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

Longer term discussions

Potential problem concerning episode articles

Moved to /Episodes. Mercury

User:Timeshift9 trying to "out" User:Prester John

Moved to /User:Timeshift9 trying to "out" User:Prester John. -- Cat ^chi?

Recent editing by PalestineRemembered

Moved to /PR. Mercury

The case on me here looked terrible while it was on display on the board (at least, I presume that's the reason people with respect for the project moved it out of sight). It's taken even more sinister directions now it's "hidden". It died once and was closed. It's now sprouting more allegations that are, yet again, completely baseless. Please have a look at this - Jaakobou has re-opened it in order to accuse me of sock-puppetry. There is nothing whatsoever to link me to the anonymous IP. User:Jaakobou has previously made at least one other reckless accusation of sock-puppetry against an editor in good standing. And this comes less than 2 weeks after he was warned and apologised for "Forum Shopping". I don't know what it will take to stop him wasting everyone's time. PR^talk 17:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Mass Speedy Delete Notices on Korean Military Rank Insignia Pictures

Moved to: Talk:Comparative military ranks of Korea

Disputants deleting each others' posts on Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus

Wikipedians who dispute whether Copernicus's nationality was Polish or German have for the past few days been deleting, reverting, and restoring one anothers' posts on Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus (edit history). The dispute has been raging since last year at least, as the Talk page and that page's archives and the subpage Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus/Nationality and the subpage's three archives illustrate. However, eliminating an opponents' comments is unacceptable. The pretext for some of the deletions is accusations of sockpuppetry, but so far as I can tell the alleged sockpuppets have not been blocked or banned. This same nationality warring caused the Nicolaus Copernicus article itself to be protected since 23 September 2007 and on 12 prior occastions since 7 February 2006 (protection log). And that is especially shameful in view of both the importance of Copernicus as an historical figure and the sub-standard quality of Wikipedia's article on him (partly due to nationality warring edits of the article).

I do not believe that protecting the Talk page of a protected article is a good solution. Rather, I suggest that the several Wikipedians who are deleting others' comments be warned and, if necessary, blocked or banned.

This board may not be the perfect place for this incident, but the problem is that parts of the incident fall within scope of several other notice boards. So, this seemed to me to be the best place to address the overall problem. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 01:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Support. The sub-standard quality of Wikipedia article on Nicolaus Copernicus is a result of a relentless campaign of a small number of deletionists interested in promoting their own POVs. I believe this issue will never be resolved and so at least some preventive measures have to be taken (and upheld) in order to maintain the principles of an open source format. --Poeticbent talk 18:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've expressed my views on the matter here. Raymond Arritt 01:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmph. User:H.J. was being disruptive about all Prussian/German/Polish matters back in 2001, Copernicus just one of them. Corvus cornix 02:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the remarks of User:Finell are hardly understandable to me. He should know better, he encountered one of User:Serafin's sock puppets here. Serafin made a mess out of the Copernicus article, and continues to do so on the talk page. Please have a closer look at Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Serafin, and regarding "so far as I can tell the alleged sockpuppets have not been blocked or banned", also Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Serafin and User:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/Serafin. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       03:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The deleted comments originate from a banned user. Doesn't policy require that we remove them? --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree at all to the description of the problem, which I not even consider a problem. I believe to understand this thread, it is essential to read Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus#Shame on you. It is not hard to find out that 131.104.219.176 is Serafin, is it? Contrary to Finell's above assumption that "the alleged sockpuppets have not been blocked or banned", they have, except for the most recent one, User:Lobby1 (just compare the time of the account's creation to another puppet, say User:Buggo1). I would like admins reading this to place User:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/Serafin on their watchlists and act upon new reports. I have also wanted Finell to report them and I explained to him the wrong implications that are likely to be drawn if only those who hold another view are forced to report and remove the comments of a banned user, but Finell did not grant my request the way I had hoped for. Sciurinæ 15:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sciurinæ: If you want to report suspected sockpuppets, go ahead, but don't expect me to carry out this chore for you. I have no idea who Serafin is (although I did confirm for myself that he was banned), and have no expertise in recognizing his sockpuppets. However, it is clear that one editor's, or even a group of editors', suspicion of sockpuppetry is not justification to delete another editor's posts. Report it to the admins and let them deal with it; that is what admins are for. The Wikipedia community will not tolerate vigilantes deleting other editors' comments, especially when the deleters are partisans in the dispute: that is the road to anarchy. Admin Raymond Arritt expressed this view clearly, and those who ignore his warning do so at their peril. Finell (Talk) 23:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I just read the talk page guidelines and unfortunately, they are stunningly vague about deleting talk page comments. They allow "deletion of prohibited material" which one person apparently interprets to include "sock puppets", and "deletion of irrelevant material" which certainly includes some of the recently appearing off-topic comments about more modern German-Polish relations, and they even speak softly of the "refactoring" of talk pages, which opens the gates to anything that might not have been allowed by the first two policies. Under the circumstances it seems wrong to ban anyone, or protect the page, to prevent violations of a policy which is at best unclear and perhaps nonexistent. If this controversy gets the attention of an admin, perhaps that attention is better spent nailing down the policy first. At least one person in the discussion sounds like he'd follow it if he knew what it was. 70.15.116.59 18:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and to top it off, they're talk page guidelines. Can you even ban or block based on a violation of guidelines that "are not set in stone" etc.? Is there any policy at all on talk page deletions? 70.15.116.59 19:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The policy which applies is WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits. User:Serafin's comments should be removed and those who seek to obstruct tackling him persistently should be blocked. Sciurinæ 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The absurdity of Finell's suggestion to block or ban users who have removed comments of the banned User:Serafin on Talk:Nicolaus_Copernicus becomes clear when it is applied to Finell himself. Maybe he forgot that he, too, removed one of Serafin's comments (ie as often as I have) and one could now easily recall Finell's rhetoric about vigilance and the wikipedia community and anarchy; the only difference being that a person can only speak for their own motives and that means a lot given that Finell speaks of bad faith in deleting an opponent's comments and has deleted a then opponent's (otherwise ally) comment although he does not know or care whether it is a banned user or not. Finell also did not report the user as a possible sockpuppet of Serafin, leaving this "chore" to those he now wants to get blocked or banned if they delete Serafin's comments restored again and again by Serafin's sockpuppets that were blocked shortly afterwards. Surely, a victory of Serafin in this issue is further encouragement for him to continue ban evasions. Sciurinæ 19:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sciurinæ: Please do not misrepresent what I said; that is dishonest. I have no objection to deleting the postings or edits of a blocked or banned user. What I object to is someone deleting posts becasue of an unconfirmed (by an admin) suspicion or accusation of sockpuppetry. Finell (Talk) 21:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I consider your entire thread a misrepresentation and there's no honesty when I explain to someone how something might be mistaken and that someone comes to AN/I and tries to convince everybody of that this mistake was the truth. You should make clear in which way you have been misrepresented.

So what is your problem? Most of the time, the comments of the banned User:Serafin have been removed and rightly so. Should you seriously discover anytime in the future unbanned people who remove each others' comments, like you claimed, you might have a reason for a thread like this. It's a real shame that those who share Serafin's POV connive at his block evasions, but one cannot force people to do something against those they agree with. Still, you refuse to participate against (rather than for) the banned user, though I think that might be a fair chance for you to make up for this thread. The indifference of admins towards this thread at least should show you that it's not the admins alone who are going to clean up the mess of banned users. Oh, look - now that he's got his comments back in place, Serafin also wants the sock-tags removed ([1]). Sciurinæ 21:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Angela Kennedy, User:MEagenda

I have indefinitely blocked the above users, in line with the Wikipedia policy on no legal threats, for this edit from Angela Kennedy and this very similar edit from MEagenda in particular. I have informed the users that they can be unblocked at any time if they rescind these threats of legal action. Would appreciate feedback, having never really taken action on legal threats before. Neil ☎ 10:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. My only problem is the daft idea that, after those who made the threats (typically grudgingly) rescind them that we do indeed unblock them. Legal threats are a spiteful attack on members of the Wikipedia community, with the clear goal of intimidating them into compliance or silence. Those who issue unambiguous threats, such as this one, should be permanently excluded for Wikipedia, regardless of whatever post-hoc wailing they make when the find their bully tactics have repercussions. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 10:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Note Finlay's response was before I mentioned MEagenda was also blocked (although I think the response would be the same?) Neil ☎ 10:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Doubleplusly so. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by (somewhat) involved editor: My personal impression is that AK is doing two things here: (1) accusing JzG of libel and (2) requesting information/material to be used in possible legal action against Prof. Wessely. However, I can see how it may be interpreted it as a legal threat and would hesitate to propose unblocking. I would advise the editor to accept Neil's offer and retract the problematic text. (A request for said information/material can be made via foundation e-mail; since the editor appears to be corresponding with Mr Wales, who was the designated contact last time I checked, it would be easiest to simply ask him). PS The same applies for MEagenda. Avb 11:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

These blocks seem completely unfounded, since the 'no legal threats' rule applies only to legal threats against users, not outsiders. There is really not an obvious legal threat, either. One can see a limited potential for a legal action, but it has not been announced. I am therefore kindly requesting to unblock both users. Thanks, Guido den Broeder 13:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Guido, they will be unblocked when they retract any legal threats. To me, it reads like they are threatening the preparing of legal cases against Guy Chapman / User:JzG. That is, by definition, a legal threat. Without even looking, I guessed you were not neutral to this, and a quick look of your contributions shows you are not. Neil ☎ 13:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me?

Can someone other than Neil take a look at this? There is no legal threat against anyone. There may be a legal issue with Wessely, who is not a user, and that's all what can have been implied. Guido den Broeder 15:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't be serious. User:Angela Kennedy: "Guys comments here... are libellous and defamatory, and this is not the first time he has made libellous and defamatory comments against myself. I am currently engaged in corresponding with Jim Wales about Guy’s previous libel... I therefore call on ‘Guy’ to supply those emails... to me directly so that I can forward them to my solicitor. I should remind ‘Guy’ that even if Professor Wessely HAS made such comments, ‘Guy’ is still guilty of libel and defamation by repeating false claims in this way." ([2])

User:MEagenda: "If Mr Guy Chapman holds any documentary evidence from any source (including from Prof Wessely, himself) that supports any claim or implication that I might have "harassed" Prof Wessely, in any way, then I suggest that he set them before me in a paper letter or in electronic form in order that I might forward them on to my solicitor to deal with." ([3])

Either those are textbook legal threats against an editor, or we've entered the Twilight Zone. Or, most likely, both of the above. MastCell ^Talk 16:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

How about: She wants to go after Wessely. If Guy thinks she has libelled him, forward the evidence to her so her lawyer can deal with them (IE, Defend her). That is what I get from the gist of the whole matter. Legal threats against Wessely and defense against Guy. Spryde 17:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I still read it as threatening to unleash a solicitor upon Guy, and I note Angela Kennedy has not denied that on her talk page in response to the block message. Even if we go with your version, Spryde, whoever they may be against, they are legal threats. NLT does not draw a distinction betwen legal threats against Wikipedia, Wikipedians, or non-Wikipedian groups or people, and nor should it. Neil ☎ 18:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Just pointing out another angle people may have not considered. That is all. Spryde 23:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Point by uninvolved editor: It probably should raise some red flags when someone's username contains "agenda". shoy 13:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Point by involved target: I never said who did the harassing, and certainly not down to the level of individuals, only that Prof. Wessely told me in an email that he had been harassed and threatened. It looks very much as if they were trying to iport their external battle, whihc is what they've been doing all along. I have no real opinion on the block, other than that it probably saved a tedious ArbCom case. Guy (Help!) 18:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

@Mastcell: I'm very serious, I'm inclined to consider this an abuse of power. It further troubles me that after my comment above, I have been called a liar by Neil, and suddenly the article ME/CVS Vereniging was deleted without discussion. Is this what Wikipedia is coming to? Guido den Broeder 00:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the admins on this: these are legal threats. However, why was User talk:Angela Kennedy deleted to remove the history? Also, why was Guido not alerted to the addition of the speedy tag to ME/CVS Vereniging (eg with {{nn-warn-deletion}})? Guido openly admits a COI in this matter; I hope the admins here hold themselves to a similar level of openness and transparency in their actions. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the ME/CVS vereniging discussion should go to DRV, rather than be shlepped along here for an unrelated reason. Guido should not have created the page to begin with, and it most definitely did not assert notability. We don't have articles on very large UK and USA patients' organisations (thankfully) for CFS/ME patients.

As for deletion of Angela's and Suzy's talkpages, accusations of libel were being made on Angela's talkpage. When I attempted to challenge these accusations, my posts were reverted. The only upside was that the user briefly stopped making threats. The wikilawyering would have continued on these very talkpages.

The subject of the article in question, Simon Wessely, has a number of critics. One is Malcolm Hooper, associated with MEaction.[4] Another is Martin Walker.[5] Most of the criticisms have been made on websites and in blogs, in self-published books, and in publications by membership organisations. A big WP:V problem, in other words. The only external sources on the conflict that we could identify were a newspaper article in The Guardian (which was challenged) and a short mention in an unofficial report by MPs (the "Gibson Report"). The latter source makes an unsourced mention of harassment by patients' activists, which is why Kennedy & MEagenda attacked its use so vocally. Never did JzG or myself directly accuse any person of harassment, and this troublesome comment was never actually part of the Wessely article.

I would hope some admins would be kind enough to keep Talk:Simon Wessely on their watchlists. The feelings that have fed the most recent spate of edits are not going away. JFW | T@lk 10:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The correct way to address the removal of ME/CVS Vereniging, an article that was added in light of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands, is to approach the administrator who removed it. This I have done; I am now waiting for a reply. Please refrain from suggestive remarks v patient organizations ("thankfully"??). Guido den Broeder 11:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on my user talk page. Basically, the article clearly fell under Speedy A7, as it made no assertion of notability whatsoever. If you disagree, take it to WP:DRV. Fram 08:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

With regard to JzG's accusations, see [6]. Guido den Broeder 11:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I said "thankfully" because any article on a patients' association is fraught with WP:V problems. Also, I am entitled to my opinion. I am more than a bit worried by this user's further attempts at reopening the debate on Talk:Simon Wessely,[7] as well as less than pleasant remarks at MastCell (talk · contribs) on Talk:Myalgic encephalomyelitis.[8][9] JFW | T@lk 11:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Views of Lyndon LaRouche article fully protected

I have just full-protected the article Views of Lyndon LaRouche indefinitely (no expiration set). I wanted to notify other administrators and explain this action, for community review.

This article subject has been the subject of a long-running sustained edit war, and three completed Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others) and one pending (WP:RFAR#Cberlet and Dking) Arbitration Committee cases. An extremely persistent LaRouche supporter User:Herschelkrustofsky has been banned and returned repeatedly (most recent sockpuppet Gelsomina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked last night based on CU and editing; had been a participant on the article but not the primary one).

The specific case findings I believe apply to this action include:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche - Principles 1, 2; Remedies 1, 4; Enforcement 3
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 - Principles 2, 3, 5
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others - Principles 5, 6, 11

Normal policy allows administrators to protect pages to end particularly tedentious edit wars. This edit war has been actively ongoing since 2004.

Under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche Enforcement 3 administrators are allowed to protect articles on other topics in a version without LaRouche content added. I am going to trivially extend that ruling and protected the article in a version which was not the last, but the last non-LaRouche-supporter-edited version. I believe this action is in accord with the spirit of the Arbcom ruling.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche have clearly been attempting to turn that article (and others) into soapboxes for his political views. These activities have been persistent. They have broken WP policy to the extent of four separate arbcom cases in 3 years. They have utilized sockpuppets to an extent which is at best difficult to follow and monitor.

The common hope that two opposing camps on an article will over time come to an agreeable middle solution which is NPOV (and so forth) appears to be false related to articles on this topic.

I have left advice on the article Talk page for editors who want changes in the article to leave a talk page note detailing the change desired and discuss there; changes which appear consistent with Wikipedia policy can then be made by administrators watching the talk page. I will continue to watch the talk page to monitor for such requests, and I hope other admins will do likewise.

It may be appropriate to apply this solution to other related articles on the same topic. At this point I have no firm intention to do so but I am going to review them in more detail.

As always, I am open to input from other administrators and editors on any of my admin actions, either here on ANI or on my talk page. Georgewilliamherbert 01:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I forwarded your WikiEN-L message to the arbcom list. I find this initiative against dedicated COI POV-pushers and their sock drawer most heartening - David Gerard 01:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear! El_C 08:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

He's going to "trivially extend" the arbcom ruling? He's rewriting it altogether! --Marvin Diode 14:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Echoes of El C. Three cheers, stopping a massive edit war, showing initiative, and an action that shows exactly why IAR is policy. My mood has been lifted. It's Oktoberfest, Bratwurst and beer for all! -M^ask? 15:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yay. Tenacious POV-pushers give us much bigger headaches than simple vandals and trolls. And they strike at the heart of the project by consciously making our content unreliable. Raymond Arritt 15:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The nice thing too is that "indefinite" here does not mean "forever" - the FlaggedRevisions extension, should it prove fit for purpose, will serve nicely to keep pages like this under control - David Gerard 17:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a new and innovative approach that renders Wikipedia:Dispute resolution obsolete. Where there is a protracted content dispute, an admin may simply decide that he prefers one gang of POV pushers over the other, then join the gang that is to his liking and enforce its version of the article. No need for consensus, either. And what is more, there is no further need for the arbcom, now that User:Georgewilliamherbert has ignored all rules, stepped up to the plate, and simply done their job for them. --Marvin Diode 20:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That you have been a pro-LaRouche POV pusher on this article has no bearing on your opinion, of course - David Gerard 20:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to provide some evidence to substantiate this personal attack? --Marvin Diode 12:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

your removal of critical information and removal of his anti-semitism from the article linked here would seem to make it less of an attack and more a statement of fact. -M^ask? 18:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Violation of page protection policy

Wikipedia:Protection policy#Content disputes says that:

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

User: Georgewilliamherbert has been a participant in a recent content dispute at Views of Lyndon LaRouche. Today he reverted to his preferred version of the article, then protected it, in violation of policy. --Marvin Diode 05:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Except he's ignoring all rules to end a pernicious edit war on this page. It makes sense in this context, and is buttressed by the ArbCom rulings on the topic. See the above section — the pernicious LaRouche edit-wars have already led to special provisions against pro-LaRouche versions of articles, against regular policy. This is a logical extension thereof. --Haemo 06:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The arbcom decisions don't say anything of the sort. They say that if someone adds references to LaRouche to an article where it is inappropriate, then admins may protect the version that doesn't mention LaRouche. This is an article about LaRouche, and it appears to me that GWH is protecting a BLP violation (which is never supposed to happen.) --Marvin Diode 14:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to enter the BLP discussion on the article talk page. If a reasonable case is made to that effect then I or another administrator can fix the article text. Protected articles are not frozen; they are just not currently world-editable. Georgewilliamherbert 22:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I fully support Georgewilliamherbert in this. (If you would really prefer, I'll go unprotect it and protect it myself, since I've not been involved.) POV pushes need stopping, period. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Same here. It's not an IAR, it's entirely per the spirit of the arbcom ruling. - David Gerard 17:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Three cheers for User: Georgewilliamherbert and common sense. WAS 4.250 18:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is full protection required? What's wrong with semi-protection and liberal blocking of edit warriors? --Tango 00:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, all the edit warriors here have long-standing accounts. --Carnildo 01:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what the blocks are for. If certain people are persistently edit warring on an article, it is generally best to block them, rather than protect the article - protecting is good for forcing discussion and resolving the war, it doesn't sound like this war is ever going to be resolved, the people involved just need to be stopped. If you are worried about them just logging out or creating new accounts and carrying on, then you can semi-protect. --Tango 14:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert's page protection was an appropriate way to deal with an increasingly difficult situation, and might make some progress possible. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What the arbcom decision actually says, versus User:Georgewilliamherbert's "trivial extension"

If an article is protected due to edit wars over the removal of Lyndon-related material, Admins are empowered (as an exception to normal protection policy) to protect the version which does not mention Lyndon LaRouche. (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche) The essential thrust of this decision was to prevent User:Herschelkrustofsky from adding references to LaRouche to a variety of articles where LaRouche or his opinions were not notable. What User:Georgewilliamherbert is attempting to do, is to write his own arbcom decision, which says that if an article about Lyndon LaRouche or his views is protected due to edit wars over the removal of material which is alleged to violate WP:BLP, Admins are empowered (as an exception to normal protection policy) to protect the version which is the "the last non-LaRouche-supporter-edited version." A "LaRouche supporter" is defined as anyone who disputes the edits of User:Cberlet or User:Dking, who habitually violate WP:SOAP, WP:FRINGE, WP:COI, and WP:BLP on a broad range of articles, not just the LaRouche articles. I have added little or nothing about LaRouche, either positive or negative, to the LaRouche articles, or any others -- my role has been to object to policy violations by Cberlet and Dking. In the course of doing so, I have become quite familiar with the LaRouche arbcom decisions, and User:Georgewilliamherbert's "trivial extension" of them is in fact an entirely new policy which should not be represented as in any way related to what the arbcom decided. --Marvin Diode 13:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You may notice the lack of interest and support for your wikilawyering on this point. I wonder why that is. - David Gerard 14:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No one cares and we're all to happy that someone got out the clue-by-four to solve a legitimate problem in a unique, innovative, and emminently reasonable manner? Oh silly me, you were being rhetorical and I should have avoided using this moment to bask in the glow of a confidence-inspiring action that lets me know the project is in good hands. Whoops, there I go again. -M^ask? 18:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I seem to be belaboring the obvious, but I get the feeling that there are one or two admins here who are either oblivious, or indifferent, to the core policies that they are supposed to be implementing. --Marvin Diode 00:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. The other admins seem to be supporting Georgewilliamherbert's actions though. Fram 09:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh! El_C 09:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the decision by Georgewilliamherbert to protect Views of Lyndon LaRouche indefinitely. He is correct that it has been the subject of tendentious edit warring since 2004 The latest round has been particularly unproductive. An alternative solution would have been using Enforcement provision #1 of the first LaRouche ArbCom case, which would have resulted in the banning of Marvin Diode and others. However that probably would have been more disruptive and time consuming. The page protection is a reasonable and necessary step to bring stability to a contentious topic. The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a neutral encyclopedia and all of its rules exist only to further that goal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Ryulong block review

I received an e-mail from User:The Technodrome's Toilet asking for help after being blocked by Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). It appears that Ryulong has blocked him/her indefinitely as a sockpuppet, without a checkuser, and in the middle of a Power Rangers content dispute. I'm no expert on the subject matter, but it doesn't seem obvious to me that the person is a sock. Hasty and overly harsh blocks have been a Ryulong problem in the past, posting here for review. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I blocked because the evidence was damning at the time, and still is. In a checkuser that did occur, it did not turn up that he was either user who I suspected him of being, but then again, he was utilizing open proxies, and several other accounts were found.

Even though there is no evidence to show he is a sockpuppet via checkuser, he still has a bunch of edits that resemble both sockpuppeteers in question (baseball-related edits, Power Rangers edits, removing the "fictional" qualifier to an article on a particular character, trying to delete the page of that same character, etc.), as well as the hoaxes that he has admitted to. This block does not come from any dispute. I saw that he was editting a page that I have watched because I'm preventing it from becoming a page totally based on rumors, and I looked into his past edits that resemble two particular banned users that I've encountered.

We should not let a user who has admitted to screwing with the project be allowed to continue to edit it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Blocking on the basis of sockpuppetry seems a bit hasty given that the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/EddieSegoura is pending. However, from his talk page and deleted edits, TTT seems to think creation of hoax articles doesn't offend anyone, so I'm not rushing to unblock. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 02:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining/looking into it. Like I said, I'm no expert on Power Rangers sockpuppets. Not sure why the user picked me to e-mail, except that I was involved in Ryulong's RfC. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an episode list for a series that doesn't air until February 2008 and everything here is either nonsense or a hoax (mostly fake films or nonsense TMNT references, like his username).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I know that Eddie is still editing (he told me via some recent emails) but I'd be surprised if this him. The language and writing style seem very different to Eddie's. But that said, I agree with AnonEMouse with regard to hoaxes etc and don't feel inclined to rush to unblocking someone who has so blatantly attempted to undermine the integrity of the project. Sarah 03:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've amended the block rationale to reflect the actual evidence that was received from the checkuser, as well as why he should remain blocked, even if it isn't Eddie or CBDrunkerson (who is believed to be Eddie, regardless).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) These points make sense to me. For what it's worth, the username probably needs some work as well. Newyorkbrad 03:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've declined his (third) unblock request. If the only reason he won't create hoax articles is because other people don't like it, he still does not quite get it IMO. Mr.Z-man 01:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Wow, isn't that a bit too much like keeping some guy in jail for a crime he didn't commit because of his bad attitude? Not very professional. Michael2314 20:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• CommentSo now you just keep him in jail and retroactively change the charges? Come on fellows, you're better than this. Michael2314 20:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried to avoid this, but after my talk page was made inaccessable I decided to create a new account so I could state my case. I did whatever I can to request unblock, but I don't know what I did to make the lastest user to review my request to make editing inaccessable. I didn't use profanity. I also was criticized for attacking the blocking user's credibility when I pointed out the complaints filed againt the blocking user. Given the fact the I had no prior blocks, is it really asking too much for an unblock. I'm only human and I make mistakes. I can't change what I did but I think it's ridiculous that a small group of you are willing to linger on something that could be solved by deleting the articles, notifying me and moving on. The Technedrome\'s Toilet 22:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Sadi Carnot

Sigh. After the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgi Gladyshev (and my amusing, if embarrassing, original mistake there) I've spend some amount of time looking through the contributions of Sadi Carnot. What I see there is a large, elaborate a subtle walled garden of pseudoscience— probably for the purpose of hawking his books (or simple self agrandizement).

Besides Georgi Gladyshev, Human molecule, Human chemistry, Interpersonal chemistry, Heat and affinity which seem to be the core of his garden; he makes large numbers of sometimes subtle vandalism to many articles related to thermodynamics using his own website as source to justify them. Many of the edits lie at the edge of my personal knowledge of thermodynamics, but given that his sources are unfailingly looping back to his website (humanthermodynamics.com) or that of another dubious institution related to him (endeav.org), and that they feel fishy, someone with better topic knowledge should probably look at the whole bunch.

The user has already admitted to being the author and owner of the site being pushed.

I dislike making personal allegations against a specific editor, and I am loathe to run through his contributions by myself quietly (I don't want this to look like stalking), but at this time I am convinced that we are either facing the perpetrator of a long and elaborate hoax, someone working at self-promotion, or simply the promoter of a fringe theory. — Coren ^(talk) 03:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

In April 2007 I mediated a case between Sadi Carnot and User:Hkhenson about the Capture bonding article. We saw similar problems there. It may be useful to ask Hkhenson for further information. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, since you asked for it, the registered contact person for humanthermodynamics.com is:(DELETED personal info, no need to identify the editor here - JEH) Keith Henson 06:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Keith. I am sure you posted that publicly available info in good faith, but I don't think we need details about the user posted here. Should that information be needed, we will ask you for it confidentially. If you want to add comments about Sadi Carnot's editing, feel free to do so at the bottom of this long thread.- Jehochman ^Talk 06:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

When you are talking about something as serious as banning an editor, I disagree with you with respect to details. "Sadi Carnot" claims on his user page a double major in chemical and electrical engineering. His alter ego, Libb Thims, claims the same plus "PhD Biochemistry / MD Neuroscience (in progress) - UC Berkeley." I didn't yet and may not check up on the Berkeley claim because the claim is outside of Wikipedia. In Sadi's favor (assuming he is the identified person) he *does* have a double major in ChE and EE--which makes his connection to this fringe business all the stranger.

BTW, anyone who uses the Internet, especially when they are trying to determine the reliability of information should be aware of tools that are much like looking in the front of a book to see who published it. There are direct ways and also web based tools. For example, http://www.dnsstuff.com/. If you go there and put humanthermodynamics.com in the "whois box" it takes you to the name Jehochman deleted. From there it's just putting the name in Google. This doesn't work if someone goes to a little more trouble. For example an associated web site, humanchemistry.net takes you to a web hosting service that is a dead end for finding out who is behind it. (This site uses Time, National Geographic and Wikipedia to give it credibility.) Keith Henson 17:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(Note: I've notified the editor) — Coren ^(talk) 03:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The referenced Capture bonding mediation can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-04-23_Capture-bonding . I'm glad for that record, because it shows the kind of mess that Sadi Carnot makes of any article that he takes a strong interest in. As with all pseudo-scientists, it is always difficult to distinguish the charlatan from the fool. If I assume good faith, he has no capability of distinguishing fact from fiction, and is a dangerous editor. If I trust my instincts, I lean towards an elaborate hoax. He has at least one apparent sock puppet (User:Wavesmikey). Given the use of sock puppets, and my belief that he is consciously creating fraudulent articles, I heartily recommend a lifetime ban on the editor. I think it is worth forming a committee of people with greater depth in some of these topics than I have to go through every article he has touched and verify that his edits were not harmful. Capture bonding should simply be reverted to the state before he ever touched it, and someone should send poor beleagered Keith Henson a note saying that he is free to fix it without further sabotage.Kww 04:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Keith Henson may need outside help. He's written about the topic and wants to cite some of his own work. Those citations may be appropriate, but they should be reviewed to prevent COI issues. Looking at the article history, it seems like Sadi gave up on capture bonding. The article has been sanitized. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That's true, I more or less removed the BS Sadi Carnot added to capture-bonding and stuffed it into another article capture bond. If anyone want to delete capture bond, it's fine by me. Capture-bonding could still use some clean up work if anyone wants to. Sadi did "wikify" articles in addition to stuffing them with BS. Keith Henson 06:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

As for the proposed community ban, Sadi Carnot has a clear block log. Within the mediation he said he's written a ~500 page textbook. The most plausible explanation is that Sadi has WP:COI and WP:FRINGE issues. Within the mediation he cited WP:COI. He's familiar with the guideline so there's no need to warn him. If he's weaving his own book references and novel theories into Wikipedia, that needs to be stopped immediately. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ack! It's worse than I thought: 132 links are peppered all over! — Coren ^(talk) 04:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC) (added:) Although many of those are in AfD for bits of his walled garden. Still around 40 in mainspace. — Coren ^(talk) 05:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Almost a year ago, when he created the Extra-Long Article Committee, Sadi Carnot seemed to have limited understanding of the way Wikipedia works. Since the Project was deleted, I can't provide examples, but it was quite frustrating and he tried the patience of even those who originally supported his goals.

