description of events. User:Pigsonthewing argued extensively on WikiProject pages that infoboxes should be used on composer pages. The communities (by a wide margin) decided they should not be used, and now he is edit warring over the issue on individual articles, claiming that the consensus needs to be restated on each talk page (and, after it is, he continues to revert anyways: e.g.) His uncivil language and pointed edits are consistent with one blocker's comment "This user appears to be here to make nuclear war with contributers; not to write an encyclopedia." Fireplace 21:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Send it back to the Arbs then? --kingboyk 21:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

When did WikiProjects get ownership rights on articles? Corvus cornix 22:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Since when did an individual editor who likes infoboxes get ownership rights on articles? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Since when did editing an article be limited only to those who participate in the WikiProjects which have staked out the article as their territory? Corvus cornix 23:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Who is saying that only those who participate in a WikiProject which has staked out an article as its territory may editing that article? This is about one editor insisting on his opinion overriding the consensus opinion reached by a group of interested editors. And ANI is not the place for this to be discussed, any more than it was last time. I suspect that this is going to end up in the ArbCom. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully the transactional costs (time, blood pressure) of ArbCom can be avoided. The last ArbCom's enforcement option ("may be blocked for a short period, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses, should he... excessively revert any page. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year") had no termination date, and a one-year block has already been used once since then. Fireplace 23:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I endorse everything that Mak, Folantin and Fireplace have written (above). Mak initiated a wide-ranging discussion about infoboxes on the Composers Project on 11 April here. After exhaustive discussions she summarized on 28 April. The overwhelming majority agreed that infoboxes were not needed (and the Opera Project later unanimously agreed with this). One respected edtor made a reasoned argument in favour of infoboxes and it was agreed that if he wished to design a special infobox for composers, the project would consider it.

Unfortunately Pigsonthewing refused to accept Mak's summary and the weight of opinion behind it. Since 28 April he has tried to create the impression that (1) no agreement or concensus emerged from the discussion initated by Mak and (2) that there ia a substantial body of opinion, among contributors to classical music pages, in favour of infoboxes. Both are untrue.

The Composers and Opera projects are actively building a lot of worthwhile content and would like to be able to get on with this in peace without having to deal with disruptions, edit warring and WP:POINT attacks especially when caused by a single editor. --Kleinzach 23:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone with experience of ArbCom restrictions clarify Pigsonthewing's revert limitation? According to this he's limited to one revert per article per week for a year, and I'd assume the year must start from when his one year ban ended otherwise it's a bit pointless? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not that restriction is still active, he is indefinitely on probation and under a "no excessive reverting" enforcement rule, so in light of this (6 reverts), this (5 reverts), and this (4 reverts), I've added an entry at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:Pigsonthewing. Fireplace 02:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As someone who was (until recently) a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera, but not the Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers, I would like to point out that the "consensus" cited by several above regarding infoboxes was reached entirely out of view of those who are not members in both Projects. Then it appears it was suddenly deemed to be the "consensus" of Opera Project as well. It also appears that two or three members of the Opera Project seem to feel they have "ownership" rights over articles once they've slapped a banner on the article talk page. The reasons cited on the Opera Project talk page for eliminating infoboxes was "inaccuracies" and that they weren't appropriate for "our" articles. As to the first point, no examples were provided with respect to Opera articles. As to the second point, it demonstrates the "ownership" problem that's apparent (to me at least - which is why I've dropped out of that Project). I continue to think (as others do) that infoboxes can be useful and that the primary (but rarely directly expressed) objection of others is essentially one of aesthetics. Nickbigd 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It is difficult to get a consensus on a group of articles without using WikiProjects. I think it would have been more obnoxious to spam each and every composer talk page with a link. Perhaps others would disagree. There was no attempt to do this behind closed doors. I think I've made it clear that my position is that if a contributor to an article feels strongly that there should be an infobox, that should be respected. The problem is that it seems like Andy Mabbett is editing articles he hasn't looked at before, simply to be disruptive, and is assisting in edit-warring on them. I'm having trouble figuring out what conflicts you've had with the opera project, since I don't see any in your very few talk page edits, single Wikipedia talk edit, and completely blank talk page (except for Orphanbot messages). Perhaps this is part of the trouble? People don't know that what they're doing is upsetting to you unless you leave a message somewhere, preferrably not in edit summaries. Mak (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"The problem is that it seems like Andy Mabbett is editing articles he hasn't looked at before," - you're either guessing (wrongly), or making things up. Neither is helpful. Perhaps you can tell everyone how you think you know which articles I have or have not "looked at"? Or how long you think should elapse, after a person first reads an article, before they are allowed to edit it? Since I've had an interest in the Michael Nyman article since 2003, an interest in the Steve Reich article since 2004, an interest in the John Adams article since 2004 and an interest in the Philip Glass article since 2004 perhaps you would like to issue a public apology and retraction? Also, it took me just a few seconds to find [65]; to which this dismissive reply [66], disproves your latter claim. Andy Mabbett 15:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Andy, you beat me to the punch. Yes, my entirely independent attempt to raise a concern (not having any idea that there had been a long discussion on some other Project page) was swatted down with an answer about "our articles" and that "Editors don't want to spend time trying to fix something they regard as unnecessary" (as if that was a universally held view of Editors) and talk about what "we" do and don't do. The entire tone was condescending (and yes, dismissive) and strongly suggested that the writer has very strong sense of control over everything. Not exactly encouraging to someone who was hoping to become a longterm member of the Project.--Nickbigd 14 May 2007

Perhaps you can tell everyone how you think you know which articles I have or have not "looked at"? Or how long you think should elapse, after a person first reads an article, before they are allowed to edit it? Apparently the answer, in your case, is that you don't have to read the article at all or know anything about its contents before you get stuck into editing it. I've already linked to you doing this in one of your WP:POINT sprees. You took my ironic suggestion here [67] rather too literally[68], [69]. Look at the edit histories. When I advise you to read the actual articles first before adding the "merge" tags you revert what I did, shouting "DO NOT remove merge tags". This shows you clearly have no knowledge of this subject area, which is a bit of a drawback when writing an encyclopaedia - but, as the admin who blocked you remarked, you seem more interested in fighting a nuclear war with other editors. --Folantin 17:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

How many disputes is User:Pigsonthewing currently involved in? I see there is another one on this page [70] and a related report to Arbitration enforcement [71]. -- Kleinzach 00:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing banned from infobox-related edits

• Under his general probation, Pigsonthewing is hereby banned from making any info-box related edits for a period of one month. He may not add or remove infoboxes from articles and may not edit infobox templates. He may make suggestions on appropriate talk pages. This ban may be enforced by blocking (starting with 24 hours and escalating as appropriate). All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Thatcher131 04:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Misleading and provocative edit

In the light of issues discussed at Talk:Sheffield Town Hall#Coordinates and his other recent reverts, this edit (with a hidden link to "Feces") would seem to be unacceptable. Andy Mabbett 22:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Step one in dispute resolution is to talk to the other parties involved. I couldn't find where you've done that yet, so I'd suggest you start there. Also, you might find your time on this page more fulfilling if you read through the bit at the top starting with "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators, such as blocked users evading blocks." Thanks, William Pietri 22:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That edit is also to his own userpage isn't it? Secretlondon 22:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep. It still seems rude and intended to provoke, but if somebody has a problem with it they should ask the user to play nice. William Pietri 23:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Been there, done that; got no T-shirt; I did provide links to one of the relevant pages; and the user concerned insists [72] that I (and other individual editors who have asked him to be more civil [73]) should not post on his talk page. Andy Mabbett 00:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you try speaking to him for a change Pigsontheing? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 00:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The answer to your somewhat bemusing question lies in the posts immediately above yours. My name remains, as I have repeatedly told you, Andy Mabbett 00:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Please Pigsonthewing, I meant have you taken the advice of those above and used the day which has passed since then to bring it up with the user concerned directly? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 02:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The answer to your further, bizarre, question is also in the posts immediately above yours. My name remains, as I have repeatedly told you, Andy Mabbett. Your comment here is unhelpful. Andy Mabbett 08:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I was informing the user about this action, as you clearly had not the courtesy to do so. May I ask what was wrong with that? I as stated on talk:Sheffield Town Hall, he is simply expressing his dislike of microformats, and his edits are consistant with this dislike. Perhaps he could do so in a more civil way, but this is his own userpage and contains I do not see a personal attack, nor any other reason why this should offend you. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 17:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of discourtesy in not notifying someone who has told me not to post on his talk page. It was your tone, not the fact that you posted, which was unacceptable, as I'm sure you're well aware. You may not see any reason why linking "microformats" to "feces" is unacceptable, but I'm sure a reasonable editor would. Andy Mabbett 17:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there seems to be some difficulty between you and this user, or at least there was a month ago. However, this is--as the header explains--not the Wikipedia Complaints Department. If you are actually offended by this user's page (rather than sustaining or inflaming some running foofaraw) then please proceed through the steps of dispute resolution, starting by leaving the fellow a polite and amicable note asking him to change the link to something more appropriate. Thanks, William Pietri 02:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"starting by leaving the fellow a polite and amicable note" - I repeat: the user concerned insists [74] that I (and other individual editors who have asked him to be more civil [75]) should not post on his talk page. I believe that the misleading link I highlighted should be changed, but clearly it would not be sensible for me to do so. Andy Mabbett 08:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Andy, you appear to be hear to argue, not to solve your problem or to work on an encyclopedia. I've made it clear how you can achieve your stated goal. I'm now done with this. Good luck. William Pietri 11:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"Andy, you appear to be hear to argue, not to solve your problem or to work on an encyclopedia." On the contrary.

"I've made it clear how you can achieve your stated goal" - no, you have not. You have suggested I use an avenue which, I had already indicated, is not open to me.

Andy Mabbett 11:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Andy, but I thought you could connect the dots. Let me try again: A while back, he asked you to stop bothering him. I don't know whether or not you were bothering him. But for this, it doesn't matter. If you are actually offended, the place to contact a user is on their talk page. So either contact him or don't, but give it a rest here until you have worked your way through dispute resolution's clearly numbered steps. If this is still hard for you to understand, contact me on my talk page. Leave this page to its clearly stated purpose. Thanks, William Pietri 12:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology, and for your kind offer, but I understand the situation, and the purpose of this page (not to mention the meaning of the word "final") very well. Andy Mabbett 12:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been available throughout Pigsonthewing's presence on Wikipedia. There is little need to once again, go on a third party page to complain when you are unwilling to settle the issue. Getting third party to agree and impose your point of view is not the spirit of Wikipedia and I believe you are unable to justify your edits and so constantly require the aid of peers... Get your act together, follow William Pietri's guide to how to solve it and make your case to me. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 07:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Or, now that you're aware of the problem, you could be bold and remove the snarky link. Neither of you is blameless in this. William Pietri 11:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources for Mona Lisa?

User:Madmedea tags reproductions of Renaissance paintings as "unsourced", floods the uploaders' talk pages with loud threats to delete them, etc. Here's an example. Does he/she really think that the heirs of Andrei Rublev or Leonardo da Vinci will launch a suit against Wikipedia? Please investigate what's going on. --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The copyright has expired on the originals, and the photograph is ineligible for copyright, is that not so?Ploutarchos 22:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), was a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright because the copies lack originality." --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well then just revert Madmedea or ask him to revert himself. Has he seen this dicussion? I doubt he'll object. Do you want me to do it?Ploutarchos 22:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It so happens that he/she reverted me and restored her threat to delete the reproduction within two days. --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It is necessary to provide source URLs, Madmedea's edits are not inappropriate. For more information, please see commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. --Iamunknown 22:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It is impossible to remember "source URLs" for images uploaded in 2004 (see the diff above). Even if I provide URL, what's the use of it? How does the presence of a source URL effect the copyright status of a Mona Lisa reproduction? The commons essay you refer to was started less than two weeks ago and cannot be the basis for deleting images uploaded three years earlier. Furthermore, it does not mention the word "source" or otherwise sanction Madmedea's activities. --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec w/Nick) The Commons "essay" points out something that we have long neglected and need to now realize: that we cannot simply upload digital reproductions of two-dimensional works without attribution. If that means that it cannot be the basis for deleting images, then what can?

The copyright status of any work depends upon the country in which the work was produced; if the photograph were taken in the United Kingdom, for example, where the threshold of originality required for a copyright is much lower and is, in fact, based upon the "sweat of brow" doctrine, a slavish photograph of a painting would be copyrighted; in the United States it would not, as established by Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. By knowing the source we can beging to figure out where the photograph was taken and which jurisdiction the copyright was created under. I personally do not generally tag PD-old or PD-art images with no source when they were created in 2004, but that does not preclude others from doing so. --Iamunknown 22:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that images should include a source, but for images that are clearly public domain such as these, a source isn't necessary and we're just being subjected to needless process wonkery. It's at this point we invoke WP:IAR, ignoring the blurb about needing to find a source for images uploaded 4 years ago - this nonsense will disrupt or prevent our ability to create and distribute our little encyclopedia, so we just ignore it. -- Nick ^t 22:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

These images are not clearly public domain. --Iamunknown 22:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What's not public domain about [76] ? -- Nick ^t 22:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Where was the photograph taken? --Iamunknown 22:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Under US law if the image is proved to be a slavish copy of a PD work it is itself PD, no mattter where it was taken or who took it. it might possibly not be PD in the UK, but wikipedia follows US law on copyright. DES ^(talk) 23:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Can copyrights in the United States expire (or, in this case, not exist) when they are still active in other countries? I was under the impression that they could not. I, however, am not a laywer. --Iamunknown 23:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

DES, AFAIK Wikimedia operates servers in .us, .nl and .kr , and therefore probably needs to follow international law. Even if that wasn't the case, documents might still be protected under the berne convention. --Kim Bruning 00:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC) IANAL, hence the caveats.

Maybe we can solve this by adjusting the server software so that images with this specific problem are hosted and served only from the US server. 75.62.6.237 03:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

US law is fairly clear on these points, and i can find sources for you if you like, IANAL either, but I have had a good deal to do with copyright for some years, including over on Distributed Proofreaders, where I am a content provider and project manager, tasks for which some copyright knowledge is required. The Berne convention requires that works of nationals of foreign counteries (that are members, but that is prectically everwhere these days) get the same protection in the US as do the works of US nationals. It also sets some minimum standards (Life plus 30 is the absolute floor for new copyrights, IIRC) and forbids requiring "formalities" of foreign copyright holders -- this was largely aimed at the former US rule that without a copyright notice, all rights were lost, and at former US registration requirements. But Berne does not in any way expand US copyright law, and there have indeed been cases where US courts have held works PD in the US that are in copyright elsewhere. And there have been cases of foreign works that are now PD in their countries of origin (including th UK) but are still in copyright here. As to the foreign serves, i can'r aay, but it was my strong impression that the Foundation considered that for legal purposes wikipedia was located in the US state of Florida, and must obey Florida and US federal law, and that particualrly on copyright it need not conform to the laws of other jurisdictions. DES ^(talk) 00:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Finding URLs for images uploaded years ago is impracticable, as URLs don't normally live that long. Would you delete a Titian reproduction just because you can't find an URL featuring a reproduction that matches it to a T? I don't see how an URL may give one food "to figure out where the photograph was taken and which jurisdiction the copyright was created under". If an URL points to a French website, it does not mean that the reproduction was created in France and should fall within the scope of French laws. Basically, this road leads us nowhere. So far there have been no legal threats involving PD-art images. Of course we can try to be holier than Christ, but then it's more reasonable to delete all "unsourced" PD-art images en masse, than to bother all the hard-working editors who may have uploaded thousands of PD-art images, especially ro Commons. It seems that now, when fair-use problems are more or less resolved, our copyright defenders are in search of a new field of boundless activity, which may keep them busy for months if not years, at the expense of time and energy of those wikipedians who prefer to contribute new articles, rather than browse for the so-called "source URLs". --Ghirla^-трёп- 23:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how adding a source affects the copyright status one iota. Perhaps someone can explain. (I guess the argument is that adding a source helps us to verify copyright status, yes/no?)

I am not an expert, but my understanding is that it is pretty clear that a slavish copy of the Mona Lisa does not attract copyright in the US, following Bridgeman v. Corel (I believe there is also some debate about that conclusion). But are you saying now that we need to check the copyright status of all of our images in every jurisdiction in the world? ("This image is subject to copyright in X and Y, but available under fair use in Z; it is public domain in A and B"?) So we delete images that are copyright in Tuvalu or Andorra, even if they are public domain everywhere else? Are we proposing to delete user's photos of images of buildings in France because the architect has copyright in that jurisdiction?

Anyway, this indiscriminate spamming of long-term editors with aggressively-worded template messages is simply awful. Where is the Wikipedia (not Commons) policy (not essay) page which mandates the deletion of all images without a source? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the relevant Commons page was not an essay. Can you recommend otherwise? Regardless, you may be looking for Wikipedia:Image use policy. --Iamunknown 23:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

So who got asked to source the oldest image? I'll see your Mona Lisa and raise you the 14thC manuscript Prose Edda. Also uploaded in 2004. What do I win? Bishonen | talk 23:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Image:0511.jpg Ancient Maya art c. 600 - 900 AD, also uploaded in 2004. Sorry you don't win; I don't expect this to either. Any Ancient Egpytian copyright violations spotted yet? -- Infrogmation 23:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, neither of those are clearly slavish reproductions. Then again, I am not familiar with case law surrounding copyrights of Rollout photography. --Iamunknown 23:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha, get it? Ancient Egyptian? Slavish? --Masamage ♫ 23:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually Image:0511.jpg is copyrighted by "Justin Kerr". See [77] (even though the colors look somewhat differenet, see the bottom right corner of the images and you'll seethe Kerr number 0511 on both) ... perfect example illustrating why sourcing is important even though it is a pain in the neck. Abecedare 23:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, United States museums claim copyright on reproductions of now-public domain works, and they are wrong (per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.). But I do not think that Bridgeman applies to this image; it does not appear to be a slavish reproduction in the manner described in Bridgeman. --Iamunknown 23:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right. Image:0511.jpg is claimed to be copyrighted, but that claim is not necessarily defensible under US law. I think it is only prudent that we don't delete such images from wikipedia till a consensus is reached as to how expansively Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. is to be interpreted on wikipedia. Perhaps Village Pump will be a better venue for this debate than ANI. Abecedare 00:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read the text of Bridgeman (but I should); I would imagine off-hand, however, that it does not specifically address rollout photography and, as such, we should consider such photography non-free (unless it is freely licensed) until case law concerns itself with such photography. I would hope that others would agree; in general, however, further discussion is definitely necessary at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights (with ads at the VP). --Iamunknown 00:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the noticeboard is low-traffic and suffers from bias. It is frequented by those who apriori consider all our image database as "suspect" and are seldom interested in the improvement of our articles. I would rather discuss the matter at a more sympathetic and high-traffic venue. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I would add that Image:0511.jpg has a tag which states it is a reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art. Since it's a vase it is manifestly not a 2-d work of art and nor as it happens is the image a simple photograph of the item in question. The image is a two-dimensional representation of a painting on a three-dimensional surface and has been produced by some technique or other. No idea what this means for copyright in terms of Corel though! The Land 12:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Corel only applies to 2-d works of art not photos of 3-d... there are actually quite a few images that are currently tagged PD-art which are ineligible for this reason, I'm collecting them here Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#May 14 - hopefully a less inflammatory tag than no sources! Loathe to add Image:0511.jpg myself after my debacle here...Madmedea 12:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have created {{ImageRound-Nosource}} and {{PD-Roundart}} for #-d works of art, without and with sources speciied, respectively. DES ^(talk) 16:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Broader discussion: Tagging centuries old images as "no source"

Discussion needs to be broadened as it dealing with very much more than the Mona Lisa. For example, Image:ADurerCardinalAlbrecht.jpg notes it was done by Albrecht Dürer in 1519. I would consider that as mentioning a source. Madmedea list that as "no source". Such images of art have been tagged to be deleted withing 48 hours. Some of these artworks were created over a thousand years ago. Some have been illustrating articles here at Wikipedia for 3 or 4 years. Some were uploaded by users who are no longer regulars and are unlikely to reply to the notice within 48 hours. Clearly we need to decide if Madmedea's actions are the appropriate approach within less time than that. Personally, I see nothing wrong with keeping useful images that very clearly are public domain and have no risk of causing any potential copyright problem. -- Infrogmation 23:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Inactive URLs

If I uploaded the rare reproduction of an ancient icon and indicated the source URL, will the image be deleted after that URL is no longer working? Will the reproduction of a Titian painting pointing to a dead URL be considered "sourced" or "unsourced"? --Ghirla^-трёп- 23:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It depends upon who was viewing the image and upon some copyright questions that are currently unanswered. Hopefully they would first look at the Wayback Machine. --Iamunknown 23:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the analogy with the Unreferenced articles is valid. Sources for the images are important and simplify verification of the author of the image, that it was not altered to push editors POV etc. On the other hand we do not delete unreferenced articles of 2004, instead we source them. I think the same approach can go for the old PD-art images without URL. Put {{unreferenced}} on it and try to reference it. For the attributions of the reproductions of art we do not need the exact source. I think references to other reproductions of the same painting are sufficient. Alex Bakharev 00:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking about the Rublev's Theotokas of Vladimir painting we have higher resolution on commons Image:Rublev3.jpg. Since the source of the commons' reproduction is given it can be used for validation of the image here Alex Bakharev 00:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Although, as Wikipedia is not a collection of images WP:NOT, if the image is available at the Commons then it could be used instead. Madmedea 00:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to say - I am not an admin! I am not deleting anyone's photos, I am simply tagging them as lacking sources. An admin will review the image and decide if it needs deleting, not me. Even if the original source cannot be found, if the image is in the public domain a link to a current source would seem fine to me - or even noting which gallery/library the object is in, as it allows verification. Please this debate should be about sources not copyright. Madmedea 00:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter whether you are an admin or no. There is no lack of admin volunteers to run a bot and delete all tagged images en masse, as was the case with Betacommand and PD-USSR images. Once the image is tagged, you may expect it to be arbitrarily deleted any minute (at least, in my experience). --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

On close inspection Image:Rublev3.jpg and Image:A Rublev-Virgin of Vladimir.jpg are not two photographs of the same painting (not only are the colors and paint erosions different, but look at the virgins left eye and the fold of cloth under her right ear). So either Rublev drew the same subject more than once (very likely!), or Image:A Rublev-Virgin of Vladimir.jpg is a more recent "student copy" of the original - which would make its copyright status suspect. Abecedare 00:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I am sure it is the same icon just photographed at different times. Icons were objects of the religious ceremonies not an object of art. There were candles and oi lamps burning in inches from the paintwork. There were golden "icon-settings" (oklads) nailed to it. Thus every few years an artisan "bogomaz" would put a new layer of paint over the icon. They usually were trying to keep the painting the same but if you have 50-100 layers of paint over the original paint work it looks quite differently from the originals. In the 19th century people discover that you can "clear out" ancient icons: remove all the paint layers but the original one. They were astonished by the bright fresh look of the result. Still usually clearing out icons destroys part of the painting completely. The two images show just the difference. The icon as it was confiscated from the church (with tens of layers of paint over the original) and the cleared out original (with some damage due to the process). Alex Bakharev 08:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My response

• Now someone has had the courtesy to notify me of this debate I would like to comment. Images require source AND copyright tags. One or the other is not enough. This is clearly stated on the official wikipedia policy regarding images - WP:IUP#Rules of thumb. I know its a pain but without a source an image is basically like an unreferenced fact in an article - ok we all know what the Mona Lisa looks like but for other images without a source how can a user check its authenticity? The message left on user talk page is automatically generated from the {{nosource}} tag, I didn't write it. I did start leaving an extra message to try and make the purpose of the tagging in PD cases a little clearer. Please, Wikipedia has policies for a reason - tagging a problem for admin attention is not a crime and in line with everyone's rights as a Wikipedia editor. You may find it annoying but the policies exist for a reason. It will be up to an administrator to decide if any image gets deleted. Madmedea 23:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'd actually suggest instead of just tagging images, you help try and find sources, if your so concerned about them, in saying that, sources aren't useful for these images, I've just confirmed a few points with a fellow admin and the source is actually useless, we actually need to know under which countries jurisdiction the images were uploaded, not the source for the image nor the actual jurisdiction under which the image was created. If your in England & Wales and upload a reproduction, you would likely be breaking the law, whereas if you upload the image in the USA, you would most likely be protected by the precedent set by the Bridgeman v Corel case. -- Nick ^t 23:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I honestly wasn't worried about copyright, just sources, hence the source tag! Without one it undermines WP as an encyclopaedia as everything should be referenced. I didn't mean to cause a row by just tagging some images for problems. Still miffed that my edits have been mass reverted though! Madmedea 23:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  Where have you seen an encyclopaedia where "everything is referenced"? Only monographs (i.e., original research publications) require thorough referencing. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• I spend a lot of my time finding sources, uploading things to Wikimedia Commons etc. Many of the uploaders of the images I've tagged have been able to provide their sources when reminded. I didn't think this would a problem! What is the point of policy if its not followed? Madmedea 23:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  It's easier for me to upload a new image of a well-known painting with a fresh URL than to browse all over the web to retrieve an URL from which it was downloaded years ago. But what's the point of these exercises in formal adherence to the rules? Last time I checked WP:POINT it said that "WP is inconsistent, and it tolerates things that it does not condone. (These are arguably not defects.)" --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• What this problem reveals is a serious need to clarify what is acceptable on the English-language Wikipedia.
  1. Must all free content be able to be published under the GFDL? If so, we cannot use non-multilicensed CC works.
  2. Must we only obey United States copyright law? If so, I think (but really do not know, so don't take this a legal advice at all) United States citizens can upload slavish reproductions of anything out of copyright in the United States (while it may be in copyright in other countries)

     Surely the category in question would not be citizenship, but location. A non-American in the United States is subject to U.S. copyright law. A U.S. citizen in France is subject to French copyright law. Beyond that, the issue of location of uploader should only be important to the uploader. Perhaps it is a copyright violation (I have no idea) to upload a slavish reproduction of an old painting in France, and the person who does that would be violating the law. But that doesn't mean that Wikipedia, by hosting that image, is violating the law, since, as I understand it, wikipedia is subject only to U.S. law. So any such image should be fine for wikipedia, although I suppose those outside the United States might want to be careful of uploading such images for their own sake. john k 02:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  3. Do we accept works where the copyright holder (or former copyright holder) is not clear but are arguably in the public domain due to age?