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee/Incidents. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The account hasn't edited since October 10 when the hoax was unmasked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human chemistry. To prevent further damage or spamming, I am going to indef the account because it's clear to me that it's been used primarily for long term, subtle vandalism and COI editing, causing serious, widespread damage. Let's discuss this and see if any admin is willing to unblock. Establishing a community ban will be helpful because it will allow us to immediately revert and block any socks that show up. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone here object to going through those contributions and scrubbing the links away? I'll do so tomorrow (now is bedtime) if so. — Coren ^(talk) 05:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been on a wikibreak for three weeks and just returned from a trip to London from Australia. I am surprised by this discussion. Sadi Carnot has tried my patience in the past but I have always thought he was well-meaning. His contributions to articles on thermodynamics have always been in good faith. The discussion above does not mention the wide range of articles where I have come across him. As the jet-lag fades, I will try to look into this. --Bduke 09:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

A possibility might be a ban on him adding links to his website or citing his own work (or that of the "institute"). I've looked over the website and it does seem a strange mish-mash of serious references mixed up with polls and fringe theories. There are references to articles published in mainstream journals - but I would suspect that those papers would be, well, more restrained than what is said at this website. The journal (humanthermodynamics.com/Journal.html) also looks like a self-published effort with not much I can see in the way of credibility. For the "institute" (humanthermodynamics.com/About-IOHT.html), the "who are we" (humanthermodynamics.com/about-us.html#anchor_126) list starts off poorly and rapidly gets worse (scroll down the bottom). The best qualifications I can find are a PhD in polymer chemistry and a PhD in mathematics. It is also rather small - the core group is only about 10 people. Also, see humanthermodynamics.com/Science-or-Pseudoscience.html for a discussion of science vs pseudoscience for this "human thermodynamics" topic. I have to conclude that this is a fringe theory, and at best original research. We don't want it on Wikipedia until it becomes accepted by the mainstream (and I doubt it ever will be). At the most (per undue weight, a very small footnote somewhere with one link. No more. Carcharoth 10:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, capture-bonding and capture bond are confusingly similar and look like content forks. The issue needs to be resolved in one article, rather than splitting them like this. Though on a second look they do seem to be describing something different, but the titles are too similar and need to be disambiguated. I also agree that Keith Henson, as a researcher and publisher in that field, needs to beware conflict-of-interest concerns. Possibly someone else needs to write that article, not him. Carcharoth 10:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Capture bond is where I put the unrelated material I cleaned out of capture-bonding. If someone wants to delete capture bond in the general clean out of Sadi stuff, that would be fine by me. As to me being a "researcher and publisher in that field," it's a claim I would be reluctant to make. I used capture-bonding only as a minor example in a long article I wrote and credited John Tooby (who really is a researcher). Keith Henson 18:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that this is his editing pattern. FWIW, this is Wikipedia's greatest weakness: someone subtly weaving a POV (or pet theory) into a large number of articles by doing large number of subtle edits over a long period of time— this makes it less obvious there is a problem because when he makes one of the edits, it seems to be supported in other articles.

For that matter, he also adds lots of citations and references... but when you actually read the referenced papers they turn out to be either completely unrelated, or misrepresented so badly the author would be livid if they knew about it.

I've been checking some of the subject matter of his edits, like [10] which he's been continually trying to push on Genius, Goethe and others despite numerous attempts by everyone involved in those articles at making him stop. When he gets sufficient resistance, he simply moved to another article.

I fairly confident we can stop assuming he's doing this in good faith. He's either willingly trying to push his pet theory into WP, or he's been constructing an elaborate hoax. In either case, it should stop. — Coren ^(talk) 15:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If Sadi Carnot wishes to continue editing, he can ask to be unblocked, and we can discuss the conditions on which that will occur. An indefinite block doesn't mean "forever." It means, "until the problem is resolved." I personally wouldn't unblock him until he recognizes that what he's been doing isn't compatible with Wikipedia's purpose, and he undertakes not to edit the articles or subject areas where problems have occurred in the past. Additionally, he should join WP:ADOPT to be paired with an experienced editor who will monitor and assist his editing to make sure there are no relapses. Bduke, I think Sadi Carnot may become a good faith editor, but right now he doesn't understand how to edit Wikipedia and he's causing tremendous damage that involves many articles. My block is designed to prevent further harm until we can come up with a better arrangement. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Please remember to block Wavesmikey as well, or he will just immediately switch to his sock when he feels the need.Kww 14:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Clearly the same user. Can you please check if this alternative account has been used disruptively and report back here? For now it's just blocked because the main account is indef'ed. If there is evidence of a disruptive sock puppetry that needs to be added to this case. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman suggested that I comment on Sadi's editing here. I had rather not and just point you to [[11]]. Keith Henson 18:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged Wavesmikey as a confirmed sockpuppet because the account suddenly stopped editing when it's contributions were exposed as pseudo-science. Activity then shifted to Sadi Carnot. The use of multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny is a form of disruptive sockpuppetry. Be on the lookout for additional socks. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Refactored live links to the spammed sites above, we don't want this page being locked up after blacklisting. MER-C 04:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Cross-wiki spamming

This is much, much worse than we first thought. The problem is not confined to the English Wikipedia. I ran a all-wiki spamsearch on the domains

• humanthermodynamics.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• humanchemistry.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• endeav.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

and this was what I found:

Can someone take these to the global spam blacklist please? MER-C 02:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. Tsk, tsk. I've report this to m:WM:SPAM, and I feel confident that our friends there will take care of it. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Only some 20 links to "humanthermodynamics.com" exist outside enwiki, and I am quite convinced not all of them were added by the same user. Perhaps not so much of a problem compared to what you have here :-( /SvNH 03:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The three sites are now (globally) blacklisted and most of the links outside enwiki removed. /SvNH 19:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Community ban

Folks, User:Sadi Carnot has been indefinitely blocked. As requested by User:Coren User:Kww, this will be considered a community ban if no administrator is willing to unblock. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, let me point out that I did not request a ban, simply pointed out a problematic editor; although I fully support it. — Coren ^(talk) 20:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to unblock him at this time. I want to look into it further and also hear from him. Above I was merely pointing out that in the past he has had lots of good edits to mainstream articles such as Entropy. He also sorted out a major problem with Energy and related articles. I was not even aware of his interest in fringe science but I have worked with him in the past on mainstream science. He is a little difficult to work with, but lots of editors are. I think he needs to be told to stick to mainstream science. --Bduke 21:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the use of multiple accounts is very problematic. If you look at the sheer volume of self-promotional links and POV pushing, this looks like a determined COI editor who does a few good edits to establish cover. Of course, as I said above, if the editor is willing to admit mistakes and agree on editing restrictions and mentorship to avoid further problems, I am open to him returning. However, I think it would be a serious mistake to let him edit again before we have those assurances.- Jehochman ^Talk 21:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this, let's leave him blocked for a couple of week and maybe he'll cool down. VoL†ro/\/Force 21:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

He's been engaged in a two-year campaign to push his fringe theories, spam his own website, and twist a large number of articles. This isn't a simple edit war. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: Voltron has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user. His opinion does not count.- Jehochman ^Talk 23:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse ban per extensive evidence of cross-wiki spamming above. This is one of the worst cases of x-wiki spamming I have ever seen. MER-C 02:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• It turned out that some of the links were added by unrelated users, so this isn't as bad as I first thought. Still endorse, as spammers aren't welcome here. MER-C 07:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, looks like the droppings of our friend spread to other wikis by well-intended transwiki, not because he went there himself. The damage, however, is still just as real. — Coren ^(talk) 17:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse ban - socking, spamming, original fringe research pov pushing (if not warring). --Rocksanddirt 04:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. Sadi Carnot certainly appears to have been a very naughty boy in his recent attempts at autopromotion, but he has also made made legitimate edits in the field of thermodynamics, particularly to entropy. As such, an indefinite block as a "disruption only account" is inappropriate.

The user page is currently tagged with {{sockpuppeteer}}. The "confirmed sockpuppet" Wavesmikey has edited exactly three times in 2007, all of those on 7 March. Other than this single occasion, the account has been inactive since December 2005. The only suspected sockpuppet of Sadi Carnot is an IP address which only ever edited on 24 May 2007. Hence, the allegation that Sadi Carnot is a disruptive sockpuppeteer has no basis in evidence.

This case stinks of a witch hunt: given the obvious weakness of the current block, I am taking the unusual step of lifting it with immediate effect, so that at least this user has the chance to comment should he so wish. Obviously, this does not imply any condonement of spamming one's own book. Physchim62 (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You're entitled to do that. Should this user return to old ways, you will be responsible for the resulting damage. We didn't say that he had never made a productive edit. The situation is that the vast majority of what he's done has been spamming, COI editing and POV pushing. Have you read the above evidence, or did you unblock because WP:IDONTLIKEIT?

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that there's been a "witch hunt", such as an indication that those presenting evidence have an axe to grind? I think it's exceptionally rude to allege bad faith against others without evidence. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I must point out that the "good" edits to entropy appear very suspicious to my eyes. I don't know quite enough to tell you for a fact that they are wrong, but they read off, and "mysteriously" match the vapid original research that can be found on his site. Expert attention needed. — Coren ^(talk) 17:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason he's marked for sockpuppetry is that he changed accounts after the first one was caught spamming. Using multiple identities to evade detection is considered disruptive sockpuppetry. The fact that he did it before indicates that he may do it again, so this information is highly relevant. It also demonstrates bad faith rather than a simple misunderstanding. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse ban - there's been a longstanding struggle at entropy related articles to rein in his historical obsessions and fixation about entropy being disorder. Made more difficult by him continually claiming expert knowledge then turning out to be misunderstanding what he's claiming .. dave souza, talk 22:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse ban Carnot has done nothing positive on the entropy article; instead he's raised irrelevant issues, twisted the meaning of entropy to suit his own purposes, been tendentious, argumentative and so POV as to be nauseating. He has claimed to be an expert on entropy, and yet as Dave noted, he simply cannot grasp the concepts that entropy ≠ disorder and that the entropy = disorder equation was born of ignorance. In essense, he has held the article captive to his lack of understanding. •Jim62sch• 23:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse ban Per Dave and Jim. Again, might I ask, why do we waste time with these POV warriors who are basically vile. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse ban, I was one of the editors who dealt with the Human chemistry and Human molecule AfD discussions and reading these articles was a profoundly disturbing experience. The articles misrepresented and misquoted sources and pushed blatantly misleading interpretations. This was complete junk, but written with care to give the appearance of serious scholarship. This is much worse than simple vandalism since it is intended to mislead and will easily take in those who are not experts in the subject. This editor is a liability to the project. Tim Vickers 02:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• comment Based on a quick look at the edits by "Sadi Carnot" there is still a large amount of material this person added to Wikipedia without citation of reliable sources. Some of the content remaining from this editor looks like Uncyclopedia material. Is there anything like a special wikiproject to review all the edits from this user (including puppet accounts)? --JWSchmidt 03:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • We've reported this to the relevant WikiProjects, and also WP:COIN. That should encourage a wide variety of people to review the articles. If you do a linksearch on his website, there are still tons of articles where that spam needs to be removed. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I just nuked about two-thirds of the remaining mainspace spamlinks on en. The ones in references and the ones cross-wiki still remain. MER-C 09:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Project Participation

User:Sadi Carnot is listed as a participant in WikiProject Engineering and WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering (any maybe more). Should he be deleted from these lists or placed in an "inactive section" (if it exists for that project)? Let me know and I can make the change for the two Projects listed.--CheMechanical 03:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you could remove him from the lists for the duration of the block or ban. It would helpful to notify those projects of what we've discovered: a pattern of pushing fringe theories, spamming, and subtle vandalism. The projects should check to see whether Sadi Carnot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has damaged any of their articles. They should also watch for similar behavior coming from other accounts, as those could be sockpuppets. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Since I just joined these projects this afternoon and thought about it a little more, I'm reluctant to outright delete his user name at this point. I would be willing to add a NPOV (factual) notice with a link back to this incident. What link should I use so that it can be seen even if archived?--CheMechanical 03:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done I added notices on both project pages linking back to here with a note that followup has been requested by Admins. I don't know how to make the link permanent, but I figure something is better than nothing if the integrity of his contributions in these areas is in question. I don't know how (yet) to find out what other projects he was involved in, so someone else will have to track these down and notify those projects.--CheMechanical 04:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: I just found User:Sadi_Carnot's list of projects at User:Sadi_Carnot/Miscellaneous and he's shown as being a member of only two WikiProjects...the one's I've already identified. No harm in anyone else double-checking just in case.--CheMechanical 06:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I left messages at both of the concerned projects' talk pages. MER-C 06:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice job. Merci, MER-C.--CheMechanical 19:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have informed the Chemistry and Physics WikiProjects. --Bduke 07:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked

I noticed on reviewing this case (I endorse the ban for the record) that he was unblocked about an hour ago. Orderinchaos 16:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Physchim62 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) unblocked the user for unclear reasons, and in spite of a consensus that the user should be community banned. Nontheless, I have twice offered to endorse the unblock if Physchim62 would accept responsibility for Sadi Carnot's further actions by agreeing to mentor and monitor him.[12][13] Thus far, Physchim62 has not confirmed my offer, but I am still hopefully he might. If there is no acceptance of responsibility by Physchim62 or another trusted user, I think the block may needs to be restored in order to protect the encyclopedia from Sadi Carnot's long term campaign to spam his website and push his fringe theories. How do we do we resolve this impasse? - Jehochman ^Talk 18:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that you and Physchim have had that conversation now. It might be a good idea to try and get people with a background in editing articles in these areas to comment on this, rather than admins, and get a conclusive verdict that the human thermochemistry thing is, shall we say, not appropriate here. There is definitely article clean-up that needs to be done, and maybe after that has been done, an RfC could be opened on the editing pattern it reveals. Carcharoth 19:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There was serious COI editing and spamming going on here, not a content dispute. The content questions have largely been resolved: Sadi Carnot's interlinked pseudoscience articles were nominated for deletion and deleted. From above:"Besides Georgi Gladyshev, Human molecule, Human chemistry, Interpersonal chemistry, Heat and affinity which seem to be the core of his garden; he makes large numbers of sometimes subtle vandalism to many articles related to thermodynamics using his own website as source to justify them." There's no need for an RFC; we already have established a consensus that it's bunkum. Two years ago Wavesmikey was exposed for pushing pseudoscience. He abandoned the account and returned as Sadi Carnot to cause further mayhem. We need to prevent this person from wasting any more of our time. There are two paths: (1) mentorship and supervision, or (2) community ban. We should not provide another chance to game us. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

My two monetary subunits: As far as I'm concerned, SC has caused vast amounts of damage to WP already; what little of it that isn't obviously garbage is suspect enough that I'd remove it preemptively (keeping open the option of adding it back after it has been verified with sources unrelated to SC). I think it's imperative that no further damage be done. It will take a long time to ferret out and clean up two year's worth of this already. Whether an outright ban is the only way to achieve this is disputable (although it is arguably the simplest), but in all cases SC should be prevented from re-adding material taken (directly or indirectly) from his original research back in. Maybe a topical bad would also be adequate? — Coren ^(talk) 19:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh sure, I agree that the content is not suitable for Wikipedia. I'm just adverse to using stronger language about the content. I do think that more than just one diff should be provided as evidence. It shouldn't be difficult to provide a list of diffs of references to that website spread over time, contributed by this user. And I thought there was a COI noticeboard for this sort of thing, anyway? Yes, we have Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. I'd be happier if this was dealt with there, or at the very least noted over there, for the record. Carcharoth 19:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to go to a family function now (Gak!) but I'll be back in a couple of hours and I'll ferret out a number of diffs to show exactly what I mean. — Coren ^(talk) 20:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

And I've been reading the AfDs. This doesn't look good. The one you originally mentioned, where you made an embarassing mistake, was chilling to read, especially this one and this one. I'm going to notify those editors of this discussion. Carcharoth 21:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've left notes at the COI and fringe theory noticeboards. Carcharoth 19:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the link to his own website quoted above from a talk page is a problem. He was hosting copies of Clausius's original papers in his website, and just linked to them so that others could read them without having to dust them of the library shelves (of course, if you like conspiracy theories, you can assume that he modified Clausius's before posting them in his website...). --Itub 09:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's indispensable that we avoid wheel warring over this; it's not like SC has not already caused enough damage (directly or indirectly). I know this recommendation will feel sorta sucky, but perhaps we should involve WP:ARB sooner rather than later? — Coren ^(talk) 19:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Hm. Refresh before edit (keeping up on ANI takes a long time!). I see now that things are resolving nicely without escalation. Phew.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 19:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Listing the AfDs might also help:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heat and affinity WLH
• Interpersonal chemistry, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heat and affinity WLH
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human chemistry WLH
• Human molecule deleted redirect WLH
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgi Gladyshev WLH

Someone also needs to find the traces left behind in other articles. For instance, there is still a redlink in Chemical affinity to one of the deleted articles. Elective Affinities has a cite error in the references section, probably caused by removing a named ref but not other refs using that name. I've added "what links here" for the above deleted articles. Finally, an example of talk page discussion is here. From what I can tell, there are lots of old 19th and 18th century sources used to build a case for a modern theory. There might well be some interesting science history in there is the fringe theories can be weeded out, but that would require sources from science historians. Carcharoth 20:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I am unable to tell to what extent the contributions are an elaborate joke, and to what extent there are are desire to integrate a fringe "theory". There remains some basis. Gladyshev's original work in physical chemistry is real and orthodox, although not particularly important and most not in itself justifying an article. Goethe's Elective Affinities is famous enough, though I think some of the statements in our article on it may be over-interpretation. The general topic of chemical analogs for human relations is probably worth an article, though likely Gladyschev would not appear in it. There are other examples besides Sadi of people doing this sort of editing, and the difficulties in sorting things out afterwards are immense. I'd say that Sadi might some day make useful contributions here, but I would like to see some real sign of repentance and maturity before re-admitting him. DGG (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If the guy was in high school I would be looking for developing maturity, but near as I can determine, he's 35 and really does have a double major in ChE and EE. He does not have a net presence I can locate outside of his fringe promotion operation. Keith Henson 23:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• This doesn't seem like a complicated case at all. This user has engaged in repeated self-promotion and disrutption. A few handfuls of arguably positive edits doesn't go anywhere near outweighing how bad this editor has been. And as Keith observed directly, change seems very unlikely. JoshuaZ 01:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Were I an admin, I would have restored the ban at this point. While I originally felt a ban might have been a bit heavy handed, if understandable, the further we go down the rabbit hole the worse things are revealed to be. Now that other— serious— contributors to articles damaged by SC have begun to chime in and confirm what my gut feeling was telling me (I only have a few undergrad physics courses under my belt, so I am far from an expert) it has become apparent that presuming that all contributions from that editor are tainted is the only reasonable course. Having that damaged caused with obvious deliberation and over the course of over two years convinces me that this must be stopped now, and definitely. There is no doubt that this is willful, and a ban is the only way we can be certain that future socks (I am convinced there will be many to come) can be blocked on sight. — Coren ^(talk) 01:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• If I was an administrator (or at least I want to be), I would ban him indefinitely. The ban needs to be reinstated for good. Greg Jones II 01:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• I really don't see much point in banning him. He hasn't edited at all since Human chemistry got deleted, and I have my doubts that he would edit much again anyway. I think he got the message that his work here is not appreciated. I think Sadi Carnot did make many good contributions when he restricted himself to history. Although his writing style tends to be essay-like, the facts in articles such as History of quantum mechanics and History of the molecule seem generally correct. --Itub 08:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

  The point in banning him is to make the block against future socks automatic. Just as Wavesmikey disappeared and Sadi Carnot rose to take his place, you can bet that some other identity will begin using novellas as references in science article in the near future.Kww 13:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadi Carnot reblocked

I really don't understand why User:Physchim62 overturned the block in the face of such overwhelming and near unanimous community support for the block. My reading of the above discussion is that the community suppors the proposal and that, at this point, Physchim62 is the only person actually opposed to the block. Therefore, I have reinstated User:Jehochman's indefinite block of User:Sadi Carnot. I also support and endorse the community ban proposal. Sarah 03:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

When I overturned the ban, the community support was not "overwhelming" or "near unanimous", especially discounting the comment of two users with obvious axes to grind against Sadi Carnot. The ban has no basis in blocking policy and is based on the scantiest of evidence. I will not wheel war to remove the block once again, but nor do I feel that admins should act like robots in the face of community hysteria. Physchim62 (talk) 11:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have had a lengthy discussion with Physchim62 about this on IRC. He agrees that Sadi Carnot is a problematic advocate of crackpottery, but feels that the extent to which SC has also been a useful contributor (on such material as the history of science) is such that it would be, and was, inappropriate to indef block him WITHOUT WARNING. Indeed, SC had not hitherto been warned or otherwise told to stop. So here is what we're going to do. I am going to unblock Sadi Carnot, conditionally: the condition being that he not do ANYTHING else pertaining to his own publications. PC62 has agreed to supervise SC's contribs (should SC in fact choose to return to the project - he may have Left Us Unappreciative Philistines after the AfD of "Human Chemistry" ten days ago), and has also agreed to re-block SC himself should SC misbehave again. DS 22:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(e/c) For the record, I'm not sure holding that conversation on IRC was the best idea. I'm rather attached to the transparency of the wiki. Nevertheless, I am not going to argue further for a ban. I don't feel strongly about it, and I especially don't doubt PC62's desire and ability to rein SC in. — Coren ^(talk) 23:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Time to arbitrate this. Durova^Charge! 23:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have filed a request for arbitration. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Georgi Gladyshev

I see that article has been recreated after it was deleted per the AfD (and then deleted again). Could an admin check the history to see what users recreated it? It may turn out to be a sock (or not) but it deserves a look. — Coren ^(talk) 02:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to have been WAS 4.250 (talk · contribs). I suggest you ask him, and invite him to comment here, because this could be perfectly innocent. - Jehochman ^Talk 02:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

So I have. His editing seems to be mostly related to viral pathology (eeew!) and I see no obvious crossovers with SC. This is almost certainly innocent, but I'd like to hear it from the horse's mouth. — Coren ^(talk) 02:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The conversation is taking place on my talk page. WAS 4.250 03:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• I see no reason to think that WAS 4.250 is related to SC, or that the recreation of the article was anything but a good faith attempt to salvage a deleted article by rewriting it. — Coren ^(talk) 03:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I can vouch completely for WAS 4.250, this is a serious editor with a strong focus on influenza. Their edits are constructive and accurate. Tim Vickers 16:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Witch hunt

Some people have objected to my use of the phrase "witch hunt". I apologise. This is not a witch hunt, this is many people who are normally reasonable but who suddenly start running around crying "burn the witch, burn the witch" or something equivalent.

• Sadi Carnot is not a "disruption only account"; at least two other posters—members of WP:CHM—plus myself, have mentioned his useful, good-faith edits to thermodynamics articles. These were also mentioned on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human chemistry.
• There is no evidence that Sadi Carnot has used multiple accounts simultaneously to create controversy. He may have changed user name in December 2005—that is, before the current system of changes came about—but this is perfectly permissible. Hence, he is not a sockpuppeteer, disruptive or otherwise.
• Wavesmikey's edits were not "exposed as pseudoscience", nor even as spamming (there was a single complaint about a single inappropriate link): Human chemistry was not "unmasked as a hoax", it failed AfD for rather more mundane reasons, particularly WP:SYNTH.
• Keith Henson has a axe to grind with Sadi Carnot over Henson's referencing of his own work at Capture bonding, as Jehochman is well aware. Kww called for Sadi Carnot to be indefinitely blocked at least three times during the AfD discussion of human chemistry, without ever being able to come up with the slightest reason under blocking policy why this would be justified.

Referencing an article I wrote for a reviewed journal was never an issue, or at least I don't remember it being an issue and can't find that mentioned here: [14]. The objection I had was Sadi stuffing a _simple_ evolutionary psychology article with what is (by EP standards) unrelated SSSM nonsense. You might note that WP:COI states: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable . . . ." Keith Henson 15:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[Back to Physchim62]

• There is no reason not to assume good faith on the part of Sadi Carnot, that is, there is no reason not to assume that he really believes the rather unusual theories which he expounds in his book.

This is a routine case of WP:FRINGE and WP:COI. Wikipedia has tens of such cases every day and, most of the time, admins handle them without any difficulty. Instead, Sadi Carnot has been demonized to the point where one user is suggesting checking each one of his 8567 edits! The argument is itself a blatant violation of WP:SYNTH: the references cited simply do not support the conclusions being drawn from them.

I shouldn't need to remind people that witch-hunts invariably lead to inappropriate punishments being handed out. In this case, an indefinite block was issued without first performing a checkuser. Leaving aside the question of collateral blocks, surely if Sadi Carnot were as "dangerous" as some have hysterically pretended, a checkuser would be a useful piece of information... But no, the block was issued even though Sadi Carnot hadn't edited since the end of the AfD debate. An indefinite block, without warning, on a user who has been around for two years with a clean block record and 8537 edits to the encyclopedia! Do you see where paranoia gets us? Physchim62 (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Chances are blocking will turn out to be a moot point though as a bet Sadi/Libb/[real name deleted :-) ] will be back under another ID. Incidentally, I agree with you it is probable he really believes his "unusual theories." But do you really want someone with a good faith belief in nonsense to be making 12 edits a day?

Jehochman states this better: "He did widespread damage by injecting subtle inaccuracies into many articles, and misrepresented what sources said. By subtle I mean that a non-expert wouldn't know they were inaccurate. These are the most dangers types of vandalism." Keith Henson 15:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Physchim62. I just want to elaborate on why I don't think this block is justified by policy. Per WP:BLOCK, blocks are supposed to be preventive, not punitive. I don't see what's preventive about indefinitely blocking someone who hasn't even been editing since the controversy started and who IMO can still be assumed to be acting in good faith, although misguidedly. A more reasonable course of action would be to warn him, ask him not to add more links to his website and no more OR about his theories. If he decides to edit again, and violates the rules again, then one can think about preventive blocks. --Itub 12:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't give people endless chances. He was notified dozens of times, and chose to continue. He did widespread damage by injecting subtle inaccuracies into many articles, and misrepresented what sources said. By subtle I mean that a non-expert wouldn't know they were inaccurate. These are the most dangers types of vandalism. Additionally, he added spams link to his own website to more than 100 pages. The block is exactly meant to be preventative. It prevents him from doing further damage. The ban, which is different from a block, allows us to immediately block and revert any contributions he makes using other accounts. Policy has been followed to the letter and the spirit. If you disagree, appeal to Arbcom. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Notified dozens of times? By which definition of "notify" is that? The way I see it he never got a clear warning, and everything unraveled quickly after the AfD nomination of human chemistry. --Itub 13:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You're being tendentious. Starting two years ago with his former identity Wavesmikey (talk · contribs), various people have been telling Sadi Carnot that pseudo-science, non-reliable sources, misrepresenting references, and spamming his own website aren't allowed at Wikipedia. It's beyond the pale of rational discussion to suggest that he wasn't given fair notice. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll take that as a personal attack, thanks. Talk page discussions about original research, which were generally civil, are not warnings by any means. Calling original research vandalism doesn't help rational discussion either. --Itub 13:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree Sadi Carnot should be allowed to defend himself (and unblocked to do so if this is requested). A topic ban has been suggested. The problem is that this sort of editing pattern is the most difficult to spot and the most difficult to repair. I agree that checkuser would be useful here. What I'm not clear about is how long this has been going on for - for all of the two years? The thing that shocked me the most was stuff like this (the stuff is being removed there). This is the sort of thing that needs sources, and the sources were dubious or not provided. Talk:Heat is also of interest. Carcharoth 12:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking a bit further, the boson [bogus? Keith Henson 22:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)] definition of heat seems to start here (3 March 2006), but didn't enter the heat article until here (I think) on 28 June 2007. Possibly it was present in other articles related to the topic. The talk page post in March 2006 referred to a book by the Nobel Prize winning physicist Martinus J. G. Veltman. This makes it more, not less important, that Sadi Carnot's edits are verified. Presenting your own original research is one thing. Possibly distorting the research or ideas of others is another thing altogether. This sort of thing may be going on all the time, but firm action does need to be taken when it is called out. Carcharoth 13:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Physchim62, you are being little bit funny to apologize for for violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and then to repeat the offense immediately. If you or Sadi Carnot or anybody else is unhappy with the result here, the correct path is to file an appeal with Arbcom. You have a path forward; take it if you like. You can even email an arbitrator if you think this is an emergency situation. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, you also have a path forward: you can unblock this user. Physchim62 (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Which hunt? Have you considered, Physchim62, that you might simply be mistaken about Sadi Carnot? I don't think anyone here is calling him uncivil, or even unfriendly. From your past interactions with him it is quickly evident that you are on friendly terms with him— and he does come across as a nice guy. The facts are, however, that he has been semi-covertly weaving in material he knows will be considered unacceptable into a large number of articles over a period spanning well over two years. When he was found out the first time he ducked under a rock, switched usernames then went right back at it.