     Of course we should. Who on earth cares who the former copyright holder of something which is clearly out of copyright is? john k 02:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• That doesn't even mention serious GFDL-related issues surrounding merging (which I think are much more difficult to decide than image-related issues). --Iamunknown 23:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If the current nosource tag sucks, why not change the text around a bit, or make a newer , usefuller tag? Everyone would use it for this kind of image then! :-) --Kim Bruning 00:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Madmedea 00:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I do wonder how useful the source is. If we know that an image is a slavish reproduction of a work currently out of copyright, then it's public domain. The source of it seems basically irrelevant if there's no actual possibility for it to be copyrighted. john k 02:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

How do we know that an image is a slavish reproduction if we don't know its provenance? If you uploaded an image of the Mona Lisa with subtly altered colours and composure, I am not at all confident that I would recognise it as a derivative work. Hence the need for provenance information. The problem here isn't that the demand for source is onerous, but that it is not onerous enough - we should be demanding a source, AND demanding that that source be a reputable library or archive that can be trusted to provide good-faith "slavish" reproductions. Hesperian 03:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Subtly altered colors does not give something in the public domain a new copyright. Question is irrelevent. Something in the public domain is public domain regardless of source. Period. DreamGuy 03:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You'd want to be pretty darn sure of that. This is not something we can afford to get wrong. Everyone else on this page has been talking about the necessity of "slavish reproduction", and all of a sudden you are claiming that I can lighten and crop the image and it will still be PD. Where do you get that idea? Hesperian 04:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

See derivative work: "Although a derivative work author usually has been authorized, through license, to incorporate the previous work into his derivation, he does not gain thereby a copyright in any preexisting material." ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The key word there is "pre-existing". All that is saying is that I don't gain copyright of the Mona Lisa just because I produce a lightened and cropped version of it. But if there is any intellectual property in my lightening and cropping, then I retain copyright over my derivative work.

Bridgeman v Corel provides an extremely broad scope for photographic originality - "posing the subjects, lighting, angle, selection of film and camera, evoking the desired expression, and almost any other variant involved".

I still contend that we shouldn't be claiming photographs as PD per Bridgeman v Corel unless we have shown due diligence in checking that the images really are slavish copies. Hesperian 04:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The definition of a derivative work is not limited in scope by Bridgeman v Corel. Although you are correct that anyone may assert creative authorship in any trivial modification of the original work. For our purposes, I agree that we must verify the authenticity and integrity of the reproduction of the original work. However, if a lightly modified version (that is, cleaned up in Photoshop or some-such) is presented as the original in a publication with no claim of authorship for the modification, I think we're in the clear. The distinguishing feature between derivative and transformative use is intent: if it is the image editors intent simply to better present the original work by selectively cropping it or adjusting the color/contrast/etc., then the result is definitely a derivative work that is covered under the original copyright. Further, if such modifications are contributed by a Wikipedia user, then we don't really have to worry about licensing. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everything you have said. But the issue at hand is images with no source, for which we don't know whether it was presented as the original in a publication, and for which we do not know the author's intent. You make a valid point though: if someone uploads an image without specifying the source, and someone else goes to the trouble of checking that the uploaded image is a faithful reproduction of the original, then having a source for the image would not be necessary. I hope that the proposed {{PDnosource}} tag comes with clear instructions that a editor should tag an image with it only after they have carefully checked that the uploaded image really is a faithful reproduction of the original, and not a (subtly or otherwise) altered version. Hesperian 04:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

So long as the {{PDnosource}} tag allows for a reasonable amount of time to verify the backlogs (months, not days), I agree with your stance. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Concerning "subtly altered colors", etc.

• Firstly, I have a habit of modifying colors in Photoshop before uploading reproductions of old paintings to Wikipedia. Could I claim copyright on those images?
• Secondly, most images of paintings by Old masters were uploaded to Commons by commons:User:File Upload Bot (Eloquence). They are properly sourced but differ enormously (as regards colors and contrast) from paintings that actually hang in art museums (or from reproductions of those paintings that may be found on museum websites). Should they be deleted?
• Secondly, museum version of paintings are also by no means "official" or definitive. Reproductions of the same painting from two museum websites may differ substantially. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• See the newly created {{PD-Flatart-Nosource}}. DES ^(talk) 15:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts and suggestions

It looks to me that Madmedea was working to apply procedures-- but those procedures were designed to protect Wikipedia from copyright violations. Applied in a context where this was not the specific concern, the result has been problematic. I would suggest:

1) Short term. Remove the "no source" tags from images for which there is no challenge to public domain status. An alternative template or text to the effect that "This public domain image should have better source information" and perhaps a related category would be good. However time is already ticking on useful public domain images used in articles to be deleted as "no source" images, so I suggest removing those tags be prioritized within the next day even if the final wording of a new template hasn't been decided on yet.

2) Intermediate term. I think we could use some policy for providing more information on public domain images, especially legacy images which may have been uploaded years ago by users who are no longer active. I'm thinking along the lines of a category added to the images requesting an expert second look, and that when the intermediate "source" of the digital copy of the public domain image cannot be identified it be acceptible for someone to add something, for example, confirming that it is indeed a 16th century work atttirbuted to Pieter Bruegel the Elder since it is listed on page so and so of a certain book.

Other thoughts and suggestions? -- Infrogmation 02:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This seems sensible enough. john k 02:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Same here. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Building off of Infrogmation's idea, we could create a template like {{PDnosource}} for instances like this. The current template applies to non-free images and doesn't really fit our use with sourcing PD images. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an elegant and practical solution. According to [78], any work of art created prior to 1887 is almost assuredly fair game. Of course there are possible complications that arise when dealing with derivative works, or with properly identifying the authenticity of public domain images. Tagging them with {{nosource}}, however, is a horrible idea based on a flawed and overly legalistic reading of policy. URLs fade, museums and private collectors often attempt to claim copyright when it is obviously expired, and many paintings are mistakenly attributed to artists based on circumstantial evidence. Still, whatever quirks we have to work out, paintings that are hundreds of years old are in the public domain regardless of flawed attribution, and Wikipedia sourcing policy is a means, not an end. {{PDnosource}} should take these considerations into account, and provide for several methods of verification. We should allow for citations that reference written scholarly works, museum catalogs, published biographies, and other content that might not appear on the internet. Until then, lets abide by common sense and not delete images that portray ancient works of art. (Although the 2d replication of a 3d vase is an interesting case and might be copyrighted.) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC) (e/c)

I propose it contain the text: "We're claiming this is PD per Bridgeman v Corel, but we haven't actually bothered to check whether it is a slavish reproduction. It might be a subtly altered version, and we wouldn't know, because we don't know where it came from." Hesperian 03:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Subtly altered versions do not get new copyrights. Only significant changes get new copyrights... enough to be considered a new work of art completely. That's not going to apply to 99% of the images tagged as public domain. DreamGuy 03:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite certain you're wrong; discussion continues in the subsection above. Hesperian 04:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

All of this seems reasonable (except Hesperian's comment), but there should be some discussion of what constitutes a "source". If an image description clearly and fully identifies a work of art, and its current location, then I would argue that it has been sourced. Dsmdgold 03:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This all sounds good to me - if it hasn't been done already I'll untag the images I tagged - and sorry for causing such a hoo hah. I would just like to say that source has importance far beyond any copyright claims - by referencing where an image came from it gives a way of checking whether the image is what it says it is. We all know what the Mona Lisa looks like (altered or not), but do you know that an ancient manuscript or unfamiliar painting is what the uploader says it is without a way of checking via a source - or if that really is the 4th duke of marlborough? Just as articles need to be referenced, so do images for the purpose of verifiability WP:V, which is what started me on this in the first place and I would presume this is one of the reasons why both WP and the Commons ask for sources! Madmedea 08:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

All tags have been removed from images that are highly likely to be PD works of art. Madmedea 09:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have created {{PD-Flatart-Nosource}} for use in cases where the art is clearly 2-D public domain, but the photo is uncreditied. Please consider using it in such cses in future. DES ^(talk) 15:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there somewhere where we could have a decent discussion about what these tags should look like, as this is obviously not the best place. I would like to discuss the tags that DES has created before they get used widely as, although a good start, I'm not sure they are quite what is needed as they mix copyright/source and the 3d one doesn't actually seem to fit with the law. Madmedea 17:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, found the right page myself, DES has already started the discussion - Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags#New tags for images of art not fitting existing tags - I would really appreciate other contributors feedback on this.Madmedea 18:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Tendentious editor disrespects page protection and recreates disputed page

ResolvedDemo article, userfied to Smee's space. ··coelacan 00:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Smee, a prolific editor with a history of complaints for tendentious editing, just recreated a page that is the subject of page protection so as to evade the page protection and avoid resolving the pending issues. By the numbers:

1. Ongoing dispute at Talk:List of groups referred to as cults in government reports over what constitutes a "government report". Arguments going against Smee's inclusion of a cherry-picked 1979 document.
2. Smee renames to List of groups referred to as cults in government documents (diff) and then simply Groups referred to as cults in government documents (diff) after reinserting the disputed document (diff).
3. I rename it back to (almost - my bad) the original, to Groups referred to as cults in government reports (diff) and restore the last version by User:Jossi as a last fairly undisputed starting point (diff} and then I ask to have the page protected ([79]) and it is.
4. User:Anynobody asks to have the page unprotected and the disputed document reinserted by the unprotecting admin then it be protected again with the disputed document included (diff). Declined, see discussion here.
5. Smee asks that the page be unprotected (diff).
6. About two hours later, Smee creates a new page for Groups referred to as cult in government documents, evading the dispute, the page protection, and the dispute resolution process (diff). The disputed document is prominently featured.

I am sorry to have to come before this board again but this is extremely serious WP:DE and I am seriously at a loss as to how to deal with an editor that disrespects the process to this degree. Smee is an extremely experienced editor and knows that disputes are resolved, not evaded. --Justanother 23:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Justanother - disruptive to the project, previously blocked for violating three policies

1. Justanother (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has an ongoing history of violating policy, and disrupting the project to make a point, or purely to remove information, much in the spirit of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS, and this striking and most troubling history of policy violation, most notably WP:TROLL, and WP:NPA, have been documented by users including myself by also other than myself, at User:Orsini/Sandbox3 and User talk:Orsini/Sandbox3 in preparation for further action.
2. User:Justanother has been blocked for what the Administrator noted as: Violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:DISRUPT and WP:NPA [80].
3. As to my recent actions, they were obviously misperceived. I asked for feedback on a new version of the article in question, here. Then User:Milomedes asked for an example, and specifically referred to the model used at List of groups referred to as cults, here. The initial user who requested this example be provided, then commented that the example provided was sharp, with clean editing work, here. Thus, I was simply responding to this user's request that I provide an example as to the new model that I had suggested and asked for feedback on, on the talk page. Smee 23:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

okay, folks, Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#Second step: Disengage for a while

If it was a demo, the proper place for something like that is in a sandbox, not in article space. I have speedy deleted the article as a WP:POVFORK. I do not see any glaring reason for Justanother or Smee to be blocked today. Please continue to use article talk pages in a civil manner and pursue dispute resolution if necessary. ··coelacan 00:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

At Smee's request, I've moved the article to a temporary sandbox at User:Smee/Groups referred to as cult in government documents so it doesn't reside in article space as a POV fork. Hopefully that resolves the issue. ··coelacan 00:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• I acknowledge that this could have been construed as a "fork", however, that was not my intention. My intention was to respond to a request to provide an example, after I had requested feedback on a suggestion from the talk page. After polite input from User:coelacan, I will make these sorts of examples in the future as subpages in userspace, instead. However, User:Justanother's actions were highly inappropriate in this matter, as is noted on his talk page. Smee 00:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Granted Smee should've tagged the proposal article as such to avoid confusion on the part of anyone who stumbled onto it through a search or some way other than the message on Talk:Groups referred to as cults in government reports#Feedback on new formatting idea as you did coelacan. However Justanother, unlike yourself, HAS been editing on the talk page both before and after Smee made the above linked request.before (diff) after diff after diff2 after dif 3.

I'm not saying you should have done anything different than you did, based on what the post says, and the lack of identifying itself as a proposal you'd of been wrong not to speedy delete the page. I am saying Justanother did (or should have) known the nature of the page. Anynobody 01:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing clarification. Smee 01:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

This issue is far from resolved

I do not think that this issue is resolved. A user that creates a fork bypassing page protection on May 12 23:02 Diff (diff after page move) and three minutes later on May 12 23:05, replaces the protected article with the forked article in a template used by hundreds of pages. Diff with an edit summary "fix link" and without discussing this "swap" with anyone, and after doing that, which is an obvious violation of POV fork to avoid page protection, rather than show contrition and apologize, choses to defend his/her actions with a counterattack designed to poisoning the well. In his/her defense the user claims that "My intention was to respond to a request to provide an example, after I had requested feedback on a suggestion from the talk page.", when his/her actions show quite differently. This issue will be resolved when this user receives strong advise as to do not engage in that type of behavior in the future, do not respond to ANI notices with attacks on the filer, politely address the concerns expressed, and apologizes to his fellow editors for the offending behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• That was not my intention. As stated above, I was responding to a request on the talk page to provide an example. I was advised about this, and acknowledged the advice, and the next time, I did provide an example in my user space, and am getting some positive feedback on it with amicable discussion on talk pages. As I have already stated, I will not create this type of example-page in main-space again, but rather in user space, and engage in discussion on talk pages, and that is exactly what I am currently doing. Smee 13:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Diff, taking into account advice that has been provided, and engaging in positive feedback/discussion progress on talk pages with similar issue in a subsequent situation. Smee 13:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Amicable discussion? Not your intention? Positive feedback? Can you explain then why you did [this] saying that you were "fixing a link" to your fork, please? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I received a positive comment from Diff an editor that has not been heavily involved in that particular page, but was a long-time editor and expert on the past discussions at LOGRTAC. Smee 13:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

And that was enough for you to replace the article with your fork behind everybody's back, without informing anyone of that and despite the page protection that was approved on the basis editwarring? Do you really believe that that type of behavior is acceptable? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I had thought that the opinion of a relatively un-involved editor that was much more experienced than I with regard to the history of these type of list articles was important, and that we should begin to utilize the page. There was NO, "behind everybody's back", for it was discussed on the talk page, as can be seen from my previous statements, above. In any event, what's done is done, I will do my absolute best to avoid anything that looks like a "fork" in the future, without discussion on the article's talk page - and that is exactly what is going on now at the talk page for Talk:List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults#Groups_referred_to_as_cult_in_the_media - positive feedback and discussion on a potential idea for a new page that I have used as an example in my user space. Smee 14:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Smee, you are digging a bigger hole for yourself with every answer. You changed your forked article 3 minutes after you created the fork. Your discussion with that editor was five hours later as per your diff. Yes, what is done is done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is that I have correctly heeded the advice given to me by User:Coelacan, I will not create pages that could be construed as "forks", unless this has been heavily discussed on talk pages and agreed to by all as a page move, and I am now correctly having a polite discussion in a separate matter with other editors about a provided example in my userspace, at the talk page Talk:List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults#Groups_referred_to_as_cult_in_the_media - which shows positive application of User:Coelacan's polite advice and correction. Smee 14:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

No, that is not the point. The point is that you attacked the editor that called you on that violation, and then lied in this noticeboard about the reasons for your actions. You should be strongly cautioned not only on your behavior on these articles, but your behaviour on this noticeboard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I was pointing out the issues relating to the history of the "tendentious" editor that reported me, yes. I did not lie as to my intentions for creating the page. My intention was not to create a "fork", NO ONE said anything to me about this before this report, and if anyone had brought this up politely on a talk page, that would have been a different matter entirely. And the fact remains that User:Coelacan intervened politely, gave me some very good advice and counsel, and I have reformed my actions after the fact because of this advice. Smee 14:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

I am not addressing the fork issue that could have been an honest mistake, I am discussing what you did after you created the fork, and your behavior in this noticeboard. You changed a template using the fork despite page protection, and when asked about the reasons for doing so you said you changed the template after you discussed it with an editor, a fact that is proven false as per the diff you submitted. You replaced the template 3 minutes after you created it, and you discussed the issue with the editor 5 hours later. Was that another honest mistake, Smee? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I should have provided this as well: DIFF OF USER ASKING FOR EXAMPLE TO BE PROVIDED. This is where the user asked for an example to be provided, and that is what I was responding to. And please, use more polite language. Sarcastic language like: Was that another honest mistake, Smee?, is highly inappropriate and not conducive to a constructive and polite discussion. Smee 15:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

<<outdent>> You keep skirting the issue, but I have said enough already. Other admins will hopefully comment and provide further advice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

1. I have acknowledged above that the page may have been misconstrued as a "fork".
2. I wish that someone had brought this politely to my attention on a talk page, and I would have moved the page accordingly to my user space and asked myself that the mainspace version be deleted.
3. I appreciate the polite advice provided by User:Coelacan.
4. I have begun to employ User:Coelacan's advice, with polite and positive feedback from others, at Talk:List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults#Groups_referred_to_as_cult_in_the_media. I have also refined my actions a bit and received some other postive discussion and worked with a different editor since this issue, at Talk:Scientology in popular culture.

Smee 15:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

From what I can tell, this was a rather egregious attempt to sneak around a protected page, compounded by a less than honest recounting of events afterwards. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi would you please show some diffs regarding this statement:

You changed a template using the fork despite page protection, and when asked about the reasons for doing so you said you changed the template after you discussed it with an editor, a fact that is proven false as per the diff you submitted. You replaced the template 3 minutes after you created it, and you discussed the issue with the editor 5 hours later. Was that another honest mistake, Smee? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

When discussing another editor's behavior it's always helpful for everyone if the actual events can be seen by all. Anynobody 00:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

All the diffs have been provided above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

1. jossi diff 1 = A non existent page in the article namespace.
2. jossi diff 2 = A newly created subpage in Smee's userspace.
3. jossi diff 3 Smee making a spelling error in a cult template.

I was assuming there was other information, but I must say these don't exactly show intentional wrong doing on their own let alone when compared to the diffs Smee provided. Anynobody 05:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Now hang on a second, Anynobody. You're overlooking something. User:Smee/Groups referred to as cult in government documents used to be Groups referred to as cult in government documents, until I moved it into Smee's userspace. And that third diff wasn't a "spelling error", nor has Smee, to my knowledge, suggested it was. It was a change of the template to point to Smee's new page instead of the established page. ··coelacan 05:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

what else is there to do?

Okay, jossi or Jayjg or anyone: I told Smee yesterday to be very careful not to do anything like this agsin.[81] Smee assured me that it would not happen again. Assuming it doesn't, what else should be done? Should Smee be blocked for this? Should we just leave the conversation as is now, and let the archive bots record the minutes of this meeting? Smee's been told in no uncertain terms to be careful not to misstep in any way that would look like a WP:POVFORK. Is that sufficient? ··coelacan 05:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• I will avoid replying or posting further to the ANI page, as per a helpful outreach by User:Bishonen to myself and Anynobody, Justanother, and Lsi john. And as far as this particular matter is concerned, User:coelacan is correct, I will abide by the advice/suggestions/warnings User:coelacan has put forth, and not misstep in any way that would look like a WP:POVFORK. Smee 06:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Un-sourced statements

I removed[82] a bunch of un-sourced material from Verio, per this discussion, but User:Ronz keeps adding it back without any sources except a "fact tag" at the top of the article that has been there for days. I don't want to edit war with him over it. Do I have the right to remove un-sourced material from Wikipedia? -- Stbalbach 01:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I quote from the wikipedia verifiability article: Be careful not to go too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." Pacingcar 02:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but I don't know what to do, the user keeps reverting un-sourced material in direct violation of WP:V which I thought was one of the "non-negotiable" Wikipedia policies. -- Stbalbach 02:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Since WP:CITE states: "if it is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article, use the {{fact}} tag ... and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time," I presume the source of contention between you is the definition of a reasonable time? --Kralizec! (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I wish they would ask, the user has not asked for time, they just revert and say "you don't personally like it" in the edit note. -- Stbalbach 02:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

When you post on AN/I, you should probably give the entire background of the "incident". This is nothing more than another episode in a long-winded content dispute between you and Ronz. In fact, on Talk:Verio, you previously argued for the inclusion of material without sources. You seem to be using AN/I as a sneaky way to backdoor the numerous results of the third opinions and other suggestions made on the talk page. Furthermore, as an admitted previous employee of the company, you might have a possible conflict of interest (and indeed, it seems like your edits attempt to shine a positive light on Verio's actions). If you really must, take this to a request for comment. Content disputes do not belong here. Alsandair 02:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

But it's not really a content dispute since I wrote 90% article myself, as an ex-employee with an admitted grudge, and without any sources. You'd think yourself, Ronz and others would be arguing to remove it (or at least the stuff I wrote that is un-sourced), but instead your fighting to keep it. LOL. -- Stbalbach 03:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and notify Ronz that this discussion is taking place. MastCell ^Talk 03:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have no interest as to whether or not the information stays - I am just pointing out that you are inconsistent with your application of policy. Note that the bulk of Wikipedia is made up of uncited, uncontentious material (if we removed all of it, we'd probably be smaller than Britannica). That pretty much describes the information you took out. Finally, it doesn't matter how much of the article you wrote, this is still a content dispute, as defined by that term. Since numerous third opinions have failed to help, I suggest you file a request for comment. Alsandair 03:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:V is clear - un-sourced material may be removed by anyone at any time. If it is uncontentious than you should have no trouble providing a source. There is no content dispute here Ronz despite what your trying to make of it. -- Stbalbach

I am not Ronz by the way, nor do I even know him. Alsandair 04:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The policy WP:V is very clear - un-sourced material may be removed by anyone at any time. I would like to remove the un-sourced material and need help from someone to do so. Can someone help me remove this un-sourced material? How far up the chain do I need to go to remove material that I wrote myself, as an admitted disgruntled ex-employee, that is un-sourced? -- Stbalbach 03:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you wrote the material yourself has no bearing on anything - you seem to want to own the article. At least leave the uncontested information in to allow for somebody to come up with a source. I'm sure that after this lively discussion one will be happily forthcoming. Alsandair 03:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. I said I wrote it because you framed this as a "content dispute", how can there be a content dispute over something I wrote? If someone adds citations I would be thrilled. If someone asked for time to provide citations I would be thrilled. None of that has happened. Unless it does happen this material can be removed per WP:V. There does not need to be RfC for removing un-sourced material, WP:V is non-negotiable. -- Stbalbach 03:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I insulted you, I certainly did not intend to do so. Again, the fact that you wrote the content does not matter. You want to remove content, others (chiefly Ronz, I guess) want to keep it. That's a dispute over whether or not to include content. I don't know how else to say it. And look, I'd be thrilled if someone added citations to all the unsourced material on Wikipedia, but because they don't, that doesn't mean I'm going to delete it. If I did, I'd have to destroy ninety percent of the encyclopedia. This is basically the the largest application of ignore all rules. It's what keeps Wikipedia feasible. If you delete the information on Verio, please make sure you apply the same standard to all the other articles you edit. Since you were previously advocating ignoring verifiability policy on the very same page, I severely doubt you'd do that. Alsandair 03:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR, debate over. You win. Look, the burden is on Ronz to provide a source if he wants to keep it. It is not my burden to start an RfC to remove un-sourced material -- this has nothing to do with content, it is a policy violation issue. WP:V is very clear. -- Stbalbach 04:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability may be very clear, but you are not clear in your application of it. Using a double-standard to your advantage is not something that is appropriate. You seem to be dissatisfied with the article (having had your pro-Verio edits removed, particularly those to the external links), and are now suddenly an ardent enforcer of a policy you previously disregarded. You know just as well as I do that unsourced material must remain in Wikipedia, otherwise there will be no Wikipedia. Alsandair 04:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

unsourced material must remain in Wikipedia - uh, no. Seems like you'll say anything to avoid providing a source. -- Stbalbach 05:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Stbalbach are you disputing the truth of the material in question? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

What I said is true. You know it, I know it, anyone who knows anything around here knows it. Please don't troll by disputing truths that, while not nice, are certainly not disputed. Once again, I'm asking you: would you be willing to go around and delete every single unsourced statement from Wikipedia? While quick to attack my character, you are slow to answer the important questions here. Alsandair 15:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some of it may be wrong - claims about being first, largest, dollar amounts, etc.. all hearsay "street talk" propaganda from Verio itself when it was going through an IPO and merger which has never been verified. Without a source it's questionable. -- Stbalbach 12:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Stbalbach, you're making no sense. Above, you admit you wrote over ninety percent of the article. In the diff you provide you show us that you would now like to remove ninety percent (or even more) of the article. Are you saying that you deliberately included "hearsay street talk propaganda" that "may be wrong" in your original authorship? Alsandair 15:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Alsandair, policy clearly supports Stbalbach in this case. Please stop trying to characterize his position as "there will be no Wikipedia." If Stbalbach admits he was wrong, let him fix his mistake. Phony Saint 15:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, I know policy supports Stbalbach and frankly, I don't care whether or not the material is removed. I just don't think it's fair of him to only apply Wikipedia:Verifiability when it suits his purpose. I cannot see this situation as anything other than (1) Stbalbach writes an article on Verio, an isp he used to work for, (2) Stbalbach doesn't like how others have "edited his contributions mercilessly", and (3) he subsequently realizes that since he provided no sources when he wrote the article in the first place, he's got a sneaky way of circumnavigating all those third opinions that didn't work out in his favour. All that said, I'd support moving the contested info to the talk page, just not deleting practically the entire article. Is that a compromise we can all work with? Alsandair 16:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the controversial material[83] to the talk page with explanations [84]. -- Stbalbach 17:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks great to me...I sincerely apologise if this conversation became uncivil at times. Thank you for taking a level-headed approach to fixing the problem. Alsandair 17:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User:DJSEDISTICAL - A suspect sockpuppet for ORLRDVXL

I suspect User:DJSEDISTICAL is a sockpuppet for User:ORLRDVXL, a user banned due to a previous offense in a previous account for looking for child pornography.

1. Both accounts are in all capital letters.
2. The former was blocked on May 11. After being blocked, the user said he would change IP addresses and come back. Two days later, the new account is created.
3. Both claim to be workers at a local radio station in Orlando, Florida ([85] [86])
4. Both posted on the same talk page about a similar subject (regarding Subtropical Storm Andrea and how it affected wildfires in Florida). Both are/were also members of the Tropical cyclone Wikiproject

There is probably more evidence, but I strongly suspect they are one in the same. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The original account is User:O-TOWN'S AT, also following the same naming pattern. — MichaelLinnear 03:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive87#User:ORLRDVXL_-_previously_indef_blocked_for_solicitation_of_child_porn. – Chacor 08:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The latest account also makes random edits to talk and user talk pages, like the original (O TOWN'S AT) did. – Chacor 09:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Can an admin please have a look and make a decision? The user keeps removing the suspect sockpuppet tag from their userpage. I think we've quite positively identified him as the same person. – Chacor 03:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've blocked him, the evidence looks pretty clear that he's the same guy. Krimpet (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Offensive, racial and political aggresive comments

User alidoostzadeh has used very offensive and aggresive language in his last comments and response to comments by other users of different POV in the discussion for dispute related to Persian Gulf' name here. He lokks going to do some trolling and turn the talk related to the page to be political and racial. In sequence of appearing, sentences like:

• Sunni Arabs political groups and governments who are going around and making genocides... making genocides in Sudan (slavery at this age is deplorable) or in Iraq (blowing up mosques) or beheading innocent people (Afghanistan, Daniel Pearl), causing civil wars, ramming planes into buildings, blowing up shrines because of their sect, killing innocent civilians....and finally distorting historical names

• we know which group destroyed civilizations of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and etc. So don't give me Arabs are moraly superior to Iranians

• the world and destruction of the name of Islam with ideologies like wahabism or pan-arabism

• we can not have spokemans who believe in pan-arabist visions to attempt to represent them. End of the story. You = zero votes. Ibn Saud (plaintiff explanation: Kings of Saudi) =zero votes. As-Sabbah (plaintiff explanation: rulers of Kuwait) =zero votes. SCIRI=millions of people elected it, millions of votes.