Nobody here doubts your good faith; or the fact that SC might be a friendly fellow... but can you stop and consider for a moment the fact that you are on friendly terms with him just might color your evaluation of the situation?

As it stands, he has caused a very great deal of damage to the 'pedia, and has already shown that when found out he comes back and starts all over. That is why he should be banned. Witchcraft notwithstanding.

— Coren ^(talk) 16:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If we do not ban Sadi Carnot than we are going to have an editor who's every contribution must be specifically checked by an expert on the subject to guard against the addition of more misinformation and distortions. This will be a hindrance to the project and a waste of everybody's time. If you can't trust what somebody writes at even a basic level, then why allow them to cause us more problems? Tim Vickers 16:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If I'm using strong terms, it's for a reason. I really, honestly, believe that you're all going mad in a particularly dangerous way. There is no reason to check all of Sadi Carnot's edits: the articles will be assessed, and re-edited accordingly, just as happens with much more serious questions of WP:UNDUE all over Wikipedia. Why make all of this fuss over an editor who has made many useful contributions to WP just because you think he's utterly crazy over one point? This editor is being specifically persecuted for his views: views that I myself would describe as bovine excrement, and which don't merit the attention which he tried to gain for them, but which have not prevented him from contributing usefully to Wikipedia in other, even related, areas. I stand by my statement that this is a witch hunt, although I will temper it by saying that I feel that most of the editors concerned have just been drawn along in the hysteria, rather than actually whipping it up. Physchim62 (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're acting in good faith, but that you've been misled, and your friendship with Sadi prevents you from seeing what the rest of us see. You and I are not going to agree on what to do here, and that's OK. If you want to bring this case to Arbcom for review, I will support that. Keep in mind that the block now belongs to Sarah and you can ask her if you want it undone. I'm no longer involving myself in this case because I don't want to have a conflict with you. There are lots of other things to do at Wikipedia. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If this were a content dispute, I would say that it is ripe for mediation, but unfortunately it is not. It involves admin powers and the responsability of different users, even of the "community" as a whole. ANI is obviously not the right forum to discuss these at great length, as it is designed for immediate problems. As such, I agree that ArbCom is probably the best way out of this problem: if someone else beats me to listing it, I will join, otherwise I will list it myself! Physchim62 (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Contributions?

Physchim62 (re Sadi) "but which have not prevented him from contributing usefully to Wikipedia in other, even related, areas."

I have not seen what I consider useful contributions, but then I have not looked at more than a few of the 8500 edits he did.

Compare:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capture-bonding&oldid=47854434

with

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capture-bonding&oldid=125688241

For a starter, the EP concept of capture-bonding isn't abnormal psychology, indeed, nothing could be a more normal response in the human EEA (environment of evolutionary adaptiveness) to being captured than to socially reorient to your captors. But just considering the style, which of these two articles would be more useful (and readable) to someone trying to find out about the topic?

I will accept your judgment.

Keith Henson 19:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin needed

I think this discussion has run its course. Could an uninvolved admin decide the result of the community ban proposal and wrap this thread in archive tags? - Jehochman ^Talk 21:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. For the record, though I was bold and already added Sadi Carnot to WP:BU some time ago— if the decision goes against a ban then that should also be undone. — Coren ^(talk) 21:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Regime change at wikipedia?

It used to be the case that you needed to be guilty of pretty severe vandalism to be banned. Sadi Carnot has been editing a few articles in a POV way and is otherwise known for his valuable contributions. This absolutely does not compare to the behavior of many other users (take e.g. the supporters of various pseudoscientific ideas) who are still tolerated on wikipedia. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be tolarated. However, either we ban all such users or we don't ban people for these reasons. Count Iblis 22:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the situation. Sadi Carnot has been spamming, COI editing, and promoting fringe theories through subtle vandalism across many articles for a long time. This is not editing "a few articles in a POV way." It's self-promotion and using Wikipedia as an advertising medium. You say "valuable contributions." Please, supply a few example articles because I'm open to reviewing any evidence you can provide. - Jehochman ^Talk 02:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Third attack on me via edit summary: now I'm pissed

The edit summary in question is:

(Undid revision 165772791 by ILike2EatShit (talk))

This is by anon IP 76.87.220.233. I trust this might get someone's attention here. The first couple of times I was annoyed but let it slide. Not this time. +ILike2BeAnonymous 07:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried telling him that abusive edit summaries will not be tolerated? Any warnings, at all? ~ Sebi _[talk] 08:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Warned. Dynamic IPs mean blocking is ineffective, so I indicated semiprotection would follow instead. This is confined to a single article.--chaser - t 09:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and no, I didn't bother contacting them because 1) it's an anon. IP and 2) I'm basically a nobody around here w/no particular powers, and thought it would be better to have a warning come from someone with some authority. +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who warns who; as long as the warn is given. Administrators don't usually block a user without warnings. And most vandals don't really identify users with authority anyway. The ones I come across stop after the first warning. ~ Sebi _[talk] 21:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

comment i doubt this would have occured if you were more civil towards your fellow editor and stopped being rude and uncooperative with everyone. Your borderlining:"habitually treading the edge of policy breach or engaging in low-grade policy breach, in order to make it hard to actually prove misconduct" (see: WP:POINT) seems to antagonize many people.Cholga^talK! 02:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Username block review

Resolved

 – Thanks all, I left a note on my talk page and at the user's talk page noting that the account will not be unblocked. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 02:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to WP:AGF here and believe the user. I blocked Cuntass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely as an obvious violation of the username policy. (It was a soft block). However, the user has contacted me on my talk page claiming that his name is Tass and he is from Cun, Hungary, and that he uses this username at other sites on the net. My feeling is that even if the story is true, native English speakers will read "Cuntass" as Cunt + Ass, which is blatantly profane, and against WP:U. I can't see how the user could be taken seriously with that username. I believe the username block should stand and that he should register some other username, but if there is consensus that I am wrong, I will unblock. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 22:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the block is correct. The problem here is that too many people will belive the name is referring to "cunt ass" and will lead to a lot of time wasted from uses checking through their contribs to make sure they are legit. I would appologise to the user, but say that the username is against our username policy as it is blatantly profane, even if by accident. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

agree. Viridae^Talk 22:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The person's explanation is quite plausible, and may indeed, be the intent, however, I think that a very small fraction of the Wikipedia population (if any) would realize this, and instead would see this as a severely offensive username. I would endorse your suggestion to the editor to choose the name Tass Cun, instead. Ariel♥Gold 22:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Alot of users would think that the username is referring to "Cunt Ass". Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) 22:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

What are the odds of this? Wikipedia says that Cún is located right next to Tass, Hungary. Somebody might want to check these articles to make sure we're not being trolled. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Cún and Tass are about three hours away according to Google Maps. [15] –Crazytales talk/desk 23:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

My god I found this incredibly hilarious for about 2 seconds. Just block the guy. Checkuser to see if he/she really is from Hungary. Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 23:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec x2) Two Google searches show multiple sources for the existence of both Cun and Tass in Hungary, and they are in adjacent counties in the south of the country. Amusing coincidence. (And Tyler, the user's already blocked). -- Flyguy649 ^talk 23:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

My hovercraft is full of eels; this is the en-WP, we act according to the dictates of English language sensibilities. LessHeard vanU 23:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Amusingly, My hovercraft is full of eels is indef blocked. PrimeHunter 03:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

But not due to a username block. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a valid soft block. Even if one's intention is not to disruptive, it can still happen accidentally. This name would have been likely to be disruptive. 1 != 2 03:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Pretty obvious softblock. Endorse. Daniel 11:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Cla68

Was blocking a user for asking a question really justified? *Dan T.* 22:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

When the issue is WP:POINT, yes. Crum375 23:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Especially considering this warning from Jimbo. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Another yep here. Please see the above/read up on the history of the dispute. Shell ^babelfish 23:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Dan is perfectly well aware of the nature of the dispute, which is archiving from a talk page of a WP:BLP article a series of attempts to discuss and promote the agenda of banned User:WordBomb. But of course since WordBomb is a valued contributor to a certain site, our friend Dan appears to feel the need to pitch in. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Whereas certain individuals on Wikipedia feel themselves immune to aspects of Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme. in their commentary; but then why apply policy when debating application of policy? LessHeard vanU 23:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• For some questions, yes. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Some of your comments are getting pretty close to personal attacks on me. *Dan T.* 23:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Some of us feel that you are actively harassing us and deliberately impeding good faith attmepts to improve the encyclopaedia by ensuring that people don't unwittingly act as a proxy for banned users, and some of us find that vexatious. And some of us are losing patience with your holy crusade to support your friends on Wikipedia Review, at least one of whose oopinions are actively being promoted in the talk page of an article on a living individual. My level of tolerance for editing as a proxy for that person - whether intentionally or as a result of a mistaken impression that what he says has some probvable objective basis - is at zero and dropping. Guy (Help!) 07:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"Some of us feel". That's always a difficult one to judge. Please permit me to do you the favor of giving you an unbiased, outside opinion.

I don't know Dan Tobias. In all of his writings on this subject, I had never gotten a hint that he was pro-WR. All he seems to be arguing -- rationally and eloquently -- is against unnecessary Wikipedia censorship, a topic which I happen to be pretty keenly interested in myself. Based on the number of times I've come out in support of Dan, you may have gotten the impression that I'm some kind of WR sympathizer or a Dan Tobias sympathizer myself, but I assure you, I am not.

I'm sorry you're vexed by Dan's continued questions on this subject. But it's a contentious subject, so those questions come with the territory. I understand why you feel harassed, but at the same time, from where I sit, it does not look like harassment to me; it looks like precisely as much of a good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia as I know you believe your extensive activities to be.

I might also say that from where I sit, your activities look like just as much of a holy crusade, against WR and in support of your friends here, as you accuse Dan's of being. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope nobody was seriously proposing blocking Dan for politely asking his question. As for Cla68-- I too hope he wasn't really banned just for asking a question, and although I've only spent 3 seconds looking at the issue, I'm sure he probably wasn't actually banned for that. Problem users being problematic get banned for their whole editing history, taken in toto--- not for the last straw that breaks the camel's back. --Alecmconroy 23:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Block log says only 24 hours. The message on his userpage also says 24 hours. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thx for catching me on that. One of these days, my hands are going to start typing block when I mean block and ban when I mean ban. But I'm not there yet. :) --Alecmconroy 03:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there was a good, valid reason for this block, given the long, embattled history of the dispute, but honestly I think a more detailed explanation for the block than simply "WP:POINT violation" would have been a good idea. WP:POINT is extremely broad and can be interpreted in a multitude of different ways; it would be better if the blocking admin had provided a more detailed reason for the block, so more of us can understand what is going on. --krimpet⟲ 23:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems a rather peculiar block. Lèse majesté is not a blockable offense; neither is asking ill-considered questions, when done in good faith. While Cla68 may well view the matter as something of a personal one, for obvious reasons, the situation seems hardly so urgent or so critical that a few quiet words could not have served just as well as a block. I would suggest that Durova lift the block, as I can't really see any benefit from keeping it in place at this point.

Having said that, this whole mess with the Weiss articles has gone on for long enough, and I entirely agree with the broader effort to put things in some semblance of order. Kirill 00:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Viridae^Talk 00:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The situation was such that a firm hand was amply called for, and more than ample warnings had been given. WP:POINT was the obvious call, but it was also a rather snide remark at Jimbo. I have no regrets for this one, especially because a biography of a living person was involved and the individual was known to be a target of harassment. Add WP:NOT#Not a soapbox. This site's article talk pages are not fora for extended grievances. Durova^Charge! 00:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Durova has now threatened another editor with a block for asking a question on Durova's talk page about this block. I think Kirill has it right, and I don't know what Durova is trying to accomplish with this but it's clear this threatened block won't do anything to prevent disruption to the site. Milto LOL pia 01:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want the article's talk page to not be drama central, blocking anyone who asks questions (and threatening to block anyone who complains, as JzG did above) is almost certainly going to be exactly what you do not want to do. If the situation involving this article is a long-running disaster... maybe overly aggressive admin action is also playing a role? From the outside looking it, it certainly seems like something to consider. --W.marsh 01:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The block seems to be attempting to make more of a WP:POINT than the question was. Uncle uncle uncle 01:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If it seems that way, it's because people are taking small parts of the actual situation out of context and attempting to spin them. It's time to stop enabling that behavior. My second block warning wasn't for questioning the block - that would be absurd. Durova^Charge! 01:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If it seems that way, it's because the reason for blocking was poorly explained. Uncle uncle uncle 01:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in endless discussion here. That block had a better explanation than many others that go unchallenged. As a courtesy to Jimbo I've reduced it to six hours with a request to refocus on solid references and topical discussion. I extend that request to this thread. See WP:NOT#Not a water cooler. If that isn't a policy clause yet it should be. Durova^Charge! 01:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Durova, I was referring to Guy's above comment at 23:09, 20 October 2007, which seemed to be threatening Dtobias with a block for starting this thread. Or at least saying Dtobias deserved one. That really doesn't seem like an attempt to calm things down at all, it was just petty escalation. --W.marsh 01:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm, well Guy can address that if he wants. Let's encourage everyone to refocus on properly sourced encyclopedic collaboration at that article. Durova^Charge! 01:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

But the two things are related. Guy is, after all, apparently the point man on this whole thing... if he is doing things you say are absurd (your comment at 01:34, 21 October 2007), it seems like there are some major problems here. --W.marsh 02:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's let him speak for himself. And more importantly, let's return the focus to encyclopedic collaboration. That was the whole point of his intervention, after all. Durova^Charge! 02:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Guy can reply whenever he wants. There's really no "encyclopedic collaboration" in his participation in this thread to focus on though, just an attempt at steamrolling, which is hardly helpful. I'm sorry, but if this is his approach to the dispute... no wonder the whole thing has been a disaster. Ignoring that won't help. --W.marsh 02:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've taken virtually no part in the dispute. I did what I thought best to stop the idiocy of endlessly rehashing Bagley's off-wiki allegations. If anybody has anything approaching a reliable source for those allegations (and I do think that if one existed we'd have seen it by now) then they can bring it to the Talk page. What is not acceptable is speculation and repeating the allegations of a very very banned user. Few users are quite as banned as Bagley. Even his website is banned. Cla68 and Dan Tobias are perpetuating Bagley's agenda, for no readily discernible reason. It's gone on for far too long. As I say, if a reliable source comes along then we can talk, but that article's talk page was a BLP nightmare, and I cannot for the life of me imagine why we are still allowing Bagley to dictate the agenda here. Gary Weiss is a biography of a living individual and we had better start treating it as we are supposed to treat all biographies of living individuals, which is to stick to what can be reliable sourced and neutrally stated. That is what I said on the talk page, and I absolutely stand by it. I interpret Cla68 and Dan's continued agitation as "surely we can talk about it a little bit more yet?" to which my answer is: no we can't. Guy (Help!) 07:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for the blocking of Cla68-- there's obviously a lot of history there, and i'd have to do a lot of digging to intelligently speak on it. It doesn't look good to block right after a mere question, but I certainly wouldn't want to go so far as to say it's wrong unless I actually knew what I was talking about in the Cla68 situation (which I don't)

I am however greatly disturbed by the block threats made to Dan T[16] and to G-Dett [17]. Obviously, there could be other explanations, but they really do look like they were threatened with blocks just for questioning/disagreeing with the Cla68 block. Hopefully there's another answer (friendly banter? satire mistaken for seriousness? other factors)-- because if we assumed the block threats were sincere, and really were issued just because of asking too many questions-- that's a big dang misuse of admin status in my eyes. Threatening a block that would violate blocking policy is 95% as bad as actually making the block. --Alecmconroy 04:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

All right. Bear in mind that there's a lot of history at that article. The long and short of it is we're dealing with the biography of a person who's been harassed in real life, and there's substantial reason to believe that Wikipedia has been abused as a venue to perpetuate that harassment. Obviously neutral Wikipedians don't want that. I have nothing to do with the original issues behind that. A lot of turmoil had taken place at that talk page, with a fairly limited set of players contributing very little of positive subtance and attempting to raise negatives that had appeared in non-reliable sources. Guy had archived the talk page and basically said, This site has policies. Abide by them. We mean it. Jimbo and I agreed. I've got no problem at all with legitimate encyclopedic discussion, but two individuals immediately came along and tested those boundaries. I blocked one of them and nearly blocked the other, mostly because their comments really looked like attempts to push the envelope and engage in drama. They certainly weren't resuming the editorial discussion that ought to have been taking place. So yes, one camel had one straw too many and the other had one straw too few. But there are limits at Wikipedia, and I find it illuminating that rather than actually locate appropriate references and engage in topical discussion the same set of people who'd sidetracked that article talk page have raised so many complaints here and elsewhere. If they want to demonstrate that they're serious about writing an encyclopedia - if they want to establish any credibility - then the thing to do would be take up the gauntlet and improve the article in a legitimate and mature manner. My estimate of several users' worthiness as editors weighs heavily on that. Durova^Charge! 04:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly that. Time to stop aiding and abetting the harassment. Guy (Help!) 07:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Cla68's ongoing reminders about SlimVirgin and her mistakes made two years ago are enough in themselves...much to do about nothing really, yet he has continued to persist on that saga for some time now, even though it is very old news. Acting, for all practical purposes, as a proxy for banned editor Wordbomb, is also getting tiring. I hope he resumes his excellent FA level work and ceases to continue using Wikipedia for purposes that are not congruent with BLP.--MONGO 07:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's thoughtful and reasoned comments and look forward to continuing to work with everyone here to build a better encyclopedia. Cla68 00:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

My expedition to ASM

I just got back from ASM, where I spent FAR too long trying to understand the situation. After looking over things, I'm officially giving myself a kindergarten-esque gold star for not denouncing the Cla68 block. "Blocked for merely QUESTIONING authority!?!?"-- that's a tempting lure for an open content ideologue like me. :) Why just hearing the phrase makes me want to break out a copy of the bill of rights. :). But I just had a feeling this one wasn't all it seemed, so-- gold star for me.

(I should be clear-- I'm not implying anyone was intentionally being deceptive by describing it as a "Blocked for questioning". At first glance, it did look that way.)

Now, everyone please, in general, remember this, and be nice to me when I don't get it right the first time, eh?

So, because everyone loves a backseat driver-- here's what our problem is. Durova and Mongo have tried to explain to me, here, what the scoop was, with the whole Gary Weiss article. Now for the regulars-- people who are always up to date on the latest controversies-- maybe you guys already all knew. But for me-- to even ascertain for myself the truth of Durova's and Mongo's statements took like, two hours of wading through archives and ASM. Because if you're gonna say "X is just a mouthpiece for Y"-- that means if I care about figuring out whether it's true, I've gotta go try to figure out who the heck Y is and what in the world crazy theory he subscribes to.

So here I am, an hour later. I literally have a piece of paper trying to diagram out the alleged conspiracy, and I still don't think I actually have a good conception of what's going on. And all this work is work I really would have to go through before I could edit intelligently on articles on this subject. And I definitely still don't have it. (You'll note, however, in all the verbosity, I've never once taken a stance on whether ASM is notable enough to merit inclusion (I hope that's true)).

So, here's our problem. We've forbidden on-wiki discussion of disputes of this sort. THat's fine, and if that's really the way people want to play it, I won't be the one to start it.

But, have you considered that by SV, GW, etc all not having a short statement of THEIR side of things, it forces me to go to the unreliably narrators, try to guess what worldview he subscribes to, try to guess what parts are inspired by reality, what parts are fabricated, what parts are spun-- then try to figure out what Cla and Dan and G-dent KNOW is false vs what they've been fooled into believing, and on and on and on. It's a gordian knot, and even having looked into it in the first place makes my head hurt.

It doesn't matter, in this case, because I'm nobody. But for the benefit of the other people who DO have to make editing and admin decisions in these cases, I just want to throw this out:

Maybe it would be better for the SANE people to put up their version of events somewhere. A short summary of the whole dispute, saying what parts are true, what parts are lies. You're under no obligation to do that-- if silence is how you want to respond, you deserve support for that too. But just consider,the best antidote for bad information is more information. Having ASM being the only source for someone who wants to understand that dispute--- that's just a bad idea. We might be far better served just talking about all the crazy allegations and publically debunking them, rather than letting them fester in the darkness, deleting references to them.

A statement: "Hi, my name is ____, and I do NOT work for the CIA, and I don't know where the lunatic got the idea that I did" might have gone a long way, and stopped the lunacy from making the frontpage of slashdot, for example.

Anyway, just a friendly suggestion. Take it or leave it. For what it's worth, I'm gonna personally apologize, on behalf of the internet, for all the crap you harassees have had to take. Please, sincerely, from the bottom of my heart-- don't anyone ever accuse me of supporting harassment. I knew it was an ad hominem insult, but I had no idea just how bad an insult it was until tonight. I'm still gonna argue on the same principles I always have-- NPOV should rule, BADSITES is bad, and all that... but just know I have a LOT of sympathy for all that you big-names have gone through. In particular-- I had no idea just how... invasive the attacks on SV were-- psychotically dredging up random trivial spats from college pubs 20 years ago, for example-- . Even assuming they're the tiniest shred of evidence to them all-- WTF is it supposed to show other than somebody has to be psychotic to try to dig up something like that!?

Anyway, all you pro-badsites people... You're still wrong, but you guys definitely have earned a hug. --Alecmconroy 09:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Alec, you may want to look at a website called O-Smear [18], which is written by a techie who debunks Bagley's claims and also rips his methodology to shreds. The posts tagged "Wikipedia" and "Slim Virgin" and "spyware" are of particular interest. Other blogs respond to Bagley ([19], [20] - check out the same tags) but I think O-Smear may address your concerns the most comprehensively. --Mantanmoreland 12:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I will look at them-- but let me be clear that after reading ASM, I personally did not have any concerns that myself needed to be addressed. I have a pretty good lunacy detector, and came away quite satisfied that the site was not a reliable narrator, to put it generously. When I asked for debunking stuff, it wasn't for me personally, so much as for the next guy who comes along. :) --Alecmconroy 12:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Alec, well done for 'fessing up here. Yes, it is very complex, and has been running for a long time. Also, please be aware that BADSITES is absolutely not the only reaosn for removing any given link, the main reason links are removed is spam but in this case we also have active offsite harassment and in some cases offsite essays by banned users - banned users are not allowed to contribute to content debates. Especially the banned users I am looking at right now.

Now to the Weiss / SV situation. First and foremost, the only reason Bagley started out on his campaign against SV on ASM was that SV refused to accede to extortion. He said that if SV did not leave him to promote his agenda, he would publish hurtful things. The hurtful things are not his own work, they come in the main from Daniel Brandt, who in turn picked them up form some conspiracy theorist somewhere. The allegations against SV are and always have been baseless. They have been discussed before.

Consensus among those who deal professionally with harassment and stalking is that you do not engage in any way with your attackers. You do not make statements, you do not give them any leverage at all. The corrcet response to the allegations agaist SV is to remove them, inform the people bringing them here that they should refrain from bringing allegations without credible independent sources, and suggest that if they absolutely insist on discussing material in blatantly unreliable sources, they should do so directly with the arbitration committee by email.

Bagley is the latest in a series of increasingly dangerous zealots. Wikipedia's profile is such that these people need to get their mad theories on Wikipedia. The bigger we get, the worse they get. The way we used to deal with this madness two years ago does not work today because there are more registered users (hence the one in a million who will believe an obvious conspiracy delusion becomes three or four individuals), because one or two people keep sidetracking the debate to push another agenda, and because we as a community have not yet realised just how serious this is. We have had to call the police to deal with some incidents, by now, and female admins in particular are expressing significant and well-founded concerns about harassment and stalking.

Wikipedia is not Usenet. We are not obliged to discuss tittle-tattle. And we are absolutely not oblioged to let these people have an indefinite number of kicks at the can, whether they be Scientologists, LaRouchites, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, promoters of bizarre "scientific" theories or people like Bagley employed to advance the agenda of his employer by any means. Soapboxers, vanity merchants, fringe theory proponents - they can go away. We know what they think, and their input is not relevant to building a credible and neutral encyclopaedia.

One thing we do need to do, though, is to start documenting these cases in a way that forestalls the endless idiocy. SV absolutely should not be asked to lend credibility to Bagley by responding, but we, the Wikipedia community, should probably have a very short subpage somewhere that details the allegation, who made it and why, what investigation took place (or none, and why). Then, when each new unsuspecting individual is drawn in by the campaign to build and spread the meme, we can simply point them to that page. Debate can be centralised in that place and clerked to within an inch of it's life. So "Wah! I read that admin X did this Bad Thing!" would be redacted to "User Y expressed an interest in the case and was informed of the steps taken." Further debate - for example if people are dissatisfied with the collective response - belong at ArbCom. And if people are absolutely determined to discuss the allegations at WhackJob.com, they can take it to the mailing list where it won't distract people from building an encyclopaedia. I have written more on this at User:JzG/Harassment links.

Now bear in mind that in any sane society the ravings of obvious loons would simply be dismissed, and we would not be compelled to make any statement on it because when trusted people say they have investigated, then most reasonable people will accept it. Wikipedia has too many people, and the community is too diffuse and contains too many impressionable people, for this to work. Also, the kooks are getting very good at spreading their memes. Which is why I suggest a clerked, carefully monitored system for handling good faith attempts to raise these issues. They have, almost without exception, no merit, but they spread like a plage around the whole project because there is no one place where we can send people to say "there, that is what happened, now please drop it." Guy (Help!) 11:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, obviously, there's some real pluses and minus to responding to the stuff vs leaving it alone, and I can see really good arguments for both, so, I just threw it out there. Maybe talking about it gives it strength, but maybe ignoring it gives it more strength. That's a question for wiser minds than mine.

One thing I would emphasize, which of course you already know, is that there's two types of harassment. The "namecalling, flamewarring, god that is REALLY REALLY rude" type we see on the internet all the time, and the "criminal harassment". Obviously, I would strongly encourage anyone who feels the second kind to tell law enforcement. If Bagley's threatened her in a criminal way, we (we being the foundation) should do whatever is necessary to see he's brought to justice. Based on his website, I don't get the feeling he's doing anything criminal, but of course, it appears I'm the least informed person on the entire project when it comes to the details of this, and the only people who should be making that assessment are the targest of the harassment . --Alecmconroy 12:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Alecmconroy, your various suggestions here are thoughtful and productive. Please know, however, that I don't accept – and am seriously offended by – your insinuations that I have been somehow taken in by Bagley. I edit ME-related articles first, and literature/poetry articles second, and though my real-world interests are much broader I neither understand nor give a sh** about naked shorting, Wall Street scandals or any of it. Nor do I want to learn. I've never edited those articles and never will; nor am I an apologist for harrassers or corporate shills. I am told that Bagley praises me for questioning the banning of Piperdown. Bully for Bagley. If he thinks I'm his girl on the inside, he will be sorely disappointed. I have zero interest in the Bagley-Weiss wars themselves.

I am interested only in one principle involved, and that principle has nothing to do with harassment or linking to attack sites. It has to do with what happens to NPOV when you have "superbanned" users like Bagley. Bagley has been so egregious in his sockpuppeting that admins have taken to shooting on sight. That all sounds well and good, but we've reached a stage where not only Bagley's puppets but Bagley's opinions (and not his theories about intra-Wiki politics but his positions on matters of public interest) in effect have been banned. This presents a problem to my mind. NPOV in article mainspace should not be a reflection of which real-world actors are in the good graces of Wikipedians and which ones (due to megadisruption) are not. This problem is an important one in my view, one with broad implications for other subject-areas in Wikipedia, and it is logically fatuous to define it as part of "Bagley's agenda."

I had this problem in mind when I commented on the Weiss RfC; I wrote that material considered notable by the New York Times should be considered notable by Wikipedia, regardless of our feelings about the actors involved. I have since reflected that weighing in on a specific editorial question regarding an issue I know nothing about (in this case, Gary Weiss's disputes with others in the business world) simply because of the principle involved comes perilously close to making a WP:POINT. That is true no matter how important the principle involved. Hence Durova's threat, high-handed as it seemed to me at the time, in hindsight makes sense.--G-Dett 15:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

G-dett, I sincerely apologize for giving you the impression that I thought you were somehow 'in league with' or 'taken in' by ASM. I wasn't trying to comment on you at all-- I haven't looked over your actions, I wasn't commenting on them in the slightest. When I refer to being deceived by the overly-simplistic explanation of Cla being blocked just for asking a single question, I do not in the slightest mean to imply someone else deceived me. It was my own first impression that the Cla block, but after a lot of examination, i just realized the situation was really really complicated.

Anyway, please know I wasn't trying to criticize you in the slightest. I was just trying to apologize, because I've argued so strenuously against BADSITES, I realized that even though that principle is, in my opinion, correct, I should have been far more considerate in my arguments, and a make my compassion for the people who have been harassed a little more explicit, rather than assuming it's implied. --Alecmconroy 17:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries Alec. The part I was reacting to spoke of trying "to figure out what Cla and Dan and G-dent KNOW is false vs what they've been fooled into believing." I don't mind criticism – bring it on – and I didn't mean to be tetchy. The very issue I'm concerned with is how broad and all-encompassing our working definition of a "Word Bomb meatpuppet" is becoming, and your comment seemed to me to play into the logic of that. No harm no foul.--G-Dett 18:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Alec. Nicely written. And I think you've hit upon an important problem. If you just get some random pages on ED, or look at a few threads on WR, or skim a bit of ASM, they don't seem particularly offensive. Unlike, say, the Time Cube guy, they are not instantly dismissable. It takes research.