• I will mention the genocide comitted by Sunni Arabs, pan-arabists, ba'athists against Shi'ite Arabs, Kurds, Turkomens, and the different genocides done by Arab nationalists, pan-arabists (those that believe in unification so they wipe out all of their minorities) in Sudan and other countries , as well the victimization of Iranians , their deporation and the victimization of Shi'ites in Bahrain, Saudi..and deporation of Iranians in Iraq.

It is clear that I, ralhazzaa, didn't involve in the bad part of discussion as he is trolling me and mentioning me many times in his comments, and neither the user Ahwaz showed such violant, aggressive and racial response to him and his culture. I need someone to take an action. Ralhazzaa 04:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:KETTLE. You turned the discussion into ethnic politics by saying " Everyone know very clearly that it banned in Iran ...I heard once that people in Al-Ahwaz are abused for talking in Arabic, their mother tounge!...let's avoid an Iraqi MP lived 80% of his life in Iran and get his Iraqi passport last year, and neglect Ahwazi over-reactions for Iran policy... etc" And that's what instigated all the political mumbo jumbo from both sides.--Mardavich 06:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, this was a reply on the discussion which sources are more reliable Arabic or Iranian. It is directed against the governments not against the particular wiki editors. Well, there were wars in the regions not long time ago. There is almost Civil war-levelled sectarian violence in Iraq just now. There are violent clashes in Khuzestan. With all these taken into account we should expect the discussions on the relevant topics to be sometimes heated. It is unavoidable. User:Ali doostzadeh is a great Iranian editor that produces a lot of content, usually he is quite level headed, I like his work. Ahwaz brings much needed Iranian-Arab perspective to the discussions, Ralhazzaa is a very good editor too. We deal with very controversial topics and heated discussions on the modern politics happen now and again. I do not think any administrative actions necessary at this stage. Alex Bakharev 07:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not intend to report this, but since Ralhazzaa raised the issue it would have been good to at least warned alidoostzadeh about his extraordinary response to a simple comment I made that Ahwazi Arabs use the term "Arabian Gulf". This user made a series of offensive anti-Arab comments and personal attacks on me, including accusations that I am a Sunni extremist, a Ba'athist, a pan-Arabist, anti-Shi'ite, an Iraqi Saddam supporter, etc. He also said I had no right to have an opinion on the matter as I am not an elected official. His intention was to use various basless racial, political and religious accusations against me in order to refute my argument. It seems that admins like Alex Bakharev believe this is appropriate behaviour for Wikipedia and refuse to even warn editors when they engage in unprovoked racial and political smears. It proves to me that a main determining factor in enforcing Wikipedia rules is the ethnicity and religion of the users concerned.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I just went through that debate, and while I agree with Alex Bakharev that heated discussions on the modern politics happen now and again, Wikipedia is not a forum, so both of you should have stopped. You know what they say, it takes two to tango. You're also exaggerating, alidoostzadeh said you're not a spokesman of Arabs, not that you don't a right to your opinion.--AlexanderPar 11:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You are not a neutral voice here. I want an admin to answer my points below, which have been backed up by diffs.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 11:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like admins to tell me whether the following statements by Ali Doost Zadeh are acceptable:

Racial smears

• Unlike Arabs who are going around and making genocides (fortunately the pan-arabist dream ended with the beheading os Saddam but he comitted genocides against shi'ites,turkomens,kurds), making genocides in Sudan (slavery at this age is deplorable) or in Iraq (blowing up mosques) or beheading innocent people (Afghanistan, Daniel Pearl), causing civil wars, ramming planes into buildings, blowing up shrines because of their sect, killing innocent civilian[87] (racist slurs intended to portray all Arabs as terrorists)
• don't give me Arabs are moraly superior to Iranians, given the horrendous record in the world and destruction of the name of Islam with sick ideologies like wahabism or pan-arabism[88] (again, a racist attack on Arabs claiming Arabs are all terrorists)
• fat and immoral Shaykhs of UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi, and etc [89] (a racist attack on Arab tribal leaders)
• if you guys attack Iranians and play innocent infront of wiki community, I can go off topic as well and I believe the record of the other side is much more bleak with regards to outside issues. [90] (Ali threatens to use Wikipedia as a platform for his anti-Arab opinions if users "attack" Iranians, although there has been no attack, only a point made about the Arabian Gulf)

Personal attacks

• Arab Shi'ites elected MP's in Iraq democratically and are the majority and for the most part do not share racist feelings towards Iranians. That is why Sunni Arabs like yourself call them :Majoos, Ajam and etc.. but they are technically Arabs and native Arab speakers. [91] (an attempt to portray me as a racist, when I have not used these racial smears against Shi'ites)
• you are a sunni iraqi [92] (I am not, but the idea is to invent an identity for me in order to rally people against me)
• you call the persecuted people by genocidal ba'athist as Ajams, not just khuzestani Arabs. And heck you are anti-Shi'ite [93] (Again, I made no such racial smears. This is an attempt to portray me as a Ba'athist and an anti-Shi'ite)
• You made the racist attacks first [94] (I made no racist attacks)
• you have been supporting pan-arabism in Iranian articles for a while and I called you by your political name [95] (I have never supported any pan-Arabism in Iranian articles - this is a deliberate attempt to undermine me to win an argument)

I would like an admin to tell me why this is acceptable and why Ali is not even getting a warning, let alone a block for his racial smears and personal attacks.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 11:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You are deliberately misquoting alidoostzadeh, using diff links don't reflect the final comment. From what I see, alidoostzadeh edits and re-edits his comments over and over to make himself clear, perhaps because English is not his first language. For example, he changed "Arabs" to "Sunni Arabs political groups and governments" in a matter of seconds to clarify that by Arabs he meant Arab governments. But you're being dishonest and using the old diff links instead of his final comment which is visible on the page, in order to score a point against him. --AlexanderPar 12:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

He initially referred to all Arabs and later chaned this to Sunni Arabs (not seconds, more like an hour or so), it is still a racial smear. If admins are interested in stopping these attacks - which are not the first I have faced - then they can judge the matter for themselves. I am asking for a proper review of attacks on me. I gave Ali opportunities to apologise and withdraw his allegations, but he refused. This matter has now been reported to this noticeboard by another user and I am unhappy with the dismissing of racial and personal smears by one admin. There is no defence to Ali's outbursts and diatribes.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You're still misquoting him. Criticizing "Sunni Arab political groups and governments" is not a "racial smear". You’re being too sensitive. You shouldn't have been discussing politics in the first place, it takes two to tango. --AlexanderPar 12:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not good enough. Ali changed his wording after I told him to stop his unprovoked ad hominem attacks. Moreover, I was not the one launching into long political speeches - I simply made the remark that Ahwazi Arabs used the term Arabian Gulf, which resulted in a string of abuse against me, against Sunnis, against Arab tribal leaders, etc, which went on for about 3,000 words in the Persian Gulf talk page. There are also other personal attacks and racial smears that I want admins to address. I am sure that if I made such racial and personal on Iranians and Iranian Wikipedians, Ali would have no hesitation about going here to complain and I would be blocked. As it is, I offered him chances to withdraw his remarks and apologise. He refused and another editor decided to make a complaint. I don't see why I have to suffer these attacks every time I edit Wikipedia and am sick of the protection given to those who make these smears.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, if he changed his wording following a reminder not to use ad hominem argumentation, the user in question is amenable to reason in such matters. Given that, I suspect Alex' warn-and-watch is sufficient to mark it as resolved.Hornplease 01:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I also changed my wording mainly because I was refering to political groups and not average people. The discussion all of the sudden turned political. I believe if one side criticizes a political group (he started the political discussion), then other political groups can be criticized. The user has made racial smears by posting sites that have maps that have ethnically cleansed groups of Iranian. He has been doing it for a while now. He has also been insulting me before hand by spelling my name multuple times : Ali Doost Zadeh instead of Ali Doostzadeh. I can bring various diffs with this regard. I am back into the discussion of persian Gulf and I am discussion matters calmly. My log is clean despite being involved in many discussions (some very heated) but ultimately resolved. Check some of the discussions I have made a consensus work. Two good examples are Nizami and Safavid, where a very complex situation requiring expertise knowledge and also constant calm was needed to solve the dispute. It's been months and year and some of the consensus pages I have worked on have still stayed. In the end, everyone left satisfied. I thank the admins for reminding me and I will do my best to remain calm despite people like Ahwaz posting sites where maps are shown that have ethnically cleansed other groups. I will not fall for such attacks and hopefully will not end up with a bad wiki log record. --alidoostzadeh 04:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, there was a call for warnings. I have given warnings to Ali and to Ahwaz. What else should be done before the situation can be marked as resolved? Alex Bakharev 14:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Why am I warned when I am the victim of unprovoked racist attacks? Alex must provide reasons for warning me and where I have violated Wikipedia rules or retract his warning.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 14:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You started the political discussion, not me. You brought anti-Persian websites whose maps have ethnically cleansed Persians and Lurs form Khuzestan. So that is a clear example of racism which was started by you and user Ral-hazza. Such racist maps where a whole group of population is ethnically cleansed was initially brought by you guys through the links you brought to try to prove a point and you knew what you were doing eaxctly.. And note your comments here:How strange that you should call him anti-Iranian when he is an Iranian citizen and this article says he is a supporter of the current Iranian regime. But we now know that, according to Ali Doost Zadeh, it is sufficient to be a blogger quoted in a newspaper to merit an article in an encyclopaedia.[96] before Persian Gulf. This user is constantly insulting me by not spelling my last name correctly and the above is a personal attack, way before the current debate on Persian Gulf. He constantly brings websites that have ethnically cleansed whole groups of population. I can delve into details with this regard. My name is Ali Doostzadeh, but he is separating the Doost from the Zadeh and he has been doing it several times now. Such users are constantly trying provoke other users instead of enriching the discussion. In the Persian Gulf discussion, user Ralhazza for no reason mentions the Pahlavi dynasty right now in his last edit. For absolutely no reason, just to keep the political mumbo-jumbo going and keep on provoking. It had no relevant to the discussion. Someone should just look at his latest edit and see that he is trying to bait me:[97]. In the end, the Persian Gulf issue is an emotional issue. The idea behind the name Arabian Gulf is simply anti-Persian , and there is not a single mention of Arabian Gulf in any Arabic text before 1950's. It would be like calling the Gulf of Mexico, the Gulf of Canada, because Canadians might not like Mexico. Such a political action unfortunately should not spill to wikipedia, but it is hard to stay calm when you see this action. Unfortunately pan-arabism did not just end with a simple name change, our country suffered chemical weapons victims due to this continuation of this racism, which is also apparent with the sites al-ahwaz mentions which in their maps have ethnically cleansed native populations of the region. 1 million Iranians were killed during the Iran-Iraq war due to such racism. Anyways I am not here to upset respectable wikipedia users. I am discussing sources in the Persian Gulf issue, and these guys out of no where come supporting fringe separatist groups with ethnically cleansed maps of Iranians/Persians and making discussions that are not relevant. Check user Ralhazza's latest message which was full of insults and cheap points: [98]. Also Ahwaz should be asked to either spell my name correctly (Ali Doostzadeh) or not mention it. He has been doing it for a while unfortunately. Way before the current issue. I kept silent about it, but he knew what he was doing. Anyways I will let go of this and thank the admins for reminding me to stay calm and I will do so. --alidoostzadeh 04:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've had some concern about doostzadeh as well. He seems to push POV and edit war. For example, keeping an article about a non-notable for POV reasons - "Never mind , such revisionists should be exposed." That article, by the way, has serious BLP issues as it is based on non-English apparent attack pages or non-English blogs, so I'll probably report it to the noticeboard. The guy isn't notable enough anyway, considering the lack of English sources and the lack of RS. But then again, this article was kept to "expose" him. The Behnam 15:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I have a right to mention a revisionist (making him known), he has 10 books and is mentioned in the media. Ask someone that reads Persian to translate it for you, obviously there are a lot of Iranians in wikipedia, and others can do it. "Seems" is not really evidence. If you have evidence that I mistranslated anything, then that is evidence. But unless you can read it, or ask someone who you trust to read it, then please do not simply accuse. And note the discussion is about Persian Gulf. --alidoostzadeh 04:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Suspected copyright violations on Moses and Jonah

User Java 7837 [99] added a lengthy amount of material to Moses [100], which I reverted, thinking it was original research. Java7837 re-added the material, [101], which on closer examination of their references, appears to be block copied from JewishEncyclopedia.com[102]. Since I understand that to be a clear violation of copyright, I reverted a second time. At this point, UserJayjg [103] reverted the article to Java 7837's version[104], claiming 'the copyright on the Jewish Encyclopedia expired long ago'. Obviously, one of us is wrong.

Similar things occured on the Jonah article,[105], only User Jayjg accused me of 'harassing this editor for no particular reason'.

I have reverted several edits of Java 7837's recently as they appear to be replacing all mentions of 'Jesus Christ' with 'Jesus of Nazareth', even where it is within articles about Christian beliefs[106]. His edits claim he is eliminating POV, but he's changing information about actual Christian beliefs. The most extreme example of Java's editing is on the article List of athletes on Wheaties boxes, where he changes the obvious vandalism of 'Jesus Christ - Dodge ball' to 'Jesus - Dodge ball' [107], again saying he is removing POV. Since Jesus is not an athlete, he could not have been an athlete on a Wheaties box, so I removed him and several other non-athletes as well as athletes not notable enough to have their own pages. [108].

User Jayjg has since gone through and reverted several of my edits[109], then posted to my talk page, accusing me of stalking [110]. , which I feel is an unfair and inaccurate description of my edits, based on the definition provided on [111] and my actual intentions. Edward321 06:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I told Edward on his talk page that contents from the Jewish Encyclopedia are public domain due to age (last published in 1906, so it meets the pre-1923 deadline for works published in the United States). However, I do not blame Edward for some of the edits he made, since people cut and paste from other sources all the time and I assume that Edward had no idea about the copyright situation. As for the stalking issue, I would say he is not doing it, since it is normal for some admins to check the other contributions for copyright problems (I personally do this for image checking). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If I look at the Terms of use of JE.com, You will use the Service and any content, material, or information found on the Service solely for lawful, non-commercial purposes. , which is not compatible with the GFDL. So I think it all depends on whether or not the content was updated since 1906. If it was, I think you can't copy it there. -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The online version of the Jewish Encyclopedia is a public domain text that is unedited. It says so on their main page: "This website contains the complete contents of the 12-volume Jewish Encyclopedia, which was originally published between 1901-1906. The Jewish Encyclopedia, which recently became part of the public domain...This online version contains the unedited contents of the original encyclopedia."

Ok, their terms of use implied the encyclopedia was updated by volunteers (there a part about not uploading copyrighted material). Since it seems to be their future plan, they probably are "a bit" in advance on this side of their website. Weird... -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right to be cautious, though - a source a century old may well not accurately reflect current scholarship, and including that kind of content can be a kind of POV-pushing by traditionalists kicking back against 20th Century interpretations. Large scale copy and paste is usually wrong at some level unless we have nothing better to start from (as with the original imports from the 1911 Britannica). Guy (Help!) 10:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As Edward mentioned on my talk page, it would probably be a better idea to just to link to the website instead of using a block of text from it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Edward, you followed Java7837 to at least two dozen articles and reverted his edits; only two of those articles involved alleged copyright violations. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In his defence, he has discussed the other reversions above, and made an argument as to why he doesnt consider it w-stalking. Hornplease 01:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User will not allow merge discussion to be closed.

Resolved

 – Unless another sock gets created, this is done. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

On May 8 User:Heatedissuepuppet (a WP:SPA set-up to attack Metropolis pages) opened a discussion at Talk:Crisscross on whether to merge Crisscross and Metropolis (English magazine in Japan).

The only editor who was for the merge was the proposer, three other editors said "No merge". One of these editors edited the Crisscross page to remove repetition. According to policy I waited five days (13 May) to close and archive the discussion. I placed a tag on Talk:Metropolis (English magazine in Japan) to say that the result was "no merge".

Heatedissuepuppet insists on changing this box to say "This article was nominated to be merged with Crisscross on 8 May 2007. The result of the discussion at Talk:Crisscross was no consensus, due to it being closed prematurely." You can see the history here: [112]

I have already informed the editor on Talk:Crisscross that there is no "no consensus" category for merging pages, and that if he has a problem with the "no merge" decision that he should take it to dispute resolution. He insists on reverting the text back again. Rather than indulge his edit war, I thought it would be best to get some advice on how to close the issue. Thank you for your comments Sparkzilla 07:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Blatant sock, used solely for the purpose of disruption. I blocked the account. Guy (Help!) 08:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Sparkzilla 08:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Using wikipedia as a battleground and other policy violations

Duraiappa stadium mass gravean article that appeared on DYK on May 9, an editor who has been warned by admins about his continious policy violations in his talk page at least twice has gone on to remove all relevant categories, reverted it 4 times, maliciousy tagged all sources as biased sources and has been very uncivil in his comments towards others editors in the talk page. The page is totally out of control, vandalized unless and admin helps to get control. Thanks 09:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:DR. Viridae^Talk 06:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

odd page creations

Resolved

here not sure what's going on with this user - he seems to be creating versions of the same pages over and over. --Fredrick day 10:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a SummerThunder sock, a banned user. Blocked, reverted, deleted. In future if you see this same user (username containing reference to OCD and similar page creations) report straight to WP:AIV (no warnings needed). Petros471 10:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

John Moyer

Resolved

 – Comtheo and the sock are blocked, the comedian article was deleted as a copyright violation. Metros232 15:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The article John Moyer (which is about a rock band's bassist) has repeatedly been replaced with a biography of a comedian log by Comtheo (talk · contribs). I tried to contact him, but my messages were removed from his talkpage by the user. Now, while i do think that the old, long existing article should remain in place i wanted to bring this up here to get some comments on wether i should try to take action against the repeating replacements, or accept the new article and create a new one for the bassist.

The bassist's article stands out because:

• It's been there for a long time.
• He is the bassist of a famous main-stream rock group, presumably more famous than the comedian.
• The article is wikified.

The comedian's article stands out because:

• It provides remarkably more information than the bassist's.
• While the bassist's article only has short information about who he is, the comedian's is "more complete", meaning it is an actual biography.

Some opinions and directions would be greatly appreciated.

PS: If this discussion was to bring up that the old article should be kept, what is the proper way of action to have the article be protected from the user? Thank you in advance. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 11:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Consider disambiguation for the article - John Moyer (bassist) and John Moyer (comedian), linked from a disambiguation page John Moyer. x42bn6 Talk Mess 12:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Understood. However, what i have forgot to mention, the comedian does not seem to qualify as notable enough for an article. It would seem that way, as the article John E. Moyer (which the user has created and re-created simultaneously to replacing John Moyer) has been deleted (and eventually protected from creation) multiple times. Given that situation, wouldn't keeping the bassist's article seem right? ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 14:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I created the John Moyer (comedian) page with user:Comtheo's content. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 14:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to move the content to a new page, but user:Comtheo keeps changing back. I've reported to WP:AIV, but there's definitely a WP:3rr violation too. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 14:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved John Moyer to John Moyer (bassist). User:Comtheo is now warring as ChrisPUT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Flyguy649^talk_contribs 15:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have requested semi-protection for John Moyer as a redirect right now, since the article about comedian is likely a speedy candidate. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 15:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, i can see things really went round on my way back home from work. As far as my opinion goes, we should determine if the comedian should have his own article, and if so, create a disambiguation page. Otherwise, keep it as it is? A disambiguation would server the encyclopaedia the most i guess, i am hoever not sure if Comtheo would be setteling for this. Nevertheless, the thing seems to have been resolved for now, thanks to all of you. And thank you a lot for your help Flyguy649. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 15:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Could an admin please delete the following redirect?

Resolved

 – Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I Not Stupid has undergone two peer reviews, both of which have been archived. In my attempt to file a third, I successfully moved the first peer review from "Archive1" to "Archive2". However, because "Archive1" is now a redirect to "Archive2", I cannot move the second archived peer review to "Archive1". Could an admin please delete the redirect at "Archive1", move the second peer review to "Archive1" and delete the redirect that results from this move, so I can create the third peer review?

I apologise if ANI is the wrong place to post this request. However, as this request is non-controversial and an admin should take less than two minutes to fulfil this request, please fulfil it and then refer me to the place I should post such requests in future. Thanks.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This will do in future or WP:RM, request fulfilled. Viridae^Talk 12:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

IP Address Making Unconstructive Edits

68.39.163.15 (talk · contribs) - User constantly removes cited material from the Todd Fedoruk article without reason (diff: [113], [114]), User has also vandalized other user talk pages (diff: [115]). Final warnings have been issued, yet user persists. --Quartet 13:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You'll get a quicker response if you tell admins in WP:AIV (as noted at the very top of this page). --ElKevbo 13:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Spam?

We have a lot of links to famitsu.com, but the site appears to be in Japanese so of rather limited relevance to the English Wikipedia. Is this spam? Anyone speak Japanese? Guy (Help!) 14:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be a commercial technology (especially gaming) news site. I doubt it's being linkspammed but because it's Japanese language-only, I would have thought links ought only to be made where there is no English language source. Sam Blacketer 14:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Famitsu is the authoratative source on videogames in Japan. I wouldn't consider it spam. – Steel 14:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Famitsu is a long-running and massively notable Japanese magazine. It's become somewhat of a cultural institution, in fact. I wouldn't discourage links to it, although this being the English wikipedia English-language links containing the same information would probably be preferred if available. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Famitsu Um...Kind of ironic, really. You asking here what Famitsu is when...Oh, never mind. HalfShadow 16:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, kind of ironic that an editor on the VG articles has sent an email to the foundation complaints address bitching about linkspamming, you'd have thought he would have known better. Me, I know nothing about video gaming, so I came here to ask some people who do. Guy (Help!) 17:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My point was it took my five seconds to pull that up and three of those was the page loading. We are an encyclopedia, you know... HalfShadow 17:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we are an encyclopedia--an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and one can't always expect articles to be honest about their own notability or lack thereof. Guy asked a perfectly reasonable question in a perfectly civil manner. No big deal. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR review requested

I have turned down two 3RR block requests at [116]. The first did not appear to be an actual violation. The second, was a valid concern but was a bit old and clearly in retaliation for the first. Could someone please review my actions on the User:Corticopia reported by User:Ploutarchos case? Thanks. --Selket ^Talk 16:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Both Aristovoul0s and Corticopia were edit warring, and Corticopia definitely broke 3RR. Both users have been recently blocked for 3RR. I would have blocked based on these reports, but I don't have a problem with Selket's more lenient stance. However, both users should both be warned in no uncertain terms that further edit warring will lead to a block. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds right to me. --Masamage ♫ 17:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert war at GNAA

SqueakBox (talk · contribs) insists that even though Gay Nigger Association of America was deleted, and the deletion review kept it deleted, it should still be listed on the disambig page for GNAA. I asked for cited policy, and he said WP:IAR. I pointed to the MoS, which says "Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles." Obviously, red-linked entries that currently have the potential to become articles are also allowed, but that is not the case here, either. Any input on the talk page or possible protection of the article is requested. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-14 18:34Z

• Another user filed an RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-14 18:37Z

• I'll keep a watch on it and revert if anybody puts it back. Can't hurt to have more eyeballs on it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like it was just unprotected after a month of protection due to revert warring; unfortunately, it looks like the problem hasn't gone away. I've protected it again. Krimpet (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• I had nothing to do with the earlier controversy. I think edit dispute is more accurate than edit warring. There was tremendous confusion at the beginning dealing with this edit. Not quite sure why this should have created such a stir and suggest someone put a warning in the text. I am also baffled by the opposition to merely pointing out who this group are (which isnt the same at all as making an article about them). As long as readers and editors like myself dont know who GNAA is I would have thought the only way to stop the dispute is to permanently lock the article or place hiddent ext giving an explanation, SqueakBox 19:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If you're looking for the meaning of any and all acronyms, you want a site like AcronymFinder.com, not an encyclopedia. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-14 19:16Z
    • And the rest of our readers? I thought we were here to disseminate knowledge and the reality is almost all our acronym pages are superb. Telling me (or anyone) not to use wikipedia is IMO misguided, especially in an area in which it excels. We musnt lose the point of why we are here, SqueakBox

We don't link pages that don't exist and are not likely to exist from disambig pages, what do you hope to accomplish by doing so? The group simply is not encyclopedic because it has not verfiable sources, so no point in mentioning it at all. Also, Squeak was not edit warring, his edit war reverted to a vandalized version and he undid that, not actual edit warring was going on. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete, keep deleted, indef block anyone who undeletes or restores. Life is sunny and simple sometimes :-D --Kim Bruning 20:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC) baleet balock badone

Yeah, the only controversy is whether to link to a redlinked German archaeology group. Moreschi ^Talk 20:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, link them, and create the page too. :-) --Kim Bruning 20:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If something doesn't have an article, they shouldn't be listed on a disambiguation page. My personal opinion. Couple that with the oh-so-exciting world of "GNAA-related wiki-mischief", and my position is only cemented further. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• This has got to be the first time I've ever seen a POV notice on a disambig page. *** Crotalus *** 00:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks and legal threats at Brandon Teena

Resolved

Nanaharas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who I believe is also 24.229.136.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has made repeated personal attacks and legal threats to sue Wikipedia for referring to Brandon Teena (a murdered transgendered man) as a man (as WP:STYLE's guideline around transgender identity currently recommends). The user threatens to sue WP unless the name chosen by the family for a gravestone determines WP pronoun usage for this now-deceased murder victim, rather than the individual's own self-identification during life. [117] [118] [119].