Something that summarizes the issues, or even a place where reliable, uninvolved contributors can report back like you just did, would be a great help. As Guy says, we don't want to place the burden on the targets.

I do wonder if in talking only to traditional harassment experts we might be making a mistake. One other thing that's important for people being harassed is to make people close to you aware of the problem, as they can be a great source of emotional support and pragmatic help. But in a public environment like Wikipedia, the two directives conflict. I wonder if we could find advice from people who handle PR disasters or political mud-slinging could give us useful advice.

Oh, and if you do end up with a diagram, please send me a copy. :-) William Pietri 16:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, honestly, I have a harder time figuring out the deal with Time Cube than I did the deal with ASM. LOL. My experience was never that ASM came across as reliable, but it isn't clear at first glance how... cruel and petty the content is. Honestly, if our only goal were to convince people that ASM is nonsense, the best the we could do is plaster links to it all over the place-- reading it for itself conveys its meanspiritedness in a way that no summary really could ever capture. (obviously, our goal is write an encyclopedia, not convince people ASM is evil, so, yeah, no need to take that "plaster ASM links everywhere" as an actual prescription, please).

Honest to god, there really is a diagram. Not particularly coherent, but it does exist.. I wish I had a scanner-- I'd show it off. :) --Alecmconroy 18:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Several people in the thread above have wondered if there is a place to give short summaries of things like this. Comments like "Something that summarizes the issues, or even a place where reliable, uninvolved contributors can report back like you just did, would be a great help." The closest thing I know of to this is Wikipedia:Long term abuse. This has archives and subpages dealing with various long-term abuses by several people (links to the archives and subpages are on that page). It is mainly set up for long-term vandalism, but could be adapted for harassment reports as well. The main concerns would be to avoid give the harassers recognition (though the page I've linked to there makes clear that the motivations for vandalism and harassment are different) and to avoid privacy concerns. Oh, and to clearly change the structure of any reports page to make clear it is about harassment, and not vandalism. I also agree wholeheartedly that criminal harassment should be dealt with by the police, and that we need the advice of people experienced in dealing with specifically internet based harassment, as opposed to real world harassment (though I recognise that that has taken place as well). Carcharoth 18:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I don't work for the CIA, FBI, NSA, MI5, or any other spy outfit. If I had my pick I'd take Inspector Clouseau over James Bond - I like a guy who makes me laugh. There have been a few odd things claimed about me elsewhere on the Internet, most of which are rubbish, but I'd like to officially thank the trolls for spelling my name right. ;) Durova^Charge! 19:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Leilani19

I feel as though Leilani19 (talk · contribs) is harrassing me. I have tried to leave multiple contributions of information I know is fact. That person repeatedly slams me with threats saying that I have been reported for vandalism. This is not the case. I feel as thoguh this person is purposely doing this to discredit my information. At one point in time, I accidently deleted a page, I am still fairly new to this website and am still learning the ins and outs. I did not mean to do that on purpose and I filed a report to the proper department. Several occasions, I find my tlak box filled with messages from Clue Bot, in which I write back to defend myself. I cannot take this harrasement anymore. Please help me to fix the problem. I understand how things go as far as celebrities are concerned, and there will be young girls and guys out there who do not want to hear the truth. But that simply does not justify them turning around and falsely accusint me and discrediting my sources and my credibility. (Ryan782) —Preceding comment was added at 23:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You have been adding information to Leland Chapman, but you've not provided a reliable source, something that is mandatory for biographical articles. It doesn't matter if you know it to be true; it doesn't even matter if you are Leland Chapman; information has to have a reliable source that we can verify, otherwise it absolutely positively cannot be in the article. Also you blanked the article (this edit), which is indeed vandalism. And you've chosen to personally attack Leilani9 in this unacceptable edit, a violation of our no personal attacks policy. So you're not being harassed; you've chosen to break Wikipedia's rules repeatedly, despite being asked to stop, and you've chosen to attack those who defend Wikipedia. You're very close to being blocked from editing. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain how blanking the page is not vandalism? Corvus cornix 19:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Azukimonaka Eugenics in Showa Japan

User:Azukimonaka has been carrying on with what has been rather Tendanacious and Disruptive editing on the article on Eugenics in Showa Japan.

The page has probably suffered from breach of the 3RR - see history [21].

User:Flying tiger has been working to improve the article by finding references and supplying further information. He has been accused of innacuracy and anti-Japanese bias. See [22]. This has including deleting sourced content that he deems innacurate[23].

User:Azukimonaka has been active on the Talk Page

However, he is quite obviously not a native English speaker. His sentances are very hard to understand, and he displays repeated signs that he is unable to understand the sentances or meanings of other editors actions.

He contends that permitting see also to related topics of Japanese socialism, facisms and war-time history link Japanese Eugenics to Japanese war-crimes. He also doesn't seem to understand that the article is not only about official legislation.

I have tried to address several of his valid concerns, as well as pointing out that several of his points are based on his misunderstandings of English. I even attempted to breakdown an edit as to why it was being reverted [24].

I think a (temporary) topic ban may be needed.--ZayZayEM 02:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is an article that relates to Japan. Therefore, an original source is Japanese. They are rejecting an original source though I pointed out the mistake of the translation.

They are advertising the cruelty of the war crime of Japan though I confirmed their edit histories. (I do not criticize them because I understand the reason why they dislike Japan. )

I do not deny the Nanjing slaughter. However, Eugenics of Japan is a topic of the medicine and welfare. Neither the war crime nor the fascism relate.

For instance, it is not the military but the Japanese doctor societies that promoted the Eugenics law of Japan. Moreover, Birth control of Japan was promoted by Margaret Sanger and Marie Stopes. They relate even Recreation and Amusement Association established to defend the public peace of Japan to eugenics. (They falsified the source. )

This article is confused by their violent edits.

It was deleted by them though I wrote Eugenics in See also. And, they wrote. Japanese fascism, Japanese nationalism, Xenophobia in Showa Japan, Reproductive rights, Japanese military-political doctrines in the Showa period ...etc. Recently, they added the Leprosy quarantine policy of "Korea under Japanese rule". This is a topic besides eugenics. 　

I proposed to make Timeline so that they might understand. I proposed to make them Timeline. However, my proposal was disregarded for the reasons that my English ability was low.

I think the eugenics of Japan to be an article on the medicine. However, they insist that the eugenics of Japan is a war crime of Japan. I think that it is useful to make Timeline to understand this article. Can they agree my proposal?　--Azukimonaka 09:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is obvious. I worked a lot to translate the obscure sentences added by User:Azukimonaka, meanwhile, it is impossible to do the same with his exclusive japanese sources. His english is far better here than it is in the article.

The main problem is however User:Azukimonaka keeps deleting sources and categories from many weeks. I warned User:Orderinchaos about it on 9 October. [[25]]. Currently , he is accusing me of "falsifying sources" even if I just want to keep in the article a clear reference (with page number) from a well-known history book. He earlier acted the same way on Manchukuo but finally renounced.

We tried to explain him that we do not want to refer to eugenism in Shōwa Japan as "war crime" but simply keep the categories about the military and social context of the era but he keeps arguing this is Japan-bashing. There is simply no way to discuss with him as he has been agressive to me from the start, repeatedly changing my pseudonym and accusing me of being "bad faith" and ignorant of the "basic history" of Japan. --Flying tiger 14:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This topic is an event of Japan. Therefore, the first information becomes Japanese.

And, eugenics is a history of medicine. Therefore, the history knowledge of the medicine of Japan is needed. Moreover, the knowledge of the welfare policy of Japan is also necessary.

You like to indict the war crime of Japan. (The east Asian who wants to advertise cruelty in Japan is not unusual. )　

You are groundless though you added Japanese fascism, Japanese nationalism, and and Xenophobia in Showa Japan etc. Do you relate eugenics to the war crime of Japan based on what grounds though I define eugenics as the medicine policy of Japan?--Azukimonaka 17:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If Timeline is used, it can explain the relation between the militarism of Japan

and the eugenics of Japan is low. (For instance, compulsory sterilization was done in 1948 though the law of Leprosy was approved in 1905. Flying tiger is being written that sterilization was begun in 1905. )

Could you agree to the description based on the Timeline?　--Azukimonaka 17:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I will answer to your comment even if it is not the place to discuss about the content of the article but about user's behavior and reporting incidents.

Your tendency to make superficial judgments makes you wrong once again. First, I am not "east asian" as you insinuated above. I am canadian and white skinned... Second, all the categories you keep deleting were in the article since the beginning (I warned you about those deletions on 4 september [[26]] but you did not even answered) while "xenophobia" and "military-political doctrines" were added by ZayZayEm. We explained to you a hundred times it was linked to the political context not "war crimes" but you keep arguing about "crimes". Third, I never wrote "sterilization begun in 1905" . Where is your source for 1948? This article [[27]] indicates that 57 seven babies slain between 1924 and 1956 were preserved in research center. "More than half were collected prior to 1948...." even if the law of 1907 did not permit therapeutic abortions. Fourth', this is an english site, if you want to write here, the least you can do is to bring english sources in priority. One or two can be OK when there is nothing more but ALL your sources are in japanese. How can this be useful for other users ? Do I bring french or italian sources here? Five , you have no excuse for your arrogant behavior and accusations of falsifying sources. The citation from Bix is clear, the Higashikuni and Shidehara cabinets had power to make administrative decisions whether you like it or not. Six, what is this "Timeline" stuff, I never read anything about that. What would be the aource ? Would it be in the article ? Please, answer in th article.--Flying tiger 22:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is not about content. It is about behaviour. User:Azukimonaka has repeatedly deleted sourced content without valid explanation. He has misconstrued other editors behaviour and repeatedly deleted additions (namely relevant see also) under bad faith, and refused to accept other editors rationale for inclusion. User:Azukimonaka has displayed an inability to communicate and understand communication in English - I really hate to use this as a point, but when your lack of English comprehension creates edit warring scenarios, it is an issue. User:Azukimonaka also has a clear agenda to minimize any reporting of Japan in a negative light. This article does not really portray Japan negatively, nor does it tie Eugenics with any war crime or military movement, yet he insists it does.--ZayZayEM 23:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I regret that you do not refer Eugenics very much. This article is protected now. I keep persuading slowly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azukimonaka (talk • contribs) 12:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem of Flying-Tyger

1. Headline

Flying-Tyger wrote. Eugenics in Shōwa Japan were supported by politically motivated movements that sought to increase the number of healthy Japanese, while simultaneously decreasing the number of people suffering mental retardation , disability, genetic disease and other conditions that led to them being viewed as "inferior" contributions to the Japanese gene pool..

The content being written in two sources is "The purposes of this law are to prevent the birth of inferior descendants from the eugenic point of view, and to protect the life and health of the mother as well." He concealed "and to protect the life and health of the mother as well". and emphasized inferior.

"while simultaneously decreasing the number of people suffering mental retardation , disability, genetic disease and other conditions..." is also wrong. Source 1 is written, "Only hereditary disorder". Source 2 is written, "or hereditary malformation, or the spouse suffers from mental disease or mental disability". However, this is an explanation of The Eugenic Protection Law approved in 1948. 　--Azukimonaka 13:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad Faith User

Budlight (talk · contribs) recently tagged two articles I created (both over a month ago) for speedy deletion under G1 ([28] and [29]). This came minutes after I nominated a page he created for speedy under G1 [30]. He's obviously trying to make a point. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 05:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at this because your page is on my watchlist. It seems quite obvious that Budlight was trying to retaliate by nominating an article you created for CSD. Clearly a violation of WP:POINT. I suggest that a warning be left for this user before any action is taken. Ksy92003(talk) 05:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have left a warning (and removed the other speedy deletion tag). — Coren ^(talk) 05:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Can an admin also remind him that I can remove what I want from my talkpage. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 05:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I linked him to WP:USER in my last revert. I'll leave a note for him on his talk page. I also left him a warning of a near 3RR violation here. Ksy92003(talk) 05:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Alison (talk · contribs) and I have just left him notes on his talk page about this. Alison has said that if Budlight re-instates the comment, then she will view it as disruptive and act accordingly. Ksy92003(talk) 05:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I also see that Budlight just left Sasha a warning for 3RR, which isn't valid because Wikipedia:User page and Wikipedia:Don't readd removed comments allows her to remove comments from her own talk page at will. If this continues, then a block should be in order for disruption. Ksy92003(talk) 05:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Those articles are super-stubby, but they have context and notability. Pretty obvious POINTy retaliation to your proposed deletion of his joke (even if a pretty funny joke) Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Does cuerden mean anything in Spanish? It sounds like a Spanish word to me. This is killing me, because I speak fluent Spanish.

Anyway, the one thing that kind of made it clear that this was just retaliation was the template that Budlight used: {{db-nonsense}}. This is at least the wrong template to use because it isn't patent nonsense, the text is coherent, and there is meaningful history behind The Four's (best sports bar in the country by SI) so it was even the wrong CSD template to use. It seemed quite obvious to me that this was just a disruption/retaliation move by Budlight. Ksy92003(talk) 06:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite. (Also, Cuerden is a suburb of Preston, Lancashire. I'm told it's an Anglicisation of the Welsh word for Rowans.) Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't think of cuerden anywhere in the Spanish language. The only way it could possibly be a real word was if there was a verb corder or cordir, which I'm almost 100% certain don't exist. But the "uer" and "den" syllables are quite common in Spanish verbs. Ksy92003(talk) 06:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

People always say that, or French. I think it's because it's such a little-known place, and similar to words like guerdon. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Folks, this was poorly handled. This wasn't a "Bad Faith User" as the title proclaims. This was someone positively contributing to the encyclopedia who was affronted by a mistaken characterization of his work as 'nonsense' and acted badly in response. There actually IS a popular rephrasing of the 'Golden Rule' as 'he who has the gold makes the rules'. The only CSD this might have been speedyable under would be A7 (no assertion of notability), but even that is debatable as he did say it was a popular take on the concept... and no way no how was Golden_Rule_(Competition) a G1. Yes, his subsequent actions were disruptive... but so were the tagging and deletion under an incorrect premise and the fact that nobody took him at his word that he was trying to improve the encyclopedia rather than writing 'nonsense' or a 'joke' as has incorrectly been claimed. He was trying to add a valid use of the term. It is debatable whether there is enough notability and non-dictionary content to that use for inclusion (I think there probably is - though he had not yet provided evidence of such), but the article and his repeated statements about it being a serious effort should not have been dismissed out of hand as they were. --CBD 13:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin User:Mikkalai blocked for 48 hours, review requested

I have blocked Mikkalai (talk · contribs) for 48 hours, after a warning for edit warring which was followed by a personal attack and a clear statement of intent to continue edit-warring with Ludvikus (talk · contribs) over the article Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War. See my extended reasons at User talk:Mikkalai#Personal_attacks_and_edit_warring.

Mikkalai is an admin, so I would be grateful if other admins could review my actions here. Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block - edit warring with a clear statement that it would continue. Viridae^Talk 08:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the revision histories, you gave Mikkalai a final warning at 19.04 on 20 October and Mikkalai last edited the article at 18.30. You blocked him at 09.35 this morning. This doesn't really sit right. The block appears to be because Mikkalai refused to agree to stop disrupting but since the last warning no further disruption of the article has taken place. This can't be the right way to deal with this situation. Reading the talk page quickly it appears that the other engaged user is also being very disruptive. Have they been blocked? NO it appears not. And the article was protected at 3 am this morning - 6 hours before this block was issued. Since the article is protected I fail to see what disruption this block is supposed to prevent? Frankly this strikes me as a very poor decision given that Mikkalai had over 100,000 contributions to the project last I looked. Sure he can be difficult and uncooperative but how does this block help us build an encyclopaedia? I have unblocked Mikkalai. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Spartaz, might that be a rash and quickly made decision? Would it not be better to wait until there has been more discussion before defying the block? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Perhaps but I took the view that this was manifestly not the right way to deal with this that an unblock was the right way forward.Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Spartaz, we only ever block users for what we can infer about their future behaviour from their past conduct. Typically an intention to continue edit warring is inferred from recent edit warring, but a statement to that effect serves just as well. Furthermore I find your implication that having a large number of edits excuses such behaviour to be quite disgraceful. How many edits would you say are necessary to excuse wheel warring? --bainer (talk) 10:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Where am I wheel-warring? I have overturned the block once. That's not a wheelwar that's a difference of opinion. If there is a consensus that I was wrong and someone reblocks I won't unblock again so that's hardly a wheelwar. In all cases we need to consider the impact on the project of any block. Mikkalai is a long term standing editor whose contribution to the project is enormous. Of course we give editors like him more rope - just look how much rudeness and incivility and all round disruption that the arbcom accepts from other well established editors. The edit that he was blocked for took place around 9pm last night and he was blocked aprox 12 hours later without further disrupting the article. Sure we can infer but a quick look at the page history and the protection log tells us that the disruption has ceased and will not resume. Did you also see Mikkalai's request for the page to be protected to end the edit war? Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

. You overturned another admin's action without prior discussion: that's wheel-warring according to WP:WHEEL.

You are also wrong about the timing: the edit for which Mikkalai was blocked was made at 04:35 this morning, 7 hours after the page was protected. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No it's not wheel warring. It's an application of Bold, Revert, Discuss to an admin action. It would become a wheel war if you re-blocked, which I trust you won't do. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I now see what you mean. I still stand by my point. I don't accept that I was wheelwarring and I do not agree with the block as protecting the article has ended the disruption. Blocks for incivility are rarely effective and in this case have no value with someone like Mikkalai who is otherwise an extremely valuable contributor to the project. Especially as the problem is excacabated by his having to deal with an extremely disruptive user who has just returned from a 6m block. You seem to have decided that his being an admin means he deserves blocking more than a non-admin and that's simply not right. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know it, Ludvikus is a known troll who since his return from a 6 months block has been badgering Mikkalai to the point where I'm amazed that he hasn't resorted to incivility yet. This is Jacob Peters all over again. Are we going to block the troll or the people who correctly reverts him (Mikkalai in this case) ? EconomicsGuy 09:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus is indeed highly disruptive, and is under final warning, and the article is protected. But that does not alter Mikkalai's stated intention to edit war, which as it stands we can expect to resume when the protection is lifted. When other admins have already intervened and issued warnings, it is highly disruptive for an editor to states their intention to continue edit warring, and an editor who has been an admin for more than 3 years really has little excuse. I think it is highly regrettable that Spartaz lifted the block without further discussion. I don't intend to wheel-war, but having come here to discuss my actions, I expected that other admins would extend me the courtesy of discussing the block before lifting it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)What was your block preventing? Your message on Mikkalai's talk page says that he has been blocked for personal attacks. If that was the case then why did you say that you would unblock him if he promises not to disrupt the article further? That doesn't make sense unless the reason for the block was the threatened further disruption. Since the article has been protected what benefit does the block achieve? It can't be to prevent personal attacks because you were willing to unblock if the disruption stopped. Secondly, why are you treating him differently because he is an admin? Sure, we all expect admins to behave a bit better then non-admins but imposing different block standards because if this gives admins an unwarranted extra status that we do not have or deserve. This is manifestly wrong - especially in a case where Mikkalai was not acting in his admin capacity. Finally, I thoroughly agree that Mikkalai has serious civility problems but punitive blocks are not the answer.Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Spartaz, did you actually read what I wrote? When I issued the block, I did indeed say "A block is a preventive measure, so I will of course lift the block immediately if you can promise that to stop edit warring". The threat was that Mikkalai explicitly said "I am at war with this person", which means that the differences are unlikely to be confined to one article. "You also seem to have missed that this was explicitly not a punitive block, which was why I promised to lift it if the threat of edit-warring was withdrawn.

I'm really rather annoyed abut this. I brought the block here for discussion, and rather than discussing it, you promptly overturned it. What on earth is the point of an admin bringing their own action for review if they are supported by one other editor but then promptly reverted without further discussion on a mistaken understanding of he nature of the block? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 11:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you are upset about this. I have had my blocks overturned before and I agree its not always nice but I honestly believe that you made a dud call here. Firstly, if you are not familiar with Mikkalai, he uses very stark language that often reads very aggressively. Stuff that he has done to me in the past has left me fuming and early on in my wiki-career I got blocked after edit warring with him that happened because I was so incensed by the way that he was responding to me that I totally lost my call. I'm certainly not his friend. I do however recognise his value to the project and I have very rarely found his admins actions to be anything other than spot on. Sure he used intemperate language in the heat of the argument - and your adding a templated warning to his talk page was probably not the best way to get his attention - But you surely must have read his own request for the article to be locked to halt the edit war. The article was locked 6 hours before you blocked Mikkalai - did you notice this? - because it was the first thing I noticed when I went to review the block. In this case, what could the block have prevented? by Mikkalai's own words the edit war would have ended at that point. How could a block be anything other than punitive? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You are quite entitled to believe hat I made a dud call, but you should have discussed before overturning.

And yes, of course I noticed that the article was locked before I blocked Mikkalai. The reason he was blocked (rather than warned again) is that his statement that he was "at war" came about 9 hours after the page was protected. I'm sorry, Spartaz, but you really have acted very poorly here, by overturning a block when you were wrong in your understanding of the reasons for it, and wrong in your assessment of the timelines. I have therefore reinstated it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

EconomicsGuy, please take a look at User talk:Ludvikus. Admins Banno, BrownHairedGirl and Until(1 == 2) have all been in contact with Ludvikus over the last few days over this very issue; Banno particularly gives some very sage advice here. Ludvikus is under close attention and will not escape sanction should he continue to edit war or engage in other disruptive behaviour.

We don't accept provocation as a defence here. Yes, we often expect administrators to put up with all sorts of crap from disruptive editors, and maybe sometimes that's unfair, but that's just the way it is. A measure of understanding should of course be extended in this type of situation, but in no way does that go so far as to entirely excuse declaring an intention to edit war. --bainer (talk) 10:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I offer no defense against those valid counter arguments. I'm simply puzzled by why an editor who returns from a 6 months block for trolling is only blocked for 24 hours for disruption of an AfD where as an admin is blocked for 48 hours for the intention to disrupt (sorry for the borderline wikilawyering but it puzzles me greatly how this happened.) EconomicsGuy 10:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. The edit in question was made in the heat of the moment but we then had 12 hours of no disruption and the page was protected. Where was the consideration there? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL please Spartaz. In response to EconomicsGuy, the purpose of a bloc is to prevent disruption, not to punish. The 24-hour block on Ludvikus solved the problem at AfD; I selected 48 hours for Mikkali because as an experienced editor, Miklalai can have have been in no doubt out the unacceptability of edit-warring. However, I am open to suggestions of the appropriate length of block for Mikkalai if 48 hours is considered excessive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

CIVIL? Beg pardon? Exactly what did I do that was uncivil? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Referring to another editor's contribution as "rubbish", above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

o_O That's a very interesting interpretation of incivility. Saying something is Rubbish isn't uncivil in the UK - it simply means that you strongly disagree with the point made. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this block, actually. The edit warring, the personal attacks, and the statement of the intent to war more really makes me think a (48 hour) block is indeed justified. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Bad idea. Mikka is here to build the encyclopaedia, and in my view solves many more problems than he creates; he is trolled by many POV-pushers as a result. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know Ludvikus, but if EconomicsGuy's statement (Ludvikus is a known troll who since his return from a 6 months block has been badgering Mikkalai to the point where I'm amazed that he hasn't resorted to incivility yet.) is correct, then I would say it makes complete sense to me to unblock Mikkalai and perhaps discuss Ludvikus's recent edits instead. --Aminz 11:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I think Mikkalai shouldn't have reverted BrownHairedGirl's edit-warring notice without any explanation. Instead he could have discussed the situation with BrownHairedGirl. --Aminz 11:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with that - I'm certainly not defending Mikkalai's civility here as he could certainly benefit from improving his interaction with other editors. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As a fellow grumpy old bastard I can quite see where Mikka comes from on this, and my experience with him is that he will always give a straight answer to a straight question. Warnings to admins are rarely a great idea. Requests to clarify or reminders that they may be getitng a bit heated, with an offer to help if needed, are much more likely to be productive. Unlike many of busy admins, Mikka is a prolific editor of content. We absolutely do not need to lose people like him. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

We wouldnt lose people like that if they didn't go around edit warring and making statements to the effect that they will continue to do so. Edit warring is inexcusable in EVERY situation and most certainly inexcusable in an admin. Viridae^Talk 12:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you tone it down a notch. El_C 12:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

And while you're toning it down, you take a look at Ludvikus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the user Mikka was talking about reverting, you'll find masterpieces like this: [31]. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, I make it no consensus that this block should stand. BrownHairedGirl says that she reinstated it. Since I'm accused of wheelwarring for my actions, would anyone care to comment on whether reinstating the block is a wheelwar and whether it reflects the consensus on this page? Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Undoing the block unilaterally would be a wheel-war. Even if groups of admins and non-admins agree with each other, those groups can still engage in a wheel-war regardless of who does the actual admin actions. That's my view, anyway. When is consensus reached? Who knows? It does seem silly to let the block run down, but the best thing to do would be to persuade BrownHairedGirl that her action in reinstating the block was inappropriate and ask her to unblock. Equally, you can ask for a separate review of her action in reinstating the block. My view is that even if BrownHairedGirl had seen a case for reinstating the block, she should have said that and let others take the decision, not her. The one thing wrong with all this is that short blocks can have expired before any consensus is reached. Carcharoth 21:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Block reinstated

As noted above, I have reinstated the block, because it has become clear through discussion that the Spartaz (who lifted the block) had misunderstood the reasons for the block and the timing of the actions leading to the block, and had not even seen that at the time of the block I closed my comments to Mikkalai with a promise to immediately lift the block if Mikkalai withdrew the satement of intent to edit-war.

I'm going to leave it that. I think I have said what needs to be said, and I will leave it to others to see if they can reach a consensus on where to take this situation. However, I stand by my promise to Mikkalai that "I will of course lift the block immediately if you can promise that to stop edit warring", and invite any other admin to lift the block if they notice such an assurance before I do ... or, of course, if there is a consensus here to lift it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, that's not good, since, technically, that does count as Wheelwarring, which, itself, greatly escalates this incident. Please reconsider. El_C 12:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I most strongly disagree with this action. Its wheelwarring and there is no consensus that the block was correct. Please reverse yourself. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The re-block was completely unnecessary; I've unblocked Mikkalai, per consensus, and per the fact that he stopped hours ago, and is discussing on the talkpage. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 12:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What consensus????? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In addition to what I wrote above, I will lift my re-block if you also agree to reverse your lifting of the block, since your initial lifting of the block was based on a failure to understand the reasons for which it was applied. I came here to seek a review of my actions and to seek a consensus, not to invite the unilateral overturning of my actions by admin who didn't fully read the extended explanation which I provided for the block, despite the fact that at the time of overturning the only other commentator supported the block. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What happened to try to make an encyclopedia better, no matter what rules there are? Mikkalai cares for the encyclopedia, and actually writes it, we need more admins like that. Blocking him, especially for 48 hours, isn't going to solve anything. And what's the point of me reblocking him so you'll unblock him?! Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 12:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that if you have issues with my actions you take them out on me and not on Mikkalai. Your original block was harsh and isn't supported by a clear consensus in the discussion. Reblocking was pointy, petty and wheelwarring - which is staggering given that you had criticised me for wheelwarring shortly before it. I suggest that you go and do something else before this gets even more out of hand. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Spartaz, it really would be a very good idea for you to try and do some basic reading of wikipedia policies and guidelines before participating in discussions on issues like this ... as well as trying to read a blocking admins's reasons before you overturn a block. I'm sorry if that's difficult for you, but reading is kinda crucial around here.

I'm not taking out on Mikkalai my genuine frustration and disappointment at your failure to read before acting or or even to understand why it is a good thing to read before acting. Mikkalai was blocked for his clear statement of intent to be "at war" with another editor, when the other editor was already under warning and the page concerned had already been protected. When you have done your reading, please can you kindly tell us all where exactly in any guideline or policy it says that edit-warring is acceptable behaviour from someone who makes good contributions elsewhere?

It'd be good to know what you come up with, for future reference. Is there a quota of acceptable edit wars for those who you think of as good editors, or is there some threshold at which disruptiveness is given a free license? I look forward to the links. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

o_O That's called playing the man not the ball where I come from. If I wanted to continue this argument I might also say that you can start yourself with reading up on WP:DTTR, WP:CIVIL, WP:WHEEL and WP:AGF and WP:BLOCK since we don't do punitive blocks. I'm still very confused. Did you block Mikkalai for being uncivil or for threatening to edit war in an article that was locked? If its the latter, the threat is really meaningless given that Mikkalai had already said that he wouldn't mind the article being locked in the wrong version . Prolific good faith editors have always been given more latitude then the policies strictly allow. I don't think this argument is healthy so I'm going to step out. Perhaps I was wrong to unblock but can you honestly say that your reblock was correct given that at that point the count was 3 in favour of your block and 3 against? Feel free to have the last word but please try and address that last question. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The ball here is the admin who unblocked without taking the time and trouble to actually read the blocking reasons, or to check the facts before making a whole series of demonstrably false assertions about the course of events. After all this time, you are still asking questions about why Mikkalai was blocked, the answers to which are clearly set out in the detailed reasons I gave for the block. If you haven't read and understood those, five hours after you impetuously lifted the block, please don't waste time citing anything at anyone else. Read before acting, eh? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. Your block was challenged, you need to justify it, not simply re-impose it. Several people have suggested that why is unliekly to help. You have not addressed those concerns. Guy (Help!) 13:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. If you re-read the discussion, you'll see that most of the points raised in objection were simply wrong. It was alleged that block was punitive, when it was explicitly preventive; it was claimed that the page was protected after the threat to editwar, when the protection had taken place 9 hours before the threat; I was told that the block was lifted because I should have promised Mikkalai not lift the block if the war-threat was withdrawn, which I had done. And so on. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

And if you read it you'll see that your block was widely reckoned to be wrong. And reinstating it was wheel warring - something which you know to be wrong, even if you assume that only people reversing your actions are doing it. So that's two mistakes. I recommend you stop at that. Guy (Help!) 15:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This was not a situation that required blocks, and nor was it a situation that required wheel-warring - and yes, BrownHairedGirl, wheel-warring is exactly what you did. Nor am I seeing an explicit promise to continue edit-warring from Mikka, or even an implicit one. Blocking by rote is unlikely to help matters in any situation. A more holistic approach is needed sometimes. Moreschi ^Talk 14:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus was being a disruptive menace, and is in the last-chance saloon; I and a few other admins have been trying to deal with the dispute by acting even-handedly. Edit-warring is always deplored, and nobody here has provided a plausible explanation of how or why it is acceptable for an admin to announce an intention to proceed with it. However, I'm not going to argue this any longer; someone else can take the trouble of dealing with these two edit warriors, and take whatever action they feel like. On the basis of what I have read here, and the jibe about blocking-by-rote, I have to wonder whether that will bear any resemblance to policy or guidelines, but if some admins want to make things up as they go along, I'll leave them to it. Have fun with Ludvikus and Mikkalai! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Wheel-warring is always deplored as well, you know. You are in no position to lecture anyone about policies and guidelines, particularly as they related to admin actions, so let's cut the hypocrisy, shall we? Moreschi ^Talk 14:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, let's see. I engage with the parties to a conflict follow policy and guidelines, apply a block, set out the reasoning at unusual length, go the extra mile by asking for comments at ANI, and then someone who didn't even bother reading what I had written (let alone do some of the more onerous work of actually checking the timelines before pronuncing on them) unblocks in the face despite the balance of views at that point being 2:1 in favour of the block ... and I end up getting called a hypocrite because I insisted that an unblock should be done on the basis of a consensus? Thanks a lot, pal. Now, are you going to deal with that edit war, or did you just pop in to criticise after the fact? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What's the point in asking for a review if you're not prepared to receive criticism? ~ Riana ⁂ 15:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I expected to receive informed criticism, or . The first section of this review consisted mostly of one verbose editor who wouldn't read and who acted on that basis, and I object strongly to that. There were several more thoughtful contributions too, on both sides, which were welcome. I accept that that there has later appeared to be an emerging consensus that prolific editors should be allowed to edit war, which I accept, even though I think it is a very unwise approach. What I don't accept is the sniping, which is why I would be delighted to now leave this whole situation for someone else to sort out, safe in the knowledge that there is no penalty for inaction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the biggest pile of BS I've seen outside of a really big barn. You didn't just insist upon the supposed incorrectness of the unblock. You yourself darn well reinstated your original block, which you are not allowed to do under any circumstances. Have you actually read Wikipedia:Wheel war? If not, I highly recommend that you do so. Oh, and accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being mysteriously "wrong" apriori doesn't look good either. Moreschi ^Talk 15:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The principle of fairness doesn't always work on Wikipedia, sometimes, to keep the content contributors happy, you have to be sensible, but unfair. Blocking an excellent contributor such as Mikkalai just to be fair to someone who's being extremely disruptive, probably is fair, but it's completely devoid of any application of common sense. Nick 15:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not just fairness, it's also a matter of actually resolving the situation and calming the was which make some areas of wikipedia into no-go zones for anyone but the most battle-hardened. I don't see how it helps to defuse a content dispute for an editor to declare war on another editor/. There are plenty of content contributors who add a lot of content to to the encyclopedia and don't feel entitled to go around stoking conflicts, and their ability to work effectively is undermined if others appear to be given a licence to stoke conflict. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it is worth I think the block was justified, and that the unblock was a little confusing. 1 != 2 15:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, saying that you are dealing with the situation even-handedly is just another way of saying you were successfully trolled -- a troll initiated a conflict, drew a productive editor into it, and then you treat both parties as if they have the same motivation, or as if they are both acting in good faith, when they don't and aren't. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I intentionally avoided making any judgement on the content; there are other channels to examine content issues and I have rarely found it helpful for an admin to try making a rapid assessment of the merits of different views of a subject with which they are unfamiliar: that's what dispute resolution is for. Ludvikus's histrionic approach makes it very difficult to determine exactly what the underlying issues are, which was why he was repeatedly warned by me and others to be civil and to set out his concerns clearly if he wanted other editors to engage. However, both editors had already been warned to take time out.

Mikkalai had not even responded to my earlier warning on his talk page, merely deleting it without comment, before making his declaration of war. Where in that is the evidence of good faith?

Mikkalai's talk page is routinely blanked, so there is no quickly-readable record of his interactions with other users, which often helps provide a picture of someone usually well-behaved who has had a momentary outburst. The evidence before me at the time (without spending hours researching Mikkali's contribs history) was of someone not just rejecting all attempts at problem-solving, but with a previous record of edit-warring on the same page and without the support of other editors on that article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In the future, I will do my best to listen very carefully to what User:BrownHairedGirl has to say in order to avoid any possibility of disruption. Although I do not agree with her assessment as to my alleged disruptiveness, I very highly respect her actions in practice - particilarly that she has been even-handed and imposed a 48-hour Block on such a very powerful, influencial, Administrator, such as User:Mikkalai. At the moment I see no other Administrator anywhere near her calaber. You should all learn and absorb her example. She is a great asset to Wikipedia. From what I see going on here - where the majority is ganging up on her - just because she apparently sided against one of the good old boys at Wikipedia makes me really want to leave Wikipedia forever. Nevertheless, in the immediate future, I promise to go out of my way to listen very carefully to her counsel so as to avoid any possible disruption on Wikipedia. At this stage of my experience at Wikipedia, I know no other Administrator whom I respect more than her, or vwho comes anywhere near her in fairness. I can promise you all this. All that will be required in the future from me, is a simple message from BownHairedGirl, and there will not be any indication of "disruption" whatsoever from me. As for you all, I think you should look very carefully at the amazing Conflict of Interests which clearly manifests itself when Editors are also Administrators.

Cheers, Yours truly, --Ludvikus 15:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack by said Administrator after 48-hour Block was Unblocked

It seems to me that Administrators' are just too powerful to have their misconduct curtailed. Here's the latest "personal attack" on a fello Wikipedian:

“ This remark is a clear demonstration of the unfitness of the person to logical reasoning. We have thousands of books that say nothing about the topic. Imagine if we start quoting all them in articles about a topic. `'Míkka 17:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC) ”

It seems to me that this Administrator has so many friends in the Administration at Wikipedia that he will not desists in personal attacks. Why should there be two standards for that kind of misconduct, one for Administrators, and one for the rest of us. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 17:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Peace offering rejected - edit waring to continue

Certainly not by me, User:Ludvikus.

• Here's my Peace offer to Administrator User:Mikkalai which he has summarily rejected as trolling:
• For the sake of the Article, here's my Peace offering which Mikkalai rejected as trolling.:

“

P.S. About "even handed". Reminds me of an old Jewish joke. Abraham and Chaim are in big quarel. Shouting, tufts of payot in the air. Here comes a reasonale Issac. "Oy vey, Abram and why this ruckus? You go to rabbi, he will judge you" So they go to rabbi, shouthing, tufts of payot ion the air. The rabbi frowns: "Now stop all tha noise, this is not kahal here. Talk your turns, you, Abraham, first". - Abraham: "Rebbe, it was this and that". Rabbi, after long thinking, "You are right, Abraham". - Now Chaim speaks, "No. rebbe, it was such and such". Rabbi, after long thinking and looking into thick books: "You are right, Chaim". - Now Isaac, baffled: "But Rebbe, how can it be possibe: Abraham is right and Chaim is right?" - Rabbi nodes wisely: "And you, Isaac, are right too" ... `'Míkka 15:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Mikkalai, I don't understand what you are trying to achieve here. if you are not prepared to give a brief explanation of the situation as you see it, why should admins take the time to read up the whole history of a dispute in an attempt to infer your position?

If you believe that you are being let down and need to be defended from a troll, why will you not either respond to admins who intervene or post to WP:ANI? It's fine want help, but why are you so reluctant to help those who might want to help you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I heard that joke too, but I never heard that it was a Jewish joke. Neither did I hear it as a Biblical joke.

Anyway, I would like to make Peace with you.

Is that possible? And let's skip the Rabbi above, he will not help, just telling us that we are both right.

I'm even willing to go to a Polish priest (maybe he will do a better job than that Jewish Rabbi above), if that helps.

But maybe - just maybe - that Rabbi was right: I am right, and you are right. Or am I crazy to say that?

Unfortunately, the great Polish Pope is no longer with us. Peace? & Cheers! Yours truly, --Ludvikus 16:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

”

I truly would like to make Peace with Mikkalai. But I cannot figure out what I should do - except that he implies that that I need lessons in logic or visit a shrink - both of which I disagree with. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 19:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

focus on the main block

Rather than arguing about wheel-warring, we should first resolve the main issue: should the block on Mikkalai be lifted early? The reasons for the block are listed here. I see opinions in both directions (lift vs. let stand) above; it should be possible to reach a consensus, possibly by compromising on a shorter block length. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes it should be lifted, and then we should talk to Mikka about what the problem is. Guy (Help!) 15:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: A block because of promised action ("war") until confirmation of good conduct is obtained, is a correct use of a block. To unblock isn't wheeling, but was rash, especially given that 1/ someone else had endorsed so far and 2/ the matter was brought for discussion. The fact that uses "stark" language is his/her lookout... if he states, as an admin, he is "at war", he must expect this will be taken as such unless confirmed otherwise. Editors and admins are not expected to be perfect, but their general judgement is expected to be good.

That said, BrownHairedGirl was deeply incorrect to reinstate. The fact that in her perception and view, "it had become clear" he was in error is not the same as consensus (if consensus had existed, others would have acted too). That reinstatement is a canonical example of a wheel, though not the worst degree of it.

So now we have two issues,:

1. An administrator who has stated as hyperbole that they are "at war" (but is also a "prolific creator" of good content), who knows well that policy prohibits disruptive approaches and that this will be taken as provocation, declaration or incitement, and whose words were reasonably and predictably taken at face value, and
2. An administrator who acted on reasonable grounds, sought additional eyeballs when appropriate, and then due to feeling others had not read the matter and were in clear obvious error, has wrongly wheeled by reinstating their block when reversed.

That is where it stands. The concerns are likely to be future conduct. Would anyone object if both administrators were asked to comment if they will avoid such actions in future? I think that is one of the first things that needs to happen to resolve this. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• An admin has no need to promise good conduct before being allowed to get on with controlling the disruptive edits of a tendentious editor. Ludvikus is the problem here, as a look at the history of the dispute will immediately establish beyond any possible doubt, and right now I imagine he's laughing up his sleeve. Guy (Help!) 15:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find widespread disagreement with the notion that such statements are a necessary, desirable, acceptable or essential aspect of being "allowed to get on with controlling the disruptive edits of a tendentious editor". Administrators have to deal with far, far more disruptive editors than Ludvikus. I've never found such wording to be other than inflammatory and unhelpful. The purpose of blocks is to prevent disruptive conduct. It is hard to argue that words which inflame a situation (are likely to cause a reaction, will probably provoke), won't be perceived reasonably as "disruptive" by many admins. Invariably the best course for any experienced editor is to be WP:CIVIL and calm as they do their necessary actions. So you are right that no promise is needed before controlling a disruptive editor. But the question wasn't that at all. It was: "The concerns [of others] are likely to be future conduct. Would anyone object if both administrators were asked to comment if they will avoid such actions in future?" FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

We're getting hung up on Mikkalai's use of the word war here. When read in context it's more along the lines of "I'm not going to let a troublemaker defecate all over this article." Wikipedia has a long history of protecting trolls and troublemaker's right to disrupt, for months on end, and then hammering the admins who get momentarily exasperated dealing with them. In hindsight, if anyone should have been blocked it's Ludvikus, not Mikkalai. By the way, thank you BrownHairedGirl for asking for this review. --Duk 19:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that Mikkalai's response was more than a momentary outburst, (see for example his reaction to a warning from another admin that the page would be protected) but I respect the right of other admins to differ on that point.

Thanks, though, for your your kind words about bring the issue to review; you are the first person to do so. From the way this request was received though, I can only say that it was a damn fool mistake on my part to bring it here. Not because people disagreed, but because after an initial spat of outbursts from those who someone who didn't want to read block reasons but felt absolutely entitled to denounce others as rubbish, much of the rest of it has made feel like I had arrested someone's dying granny on a trumped-up charges rather than taking the latest in a series of steps in an escalating content dispute. We could have had a perfectly sensibly discussion about how to deal with a conflict between between one histrionic and hyperbolic editor and the determinedly non-communicative edit-warring we-all-hate-police admin, but what's not what happened.

Next time I block an editor, I'll set out my reasons again on the user's talk page, and leave it all to whoever picks up the unblock request to do whatever they feel like. Coming here has been much more grief than it's worth, so I'll follow the example of the vast majority of blocking admins, and stay clear. I hope that whoever else deals with Mikkalai and/or Ludvikus has a lot of luck. They'll need it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that over the last week botyh Mikkalai and Ludvikus have been acting in a manner that justified a block. Both have been staying just under 3RR several times now. I implore the admins here to watch this page and act fairly to both parties as neither is really coming out as "more right" in this situation. 1 != 2 15:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Promise to make every effort not to cause "Disruption"

Cut & Paste to be here on the Bottom:

In the future, I will do my best to listen very carefully to what User:BrownHairedGirl has to say in order to avoid any possibility of disruption. Although I do not agree with her assessment as to my alleged disruptiveness, I very highly respect her actions in practice - particilarly that she has been even-handed and imposed a 48-hour Block on such a very powerful, influencial, Administrator, such as User:Mikkalai. At the moment I see no other Administrator anywhere near her calaber. You should all learn and absorb her example. She is a great asset to Wikipedia. From what I see going on here - where the majority is ganging up on her - just because she apparently sided against one of the good old boys at Wikipedia makes me really want to leave Wikipedia forever. Nevertheless, in the immediate future, I promise to go out of my way to listen very carefully to her counsel so as to avoid any possible disruption on Wikipedia. At this stage of my experience at Wikipedia, I know no other Administrator whom I respect more than her, or vwho comes anywhere near her in fairness. I can promise you all this. All that will be required in the future from me, is a simple message from BownHairedGirl, and there will not be any indication of "disruption" whatsoever from me. As for you all, I think you should look very carefully at the amazing Conflict of Interests which clearly manifests itself when Editors are also Administrators.

Cheers, Yours truly, --Ludvikus 15:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment from a non-admin

I just wanted to say that the above discussion cost the 1,400+ administrators on Wikipedia a good deal of credibility in my book. It's like watching a police abuse video. Not the underlying incident but the discussion and the aftermath here are disillusioning. I won't call anyone out because I'd rather all of you guys think about how you handled yourselves but I see wheel warring, harsh language, name-calling and other incivilities, faction forming, and rashness on the part of multiple administrators. More than that I see a lack of dignity and cool-headedness. When administrators fight among themselves, how am I supposed to respect the legitimacy of their actions out in the field? I sometimes come across uninformed decisions and abuse of privilege by admins and I'd like to think it's an aberration. Ideally you should be on best behavior, rising above personal matters, because people look to you for an example. If you lose the respect of those you serve you undermine not only your own effectiveness but the whole system you're trying to uphold. It's probably a perennial proposal but this and some other incidents are a strong argument that all admin appointments should be probationary, for a limited duration after which reappointment is necessary, and/or subject to a lot more scrutiny. Wikidemo 16:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's in the system. Admins have to work their way down to the level of qualification for ArbCom. (SEWilco 16:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

I would like to mostly agree with Wikidemo. This sort of thing costs the project lots of good will. I don't know about specific reforms to the admin system (I have my ideas, that don't seem like they'd get much consensus were I to propose them at this time), but I think we are headed on one of two directions 1) an increase in this type of "wheel-warring" disruption and erosion of community goodwill or 2) an arbcomm subcommittee to deal with admin actions and conflicts only. --Rocksanddirt 17:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Resumption, as Promised, of Edit War by Administrator after 48-Hour Block Terminate

This is to inform you that this Administrator /Editor has done precisely what he has promised. And more than that. He has now unilaterally Reversed for the third time. I do not see an interest in staying on at Wikipedia much longer, if there is this kind of double standard - one for Administrators, and another for the vast majority of the rest of us editors. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 18:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Will I be weeping tears? Crocodile ones, perhaps. Given the outright nonsensicality of your edits, my sympathy is non-existent. Chinese shadows, indeed...Moreschi ^Talk 19:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi is an admin? If so I find the tone of the preceding comment highly inappropriate as per my comments in the above section.Wikidemo 20:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Bah. I'm no longer calling BS anything other than exactly that. Moreschi ^Talk 21:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of Ludvikus's complaint, he is being nearly disruptive enough (in my opinion) to earn another sabatical away from wikipedia (another 6 mo ban/block). --Rocksanddirt 21:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, Moreschi has already been to the article and to the talk page, so his "BS" comment is not "unhelpful". Basically, this article survived two AfDs. In the first one people from all over Eastern Europe were very embarassed to find that for the first time in years they all agreed on one thing: that the article should not be deleted. Now [User:Ludvikus|Ludvikus]] is trying to kill the article by having it renamed (and he is succeeding, they are actually voting on a new name at the talk page) and therefore is trying to get in a text which has no connection at all with the topic, except that it mentions the word "Chinese". It might as well have been "Chinese cooks", "Chinese astrologers" or even "Chinese checkers" - he would still try to get it in. I was thinking of leaving English wikipedia, but this is so over the top, I think I should stay on a little. Paul Pieniezny 21:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the quotes around "unhelpful" are for - I don't see that anyone used the word. Inappropriate tone is more like it. IN this section's discussion an administrator is condescendingly called hypoctical and her comments here a "pile of BS." Whoever is right or wrong about the disputed article, the editors' behavior, and what is blockable I don't know and I don't really care to know. I'm just pointing out that bickering, off color language, etc., erode one's confidence in administrative deliberations.Wikidemo 01:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Nazi Punk

I'm taking heavy-handed action against pro-motional links which for long have accompanied the entry. ^[32] El_C 11:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oh yes, do just that. 90% of those are promotional, not reliable sources. Nuke away. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. Just noting that I was met with limited opposition. ^[33][34] El_C 11:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I do not wish to furthur my involvement in this debate, I give reasoing for my original decision to revert here. [[Guest9999 12:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)]]

Note that Guest9999 now agrees with me & apologized for reverting (which I gladly accepted). Unless someone objects, I'm staying the course. El_C 07:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Figure out Ryan's afternoon

I woke up this morning with a pretty bad hangover and I need to stay in today - so here's a one time offer: The first person who gives me an admin task that they think is backlogged will get three solid hours of my effort in that area, not including the time it takes me to learn how to do it, if applicable. I'm going out to lunch, I'll check back when I get back. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 16:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• SSP has been backlogged for ages. :) Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, three hours of sockpuppets to sort out. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 17:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks Ryan Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Bah, I showed up too late to suggest CAT:CSD. Damn. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I suggest that you send a case of strong liquor to Ryan if you want your backlog(s) to be dealt with... LessHeard vanU 17:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I closed a bunch of sockpuppet cases, the ones that remain are all either under the review of another admin, have been remanded to Checkuser, or are too horrible to deal with. With some extra time on my hands, I suppose I could check on CSD... RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 18:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In CSD I found Image:Mariko Morikawa.jpg marked as "for educational use only." (Admins can take a look - I think it wins for ironic license tag) Alas, it was deleted. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 18:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was certainly notable. ;) Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Ryan, if you're still looking for things to do, UFAA has been backlogged all afternoon. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's my vote for initiating the Booze for Backlogs program. --bainer (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Another block review

I have indef blocked Beh-nam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the basis of a report to WP:AIV, and my review of the diffs provided. Per my comment when placing the notice on User talk:Beh-nam I recognise that the tariff may be inappropriate, and I am open to any admin who wishes to investigate further to vary or lift the block as deemed fit. I also concede that the original report may be motivated by reasons that are unencyclopedic and I therefore blocked on the basis of the incivility as evidenced by the language. LessHeard vanU 16:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

See this thread above. User:Beh-nam, User:Aspandyar Agha and User:Dilbar Jan have been participating in adolescent insults to each other on various talk pages, and calling each other sockpuppets of some User:NisarKand. I should have delved deeper into it last night as I thought it was just restricted to one particular spat, but it looks like it is a bigger Tajik vs. Pathan issue. -- Samir 17:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I had dealings with Beh-nam some months ago and always found him to be a good-faith contributor. Please be aware that the person who placed that report is apparently NisarKand (talk · contribs), one of the worst spreaders of ethnic hatred and long-time sockpuppeter. NisarKand is indeed a serious problem. Dealing with him can be exasperating; I don't think anything Beh-nam may have done while dealing with NisarKand ought to be held against him. I'll look further into this; might recommend unblocking. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I would endorse the indef blocking of Beh-nam, for this edit alone. The problem vandal NisarKand is irrelevant to this issue, which is Beh-nam's conduct, and there is no justification for that kind of hateful speech. Neil ☎ 17:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Still skeptical. A one-off outburst under the kind of constant provocation caused by the NisarKand socks is not necessarily grounds for indef-blocking. I notice Beh-nam was doing some useful work in pinning down copyvio image uploads which Nisar was trying to hide behind a multi-sock smokescreen, as usual. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Doing some useful work does not give anyone a pass for that kind of racism and intolerance. I saw a thread about this further up one of the Admin Noticeboard pages recently. Of particular note is [35] - the history of User talk:Sodaba shows that Beh-nam did not make a "one-off outburst" - he made five edits over 17 minutes honing and adding to his name-calling and bigotry - this was not a one-off edit made in a fit of passion, this was a carefully constructed and considered piece of hatemongering. Neil ☎ 17:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I still maintain that even a 17-minute fit of rage is still just a fit of rage, and, after the truly exceptional history of year-long disruption by NisarKand, potentially forgivable. But I'll let this rest until Beh-nam actually comes back online. He hasn't commented or posted an unblock request as yet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed User:Dilbar Jan's contributions more thoroughly and there are heaps of hateful ethnic commentary. I've blocked him indefinitely. -- Samir 17:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Besides him, judging by editing times and similar evidence, the following are certainly Nisar socks:

• Wmmr (talk · contribs)
• Freeman2006 (talk · contribs)
• Pollinghigh (talk · contribs)
• Sodaba (talk · contribs)
• commons:User:Executioner
• commons:User:Wikireporter

Can some commons admin please take care of all their image uploads? They are most certainly copyvios. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please note that the individual who placed the unblock request (since denied) on Beh-nam's talkpage is likely to be the user in the section below. I believe Beh-nam should be allowed to make their own presentation. LessHeard vanU 18:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I am wary of making an indefinite block on Beh-nam for the one outburst. Neil is right that it was honed a few times, but if was still basically one episode.

However, I have also found [36] (more racist abuse), [37] (foul edit summary), [38] (more abuse), [39]. Digging back further, I don't find much more in the same vein, and quite a lot of reasonable behaviour -- not always super-polite, but nearly all of it well within acceptable bounds. I had an encounter with Beh-nam last month, and it was rsolve politely and resaonably: [40].

So I think that I would suggest that the blocking admin should reduce the length of the block, to something which reflects the seriousness of this spat but doesn't go so far as to say "never again" in the way an indef block does. Maybe one month, but with an explicit warning that any further racist abuse would lead to an indef block? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I recognise that the tariff does not have consensus, and that there may have been ethnic/ nationalistic considerations in both the making of the report and possible provoking. I would prefer to have Beh-man's response, but I have no problem with another admin varying the period if it is considered appropriate before then. LessHeard vanU 18:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Aspandyar Agha, who has commented below, has made much worse racist attacks than Behnam. Here are some examples of his racist attacks: [41], [42] and of harassment of a user who has left wikipedia: [43]. There is also the case of the "insulting match" with Dilbar jan([44], [45]). Most of his edits are tendentious, and indicate a strong prejudice against ethnic pashtuns. If Behnam's behaviour warrants an indef block, then this user certainly deserves some kind of sanction. Raoulduke47 19:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello dear Friends

Beh-Nam is not NisarKand because Beh-Nam is a Tajik and NisarKand an Awghan, an ethnic Pashtune. Dear Admins, plz check that out also his IPs. They are two different User. While NisarKand and DilbarJan are one and the same User and a nationalistic one but Beh-Nam has nothing to do with such activities. DilbarJan(/NisarKand) claimed he would helping Taliban but since Beh-Nam is a Persian and the Taliban were looking for cleansing Tajiks who could he be NisarKand self since Dilbar is allready NisarKand!? Plz dear Admins, unblock him. Beh-Nam is for a long time on Wikipedia and he didn´t do sth bad either against any nations nor against any User or any articles. The admins of Wikipedia now banned two or three of Tajiks who were one o the important ones here at least they were the sole Tajiks who were active. Plz Admins, ban DilbarJan who is writing articles from his nationalistic view. With best regards. --Aspandyar Agha 18:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing Aspandyar Agha's editing, I have indefinitely blocked the account. Neil ☎ 21:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Section break

I don't know much about this case but looking at it here i think Fut.Perf. and BrownHairedGirl description of the situation is more accurate. If it was his second i'd certainly support an indefinite block. But having the same fate as NisarKand is really bothering. He's always been a disruptive editor. But the difference is that this is the first time Beh-nam drinks while driving whereas NisarKand drinks all the time while driving. A month is enough for a first blatant violation of policy. If repeated it would be the last one. But in this case the block of Dilbar Jan would be probably treated the same way unless he is a sock of NisarKand. Any thoughts? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, Dilbar Jan most certainly was Nisar, if there was any doubt left about it, the latest anon trolling here on this page dispelled it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Now, i've got no doubt about that. Whenever i see a disruptive editor starting editing Wikipedia w/ a long discussion at a talk page followed by many similar others especially when saying "...so according to Wiki rules, we must stick to the majority." at his first ever edit, i just confirm he is a sock. i don't care of whom he may be but blocking indef on the spot is the correct action. I just don't understand why he was left editing till today. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, I absolutely do not endorse any reduction in the length of this block. Editors like this, irrelevant of who they are "fighting with", are tendentious, abusive, racist POV warriors, and should not be welcome. I strongly reccomend leaving at indefinite. Neil ☎ 21:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Note Beh-nam's charming comment was "You are big time benamoose watanforosh. You are living proof that Owghans are treacherous, dishonest, fascist, selfish, racist, thieves, delusioned, and cannot be trusted with anything. Stop making sockpuppets you idiot kooniwal." I'm not sure what "benamoose" or "kooniwal" mean, I think they're Afghan slang, but "watanforosh" is traitor. Neil ☎ 21:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what those words mean either. But I know what "treacherous, dishonest, fascist, selfish, racist, thieves, delusioned and cannot be trusted" means, and I don't think they are in the spirit of WP:NPA. Raymond Arritt 00:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Lisaab

According to this block log, [46] this user was blocked indefinitely on 7 October. However today, 21 October the user was able to make this edit to the user talk page, [47]. Was this user later unblocked but not recorded in the log or is there something wrong with the block? Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 20:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked editors are able to edit thier own talk pages. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh of course. Apologies, I was a bit confused as alot of them are protected. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 20:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"Finger" on userpage

Is this page:User:Dinote suitable or allowed? I wasn't 100% sure so I thought I'd ask here. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It has been removed by Maxim (talk · contribs). ~ Sebi 21:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I remember Jehochman mentioning Wikipedia:Five pillars yesterday. I think it is better to not be used in user space. However, Maxim could have left a cool message at User talk:Dinote before removing it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've left him a message after I removed it, just asking him not to do it again. I think he should know better. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 21:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem with Bots?

It appears that SnakeBot is out-of control - see [[48]] as well as SieBot - see [[49]] Zagubov 21:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

How so? Both of those are valid interwiki links (although WHY any other language Wikipedia has articles on counties in Kentucky isn't clear). -Amarkov moo! 21:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not? The English Wikipedia has articles abut provinces and lower-level political organizations of other countries, why should other language Wikipedias be any different? Corvus cornix 22:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

My apologies- I've not seen this kind of thing before and mistook it for vandalism needing reverting.. I'm using an updated Firefox on Mac OSX and didn't realise my systems limitations. Zagubov

Tired of being attacked by persons who don't agree with my edits

Resolved

The title says it all. I have ignored a couple of few personal attacks and warning the other users that I was not going to pay attention to it. Seems like these group of people just want to do in Wikipedia what they feel like. I've made my edits according to the official guidelines and policies, wich this user thinks are stupid and somehow "delete" the entire article, or "doesn't help" Wikipedia.

The personal attack can be seen in User_talk:Cosprings#Tasco made by User:Real Compton G. Diff.

Now, I know this is not a high level threat or attack, by I've been recieving some of these and I am tired of it. I think the user should have a message delivered by an administrator warning about the guidelines and respect them. If he doesn't like others user's edits, don't insult him/her.