While there is some controversy around the use of the name 'Brandon Teena' (while there is ample, notable usage of the name 'Brandon Teena', some sources claim he only used the first name 'Brandon' rather than reversing his birth name entirely), I'm of the opinion that the threats require intervention regardless of the content issue around naming. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Kafziel ^Talk 19:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Transnistria

Could somebody come and help keeping the peace at Talk:Transnistria please? People are getting all worked up over a checkuser result that says one account was a reincarnation of another, older one (not used simultaneously though). My neutrality has been called into question, so I'd appreciate a second pair of eyes when edit-warring should again erupt. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Is more assistance still necessary? --Selket ^Talk 02:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

2 comments which seems uncivil.

User:Tony Sidaway made this comment earlier today on another discussion on this page which is higher up. It is old and will most likely be archived soon so I will bring it up in a new discussion. Quote: "This is unacceptable. The editor in question obviously has no inclination to work on Wikipedia and the account should be blocked for that reason alone." (The "editor in question" is User:AmendmentNumberOne) Earlier he even said "Please don't waste anymore time on this idiot". He called AmendmentNumberOne an idiot. Seems like a violation of WP:NPA right there. Also, by his logic WP:SPA is a policy and violating it is worthy of an indefinite block. Funpika 19:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a very long-winded way of saying "I don't like Tony Sidaway". – Steel 19:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

More like "I don't like Tony Sidaway's comments". What would lead you to believe "I don't like Tony Sidaway" is my reason for this? Funpika 19:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My user talk page is over there: ---> --Tony Sidaway 19:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(after EC) No it isn't, but it isn't really relevant here either. (It's saying that Tony Sidaway is often uncivil, which is a different thing.) What admin action are you requesting, Funpika? I don't think that making these comments merits a block, and I am quite sure that Tony Sidaway knew that the comemtns were less than polite when he made them. You could try a user Request for Comment I suppose, or Dispute resolution, or even file an ArbCom case, but soemhow i doubt it will go anywhere, on past history. In any case it doesn't really seem like an ANI matter. DES ^(talk) 19:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am starting to think that this is better on his talk page...I don't know if the 2 person RFC threshold can be met. An arbcom case would be going too far. Funpika 19:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Calling someone an idiot is no grounds for anything whatsoever. The Land 19:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I notice that this fellow AmendmentNumberOne still hasn't edited a single article. In short, he's a waste of time. --Tony Sidaway 19:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no policy that says he should be banned for not editing. Mayby after being called an idiot and having false alligations made up about him he does not feel like editing. Guess what tony, thats perfectly ok for him to do that. AmendmentNumberOne has not done anything wrong and he DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVE HIMSELF TO YOU. The block was overturned because he did nothing wrong, you on the other hand violated wp:civ. 20:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Bollocks. People who aren't here to build an encyclopedia can be gently and courteously told to fuck off with our kind blessing. --Tony Sidaway 20:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Stuff and nonsense. If you edit here but don't contribute productively, you get kicked out sooner or later. Moreschi ^Talk 20:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony: yes, precisely that. Here to push an agenda using a single purpose account? Piss off then. We have more than enough troublemakers who provide some nett benefit to the project, we have no need of additional troublemakers who don't.

Guy (Help!) 20:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"you get kicked out" for multiple violations of wikipolicy, show me in diffs how this user has violated policy. This should not be such a hard job if you believe there is enough evidence of wrongdoing to support an indefinite block.Hypnosadist 20:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

While I'd say it a bit differently, I have to agree w/ TS's take on the user in question. If his comments were baseless, then we'd all be over him like simile on metaphor, but, despite the colorful way he's put it, Tony seems to have accurately summarized the group consensus regarding AmendmentNumberOne, a disruptive SPA that appears to exist only to push a single item agenda in talk pages and has not brought a net improvement to the project by being here. We have a responsibility to identify and deal with situations where an inordinate amount of time is being invested in tip-toeing around abusive users (who drag everyone down and create reams of paperwork and suck up volunteer time like there's no tomorrow). While we roll our eyes at Tony's choice of language, it.... does seem accurate. It's almost physically painful to acknowledge, but... there it is. Would I hire Tony to be in a customer service position at my company? No. Does his grating, chainsaw like typing-voice cut to the chase regarding Wikipedia problems? Yeah. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

For the third time! Have you any diffs showing AmendmentNumberOne being disruptive? Hypnosadist 20:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• If SPAs pushing PoVs can be blocked with no showing of disruption, then half the editors of the various mid-east topics can be blocked, and a quarter of thsoe editing US politicial topics, at least. If SPAs with no mainspace edits can be blocked, I wonder how many others would be incluced. In short, Tony does not speak for any consensus that includes me on this issue. I also depore the tone and incivility of his remarks, and i said do when they were first made. But there is really nothing to do about that except try to convince Tony to change his tone, which has been tried before with no success. He is convinced that he is acting correctly, i gather. DES ^(talk) 20:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  If Tony is convinced his incivility is acceptable by wikipedia policy and he has been talked to about it then a short block would seem in order but thats up to an admin, of course if he does not edit for 12 hours we could block him for that! Hypnosadist 21:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  If they're not building an encyclopedia, of course they can and should be blocked. --Tony Sidaway 20:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  Some people seem to get very confused about what we are doing here - this is not a talking shop which also happens to have an encyclopedia attached - he's a SPA who seem to have no interested in editing encyclopedia articles - he has no purpose here. I agree with tony 100% --Fredrick day 20:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  Then get consensus to change the blocking policy to that effect. I don't see such consensus at the moment. DES ^(talk) 20:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  Agree with tony all you want but wikipedia has rules called policies. Until wp:work or be banned is created and accepted there is no policy that says because he has not edited in the less than 12 hours since his unblock he must be reblocked. Hypnosadist 21:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I was the reviewing administrator on the second block of User:AmendmentNumberOne. Opinion on this page was divided and no consensus was reached, so I exercised my discretion in favor of unblocking, for reasons discussed exhaustively on this board. Since the unblock, AmendmentNumberOne has made exactly one edit, which was here on ANI to thank me for unblocking him. He certainly hasn't done anything that could be considered as disruptive since his record was discussed and this matter was resolved yesterday. The user said in the comment that he planned to make further contributions, but he hasn't yet. If he does, and they are problematic, I or any administrator will evaluate them. In the meantime, I have absolutely no idea why we are having this discussion. Newyorkbrad 20:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A bad call. You should have kept him blocked because this is an encyclopedia with discussion pages, not a discussion forum that happens to have an encyclopedie section. --Tony Sidaway 21:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

*editconflict* Then why don't you go to WP:VPP and try to make it policy! It isn't at the moment FYI. Funpika 21:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is. It is frustrating to see Newyorkbad ignoring, and you blatantly denying, the nature of Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 21:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say "Any user who does not contribute to the encyclopedia will be blocked indefinitely" then? Did I miss part of the blocking policy perhaps? Funpika 21:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

NYB, your grounds for unblocking seem a bit shaky. Heck, even your letters are all wobbly and look like they're going to fall over! Heck, an unblock is probably fine, but wasting a lot of time arguing about this user is a shame. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have trouble taking the initial complaint at face value when the first quote they provide is merely Tony giving his opinion. That said, I'll agree with others that Tony is not as smooth as, say, practically anyone else, but I don't see an actual problem with that, as regards his adminship. Regardless of the merits of the block (don't want to get in the middle of that particular shitstorm), I wouldn't consider it as much a personal attack as it is a "potentially excessive expression of opinion". EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Pathetic. This is an account registered specifically to argue for undeletion of That Number, has zero edits to mainspace, zero edits to mainspace Talk, a deliberately provocative username (which in passing misses the point that Wikipedia is not free speech), has spent most of the last fortnight trolling, and getting us trolling each other, and now it's unblocked to carry on its merry game. It's a sockpuppet! A blatant sockpuppet, used outside the permitted uses of sockpuppets! Guy (Help!) 21:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• I truly don't understand the obsession with this user. AmendmentNumberOne has had the opportunity to make exactly two substantive edits, contributing to a DRV. For what it's worth, I found the edits strident and unhelpful, but that's a far cry from block-worthy. Since then, every one of this user's edits has been a function of the drama caused by the blocks themselves. We have no idea what, if anything, this editor might have said or done if he hadn't been blocked twice for little reason. In any event, now that he is unblocked, AmendmentNumberOne will either (1) not contribute any more, (2) contribute usefully, or (3) contribute inappropriately and be blocked, probably by myself. Um ... which of these outcomes is problematic? Newyorkbrad 21:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• "has spent most of the last fortnight trolling" no he has not thats the point! He legetimately made an unblock request, NewyorkBrad brought it to ani for discussion. Now this second discusion on the incivility of Tony was started by Funpika. AmendmentNumberOne has not trolled, civily complaining about a block is not trolling and claims that it is are very troubleing to me. Hypnosadist 21:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• A "blatant sockpuppet" JzG? Well then who is the sockpuppeteer!? It seems that because WP:SPA is only an essay, we can only block for being one by ASSUMING it is in violation of WP:SOCK. Funpika 21:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Who is the puppeteer? Who cares? It's irrelevant. No brand new user masters Wiki process that fast. If it was any subject other than That Number he would have no supporters whatsoever. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope this is not about the Number (your mind reading/bad faith is wrong in my case), this is about following wikipolicies of when to block and when not to block. And this section is on the incivility of tony sidaway, so can he or i for that matter go round wikipedia calling people idiots or not? Hypnosadist 23:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• It is possible for someone to figure all this out as an IP editor and be able to use that knowledge from the beginning if he/she decides to create an account. Funpika 23:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm quoting this again, because people continually keep bringing up the totally unfounded accusation that the editor in question is "incivil", "whining", "trolling", "disruptive", "acting in bad faith", and "an obvious sockpuppet" - claims which have been made repeatedly with absolutely no support, rationale, or basis in any evidence:

Well, if you look at his contributions you can see that he registered, set up his user and talk pages, commented on deletion reviews, and then was blocked with the reason single-purpose account that has served its single purpose.

His next edit after being blocked was then to request being unblocked, where he asserted My edits have been made in good faith and represent a legitimate attempt to communicate my opinion on the titular subject of an article that I feel is important to Wikipedia. I believe the blocking admin has incorrectly and without reason assumed bad faith on my part. The block was then reviewed, and declined, with the argument User clearly acting in bad faith.

He then proceeded to argue on his user page that he was not acting in bad faith, and cited policy repeatedly to justify this. He was then replied to by User:Yamla, who was the reviewing admin, who accused him of [a] deliberate attempt to get Wikipedia sued by posting information you know will cause the MPAA and asserted this was a clear indication that you have no business being allowed to edit here.

The user then replied, on his talk page to this comments, calling them unwarranted and in bad faith. He asserted he was upset about being accused of disruptive actions, and demanded an apology from User:Yamla.

He then, apparently following the blocking admin's actions, posted a response to accusations made against him on another talk page, which he was unable to edit - namely that user was banned for making a lot of (now-deleted) articles containing the HDDVD string, and for tantrumming about how Digg was being an Evil Awful Censor. As he notes in his reply, this is totally untrue. After no reply for a number of hours, he requested help from any editors, especially to post on this noticeboard. After no action, he commented again, requesting help.

After, apparently, a comment was made on this page, the blocking admin replied here, stating More to the point, I freely admit that I may have misspoken as to the precise nature of the infraction, but he showed up with a Frea-Speach (sic) name and immediately started fussing about in the HD-DVD Decoder String Deletion Review. A single-purpose account if I ever saw one, and I've damn well seen lots of them. The user then replied on his talk page, questioning why he was blocked if this was the rationale, and asking what he did wrong. He continues to comment about his block, citing policy, and asking for justification for his block, and posting related information to his talk page. Days later, he requests help again. He then write a letter to the blocking admin, summarizing his few. A few minutes later, he was unblocked, with the reason Fine. Let's see if you behave.

He then thanked involved users, who agitated on his behalf, and opened an informal complaint on this page, asserting that he was blocked for no reason, and asking for remedy to protect other users from the same treatment. He then reverted a couple of User:Ryulong's reversion of his pages. He was then blocked, with the reason I have blocked this account indefinitely for having no impetus to contribute to the encyclopedia at all. This was created solely to raise issues with the encryption key debate and has not made a single edit to any page outside of the Wikipedia or User spaces.

The rest of this brings us here. Now, frankly, if that is "whining" or an inappropriate use of a user's time, then we have a much more serious problem. I know that if I was blocked for no apparent reason for days, before being unblocked without any serious acknowledgment of what went wrong, my first move would be to bring this up here - and for exactly the reasons he brought it up. I see no reason to categorize this as "whining" or as any sort of conduct that is worthy of a block. We should not expect users who are understandably upset at being blocked for no apparent reason, and then unblocked without any acknowledgment of a mistake to just "roll with it" and move on. --Haemo 07:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There has never been any evidence to back up charges of disruption, or sock-puppetry. Accusations of "trolling" and "whining" are based solely on the fact that the user advocated to be unblocked on his talk page, and disagreed with the blocking admin. In fact, accusations of "non-contribution", which is not even a justification for blocking, amount solely to the fact that some users do not believe commenting on deletion reviews serves a "constructive" purpose. Frankly, the continual name-calling, and assumptions of bad faith on the part of other users towards this editor really stretch the bounds of assuming good faith and being civil. --Haemo 22:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm lost here... did we block the time-waster or not? If not, when are we going to? Should we tell him where he can open a free blog, just to be helpful? Because Wikipedia is, as Tony succinctly put it, not a forum with an encyclopedia, its an encyclopedia with discussion pages. And Haemo, AGF doesn't mean we should pretend this "editor" has made any useful contributions, because s/he hasn't. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion about what "useful contributions" are. I happen to believe that deletion, and deletion review, discussions are important parts of the encyclopedia, and that contributing to them is a contribution to the encyclopedia. I also believe that making admins accountable, by bringing up incorrect actions on their part is contributative. Other people believe that only mainspace edits count. Regardless of who is right, or who is wrong, non-contribution is not a reason for blocking. Editors should not have to meet some arbitrary, undefined, undocumented, and subjective definition of "contribution" in order not to be blocked. --Haemo 07:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this might be a sock puppet.....but the name escapes me.