That would be all, I hope you can understand this issue. Thank you.--Tasc0 21:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Note left. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That's all I really wanted. I hope he can understand now.--Tasc0 21:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem with a project's editors

I discovered, via Talk:Decommissioned highway, that the term "decommission" when applied to highways is a neologism, and readers will not understand it. This was confirmed at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Decommissioning. So I started changing to more appropriate terms. Several people are now objecting on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#The new "multiplex": decommissioned?, and at least one - Scott5114 - is reverting my edits. What am I to do? This is clearly not an appropriate word to use, but the editors of the project have determined that they don't care. --NE2 22:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment. Discuss it, try to reach consensus. This isn't really something requiring administrator attention. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've taken issues like this to this board before and had them discussed. --NE2 22:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well this isn't really the area to asks for broader consensus on those types of non-administrative issues, though I'm sure you'll get some new editors commenting. Try Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Try getting bogged down in bureaucracy? Riiiiight. --NE2 22:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even sure how I'd do that; this isn't about a single user, a single article, or a single policy. --NE2 22:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

And now they've started an RFC on me: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NE2 3 I need help. --NE2 22:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

A little help please

Two days ago, I protected Bălţi for six hours because a slow edit was about to escalate. That got the two soldiers Dc76 (talk · contribs) and Moldopodo (talk · contribs) talking. I did remove what I believe to be a personal attack from Moldopodo user page (twice) and as a result, they are now fighting it out on my talk page. I expressed that I cannot give any more advice as my knowledge in the matter is absolute zero. I'm hoping someone more knowledgable in the subject is willing to step in as a mediator. — Edokter • Talk • 22:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

They've asked me to become involved, but I have no knowledge about the subject matter. Corvus cornix 17:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Voltron

Based on behavioral evidence collected by myself and Sarah, as well as checkuser evidence brought to me by Dmcdevit, I have concluded that Voltron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of indefinitely banned user EddieSegoura (talk · contribs · block log) and have blocked the Voltron and VoltronForce (talk · contribs) accounts indefinitely from editting. Because Eddie has not used the Voltron account abusively, but constructively, I have brought this matter up here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, I have also gone through most of the pages solely created or editted by this account and applied CSD G5.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If the account is making constructive edits, it should be allowed to edit. Common sense dictates that. Since we know that this dude has a history, the moment Eddie lapses and starts making destructive edits, we can go ahead and ban him quickly. MessedRocker (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope. I gave this fellow a barnstar in good faith, but I won't unblock him because banned users aren't allowed to edit. If he wants to return, he has to do so through official channels. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Banned users are simply not allowed to edit. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec*2) If there was an official community ban somewhere (I'm not familiar with the history), then there needs to be an official community unban too. Until then, out. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've denied the unblock request. He was disrupting the above thread about Sadi Carnot. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I stated policy. Whether EddieSegoura is banned or not, i don't know. To unban a banned user is to follow formal channels and consult the authority who took the decision of the ban. AFAIK, banned users cannot get back whenever they want to. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong asked me to review this account and I am as certain as I possibly can be that this is Eddie. He told me some weeks ago in some emails that he was still editing (he also contacted me a couple of weeks ago to protest that User:Malmindser who requested an appeal of Eddie's ban on CSN was an impersonator and had nothing at all to do with him). Generally, if a banned person is able to return, reform and edit productively without notice, I have no inclination to hunt them down. However, I disagree with Messed Rocker's comment and I don't think we should turn a blind eye towards editors who have been banned by an overwhelming community consensus when we become aware of them editing under a specific account. If Ed wants to return legitimately then he needs to follow WP:BAN, as he knows full well, otherwise he risks his accounts being blocked when they are identified. Also, I don't like the idea of block evading banned vandals giving others advice about their blocks, objecting to multiple community sanction proposals, butting into unblock requests, objecting to sockblocks, and involving themselves in blocking policy and checkuser discussions and so on. That this account was being obviously and openly geared towards adminship also concerns me and I'm very glad that Ryu picked up on it now. Anyway, I endorse the block and agree with Ryu's statement. And yes, Eddie is most definitely banned as the cross-project "Exicornt vandal". The disruption he caused was unbelievable, particularly here and on Wiktionary and his vicious harassment of User:BunchofGrapes was really disturbing. ban listed here Sarah 00:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Just an update, Voltron/Eddie has just emailed me and confessed. He asks me to send his apologies to the community. He says he meant no harm and was trying to be a constructive editor this time. He says, "I truly regret my past" and that he was thinking about appealing legitimately for a second chance when the impersonator account User:Malmindser posted to CSN, but he insists that account has nothing to do with him. Eddie, thank you for being honest. Sarah 00:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As a neutral 3rd party, it seems to me that a truly reformed vandal is something that anti-vandal partollers such as me live to see happen. The Voltron user's edits have been strongly supporting the overall project, and with no mention of his "past life" or behavior. I would support a lifting of the blocks on this user, with the understanding that a certain amount of extra scrutiny will be given to his behavior in the near term. Arakunem 01:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Voltron's participating in the Sadi Carnot community ban discussion above. Disruptive or helpful? You decide. This fellow hasn't been quietly minding the articles. He's interjected in administrative discussions and policy matters. Disruption can be subtle too. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

All I see above is him saying that we should leave a user banned for a few weeks for cool-off, then re-evaluate. Doesn't seem disruptive to me, but as I said above, I'm going solely on prima-facie without any history behind the user and his history. Arakunem 01:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• For better or worse, there's ample precedent for blocking "reincarnations" of banned users, even ones that were extremely helpful and productive (such as User:Gzornenplatz). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lanka/LTTE blocks - reviewed

The following is a joint statement made by admins chaser, Haemo and FayssalF:

Following this archived thread and based upon a review of the evidence presented and in consultation with some other administrators about the technical details of Allocated Portable IPs and checkuser, the blocks of User:Lahiru k, User:Netmonger, User:Kaushini and User:Arsath will remain in place. The other evidence presented via emails and the CheckUser case page is either unpersuasive or of tangential relevance. It must be noted indeed that Wikipedia editors are not in a position to assess the legitimacy of a scanned document. Therefore, the "confirmed" checkuser result remains the most powerful piece of evidence available to us.

We suggest that no other accounts be created to evade this finding, as future sockpuppetry cases will be pursued thoroughly, with checkuser if necessary. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC) --chaser - t 01:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Haemo 01:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

fayssal, I and others have so far given you/haemo/chaser reasons why this block is unfair and erroneous. With all these evidences isn't it obvious that the original Check user had made a mistake and Lahiru_k and Arsath are not the same person ? So, your decisions to back up that wrong decision and to keep them blocking for something they didn't do, is like condemning an innocent person to death while knowing his innocence,　isn't it ? May I ask you ,after going through all the evidences and contributions of the users(mainly lahiru_k and Arsath), do you still believe they are the same ?? Could you please explain us how the confirmed check user results confirmed lahiru_k and arsaths the same(with evidences 100% contrary to it)?? This is a serious issue, which might led to the blocking of all the Sri Lankan based editors coz anyone could be labelled as Lahiru_ks socks. Only new' and comprehensive check could give a comprehensive details regarding matter.Quite frankly don't see why shouldn't we do it? After all wikipedia is not a dictatorship,is it? We don't unfairly block editors, do we ? Your attention and actions is highly appreciated here. Than you Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 02:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Histrionics comparing a website to capital punishment and a dictatorship have no place here. Checkusers are well aware of the technicalities involved in IP allocation, and a "confirmed" checkuser result means a solid IP relationship. There's enough evidence of similarity in their contribution history to corroborate the checkuser result.--chaser - t 02:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the emails that FaysaalF, Chaser, and Haemo have seen, but I've looked at the SSP case and the Checkuser requests, and I agree with the blocks. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Some emails are really so private and contains personal data (Passport and ID documents of User:Lahiru k and meatpuppet User:Kaushini). I was the only one who has seen that (at Lahiru's request) and noticed days after that the immigration date stamped is mid-February 2006 while the metadata of this image uploaded to Commons by Lahiru k shows February 2005. Lahiru tried to prove that he is one and not a sock master. But was Lahiru k lying? I believe he is lying because after i informed him about the inaccuracy he said he forgot to set the time of his camara. Ummm! What Chaser and Haemo have seen are other details including off-wiki activities of Lahiru k which amount to campaigning and recruiting meat puppets. There's also this thing about sharing accounts (Lahiru's English goes from bad to good). In his emails Netmonger says he is Mystìc (talk · contribs) and Arsath (talk · contribs) and a muslim while Lahiru is not. I know that Muslims in Sri Lanka speak Tamil but here Netmonger does say that his mother tongue is Sinhala. Months later he said his mother tongue is Tamil. You can speak a dozen of languages but you can't have 2 mother tongues especially in the Indian subcontinent where "mother tongue" is used to indicate the language of one's ethnic group (ethnic tongue). I see no reason to assume good faith anymore and listen to weak "evidences" of innocence.

P.S. There a real issue of shared passwords. Both sides are believed to practice this unacceptable behavior. Please see this total mess. I am looking at it as well. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Both editors use Sri Lanka Telecom as their ISP, which randomly assigns IP addresses to their customer. As proof of this, Lahriu k edited his sandbox without logging in, disconnected from the internet, reconnected and edited his sandbox again. He did this more than 30 times over 20 minutes and got assigned a different IP address every time.[50] There is no way he could have faked that, and it proves that there is an undeniable possibility that Lahiru and Netmonger could easily have been assigned the same IP address at different times.

The only "behavioral evidence" presented an the SSP case is that both users have voted on a number of AFDs, both users have referred to WP:DGAF, "which not many people know about", and they both used the phrase "I'm not going to waste my time". As the comment has noted, apart from the IP addresses, the remaining evidence is "not persuasive" to indicate they are the same person.

So the only proof that FayssalF has to justify his block is that both Lahiru k and Netmonger were assigned the same IP at different times. Given the circumstances, that is no where near enough evidence to block two users. Also both users are willing to come on IRC with any admin who wishes, to confirm that they are two separate people and let the admins ping their IP addresses via IRC to prove that they both edits from SLT IPs.

Note that all three of the above admins have been involved with the users they blocked before this case came up. And when I questioned the block FayssalF promptly archived his user talk page without replying to my last post, so the opinions of uninvolved administrators will be appreciated. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 03:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You've already gotten the opinion of one uninvolved administrator (me). The IP evidence is quite compelling. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe you have read AmiDaniel's technical opinion at the Village pump (technical). We are not supposed to go further than that. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you read what he said?

"For the most part, no individual will be the custodian of a single portable address. I would actually say that, quite on the contrary of being static, most portable IP addresses are likely shared by multiple individuals or entities,"

Lahiru's edits to his sandbox confirm that IP addresses are shared by multiple SLT customers. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 04:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And how many IPs there are to be allocated? Too many. How many Sri Lankan wikipedia editors are out there? Only a few. Do the math.

From AmiDaniel --> you're far, far more likely to find out the exact nature of how this IP address is used by contacting Sri Lanka Telelcom than you are by asking me :) This is not the problem of Wikipedia. This should be dealt w/ between Sri Lankan editors and their providers.

From what i know --> allocated address space is address space that is distributed to IRs for the purpose of subsequent distribution by them. And this is tricky and disturbing. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you understand how you are contradicting yourself? The edits to the sandbox confirm that SLT assigns different IP addresses to its customers every time the reconnect to the internet. Do you dispute that, or are you just trying to ignore it? So how could it be that there a greater possibility that the same IP was assigned to the same person twice, than that it was assigned to two different people?

"This should be dealt w/ between Sri Lankan editors and their providers."? Do you understand how ridiculous that comment is? AOL has a similar system, where they change the IP address they assign their customers every few minutes. Has anyone suggested everyone who users AOL stop editing Wikipedia or all the thousands of users will be banned as sockpuppets? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 04:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Everything i've just said may sound ridiculous to you but i clearly explained it above --> And how many IPs there are to be allocated? Too many. How many Sri Lankan wikipedia editors are out there? Only a few. Do the math. Most people know about dynamically assigned IPs but assigning the same IP to 2 users (who happen to edit the same articles) out of 20 million people is enough to say "hey, weird". -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that there is a bigger possibility that an IP will be assigned to the same person twice months apart than the possibility that it be assigned to two different people?

And again, given the evidence, do you acknowledge that SLT assigns different IP addresses to its customers every time they log in?

Also, no, you haven't explained why you basically said you're going to block everyone who edits from SLT as sockpuppets, unless they some how sort it out with the ISP. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 04:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, if SLT is assigning different IPs to its customers when they log on, they're behaving like most ISPs. This removes the "allocated portable" concern, and means that the Checkusers were dealing with the same type of IP evidence they deal with when the suspected users are using Verizon, Roadrunner, SBC, et al. If anything, this should increase our confidence in the Checkuser results. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What checkuser? There was no checkuser run on this case. Both editors were blocked long before a checkuser could be requested. And if you acknowledge that different IP were used, how could say that they were the same person? Because they used the same ISP? That's not how things work. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 05:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you are totally wrong. All accounts were blocked on late October 14th and early 15th. The CU case was opened at Oct. 14th afternoon w/ quite compelling evidence. There have been around 10 admins reviewing this case and i think you are just wasting your time here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That comment says so so much. We have an admin blocking two users for sockpuppetery, when he doesn't even know the difference between a sockpuppet case and a check user request. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 05:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That is what you think and this is what i found. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

One, the only reason you can have to block the two editors is if Lahiru is Netmonger. The other accounts have no relevance to this case as Lahiru was already blocked for one week with regard to them.

Two, the only evidence you have to say Lahiru is Netmonger is two edits on November 22, 2006 and July 17, 2007 from an IP address which has been proven to be dynamically assigned to different people all the time. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 07:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop asking these same questions repeatedly, Snowolf, because that can be disruptive. You're not going to get the answers you want to hear, and you are just filling the page with comments. If the results here make you unhappy, file an appeal with Arbcom. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

My ISP assigns a different IP every time you reconnect, but since I'm on DSL I rarely get re-assigned. I don't think the fact that Lahiru k demonstrated IP switching shows anything - it could be that he's learned how to disconnect his modem for five minutes to get a new IP address.--chaser - t 05:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Way to assume bad faith there. And its 32 different IP addresses within 23 minutes. Even if you have to be disconnected for "5 minutes", the edits by IPs shown to prove this were made months apart. That could easily mean the same IP was assigned to different users. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 05:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Take a closer look at the Checkuser case on Lahiru k; Lahiru k and Mystic (among other sockpuppets) were votestacking on a TfD discussion--that wasn't "months apart". --Akhilleus (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Lahiru k was blocked for sockpuppetry for one week after that case in November last year. End of story there. Where's the checkuser you're talking about for this latest incident, where FayssalF is claiming Lahiru k and Netmonger are sockpuppets? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 05:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to make it clearer exactly what you're disputing. Checkuser showed that Lahiru k = Mystic (and others); other evidence shows that Mystic = Netmonger. I don't have to link to the transitive property, do I? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What "other evidence"? The fact that they were assigned the same IP address by an ISP whom everyone here has pretty much admitted assigns IP addresses randomly to its customers? Do you have any other real evidence that the two users are the same? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 05:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There's one evidence and we do not care about "other evidence". We tried to review this and accepted some explanations by email BUT most of those explanations were too doubtful and in many times inaccurate(Passport stamps and Metadata at Commons, English usage, etc). Bear in mind that whether an IP is "static" or "dynamic" is determined by the way that a service provider assigns addresses to subscribers, not by the way that the IP addresses are allocated by the IANA. I already mentioned to you that allocated address space is address space that is distributed to IRs for the purpose of subsequent distribution by them. Please stop it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop it? Why don't you stop ignoring the evidence presented here that SLT does assign different IPs to its customers everytime they reconnect?

You want more proof? Straight from the SLT website

'SLT has commenced offering ADSL facilities in some parts of Colombo since April 2002. It intends to expand its coverage during the year to other areas of Colombo and its suburbs. Speeds offered by SLT are 2 Mbit/s download and 512 Kbit/s upload, or 512 Kbit/s download and 128 Kbit/s upload with dynamic IP.

And from IP address as to what a dynamic IP address is

...in situations when the computer's IP address changes frequently (such as when a user logs on to a network through dialup or through shared residential cable) it is called a Dynamic IP address.

The fact that IANA assigns ranges to ISPs "for the purpose of subsequent distribution by them" does not mean the ISP also assigns different IP addresses to its customers. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 06:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I am getting more detailed updates from emails supposedly belonging to Lahiru k and Netmonger. I am waiting for some other details from those email accounts. I see that you are more concerned about this mess than they do and probably you need to tone it down. I've been using ADSL for years now and i never saw someone (editing wikipedia) being assigned the IPs i am assigned. My point is that there are probably millions connected in Sri Lanka and the chance for a same IP to be assigned to 2 or 3 particular wikipedia users is close to zero unless they are the same users or they are based at the same place which is not the case. That's my whole point of the story. You never answered that. So please wait for the upcoming details. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

First, you have absolutely no right to tell me what I should be doing right now. If I see you unfairly blocking a user, I'll take it as far as I can. So if you made a mistake you aren't going to cover it up that easily. Second, to put it bluntly, you need to stop trying to mislead the community. How would you know if another user was assigned your IP address? Do you have checkuser privileges to find out who's using what IP? And again, more falsities, "there are millions of people using ADSL in Sri Lanka"? Nope. Coverage is limited to certain areas, and the number of users from Colombo can't exceed more than 10,000 - 20,000.

I don't want to, but I can keep saying this all day if you don't listen, the two edits you cite to show Netmonger is Lahiru k were made more than 7 months apart. So unless lahiru was connected to the internet throughout, never disconnected and was therefore never assigned a different IP address, why do you think the chances were greater that the IP would be assigned to the same person rather than to someone else? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 07:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you assuming bad faith? I fear you are disrupting by accusing me of "falsities" and "misleading the community". Please behave better and let us work. As you have seen, more than 10 admins have seen and reviewed the case. What i asked you to do is to stop your accusations and wait. I have the right to do so while waiting for new updates. Bear in mind that i was the one who opened this case to be reviewed and it took us days to come up w/ this final review. And once more, i am reviewing it again while you are ranting. Do not disrupt the process or else you'll be blocked for disruption. You told us about your mind but do never again assume bad faith and accuse people of "falsities" and "misleading the community". -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you disputing that Netmonger=Mystic/Arsath? Arsath/Netmonger confirmed that in an email to me. If you're still arguing about the checkuser connecting those accounts to Lahiru k, then that's rather pointless speculation, considering only Dmcdevit knows the details that went into the "confirmed" result, and even he has probably forgotten those by now (assuming they're not logged when a check is performed).--chaser - t 07:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Am I assuming bad faith? The guy who blocked two editors based on some very sketchy evidence without even giving them a chance to argue their case is actually asking me that? And if you have any respect for this process, you'll answer this; Are you saying with 100 percent certainty that no other editor has even been assigned your IP address?

Also, then why did you open this case? Hoping that everyone will agree with you? And now that someone is disputing your decision all you can say is basically "shut up and go to sleep"?

Chaser, you say "Arsath/Netmonger confirmed that in an email to me". Did he also "confirm" to you that he was not Lahiru? Are you intending to selectively believe what he says, based on whether it agrees with what you want? What I am saying is the only proof you have that Netmonger = Lahiru are two edits made by the same IP (which is dynamically assigned) 7 months apart. That is just not good enough to block genuine two editors. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 08:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Didn't let them argue their case? We've probably exchanged 30 emails! As to the connection, we have a checkuser result that you seem to be ignoring. And yes, I presume that people's statements against their own interests are credible. It's their statements in their own interests that I'm always skeptical of, especially in light of the aforementioned checkuser. The reason we opened this thread was to indicate that review had taken place - not to request review.--chaser - t 08:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You exchanged 30 emails after you blocked them. They didn't even have a chance to explain the dynamic IP allocation system to the community. So you're saying he was so stupid that he was truthful in claiming that he was he was a permanently blocked account, but lied in dening he was another account which wasn't blocked?

Yes, the checkuser case said Lahiru k was Mystic, but how many times to I have to keep repeating this, he was already blocked for that. (coping from above) The only proof you have that Netmonger = Lahiru are two edits made by the same IP (which is dynamically assigned) 7 months apart. And the only reason you have to block the two users is if they are the same. No other accounts come into the picture.

First FayssalF confirms he doesn't know the difference between a suspected sock puppet case and a checkuser request. Now you seem to think that three users can decide on something and expect the community to blindly follow their decision. Coming from an admin, I find that comment astounding. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 08:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

- They didn't even have a chance to explain the dynamic IP allocation system to the community. Misleading. Check their user talk pages and see what admins who reviewed the cases thought and decided. When a CU come up w/ positive findings we block as a preventive way and then we discuss.

- First FayssalF confirms he doesn't know the difference between a suspected sock puppet case and a checkuser request. Nonsense.

- expect the community to blindly follow their decision. The community has been verifying this mess as well and all they know is what those bastard 3 admins know.

- No admin and no user (except Iwazaki for obvious reasons) has agreed w/ you. Iwazaki is so intelligent in asking for what he needs. The blocked accounts are handling civil discussions w/ me via emails. Ask Lahiru to forward to you the emails and read them carefully. You are just disrupting, shouting, ranting and accusing admins of lies and "misleadin the community" instead of handling a cool discussion. You are not far away from an appropriate block snowolf. I am not going to repeat this more than enough. You spoke and now you wait and see. Unless you keep it cool instead of disrupting and accusing admins of lying you'd certainly be blocked. Think about it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've just blocked indef a sock of someone. He was speaking of the same story i mentioned above (sharing and hacking passwords). I don't care to whom it belongs but it is just obvious and unacceptable. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Netmonger

It's probably worth noting that on his User talk page Netmonger acknowledges that he was previously Mystic/Arsath. He also notes that 222.165.157.129 is an IP he uses at his office; this IP is unlikely to be dynamically assigned, so Snowolf's complaints about dynamic IPs (which are uncompelling in any case) don't apply to this address. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblock them

Ok.. now. I've been following this case for the last week or so.. and not everything seems right. Lahiru and Netmonger both have been very good contributors to wikipedia and have hundreds(if not thousands) of constructive edits against their name. This is no way to treat such valued contributors. If they've done something wrong, then they should and they will pay for it. On the one hand we have users like Wikiraja who have been blocked for sockpuppetry, obscenity, vandalism, disruption, 3RR and almost every other wiki-offence under the sun roaming free under the noses of these very admins who've blocked L and N; the longest wikiraja ever served was 3 months! I am sure there're dozens of other wikirajas roaming free. otoh, we have overzealous vigilantism in the case of L and N who by any yardstick are far more valuable to the community than the likes of Wikiraja. And what do they get for that? Indefs!! This is hypocrisy at its worst. If all that a multiple repeat offender like Wikiraja can get is 3 months then L and N should get a lot less.. even if they're guilty!

I request that admins immediately unblock both Lahiru and Netmonger so they can argue their case themselves. They can be 'topic banned'(no editing SL-Tamil related articles and no edits other than minor cleanup or simple vandalism reverts, spell check etc.,) or even prohibited from making any edits at all other than argue their case. And dont tell me they can argue their case from their talk pages. that is nonsense. This case has spilled into many talk pages and across wiki spaces already and is getting increasingly difficult to keep track of or make sense of. If they have to argue their cases from their talk pages, then I demand that the admins take it upon themselves to copy and paste every single comment of theirs in every relevant discussion. This is of course not going to happen and therefore, the admins should unblock them. Blocking and especially indeffing is not a joke and certainly not when it involves editors of long standing. Admins should be more circumspect in handing indefs and indeffing L and N is seeming like a knee-jerk reaction. Also Fayssal's past involvement in conflicts with the blockees render his blockings highly inappropriate.

Chaser says he exchanged thirty mails with the blockees. It is fair that the community knows what transpired(except of course, things which could violate their privacy). Just saying.. "I exchanged 30 mails and it didnt convince me" doesnt fly. If it was so unconvincing, I want to see what that is. Just as I'd have liked to know what it was if he'd found it convincing. Blocking at the first chance without a fair trial in full view of the community is just a case of overzealous admins eager to gather 'trophies' throwing their weight around. Similar misplaced machismo on part of a certain admin a few months ago laid waste WP:INDIA - that had until then been one of the most prolific wikiprojects around. Also, in this case, it is plain as day to anybody who has followed the SL wiki debacles that both sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry is rife from the Canadian tamil club. I guess even one or more of the admins involved here said just that. That being the case, admins should treat this case with more caution and be more consistent. I have myself in the past noted Taprobanus' english go from excellent to average to bad. So? Indeffing without the consent of the community is a very bad thing to do and can only exacerbate things. imo, indeffing without community consensus should be a strict no-no. Wikipedia is no oligarchy. Indeffing and then asking the blockees(who happen to be editors of long standing) to argue such a complex case from their talk pages is ridiculous and humiliating. Sarvagnya 23:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sar, please refrain from Personal Attacks. Your allegations on wikiraja are not only personal attacks but you seem to accuse him without proof. I know that the admins have asked for both parties to take it easy and cool off, however, this is in direct violation of WP:NPA. Sar, you should immediately come to the point without pointing , without proof, your finger at anyone. Another problem here is the attack on Taprobanus. While what you may say maybe true, there is no evidence to your claim. To throw accusations around without proof is Personal Attack. Sure, everyone mistype letters and on certain occasions people do make spelling errors. However, to accuse people of sock puppetry or meat puppetry is against the core rules of wikipedia. Admins please take note of this. This is provocation of users who have been friends (Taprobanus) of Lahiru and netmonger and accusation of wikiraja who, even now, to my knowledge, has not even said a single word about this mess. I would also fiercely demand an apology for saying sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry is rife from the Canadian tamil club. This is an attack on only the Canadian Tamil editors, but to the whole community. This is tantamount of attacking an ethnicity. Sar, if you have proof of any of your allegations go ahead and show it to the community and admins but if you don't just leave others out of this. Watchdogb 00:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not about WikiRaja, or anyone else. The Sri Lanka-related issues have been rife with bad behavior on all sides. If either side abuses sockpuppets, they will be blocked — community patience is running out with this group of editors as a whole. If you disagree with the assessment above, which has been reviewed by a number of different admins at this point, then there are remedies above you can pursue. --Haemo 01:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets with open proxies

Can you please block those open proxies:

• 189.22.223.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 222.36.2.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 209.87.243.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 211.174.63.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

ForeignerFromTheEast 01:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

All blocked. Mr.Z-man 02:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. ForeignerFromTheEast 02:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Now the anon vandal is registered though, on Krste Misirkov. ForeignerFromTheEast 02:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Account blocked, page semi-protected. MastCell ^Talk 02:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a part of a larger problem with multiple account abuse:

• Wreasuma (talk · contribs)
• Picatikoyama (talk · contribs)
• Jaditrici (talk · contribs)
• Zambez (talk · contribs)
• Szbgm (talk · contribs)
• U prolazu (talk · contribs)
• Cefar78d (talk · contribs)
• Ufdo Jegamstre (talk · contribs)
• Objektiven tip (talk · contribs)
• Daepten (talk · contribs)
• Porebio (talk · contribs)
• Onojstobesetamu (talk · contribs)
• Geek Arabic Malaka from Hellass (talk · contribs)
• Daveebamugz (talk · contribs)
• Norisou (talk · contribs)
• Oligopotamia (talk · contribs)
• Ltpao (talk · contribs)

More open proxies:

• 123.176.84.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 201.18.157.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

ForeignerFromTheEast 02:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

All IPs reported to WP:OP. Dean Wormer 03:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

JS security hole closed

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Arbitrary_.js_security_hole_closed. This is something that I think as many eyes as possible need to see, especially those that write these user js scripts. Please discuss on AN (Administrators's noticeboard). Thanks. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 02:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Peri’ah metsitsah

Resolved

I created this article based on information from Christopher Hitchens' book, god is not Great. Eliyak asserts that the information is wrong, arguing that Hitchens is not an authority on Jewish customs (Hitchens converted to Judaism when he married his current wife, though he's currently an atheist), etc. Eliyak changed the material without a citation, and left a citation tag in the article. Although Eliyak appears to have done much work on Judaism-related articles, I tried to explain to him/her that the WP standard is Attribution and Credible Sources, not truth. Eliyak insists that the name of the article is wrong, that the procedure it describes is incorrect, that its origin is Orthodox rather than Hasidic, that the frequency of its practice is greater than the article asserts, etc. He moved the article to a new name, and changed the material, and even added a source, but does not go into detail as to how that source contradicts the material. My position is that when two sources disagree, the article should incorporate both of them. I tried to revert the article to reflect both sources. I even tried to look for a link to Hitchens' website in his article so I can contact him over his sources, but his article has none. Eliyak reverted the title's page, and again altered material in the article, relying on his/her personal knowledge, rather than wait until the conflict can be clarified through collaboration and more in-depth investigation. Any advice? Nightscream 04:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Hitchens is not an expert on Jewish Law. Secondly, there already exists mention of metzitzah in its proper place Brit Milah. This article is a POV fork. -- Avi 04:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have redirected the article, where sources including Talmudic scholars and Medical personnel are brought, and not investigative journalists. -- Avi 04:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The article I wrote was not intended to be POV, however, I have read the sourced articles regarding the procedure on the brit milah article, and am satisfied that it covers the material well enough that a separate article is not needed. Nightscream 06:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Request Action on Special:Contributions/Havelove

This account appears to have only been created to insert pro-China propaganda POV edits into the Dalai Lama page. K. Scott Bailey 04:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Three edits, all reverted. No warnings, not even a post on their talk page. At least first tell the editor about NPOV and see if they act unreasonably. Then we'll see. Assume good faith first. Otherwise, what would you like done? Personally, I certainly am not going to block someone purely due to how they're editing, until they are disruptive. If a user trolling to edit Hitler isn't a clear block, this one certain isn't. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I made it clear in my summaries that if the POV pushing didn't stop they would be reported. It didn't stop. They were reported. Nothing was done. Fine. K. Scott Bailey 05:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying, at least post a warning on the talk page. That way, someone will be sure that the user is seeing it. It is possible that a new user don't see the edit summaries. If they violate 3RR or are uncivil or whatever, report that and they will be blocked. Besides, a content dispute will not result in an immediate blocking. I'm sorry, that's just the way I see policy. Anyone disagree? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

One other thing. I know Dalai Lama is controversial (duh) but is this editor posting some language that is a repeat of some other user (like a banned one, you know a WP:SOCK?). I just wanted to check. If so, then a block is appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

They're very similar to ALL the pro-China vandals/POV pushers I revert on a daily basis. And it would seem that when an account is created, and then proceeds immediately to POV-pushing, that some admin action would be warranted. K. Scott Bailey 06:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Origin of religion

I am seeking comments regarding a recent incident regarding an article titled Origin of religion. I created this article over a week ago. However a number of editors were unhappy with the article and nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of religion. The article was deleted because it was deemed to be a "Inappropriate content fork of the article Development of religion" and was OR and WP:SYN. It is my opinion that this decision was incorrect. This is because I do not believe that the title "origin of religion" and "development of religion" are the same topics. The apparent consensus on the deletion discussion indicates that the editors do believe that there should never ever be an article titled "origin of religion" but there should only be an article titled "development of religion". The admins redirected the page "origin of religion" and also protected it to ensure that no editor ever creates an article titled "origin of religion". To start with the thesaurus does not indicate that "development" and Origin are synonyms [51], [52]. Furthermore the some of peer reviewed scientific journals and books cited in the article use the term "Origin of religion" for example

Sources cited

The sources cited include:

• "King, Barbara (2007). Evolving God: A Provocative View on the Origins of Religion. Doubleday Publishing." ISBN 0385521553. The author is is professor of anthropology at The College of William & Mary,this is her profile and these are are reviews on her book.
• "Nicholas Wade - Before The Dawn, Discovering the lost history of our ancestors. Penguin Books, London, 2006. p. 8 p. 165" ISBN 1594200793, he is a science journalist for the New York Times. I figure since this is one of the most reecognized newspapers in the world, he qualifies as a reliable source.
• The Religious Mind and the Evolution of Religion Matt J. Rossano, he is a professor of psychology at Southeastern Louisiana University, ::his profile
• (1996) The Prehistory of the Mind: The Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion and Science. Thames & Hudson. ISBN 0-500-05081-3. by Steven Mithen, Professor of Archaeology, University of Reading, his profile.