Lord toaster head (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was caught uploading an image of a Douchebag and then caught vandalizing the Chevrolet Camaro with said image. The name might have a relation to a known vandal, but my cold has shut down any memory of it. Can anyone refresh my memory and tell if i'm right or wrong in my assumptions?--293.xx.xxx.xx 20:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Kinda a side question, but why does the talk link above go to an edit page that signifies new text into a new talk page when I already gave him two tags for uploading an inappropiate image and text vandalism??--293.xx.xxx.xx 21:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed you put {{userlinks|User:Lord toaster head}} should have been {{userlinks|Lord toaster head}}--pgk 21:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There was an image uploaded there two years ago by User:Shmackmier, if that helps. --LuigiManiac 22:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks pgk for the correction. That helped!! And LuigiManiac, is that so? Wish I got a screencap of the image he uploaded to see if it was the same image. But doesnt matter, he got tagged-n-bagged for vandalizing the Al Sharpton page.--293.xx.xxx.xx 23:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Gon4z is back

Resolved

 – User:Gon4z blocked for recurrent edit-warring.

User:Gon4z is back. If someone doesn’t know what this means- he usually smears, threatens and insults users that do not allow him to edit his greatly inflated Pro-Albanian numbers into articles regarding Albania: some examples of his behaviour: [120], [121], [122], [123], [124] [125] [126]
He was report over 5 times on this page in the last 2 weeks here, here, here, here and here; furthermore he was warned and banned for 24h for 3RR violation here. Also he keeps to blank his talkpage to hide all the warnings and bans he received exmple
As he was banned for 48h on May 10th for insulting other users he stop to this now, but he keeps on editing his grossly inflated numbers into the following articles: Albanian Land Forces Command, Template:Infobox National Military Albania, Albanian Naval Defense Forces, Albanian Air Force and Military of Albania. I'm really annoyed, because I always take great pains in making sure the information I insert in Wikipedia is 100% correct and I rather work on my new Alpini Project rather to have continuously looking to the Albanian Militaries articles.
I tried to reason with this user for days, but to no end, as I did not accepted any argument that runs counter to his worldview. i.e. He insists that Albania’s GDP is at minimum in excess of $30 billion. When I pointed out that the IMF states [[127]] it is around $10 billion this year he called me "God dam retarded", insinuated that I must "have some sort of hatred towards Albanians" and more. I don't even want to discuss with this guy anymore as it is a senseless endeavour: i.e. response to the IMF numbers he came with this link that talks about the impact of PONZI schemes on Albania and the Philippines and announces the Military spending of the Philippines, which he then claimed to be the Albanian and inserted this then in the articles!!!
As of now ALL the mentioned articles have been filled again with his inflated numbers- like: "Albania will purchase hundreds of Leopard 2 tanks" or as he does now declare the PPP adjusted GDP of Albania ($20 billion) to be to low, as he know it that is more like "$50 billion". I just want to contribute to Wikipedia, I'm not here to pick a fight. I have inserted valid and good sources, other users tried to reason with Gon4z too, if I take out his false information once more I'm in violation of the 3RR rule and need help to deal with this. noclador 21:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Heads Up! - I have informed User:Gon4z of his involvement in this post.

Gon4z has reverted 5 times today on Albanian Air Force. He may have reverted in other articles also. --24.136.230.38 21:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

6 reverts here. --24.136.230.38 21:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

6 reverts here. --24.136.230.38 21:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

3 reverts here. --24.136.230.38 21:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have filed a Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Gon4z_reported_by_User:MrMacMan_.28Result:.29 in the meantime. BTW, did he just file a report about me below this report? REALLY? He's joking. MrMacMan ^Talk 22:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This is obviously nationalistic vandalism - just ignore the report below. Reverting unsourced and dubious material, which quite frankly is vandalism, in favour of sourced and accurate material is specifically exempted from 3RR. This user is totally unreasonable. --Haemo 22:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I would be laughing about the post below, but I'm so fed up- I just want this to end and return to my projects that are much more work, but so much, much more joyful. noclador 22:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 48 hours for edit-warring, 3RR violations, disruption, etc as a repeat offender. As this seems to be a persistent problem, it may be worth proposing a topic ban or more wide-ranging remedy at the community sanction noticeboard. MastCell ^Talk 22:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I think it should have been for a week, but that's just me. I don't see why we need consensus to indefinitely ban him if he continues this behavior. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm strongly considering community sanction noticeboard for this issue. While I hate to post this someplace else, again, it seems like it isn't going to be resolved any other way. MrMacMan ^Talk 03:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd look over there before bothering. They can't agree to ban anyone there. ThuranX 03:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough... if you'd prefer, let me know or come back here if Gon4z returns from the block with more of the same, and it will be extended to the point where it'll end up being indefinite, unless his M.O. changes. It does seem like WP:CSN exists for just these cases (although of course not everyone agrees it should exist in the first place). MastCell ^Talk 04:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Noclador & User:MrMacMan

Resolved

Hello again I would like to raise a concern that there are two vandals User:Noclador & User:MrMacMan they have been editing all articles that have to do with the Albanian military non are correct I have been blocked in two occasions for no reason, I have tried talking with them and reasoning with them but they are not listening they even changed the my words that I put in their discussion are to seem like I was attacking them so I would get banned, I would really appreciate if you take some action against these users, they have only provided one source for their edit that is 3 years old and even that does not match with he figures and information they have given, in their source it states that Albania operates 375 tanks and User:Noclador wrote that the tank inventory is only 79 which does not match at all with his source, every time I fix the information so it matches with his source he reverts it, I also have added the PVO banner because me and some other people do not agree with their sources and they keep removing it.

I have cities all of my edits but for some reason they keep changing them with older information and as it ways in the wikipedia dispute article you should give let them have their wary and I am letting them use their source for now but they can at least quote their source correctly and not make number from the top of their heads.

User:Noclador & User:MrMacMan do not seem to obay the 3RR rule they have reverted my edit over 3 times now and wont stop I urge you to take action pls they are vandalising the articles. Gon4z 21:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

these two users have choose to use this source http://www.csees.net/?page=country_section&country_id=1&sec=8 but tey dont seem to quote it correctly the source that tey ahve represnted states taht 375 Type-59 tanks are in opration but for some reason tehy have only put 79 I dont see how that can be correct I have only edited the article to match the source.

Goz4z, let me remind you that you have reverted 20 times today (see above post). Why are you complaining about them? --24.136.230.38 21:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Gon4z (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 48 hours for edit-warring and 3RR violation (see above thread). I don't see any cause for any kind of action against Noclador (talk · contribs) nor MrMacMan (talk · contribs) here, so would suggest closing this thread. MastCell ^Talk 22:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the continuation of an ongoing problem; give me time to find the old sections here on AN/I. Ok, i'm blind. There are others, I believe, but above's enough, you can backtrack to the others through their contribs, I guess. ThuranX 01:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Accusation of murder

This whole rant is a tissue of lies, but I believe that the accusation of murder, reference to a police cell and the call for a lifelong ban are all breaches of WP policy, requiring admin intervention, please. Note also the same users previous defamatory edits made using sock puppets. Andy Mabbett 22:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me as if Lewisskinner needs some education and possible support dealing with a Wikistalker, not banning. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You appear confused; I'm Andy Mabbett, not "Lewisskinner". Andy Mabbett 23:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone appears confused. You linked to Lewisskinner's post and objected to it. --Masamage ♫ 23:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the accusation of murder here. --Haemo 00:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I took it, and I may be wrong, as 'killing' the participation of a wikieditor, not of outright removing the pulse of a living human. ThuranX 00:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

that's how it seemed tome also. DGG 03:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing/Andy Mabbett is currently involved in another dispute on this page [128]. Is he involved in any other ones? -- Kleinzach 01:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

JB196 socks that need blocking

Resolved

 – Well, that went quickly. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Cabel Starcraft (talk · contribs)
• Cat attack quack (talk · contribs)
• Flasherlr (talk · contribs)
• Flat Top Bully (talk · contribs)
• Flatreef (talk · contribs)
• Flippage9 (talk · contribs)
• Hashbeefcorn1 (talk · contribs)
• Hirschman A (talk · contribs)
• Howlerah (talk · contribs)
• Insipid Dr (talk · contribs)
• Out of control Smurf (talk · contribs)
• Skiier43noogie (talk · contribs)
• Slumphitter (talk · contribs)
• Wet Fish Handshake (talk · contribs)

Discovered through CheckUser. –– Lid^(Talk) 23:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Killed.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Some more found in the logs of others

• Jackblackattack (talk · contribs)
• DGPie (talk · contribs)
• Devils Wings RZ (talk · contribs)

–– Lid^(Talk) 23:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Got those, too. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I will put {{sockpuppet}} on their userpages as they are sockpuppets. Funpika 23:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing and incivility

In this edit, we have user Oren0 describing editors as "bully[ing] other editors, try[ing] to delete pages, or perform[ing] other egregious behavior, ". He also suggests joining his efforts to canvas editors.

Perhaps this needs attention from the administrators, especially since he's actively encouraging folks to contact the administrators?

Atlant 23:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying as administrators are supposed to be contacted when intervention is needed with bull-headed editors (which do exist), I'm not sure why we would come down on Oren0 for that. The canvassing... well, that's mildly upsetting, but I don't see anything here that screams "an admin needs to do something". EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a huge amount of "history" around the Global warming article and the edit-wars thereof, but I really don't want to say more out of concern for biasing folks' perceptions.

Atlant 00:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That edit does seem to provide a good argument for deleting Category:Wikipedians who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a case for Dispute Resolution to me. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Having second thoughts about a particular user.

I just gave 203.214.123.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) eight spam warnings for spamming 8 different articles with external links to a website. The Admin report board for spamming pretty much says to wait until the guy violates again. So I told him "I'll consider all eight as one warning, don't spam again!!," but after abit of thinking, I think I might've goofed. Any opinions if I handled it correctly or should the guy be banned instantly seeing the accounts activity was just to spam links??

Also, another user (58.167.15.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) also spammed the Wangan Midnight article with just the link (and not the associated text). And both WHOIS lookups say they reside in Australia, in the same town.

WHOIS 203.214.123.67 WHOIS 58.167.15.79--293.xx.xxx.xx 02:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's obviously the same user then the warnings on the first account count against all subsequent sock puppets. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I've blocked the new IP for 48 hours. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Which one, the 203 or the 58?--293.xx.xxx.xx 02:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandal on Drew Barrymore

Resolvedblocked by King of Hearts. If they come back, ask for semi-protection at WP:RFPP. ··coelacan 06:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Taking issue with cited bisexual statements of Barrymore, and continually removing content on both article and Talk page. Is a professed friend of banned users - trumpeting their vandal behavior on their talk page. Can an admin step in here, please? it's User:71.96.245.62--David Shankbone 03:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry from User:MarkStreet gets no response from User:Future Perfect at Sunrise

Two days ago, a new sockpuppetry case has been discovered on Transnistria-related articles. More precisely, it has been determined that User:Buffadren was in fact a sockpuppet of User:Mark us street, as determined by checkuser here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Buffadren.

The administrator User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, which keeps an eye on Transnistria-related pages has been notified, but replied that he doesn't see a problem because the accounts User:Mark us street and User:Buffadren were not used at the same time.

I do, however, see a problem in having a known puppeteer (User:Mark us street) changing identities at will and thus avoiding scrutiny from fellow editors, which is explicitly forbidden by existing Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Avoiding_scrutiny_from_other_editors. Note that the various puppets all edited the exact same articles.

Furthermore, from the history of the various accounts it is quite obvious that User:Mark us street is avoids blocks and bans by successively changing his identity.

My question is: Is this situation normal? Can everybody change name once he/she was blocked, so that there's no trail? Then, why not switch to anon editing only? Dpotop 08:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

unless they use the sock to get around a block (use one while the other account is blocked) or use it to get around the 3RR, then yes, there is no policy violation. Nothing wrong. -M^ask? 08:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Avoiding_scrutiny_from_other_editors? Is this policy obsolete? Dpotop 08:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

We know its him, he's clearly not avoiding leaving a trail. Thats a nonstarter just from the checkuser trail. Also, thats not fully relevent or used. We let people start over all the time. This guys not starting over, because he keeps up his same antics, so just monitor it. No worries. -M^ask? 08:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I understand that "Buffadren" did at the outset try to conceal the identity, so a case of "covering up his tracks" might be made. Also, there is a possible case of conflict of interest, when it comes to Buffadren trying to introduce links to a site that "MarkStreet" was connected with. But at the present moment a block for these reasons would be purely punitive. This case is at Arbcom and I suggest we should wait for Arbcom to decide on how to judge it. At the moment, the administrative priority is to keep the level of edit-warring down on Transnistria, nothing else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Stalking

I am presently being wikistalked by a user who, whenever somebody disagrees with me on anything, chimes in to state that he also disagrees and that I'm such a nasty person and so forth. While I'm tempted to simply ignore this as trolling, perhaps someone could inform him that this isn't acceptable behavior? [129]. >Radiant< 08:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)