I am therefore requesting input on this. If editors feel that origin of religion and development of religion are the same, I will proceed to add the relevant information to the development of religion article. Muntuwandi 05:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As the article was deleted, I think you want deletion review. (Or you could talk to the admin who deleted it). Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I used the deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 16. However the admins were only interested in procedure and not content. Muntuwandi 05:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There appears to have been a valid discussion there. I don't think it's fair to dismiss the conclusion of the DRV debate as overly focused on procedure over content. While you may not like the conclusion reached, I'm not sure the best approach is to keep asking different people until you obtain a favorable answer. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This is my last request as I have mentioned that if editors here feel that there should never be an article titled "origin of relgion", then I will proceed to add the relevant information to the article development of religion. However even in DRV procedure, no editor addressed the issue of whether the title "origin of religion" is a valid and distinct topic. I requested a response on this question and nobody provided any answer. Muntuwandi 05:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It WAS settled there. Now if someone could please take a look at my legit request above, I would appreciate it. Thanks, K. Scott Bailey 05:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Editors took votes but the underlying question still remains unsettled and will definitely resurface again. For example some editors have already began suggesting that development of religion is in a mess and should be merged with other articles Talk:Development_of_religion#removing_synthesis_tagMuntuwandi 05:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A little request?

I know I flipped out here about the bot tagging my new articles as copyvios and over reacted for while I am very sorry. I hope I have not lost credibility over that. I'm calmed down now and I followed User talk:W.marsh's instructions and undid my disruptive copyvio postings as W.marsh requested, and hope to make amends. I have one little problem now which I was hoping someone could snuff out before it gets bigger. User:Cyborg Ninja seems to be following me around and entering comments on my page and the pages of others seeming to try to stir things up about me. I do not know why this person is so interested in doing this to me. Examples:

• User:Mattisse [53] using my user page as a community board not notifiy wikipedia what an awful, disruptive person I am.

[54] He is not involved in this issue. I think this kind of canvas

• User talk:Kranar drogin[55]

• User talk:IvoShandor[56] Ivo got unresasonably mad at me over a compliment I made him.

• Talk:Caisson (Asian architecture) [57][58]

• User talk:JLaTondre[59] General question about how she had been following me around and thought my tagging was strange and troublemakeing.

• User talk:W.marsh[60] - told her what a terrible, disruptive, bad for wikipedia person I was.

• Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 October 20/Articles [61] I did baack things in copvio page.

• User talk:Dreamafter [62]more of the same

Would it be possible for someone to please ask this person to stop. (I'm just a little edgy and raw now or perhaps it would not bother me.) Thanks! --Mattisse 05:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, could you provide some background on what's going on? Personally, I know that there's something I'm missing. I also took the liberty to inform User:Cyborg Ninja so that he can respond if need be.[63] -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The only people I spoke to besides Dreamafter (he's part of a project for answering questions for other editors) were people who specifically had problems with you. Not canvassing. I'm asking them for comments to avoid inciting anything or getting administrators involved. I was raised to believe that problems among adults shouldn't involve authority unless absolutely necessary. Maybe it's a cultural thing? Anyway, what I talk about with those other users is allowed. And after all, you told me not to post anymore on your Talk page after I made a reply to two users, one who you moved my comment to their Talk page (W.marsh). I added the message to the copyvio page because you erased evidence of your disruption rather than striking out those messages. I and another user had referenced it in our discussions. I'm not here on Wikipedia to cause animosity; but I have noticed a strange pattern with your actions and am keeping a close watch. I really don't want to have to go further into this at the moment. I'm still working out the details. - Cyborg Ninja 06:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

All I can add is that once before I asked for help with Cyborg Ninja continually accusing my of bad faith and LessHand, I believe, told us both to calm down. At that time, Cyborg Ninaj was acusing me of bad faith constantly. I finally put a personal attack on her page, which I have never done to anyone before.

Cyborg Nina and another editor filed an RFC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 2 on me because of one AFD I nominated for consideration, and admitted in the AFD that I was confused about the article and did not recommend deletion. Cyborg Nina got no support on the RFC. The co-filer of the RFC apologized to me and moved on and he and I have had no interaction since.

As for anything else, I cannot explain it. The RFC was over one article, Drapetomania, that I nominated for AFD, perhaps a bad judgment on my part, but no one seemed to think it was an earthshaking offense, and I withdrew the AFD within hours after posting it. Also, it was an article that Cyborg Nina was not involved with previously, the other editor who has since moved on was quite involved with it but seemed to take the outcome of the RFC in stride and go on to other things.

The RFC responses said I was justified in putting the personal attack warning on his page, but he maintained constant accusations of bad faith were not personal attacks.

Since the RFC petered out, the Cyborg Nina and I have not worked on any articles in common or had any contact until today when he posted a bulletin on my page to warn the community at large that I was a bad person. I am quite at a loss to explain why he persists in being interested in me. We do not edit the same kind of articles at all. Cyborg Nina as indicated that I have a false persona on Wikipedia, I am pretending to be someone I am not and that I am constantly disruptive and need to be stopped. He seems to be canvasing for support in his point of view. He made comments today on Talk:Caisson (Asian architecture) which another editor and I have been discussing for some time and we have dropped at this point. So I do not know why Cyborg Nina choose to enter in now. That is all I can add, unless you have more questions. I just wish Cyborg Nina would leave me alone. My occasional, but rather normal problems I have, are not unlike other editors who stress out now and then. I have never been rude or uncivil to Cyborg Nina. We really have no reason to interact and and to not know why he is canvasing for opinions about me. --Mattisse 06:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: Cyborg Nina has now posted another comment derogatory comment on a page where it is inappropriate, on the DYK talk page. I am an active participant there. He is not. sing against me is unwarranted and causes ill will when the rest of us are trying to avoid it. Mattisse 06:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Addendum 2: Cyborg Nina posted a bulletin to the community at large on my talk page, warning the community at at large that I was a bad person, and as Cyborg Nina alludes to above, he is apparently working on getting the community to take action against me of some kind that sounds bad. I left the bulletin on my talk page (it is still there). I merely copied it to Wmarsh because it seemed more directed to Wmarsh than to me. I also said my talk page was not a bulletin board to post community warnings about me on it. I removed the copyvio on the copyvio page because that was what I understood Wmarsh told me to do. He did not say strike them out. Wmarsh said they were not really copyvios and should not be there. I do not know why Cyborg Nina would be linking to anything there as none of those involved her. Please help! --Mattisse 07:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Drapetomania was the article this who incident was about. I see that Ricky81682 has edited the article which explains his personal messages to Cyborg Nina. I would prefer any other person be involved if possible, if there is a chance of any fairness here. I'm sorry. Mattisse 08:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I call tell this is hopeless. I will not waste people's time. Thanks anyway. Mattisse 08:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, wait a second; I've fought through like 10 edit conflicts to try to get something here; you post a wall of text, post "Help me!" on user pages, don't let anyone respond and them delete the whole thing with a forget it? I just want to know where you are implying my adding a single space here to the article is the reason I informed him? I don't care about the article or any of this; I told him because it is fair of him to be able to respond. Second, there is obviously more going on than you are suggesting; why is there a large amount of "remove copyvio" edits from you? Are you removing the bot warnings because there was no copyright violation or were they in fact copyright violations that need to be wiped out? Along with that, why did you remove the listings here? You say all of that was done per User:W.marsh but I can't piece together where he told you to do that. Is any of this even related to Cyborg Ninja's conduct or not? I can't figure it out. The RFA just ended which I assume is probably related to this. I also notice that in all of this, you have yet to actually talk to anyone you are accusing. You tell Cyborg Ninja not to post on your talk page, you mentions he says some stuff to other users, you don't ask anyone else and you come here. There's complaints from you that he posts on other pages, including DYK where you edit, ok, but no response from you at all anywhere. He posts something on your talk page, which you have the complete right to remove, but instead of removing it and simply proving a link to us, you keep it up and point it everyone here. You make accusations against me now before because I added a single space. What would you like people to do? Are you suggesting that someone should block him?

I'm sorry but I would suggest fully explaining what the background to this whole thing is, preferable in a short paragraph (which bot? what does W.Marsh have to do with it? is any of this related to Cyborg Ninja?). Please provide some diffs as well. If not, focus your point to specific conduct; if someone else wants to drag it out, let them. Otherwise, this is really a complete waste of time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

In the off chance that you are really interested, the long story is that I had been repeatedly personally attacked by Cybor Nina. Admin (sandyGeorge) recommended I template her for personal attacks for the repeated accusations of bad faith. That incident and also the brief ( a few hours before I withdrew) the ADF for Drapetomania. She was angry. She filed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 2 which dragged up settled issues from years ago and hardly addressed the issues at hand. It clearly got cleanup up in the process. which did not get the response Cyborg Nina wanted. I had done nothing worthy of an RFC. Since then she has been posting inappropriately posting derogatory statements about me on my and other users pages.

Examples of current following and polstin nasty thing about me:

• User:Mattisse [64] - a community notice board post telling the wikipedia community members how bad I was.

• User talk:Kranar drogin[65] saying she had noticed he did not like me and that she was collecting data against me more further actions as I was disruptive. (This was based on one post Kranar drogin made on the DKY page in support of his friend, Ivo, who was angry at me regarding a misunderstanding.

• User talk:IvoShandor[66] Ivo had got unreasonably angery at me because I had complimented him and called me a variety of derogatory names including profanity. His friend supported his incivility, personal attacks, and profanity.

• Talk:Caisson (Asian architecture) [67][68]

This dis cussion was settled and over. Cybor Nina added a post that was a repetition of a direct quote from of PereclusofAthen.

• User talk:JLaTondre[69]

• User talk:W.marsh[70] telling W.march was a horrible, disruptive person I was

• Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 October 20/Articles [71] - although Cyborg Nina had no business on that page, she complained that links were gone so she was probably going to link to some of my entries as evidence of my bad, disruptive, horrible behavior.

• Cyborg Nina has now posted another comment derogatory comment on a page where it is inappropriate, on the DYK talk page. I am an active participant there. She is not.[72] are statements against me that are not called for and are merely a duplication, almost word for word of what was already stated about. It is unwarranted and causes ill will when the rest of us are trying to avoid it.

A far as Wmarsh is concerned, I was angry because a bot was deleting my new articles with in 25 seconds of their creation. I use poor judgment, and I listed all my recent articles as copyvios. Wmarsh said I was being disruptive and to please remove the copyvios from the article and from the listing page with I did, each time with the edit note per instructions of Wmarch, just to prevent what Cyborg Nina is doing now -- making a big deal of a monetary dust up that I apologized for to Wmarch and fixed according to instructions. The entire episode lasted half a day and everyone was satisfied with the outcome. There is no reason for Cyborg Nina to be involved at all, it did not concern any of Cyborg Nina's Created articles. Cyborg Nina was not a part of it in any form and there was no reason to link to it, unless Cyborg nina wanted to make a WP:Point of some kinds. None of this, nor any of the other bulletins posting for the comunity at large on my talk page were appropriate. She seems to be stalking my contributions and entering into frays that have nothing to do with her. The Caisson (Asian architecture) was over before she entered. Also, she copied word for word another entry on the subject from PericulesofAnthes, just as she did on the temple talk page. She say she is

Not canvassing. I'm asking them for comments to avoid inciting anything or getting administrators involved. I was raised to believe that problems among adults shouldn't involve authority unless absolutely necessary. Maybe it's a cultural thing? Anyway, what I talk about with those other users is allowed. And after all, you told me not to post anymore on your Talk page after I made a reply to two users, one who you moved my comment to their Talk page (W.marsh). I added the message to the copyvio page because you erased evidence of your disruption rather than striking out those messages. I and another user had referenced it in our discussions. I'm not here on Wikipedia to cause animosity; but I have noticed a strange pattern with your actions and am keeping a close watch. I really don't want to have to go further into this at the moment. I'm still working out the details.

I told her to not post on my talk page as previously she used if for personal attacks against me. This time she was using my talk page as a community bulletin board for attacks against me and to rally support for her cause to attack me for whatever awful thing I have done. I left the post on my talk page, but I copied to Wmarch as it seem more directed at him as it certainly was not directed at me.

I want Cyborg Nina to stop following me around, to stop posting on pages that I have been posting on regularly and she has not, the purpose of her posts being to alert others to my wide spread horrible behavior. I want her to leave me alone. We are not working on the same thing, we have on reason to interact. I am sorry that she is miffed that her RFC against me failed. Mattisse 10:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The who copyright issue was between me and the bot. W.march stepped in and told me to remove template and entry's on copyvio page. None of this had anything to do with Cyber Nina until she chose to involve herself by leaving a comment about me on the copyvio page. Please ask any questions you are not clear about. Mattisse 11:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Following Mattisse's comments on my talkpage, and reviewing the diffs provided, I left a level3 NPA warning on Cyborg Ninja's talkpage - commenting that if they had any concerns regarding Mattisses editing that they should use the appropriate venues, and not place comments on the talkpages of third parties. Should Cyborg Ninja continue with this campaign I would request that another admin review the situation and determine what sanctions, if any, would be appropriate as I have been previously involved in this matter and would therefore have to recuse myself. LessHeard vanU 12:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ricky and other users, please keep in mind I have never made personal attacks against Mattisse, though he continually claims so. He's done the opposite, and if you really want me to cite those attacks (rare for me, but he has done multiple towards other users), then I will. If you read my comments, you can see that they're kind, helpful, and contributory here. As for Less's comment here... I'd appreciate it if you looked into, read, and played close attention to words on both sides. For one, I can't just talk about Mattisse's edits on article talk pages because they include 300+ tagged articles a day. I mentioned this to DreamAfter, which is why I first contacted him, asking him if it was allowed. So where do you think I should go if I'm asking for commentary if I can't go to a project member who listed himself as being available to answer questions by other users, or people who personally had problems with the subject? Just AN/I, which IMO should only be a last resort because it ends up with misunderstandings and undeserved warnings, or worse, blockings? - Cyborg Ninja 19:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Help with a vandal/sockpuppet

Can someone look at the activity from Pitarnaken, Utah History and IPs like 98.202.84.191 to see if they are the same person? I believe that they are and other then protecting about 10 articles, I'm not sure how to stop this vandal. Vegaswikian 07:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Those articles do not appear to exist. El_C 08:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Those are accounts. Articles include; Salt Lake City Union Pacific Depot‎, Shavano (passenger train), and San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad. Vegaswikian 08:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I can add a little background, here. I'm pretty positive these are the same person ... he's also appeared using the IP 75.144.10.217, and one or two others. This all started when I reverted some of his edits to Los Angeles and Salt Lake Railroad, explaining my reasons on the talk page. He went into attack mode from there, vandalizing my user page, turning a redirect (San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad) into a competing version of the original page, and creating a sockpuppet account that is a variant spelling of my account. I'd definitely appreciate some sort of intervention, as well, and at the very least would appreciate it if the sockpuppet account (Pitarnaken) could be indefinitely blocked. Thanks. Pitamakan 13:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats, insults and other personal comments

Dear Wikipedia staff,

I am a new and inexperienced editor and I am being harassed by other editor William R. Buckley, as follows: really lengthy comment, which has an entrie discussion thread copied, verbatim, redacted by ElC

Charles Michael Collins October 27, 2007 4:25 am (EST) Fraberj 08:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but can you summarize the above for me, please? Also, what's with the uppercase title? El_C 08:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Capital letters make everything more truthy. :) Kyaa the Catlord 08:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Without reading the wall of text, I'll summarize it for you: William R. Buckley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a legal threat, specifically: "That would give me clear reason to sue you, for slander. Believe me, I am one who will sue you. When I get done, you will no longer hold that patent. Instead, it will be mine, and I will make it public domain. Be very, very careful of your slanderous remarks." [73] east.718 at 08:43, 10/22/2007

Wow, how did you...? Wow. You must read fast... Thanks! Anyway, user warned. El_C 08:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it was your intent, but you removed one of my comments which contained pointed out real-life stalking, which probably would have warranted a block anyway. east.718 at 13:58, 10/22/2007

It's not resolved. If I'm right, if a user violates WP:LEGAL they are blocked indefinitely until the user in question retracts the threat. So why has this user only been warned? Quote from WP:LEGAL:

Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely, while legal threats are outstanding. - so block indef please. Davnel03 11:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The content of Talk:Self-replicating machine is a concenr, particularly Mr Buckley's comments on it. I have redacted all his legal threats and a few nasty and very personal insults. Neil ☎ 12:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

While I was doing that CambridgBayWeather has blocked William R. Buckley (talk · contribs) until he agrees to stop such threats. That's probably the best course of action. Neil ☎ 12:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks clearly like a legal threat to me and I've blocked them until they withdraw it. Bleeding edit conflicts. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Some users get blocked indef for legal threats, but some don't. We need things consistent otherwise people will just get away with it. Davnel03 12:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it must be a reflexive reaction if the policy is to be effective. We also need to be consistent for, er, legal reasons ("why was my client blocked when others were not?"). Raymond Arritt 13:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Rubbersoul20 (2) Persistent OR, POV, {fact} removal

About Rubbersoul20 (talk · contribs), sequel to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive310#User:Rubbersoul20_-_Persistent_harassment.2Funcivility.2C_OR.2C_POV.2C_.7Bfact.7D_removal

• August–October 2007: OR and {fact} tags removal: [74][75](POV/weasel list he's untagged ever since)[76][77][78][79]
• 15 October 2007: Ricky81682 warned him for his "penis" insults (then blanked as is his wont) and left the tag removal thing for another time.
• 22 October 2007: back to tag removal and even more OR/POV/weasel dump: [80]

— Komusou ^talk @ 11:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin edit rights privilege abuse

• Omegatron (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A while back, the above admin made a content edit to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a page protected due to edit warring and currently under mediation. Furthermore, that edit was to a section under specific discussion on the mediation page. The admin was notified both on his talk page, and here on WP:ANI, that his actions were improper. The mediator, chair of the mediation committee, user:Daniel, agreed that edits to those sections should not occur until the mediation was completed.

Today the admin deliberately unlocks the page in order to continue his editing, even though the mediation is ongoing, although thankfully, progress is being made.

This article is a most tendentious and difficult one to keep appropriate. There has been discussions, debates, and mediation attempts on this article for years now. Recently, we have actually been having success hammering out some of the issues. Keeping the article stable during this discussion is of great importance in allowing all sides to discuss what should and should not be there. Omegatron has been informed of this AND has been invited to join the discussion and mediation process, which he has not done in earnest before using his admin rights to unlock the article. At this point, one can no longer assume good faith as the admin has been informed, and warned, about this activity before. I believe some action needs to be taken. -- Avi 12:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not all interested parties *have* to agree to mediation. :S —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 12:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but i don't think protecting an article for months at a time is the right way to go. Why can't parties have the mediation without the protection?Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well during mediation it does help to have a stable article. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 13:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I will say unprotecting so that you can edit a page is probably not the best way to be using the mop, but I'll let others have fun with that. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 13:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that having a page protected for months on end is not good. There are several minor edits that could be done. For example, on my display the references section is messed up by the sister links box protruding in from above. A simple {{clear}} would sort that. I also note that while one of Omegatron's edits was to do with neutrality, the other (here) was a simple formatting edit, and that should be reinstated. I also note that although Omegatron unprotected the article, he didn't continue editing. See here: "Unprotected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: no justification for protection. mediation has been ongoing for months and is not a reason to lock the page. we don't leave entire articles in a protected state for months because of a dispute about one statement.". I'm going to add an {{editprotected}} request to the talk page to see if minor edits are being accepted or not. Carcharoth 13:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that among the edits he wishes to make is one that is at the heart of the current mediation, please read the mediation page Carcharoth. Yes, it is frustrating; it is frustrating for all of us involved, but making changes to the very portions that are under discussion is not the way to do it, especially when after being invited to partake in the discussion, Omegatron demurred. -- Avi 14:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have read the mediation page, Avraham. If you re-read my comment, you will see that I link to the edit by Omegatron that I think is non-controversial. It is this one. Have a close look. It is only a formatting change - no content has changed. Note the edit summary: "trying to make long list of refs easier to navigate around". I completely agree that the other edit, seen here, should have been discussed at the mediation page first. My concern was whether minor edits were being ignored. I left an edit protected request, and you only partially fulfilled it. Possibly you misread what I wrote, but it wastes your time and my time if minor edits have to be done in this back-and-forth manner. If editors of the article can't control themselves, and engage in edit wars, then the conduct of the editors should be looked at, rather than protecting the page. Carcharoth 15:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Since general editing to that section, which being in the lead is under scrutiny and mediation now, should be curtailed, changing the structure to facilitate editing-only ease, which is invisible when reading the article, can wait. Regarding editor conduct, sometimes, certain articles require patience by all involved. Yes using {{editprotected}} to suggest changes is a pain, but having articles in edit wars is worse. This article, obviously, is among our most tendentious. So if it requires a bit more understanding and patience than most people in today's "instant gratification" world find bearable, that is a small price to pay for working out a firm consensus. As important, it is part of the dispute resolution process here; which will only work if respected. -- Avi 15:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then I read this wrong, I don't think there is any admin misconduct here, at least not of the egregious sort. I think we could debate for a while whether or not full protection for months is a good thing or not, but I don't think this admin has done anything horribly wrong. I could be mistaken, but best to wait for him to comment I think ;) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 14:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediation has been ongoing since May. Biased editors cannot use this as justification to lock down an article in their preferred version, and then stall in mediation to prevent others from making changes indefinitely.

Please unprotect the article. There's a lot more work to be done, and Avi cannot be allowed to assert ownership of the article in this way. — Omegatron 14:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediation is an integral part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Showing disrespect and disregard for the process will in no way shape or form help the project. Wikipedia will be around for a long time; sometimes, patience is required for the community to come to a reasonable consensus and compromise. Making edits to sections that are at the direct heart of the ongoing mediation shows a complete lack of respect for the process, the project, and the editors involved. Those of us actively involved in the mediation have been editing this article for years, and we do know what the "hot-buttons" are. Join us in working to fix the article on a long-term basis instead of ignoring all of us, wikpedia process, and the project's integrity by making unilateral decisions and edits despite ongoing dispute resolution. You have been asked to work WITH the process before. Why do you choose not to? -- Avi 14:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• You can request edits by posting them on the talk page and use {{edit protected}}. This might be the best way to proceed with noncontroversial edits and after demonstrating consensus among different editors for more substantial changes. Thatcher131 14:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Out of interest, does the same "edit by committee and keep protected while discussion takes place over months" process apply to articles where editing behaviour is being examined by the Arbitration Committee? Carcharoth 15:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Southampton City Council...

... have made me accidentally commmit libel against one of your administrators (JPS) and are now making death threats against me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.250.228 (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Pls provide details with diffs/links, that's nowhere near enough info to go on. Rlevse 14:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Busy @ work, will do later, possibly tomorrow morning. 81.149.250.228 14:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think they mean this nonsense — iridescent 14:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

With additional illumination to be found at this talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that in this case, "Registered to Southampton City Council" translates as "Public terminal in a library". I very much doubt that Council representatives are actually making edits to Catchphrase (game show), Auto Trader, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court and The Greasy Chip Butty Song. Just a hunch. — iridescent 15:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Physchim62

Physchim62 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) had unblocked Sadi Carnot, against the evidence and consensus established above. After Sarah (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reimposed the block, Physchim62 stated that he was not going to wheel war. [81]. He then reverted maintenance tags that I had added to an article that Sadi Carnot had vandalized, without fixing the problems and without discussion. [82] He also reverted a sockpuppet tag from an account that had been used by Sadi Carnot to avoid scrutiny, again without discussion. [83] I have no idea why Physchim62 is tendentiously reverting all my actions with respect to Sadi Carnot. He just issued me a warning.[84] Could an impartial administrator look at this and provide input before the situation gets out of hand? - Jehochman ^Talk 14:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just had a quick scan through and I see no wheel warring, Phychim62 simply remove the original block, then sarah reblocked - Phychim62 hasn't unblocked since. The removal of sock tags may be a little disruptive, especially when I see no discussion into it. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. For record, I modified my remarks to make sure they are not inflammatory. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

JH, I'm not sure that I see any point in tagging that IP as a sockpuppet. No edits have been made with that IP since May, 2005. Or is there more to that IP? Sarah 15:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, and I am open to discussing this. My concern is that Sadi has been shifting identities. It would be useful to have a sockpuppet category with all the accounts he's ever used in case he returns with a new identity. If a new disruptive account appears, and there's a checkuser, knowing that IP could be helpful. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

IMHO User:Physchim62 has acted in opposition to a clear consensus to indef block User:Sadi Carnot for promotion of WP:FRINGE. The block is clearly justified by the need to protect the encyclopedia. Ronnotel 15:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Zeq potentially violating ban

User:Zeq had been indefinitely banned from editing the articles 1948 Arab-Israeli War and Palestinian exodus due to disruption and tendentious editing. He is, however, now editing Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus (i.e. here, here and here), which had been forked from Palestinian exodus about a year after User:Zeq's block.

I don't know what the policy is regarding forks of blocked articles, but if this is a violation, I would be thankful if any admin could intervene.

User:Zeq has been warned on Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus here.

Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 22.10.2007 15:25

It is important to note what prompted this complaint by user:Pedro Gonnet. I participated in discussion on talk page (I am not banned from the talk page of any article) and user:Pedro Gonnet suggested[85] that my views will be ignored. The discussion has been around the sources for the article and the view I suggested was that we follow WP:RS policy. Zeq 15:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested in raising the question at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have raised the question to ArbCom. If they rule that I should not edit that article I will stay away from it.(I will also avoid editing the article in question until we get a clarification from ArbCom. In any case I would appriciate it if an Admin could leave a note to user:pedro gonnet informing him that:

1. The previous ban apply only to the article but I am not banned from discussion on talk pages.
2. He can not suggest that my views on talk page will be dismissed (because of the ban)
3. WP:RS is the policy about sources.

Tnx. Zeq 16:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPADE. You're banned from editing those two articles, it also applies to subarticles and forks. Will ^(talk) 16:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What you quoted is nither a policy nor it is relevant to this case. The question has been refered to those who should answer it. Zeq 16:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a clear violation of the probation conditions imposed upon Zeq. I have blocked Zeq for 24 hours due to the violation. Kaldari 16:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This complaint against me came after I had a disagreement in a talk page with Pedro Gonnet. Since I was blocked it drove that discussion to an end without my participation. Prior to that Pedro Gonnet made the argument on the talk page that my views should be ignored. I have no idea if such behaviour violates any wikiepdia policy - I wonder if there is a policy that require a "fair play" in all dealing on talk pages and ask that editors will actually listen to one another ?Zeq 22:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

At the request of Sandstein I have unblocked Zeq (as he has agreed on his talk page to follow both the letter and spirit of the ArbCom probation). I still stand behind the legitimacy of the block, however, and will reinstate it if there's any more funny business. Kaldari 22:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Deathrocker/Daddy Kindsoul/Soprani block evasion

Deathrocker, who later changed his account name to Daddy Kindsoul (talk · contribs), was under sanctions as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker. This user was blocked for one year by me on 2007-09-18 for continued edit warring. Within hours, this user set up a new sockpuppet, Soprani (talk · contribs), which was just brought to my attention. I have blocked Soprani indefinitely as an abusive sockpuppet and have reblocked Daddy Kindsoul indefinitely with a note that this user should not be unblocked for at least one more year. --Yamla 15:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This sockpuppeteer has already set up at least two new abusive accounts to continue vandalising. These were caught by another editor and have already been blocked. It may be time to move for a ban against this editor. --Yamla 16:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"i could easily just stop doing the work and instead focus on making his editing time here hell" from yet another abusive sockpuppet, Revelinit (talk · contribs) (now blocked). This user appears to be hopping IPs, anything we can do about this? --Yamla 16:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand why we're not giving him another chance. I am fully involved in Italian football articles, and he always proved to be a very good editor, I find all this fuss as pretty excessive to me (including all the rollback you made that generated a mess in all my watchlist). --Angelo 16:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker. He's had a second chance. And a third chance. And a fourth chance. And a fifth chance. And a sixth chance. And many more. He has proven time and time again that he has absolutely not the slightest intention of abiding by Wikipedia policies and guidelines and has been a problem user for about two years now. --Yamla 16:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I judge users according to their contributions. And his contributions always looked very informed and valid to me, so I really fail to see the problem around. In my opinion, he evaded the block mostly because of his desire to contribute on Wikipedia. In my life as an admin, I always refused to block valid editors. And please next time look at what you are rollbacking rather than just doing it because of the contributor's name. --Angelo 17:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Support block. DK has been and still is more incivil than Ley, who got blocked about a year ago. If he's not getting the point after X blocks, let's bump it to indef. Will ^(talk) 16:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yamla blocked my account (Soprani) without showing any evidence of his claim, he did not get a sock check and just banned my account... I have created much good articles on here, created lots of templates, uploded lots of images with correct rationeles, improved lots of articles and not once "trolled" or "vandalised".

This guy Yamla, blocked my account with no evidence and then went on to destruct Wikipedia by removing all my works (in some cases back to vandalised versions), deleted all the articles I had created (hundreds), deleted all of the images, and everything else. Including on high level articles like A.S. Roma which I'd improved to almost featured article content (thankfully, Angelo has now undelted the images).

To combat this, I created some anti-vandalism accounts today to get rid of his trolling roll backs (I couldn't however undelte the images, templates, articles he'd taken off). I would like to see my Soprani account unblocked, and all the deleted Yamla made to be undeleted. What he has done is destruct Wikipedia and its work, what I did was create, improve and much more possitive work on Italian football articles, etc. So today I Wikipedia:Ignore all rules to combat his destruction... I am willing to come back and continue the good work on Wikipedia, I have contributed much to improve this project, Yamla seems determinded to push me away from that desire to build this project, he wants me to become a troll (which isn't my preference). - Sooperani (Soprani) 17:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You aren't seriously claiming that you aren't Daddy Kindsoul (talk · contribs), are you? Nobody is going to believe that and in fact, your unblock request on this basis has already been declined. The evidence that Soprani was an abusive sockpuppet of Daddy Kindsoul was blatantly obvious, no checkuser was necessary. --Yamla 17:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You have no evidence at all, that is why you don't have the dignity to do a "checkuser". Looking on that users page, it was blocked for going on a USA band page [86] when I have 0 edits on there. Your only argument is that i edit on italian football pages and Football in general. What are you going to do now, will you block everybody who ever went on an Italian football page?

you have totally no indentions of improving this project have you? show me examples of any articles you actually do lots of work on compared to my football work? it would seem you are using wikipedia as a play thing, because that is the only place you are incontrol of anything (in showing that you deleted hundreds of pages, free images, templates of work which IMPROVED wikipedia). this is why you are trying to push away the hours of work i've put up here... you're not a big man, you're overcompensating on here because of the real world. Pathetic. - Sooperani1 17:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

On the principle of WP:DENY, I will not be responding any further to this obvious sockpuppet. If any admin (or unrelated editor) wants to discuss this matter further, I will be happy to do so. Note that this vandal has threatened me on my user discussion page (here, in Italian, roughly "I'm going to make your life a living hell. I am devoting all my effort towards this end," though my Italian is iffy at best). --Yamla 17:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You will not be responding further, because you do not have the goods (or any proofs) to answer up to anything of anything i said above.... you do not have an answer as to why you thought it would be clever to destruct our articles on football, taking off hundreds of perfectly good ones, do you? you do not have an answer for the fact that i dont go on that USA bands page and my only music edits have been opera so far.

you can try to troll me Yamla like you did with all my works, but you're not going to "win"... just because you don't like to see people actually doing hard building of documents here like all my works on Italian football, doesn't mean I'm going to let you flex your little e-muscle and troll me. Yes it is true that I wrote that message to you... but when did i write it prey-tell? after you trolled me and removed hundreds of pages of my works (weeks and weeks of document making), deleted tens of my templates and free images: basically after you destructed football on here.. it is clearly my attention you want, not the works on the project, and this is why you are desperate to prize me away from doing work into something like this.

oh, by the way: i am compiling a very interest sockpuppet case which involved YOU. I hope you will enjoy it! because to my eyes it makes for very fascinating readings. - Sooperani3 17:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I am an admin and I am going to ask for a checkuser, I want to be very sure he is actually Daddy Kindsoul. About the Italian-language message on your talkpage (a little broken Italian, btw), it means "Your (plural form) time here will become hell. Now you have all my attention, infamous". --Angelo 17:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the sockpuppets but I happen to be all for unblocking User:Daddy Kindsoul or deathrocker or w/e as I have seen many of his edits and thought they were useful...but this is just my opinion.Navnløs 18:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the history of blocks and sockpuppets, and I'm sure I'll get shot down for saying this but Yamla's reversions are destroying a lot of good work, reducing the quality of wikipedia by erasing perfectly good images [87] [88], undoing good edits and reinserting poor ones [89]destroying good information, [90] [91] in this case reverting it back to Daddykindsoul's edit, the guy he's supposed to be erasing. In fact of all of the reversions I looked at not one improved the page in question. The images that have been deleted have now had their links erased by the imageremovalbot, so in a few days they will get deleted as orphaned even if they get recreated. The whole thing looks like a knee jerk over-reaction. If the guy was vandalising, people involved in football related articles would have noticed and stopped him. To me, removing hundreds of valuable edits, deleting loads of verifiable articles and images with proper rationales, reinserting poor edits and acts of vandalism, looks itself like a grotesque act of vandalism. I'm appalled that so much decent material can be jetisoned on a point of principle, and apparently without doing a proper checkuser. In conclusion I completely oppose the use of rollback on users who have made numerous useful contributions, and think that this case is a perfect example of an admin with a grudge (justified or not) reducing the quality of wikipedia. King of the North East (T/C) 18:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This was on the principle of WP:DENY. Daddy Kindsoul (talk · contribs) (and Deathrocker (talk · contribs) before him) has a long history of abuse back to about two years ago. The one year block on Daddy Kindsoul was upheld as valid but this abusive user was unwilling to accept this. If we do not roll back all contributions, this user will continue setting up yet more sockpuppet accounts (as indeed he has done today) and continue blatantly ignoring our policies and guidelines. As I have mentioned already, this user has been given numerous second chances in the past and has blown them all. In these circumstances, it is entirely legitimate to roll back all contributions from the abusive sockpuppet account. Please make sure you have read the RfA on Deathrocker (as he was known there). --Yamla 18:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yamla, WP:DENY is a essay and has no official value. In any case, I want to assume good faith, hoping next time you're going to look at the diffs before pushing the rollback button and thinking over before deleting good quality and notable content such as articles, templates and valid images. We all learn by past experience. --Angelo 18:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that WP:DENY is an essay and has no official value. However, deliberate block evasion is a violation of Wikipedia policy (WP:SOCK, WP:BLOCK) and thus a form of vandalism. While contributions from abusive sockpuppet accounts are not always reverted, I believe it is often appropriate to do so. I believe this is particularly the case here so as to strongly discourage this blocked vandal from further abusive sockpuppetry. If someone wishes to reinstate some of these edits, taking personal responsibility for them, they are free to do so and I would not object (provided they are reinstated, not rolled "forward"). Now, Angelo, I believe my reversions are not out of line. This sort of general rollback is often performed in similar situations (though clearly not all cases call for it). If you believe I am mistaken and that administrators never do roll back the contributions of abusive sockpuppets, please let me know. If you believe this is not a clear-cut case of sockpuppetry, I'll have to strongly disagree after looking through literally hundreds of contributions, some of which were IDENTICAL (though this is not the only evidence). But please let me know if this forms the basis of your argument. Alternatively, you may believe that general roll-backs are often performed but that you disagree with them. That's a fair point of view, though one that I disagree with. Of course, you may be disagreeing with me for other reasons; if so, please clarify. Thank you. --Yamla 19:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Edits by indef blocked editors evading their block can be reverted regardless of the actual merits of the edits. There is nothing new about that; that is established policy. Beyond that, Deathrocker (talk · contribs) or whatever he is calling himself nowadays may have made beneficial edits to football articles, but that is offset by the tendentious and skewed editing he did on music genre articles; I daresay he's ruined as many of those with POV editing as he's improved football articles.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yamla, valuable contributions are never vandalism to me, we are an encyclopedia in the end, aren't we? All you did by rollbacking all of Soprani's edit was to encourage him to create lots and lots of sockpuppets. I think admins should rollback contributions only when they are abusive/vandal-like, and this was not the case, as you deleted also entire articles about Italian nationwide football players and manager. You were right in blocking Soprani if you felt that sure he is actually Daddy Kindsoul; but you were not right in rollbacking all of his edits, many of them being quite valuable contributions. I am not the only one to feel this, since some WikiProject Football users noted it as well.

Isotope23, ban is different than indefblock. For all I know, Daddy Kindsoul/Deathrocker was just indefblocked, but never banned, so WP:BAN does not apply in this particular case. --Angelo 19:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Daddy Kindsoul/Deathrocker was under ARBCOM sanctions. WP:BAN applies. As Isotope23 points out, rolling back contributions from an abusive sockpuppet is certainly acceptable in a case like this. You are free to disagree but as you are now arguing about official Wikipedia policy, I'd ask that you please make your case to change this policy in the appropriate forum. To be clear, you are entitled to your opinion and are clearly acting in good faith, I'm simply stating that you are now advocating a policy change and this discussion isn't really the right forum. --Yamla 19:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Policy says "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban", so it's not a mandatory thing. Your actions comply with the policy, but I still think it would be better to have a look at what you were going to revert before to push the rollback button. In any case, this is my last comment, let's close this discussion here. We have just different opinions, it can happen, there's nothing wrong in it :) --Angelo 20:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack directed towards me by LifeStroke420 (talk · contribs)

Resolved

I left a warning on this users talkpage after they vandalised One Night Stand (2007) (see edit history). As I write this, they have just done it again. They left a fairly unpleasant message on my talkpage. Block for a month at least. They have removed the warnings, and have left me a warning. Thanks! Davnel03 15:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok this is just not true. he is adding information this isnt in any of the other wwe ppv articles and he threatened me saying he would ban me if i didnt agree with him.LifeStroke420 15:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Editor blocked for violating 3RR. -- Merope 15:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of WP:TW by Neutralhomer (in Hal Lindsey)

Resolved

Upon looking up information on Hal Lindsey (who I had never heard of until today), I find that one of the key sections (on his prophecies that didn't come true) has been mass deleted with the edit summary "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" (I guess I could use the same argument to delete Nostradamus's prophecies...?) So, I reverted saying that his rationale is not correct and that he should discuss it on the talk page first. He reverted with the summary "Reverted 1 edit by Brian0918 identified as vandalism to last revision by Neutralhomer. using TW" — BRIAN0918 • 2007-10-22 16:13Z

Let's assume that he hit the wrong button. I've done that myself. Why don't you mention this in a friendly way and see what he says? In general, it is a good idea not to revert good faith users without talking to them first. You could start by asking why this section is not appropriate, and he'd probably give you a friendly explanation. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to stay friendly when you see such an idiotic mass-deletion - obviously the section should exist, and obviously his quarrel is not with the entire section, but with maybe a word or sentence in the section. So why delete the whole thing? Laziness, I suppose. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-10-22 16:25Z

Try to talk to the user. If that fails, select from the menu at dispute resolution. This page, WP:ANI, isn't part of that process. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I reported it here because it was misuse of a revert script. That's a separate issue from the (currently non-existent) dispute about the article's content - I only started down that path when you suggested possible dispute resolutions on this page in your first reply. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-10-22 17:20Z

There has been a massive amount of cruft, mostly from User:Bee Cliff River Slob to this page. It is my understanding that Wikipedia doesn't do "predictions" (ie: Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball). Perhaps I am mistaken, but this seems to fall under that category. Brian, yes, it was a mistake on my part by reverting your revision as vandalism, but I think we need a group comment on the content of this page. I personally have zero stake in this article, I am mostly just trying to clean up edits made by User:Bee Cliff River Slob. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 18:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. There is a difference between wikipedia making predictions (which is what WP:CRYSTAL is about) vs reporting on predictions made by a (presumably) notable individual. There would also be WP:WEIGHT issues if this material were included in Book of Revelation, but no such issue exists where it stands (assuming these predictions are a substantial part of what he's notable for). —Random832 18:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As predicted, this is a content dispute. Please work it out via your talk pages, or dispute resolution. As a footnote, we have millions of users, and we can't have an ANI case every time somebody accidentally hits the wrong button. Please try to make at least one effort to resolve problems by talking before reporting them here. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

POINTy revert warring by MONGO

The Wikipedia:No personal attacks page is currently fully page protected. This is directly and deliberately caused by MONGO's revert warring behavior on it. Over four days, MONGO has reverted the page ten times with useless name-calling edit summaries. It is a textbook example of gaming.

I put this on the 3RR noticeboard as it involves MONGO walking up to the 3RR electric fence and pissing on it for multiple days but never crossing it. El C closed it as non-actionable because gaming 3RR isn't 3RR [92]

So ANI, what is it then? 10 reverts over the span of a few days, often three reverts in the span of an hour, than waiting a day and doing it again. This policy page has been protected 7 times this year because of this crap.

Action, or another free pass for MONGO? SchmuckyTheCat

To be fair to El_C, he didn't say that "gaming 3RR isn't 3RR". He just opined that such cases are better dealt with here rather than on WP:AN3. As far as blocking MONGO, it's pretty straightforward. The page in question is already fully protected, so the edit war is over. Blocks are preventive, not punitive. Blocking someone for edit-warring after the page in question has been protected (and the edit war thus ended) would be punitive. I doubt you'll find an admin willing to do it. MastCell ^Talk 16:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The full protection has to end sometime. Do we have any assurances from MONGO that he won't continue this edit war as soon as it does? Why should he stop when he knows that he can get away with it? -Chunky Rice 16:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The disruption caused by his unprovoked personal crusading needs to stop as well as the edit warring; protecting won't solve that. Milto LOL pia 17:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

El C's non-action is neither here nor there, I'm just pointing out why this is being posted here instead of there, and there has a diff history for anyone that wants to look. 3RR gaming should be actionable on the 3RR noticeboard, but that's a general admin discretion issue, nothing with any individual.

Full protection for a page isn't appropriate when it is primarily one contributor making it into an edit war. MONGO's actions have caused that page to be under PP multiple times this year. When does it end? SchmuckyTheCat

To be honest, I think it was a kneejerk reaction because you and Miltopia are ED editors, and he's already got enough reason to hate ED. Still, I'd block for 3RR. Will ^(talk) 16:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it against WP:NPA to use outside affiliations, "mainstream or extreme", to dismiss any editor's views? *Dan T.* 17:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not explicitly, but commenting on the contributor vs the content they add is. MONGO violated that quite awhile ago with edit summaries like [93], [94], and [95] are. Spryde 17:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes explicitly. It's been (sensibly) a consideration for a while. The language comes right from the page. And for good reason, as you can see by this situation... Milto LOL pia 17:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No one is dismissing Mr. Cat's views by noting that he is an adminstrator of Encyclopedia Dramatica, a site dedicated in part in harassing and hounding MONGO and other editors of this website. We're just putting it in context. MOASPN 17:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is what intent seems to be. Otherwise, why keep mentioning it in edit summaries, the talk page, etc at every moment possible?

Can you read minds? I'd like that power. Are you an adminstrator of ED also? MOASPN 17:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, I give up.

On second thought. No, I am not giving up. I can't read minds. But I can take what appears to me to the be the intent (and it is fully my opinion) for bringing it up. To disparage the contributor instead of his or her argument itself. You are doing the same thing, in my opinion, here by explaining what ED is and what role that person may or may not have had. Accusing me of being an editor there is the same action as above. What part of my argument is faulty? Did my diffs not show that the person was reverting based on who the person is and not what the argument was? Did my diffs attempt to disparage the person by commenting on the person rather than their argument? I don't think so. If I might have missed it, please show it to me. Spryde 17:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of anything - I'm asking you if you are an editor there. You seem to think I'm attributing motives to people by noting they are adminstrators of Encyclopedia Dramatica, a site dedicated in part in harassing and hounding MONGO and other editors of this website. Since they are, in fact, adminstrators of Encyclopedia Dramatica, a site dedicated in part in harassing and hounding MONGO and other editors of this website, it seems that you are able to draw connections between their being adminstrators of Encyclopedia Dramatica, a site dedicated in part in harassing and hounding MONGO and other editors of this website and their actions with respect to external links and MONGO. Why would you do that? I'm shocked, shocked that you would violate WP:NPA by assuming that adminstrators of Encyclopedia Dramatica, a site dedicated in part in harassing and hounding MONGO and other editors of this website would be harassing and hounding MONGO. MOASPN 17:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Nope, been there, read a few pages, did not like it have not been back. Let me ask you a question, what is the point of repeating the same phrase over and over except to make a point? And to comment, the recent edits by the ED people have been mostly constructive in my opinion. Their recent contributions may have not been to MONGO's liking but IN MY OPINION, he is quick to react and has a temper which got him into trouble in the first place. He contributes quite a bit towards the project but he also grates on many people's nerves with the "fuck off" edit summaries, accusations, and basic way he steamrolls people which he suspects of being someone else. This causes valuable editors to leave/be banned/etc. Spryde 17:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

MOASPN, I don't edit stuff about Wikipedia on ED. I've been editing Wikipedia going on several years now. You're not contributing to the discussion by maligning my intentions. The issue is whether MONGO's daily edit warring is disruptive. Is it? SchmuckyTheCat

Please can we not argue over who edits ED on this noticeboard. It's not relevant to anything, ever. Take it to user talk or something. Milto LOL pia 17:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Please focus on the edit warring, not the name calling, please.

It's been shown for two years that MONGO has carte blanche to be incivil and call names. Nobody cares anymore. It's me he's calling names and I'm asking everyone to please focus this only on the edit warring behavior. SchmuckyTheCat

Who is he edit warring with? Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Depends on who's online when he signs on. Last night it was myself, Privatemusings, and Schmucky. Meanwhile his only input at the talk page was the sort of insults that have disrupted the page for a while now. I'm not making an issue now of the name-calling, only that his lack of meaningful input on talk makes it clear he won't stop this warring. Milto LOL pia 17:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is it worse for him to revert than for you to revert? Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it seems to me at least that there is a burgeoning consensus building and he opposes it. Spryde 17:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And, as I've said before, because of his lack of discussion on the talk page. His only input there is to sidetrack others with personal remarks. Milto LOL pia 18:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I gave MONGO a polite final warning on his long, continuous pattern of incivility and personal attacks the other day; he rebuked my warning and continued as usual, so I blocked him. The block was overturned within minutes, and he's only continued the same behavior. It seems clear at this point that the community has basically given MONGO a free pass to be as disruptive as he pleases. --krimpet⟲ 17:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Rebuking an administrator is not grounds for a block. Though if that ever changes, I'll be all over it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That is not the case at all. You blocked me because I removed your warning with the comment "Bye"...that was an abuse of your admin tools, period. Furthermore, Schmucky reverted my change back to the older version which used wording directly from an arbcom case which states that ED is not to be linked to. Schmucky is a contributor to ED, as is Miltopia...so there is a definite COI when these two are removing information to the NPA policy which details that we don't link to that website. Schmucky's revert also seemed, at least at first, to be random as I had not seen him making any effort to participate in the ongoing discussion on that policy talk page. Lastly, Schmucky seems to be forum shopping at this point...not getting a block for 3RR (which I have not violated), he then marches here to complain further...Nevertheless, I will self impose a 1RR restiction on myself on that policy henceforth.--MONGO 18:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The page is currently protected. I'll add it to my watchlist and help out when I can. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh whatever, Tom, you're proxy reverting for him and all you ever bothered to do on the talk was "vote" on the poorly-attended RfC that was made obsolete by my rewrite oft eh section. Milto LOL pia 18:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, it's not forum shopping when the closing admin says it belongs in a different forum. kthx. SchmuckyTheCat

Let's remember-- these edits happened at WP:NPA. It isn't an article-- it's a policy. Regardless of what you think the policy SHOULD be, it is NEVER okay to knowingly take some highly contentious proposal text and just edit it into a policy page. If you know it hasn't gotten consensus, you should NEVER put it into policy. You just shouldn't do it-- not even once. Policies reflect consensus-- if you take a rejected proposal and even ONCE add it into a policy page-- you're being disruptive-- and I've seen people blocked for less.

Now, by my count-- MONGO has taken highly-disputed text, text he KNOWS is highly disputed, and he has added it into policy TWELVE times. Not once, not twice-- TWELVE times.

How many times are we gonna let him do this before we stop treating this as if it were "just another article content dispute" and start seeing it as a disruptive editor trying to edit-war a rejected proposal into becoming policy in order to circumvent consensus? --Alecmconroy 19:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm encouraged that MONGO has pledged to abide by 1RR in the future. This is very encouraging. But the point my comment stands-- even 1 revert is too many if you're using that revert to re-add highly disputed text into a policy. --Alecmconroy 20:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's easy to claim to only do 1RR yourself once you've organized your posse to join in. SchmuckyTheCat

Schmucky, press the extra tilde and help us all out. As far as MONGO's editing of this page goes, yesterday I asked him why he chose to revert an IP's good faith edits ([96]), and his reasons were that in his view, IP editors should not be allowed to edit policy pages ([97]). This is also a concern. As best I can see, MONGO is loath to allow this policy to exist in any form which does not include the link to his ArbCom case, I think because it expressly forbade ED linkage. This, despite it now being made defunct by the more recent and general ArbCom attack sites ruling (and the meta blacklist). The majority of editors participating see having both as pointless and potentially confusing, MONGO wants it there and thus far he has reverted 2 or 3 times a day every day using various edit summaries, but all with the same end result. Neil ☎ 21:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Schmucky and Miltopia joining up to complain about MONGO? Is this the right Wiki for this crap? Close down this thread and stop whining. --DHeyward 22:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That's just not helpful. As I've said before elsewhere-- MONGO needs help from his friend to DISCOURAGE bad behavior, not to egg him on. With feedback from those he respects, MONGO could spend 100% of his time helping the encyclopedia-- instead of the case now, where despite incredibly positive contributions, a fraction of his behavior is highly disruptive. Help him to see this and you help him to become a better editor, and one day again, an admin. Egg him on, dismiss complaints like these as the `whinings of trolls` and you only make the problems worse for Mongo in the end. --Alecmconroy 23:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, DHeyward, I feel the wikilove. My three years of contributions here are meaningless because I've dared to call MONGO on his disruptions? I can see my presence is appreciated. SchmuckyTheCat

Odd behavior by Slickshooter001

Resolved

I'm not sure if this is the best place for this, but there seems to be something wrong with the User:Slickshooter001 account. This user had been largely inactive since the end of April (and before had primarily been interested in their own user page), but today added false protection tags to nearly 50 articles in the span of 25 minutes without being blocked. Perhaps somebody got the password, or the original user just went on a spree? J. Spencer 16:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by Jehochman indefintely. Davnel03 16:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The account has only been used for vandalism. I've blocked it. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the quick action! J. Spencer 17:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

BLP violation protected by an admin boy

Please check the last dozen or so edits on this talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sonia_Gandhi&action=history No edit war was there, warranting protection. Nishkid a Hindu fanatic supporting ultra rightist politics in India just desires to keep the insinuations on Sonia Gandhi. 59.91.253.175 16:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This section should be removed as nothing but personal attacks. Corvus cornix 17:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, there was no edit war - there was a SINGLE edit (as four section edits, uninterrupted) and a SINGLE revert (as a series of undos). I haven't even so much as looked at the content of the section and I can tell the protection isn't warranted yet. I'll note, also, that WP:BLP says These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. (emphasis mine), and one of the edit summaries appears to be asserting this is not the case. —Random832 18:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I like how "admin boy" isn't a red flag at all that this is trolling. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I like how claiming you're just innocently asking if there's any truth to it gives people carte blanche to post unsourced negative speculation. Regardless of who this 59 is, or what his intentions are, that section (and its reinsertion) were blatantly inappropriate. —Random832 18:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've looked further and can see that this user is clearly a sockpuppet of a banned troll as was stated by the protecting admin - however, the one section that I linked the diff for should still not be kept on the talk page per WP:BLP (the others that he removed don't seem to be the same sort of thing, and can probably be kept) —Random832 19:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite so. Unprotection and excision soon, please. Relata refero 19:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think the semi-protection was unwarranted anymore - just that the particular section I linked to should not be kept. —Random832 20:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Does Admin Boy wear a cape? What are his powers? Neil ☎ 21:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Block review: User:Imbrella

Hi - I'm here to submit a block for review. The victim is Imbrella (talk · contribs). This account's first edit was to an "evolutionist" editor's talk page. Subsequently s/he has engaged in a long-term and refractory pattern of talk-page abuse and soapboxing - note the complete absence of anything but talk-space edits. A number of editors have brought up the talk page guidelines, specifically the prohibition on using article talk pages as a general discussion and debate forum, to no avail. Ultimately, shunning was considered. This led to a series of outbursts ([98], [99], [100], [101]). At this point, this single-purpose account seems dedicated to abusing the talk pages of controversial articles and using Wikipedia as a soapbox, and has had a unconstructive and refractory approach to Wikipedia. I've therefore indefinitely blocked the account. Review is welcome, though based on the user's recent posts (along the "GOOD RIDDANCE!" lines), I suspect they will likely not request to be unblocked. MastCell ^Talk 17:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"I'm EVula, and I approve this block!" EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd also approve. After all, he did ask for it. -- _{Folic_Acid | talk}  17:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Support block. I suspect this is banner User:Raspor, based on the interests, the argument style, and the nature of the meltdown. Guettarda 17:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Support block. Obviously we're not talking about a user worth defending here [102]. •Jim62sch• 17:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Support block. repeated disruptive trolling on talk pages, similar subjects and arguments to those used by Raspor – implying more sockpuppets are likely. .. dave souza, talk 18:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Racist needs blocking

Resolved

 – Account blocked.

This rascist needs to be blocked, SqueakBox 17:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. MastCell ^Talk 17:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for blatant vandalism. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a junior high school kid. Corvus cornix 18:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Violation of WP:POINT?

MinsiPatches (talk · contribs) appears to be creating several AFDs on scout camps after an article in which s/he was apparently heavily involved was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Minsi. Katr67 17:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Consistency is not disruptive. If he honestly believes the principle under which one article was deleted applies to other articles, he should be free to nominate those other articles for deletion as well. "Then delete those too" is a very common response to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS yet we accuse people of violating Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point when they actually do so? —Random832 17:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And, just to clarify, are you saying those articles should be kept? Then maybe you should add some references to independent sources and assert notability, rather than complaining about who nominated them. —Random832 17:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback--you're right about "other stuff" vs, "point" in Afds. I have no opinion as of yet whether the articles should be kept, I'm really only interested in the Oregon one, which is part of WP:ORE. I don't have much interest in scout camps, I just wanted to make sure this wasn't somehow a bad faith nom. Also s/he quoted pretty much the nomination rationale from the deleted article, so that kind of seemed pointy to me too. I suspect this isn't a violation of policy, but it made me uncomfortable to let it go by without mentioning it somewhere. Katr67 18:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)MinsiPatches is reiterating the deletion reason for the Campi Minsi deletion. But is this strictly a POINT violation, or is the user saying "well, if that's the standard we have, then we should apply it fairly". Katr67, incidentally, it would have been helpful if you had asked MinsiPatches what the reason was before bringing this matter here. On briefly looking at some of those nominated, such as Treasure Island Scout Reservation and Resica Falls Scout Reservation, they do indeed appear to not assert notability beyond being a scout camp (no-one famous went there, nothing notable happened there, etc.). If MinsiPatches had nominated a huge swathe of articles (I count 7, I think, hardly massive) or if the articles nominated were clearly notable and the nomination reason was bogus, then that might be POINT, but I don't think this is. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Here's how this can happen entirely in good faith:

1. User sees other scout camp articles, figures it's ok to have an article about one, decides to post one about the one he went to (since it's not there / he knows stuff about it / etc)
2. It gets nominated for deletion, because it's not really notable. Ok, so maybe those others didn't get noticed (maybe because they're from an earlier time when the winds were blowing in a more inclusionist direction, maybe just because they slipped under the radar of the NP watchers.) So, apparently scout camps aren't inherently notable, and ones that fall below a certain threshold get deleted
3. User nominates the other non-notable articles for deletion.

At this point, none of us have any business thinking otherwise. WP:POINT is often misapplied because its most commonly used shortcut does not mention disruptiveness. —Random832 18:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(In partial reply to Finlay McWalter above) The problem here is that some of the nominated articles are notable, some extremely so. Treasure Island Scout Reservation is the founding place of the Order of the Arrow. E. Urner Goodman, founder of the OA and thus one of the most notable scouting figures in history, was the first director there. It is also one of the oldest, possibly the oldest, continually operating scout camps in America. Other articles nominated meet the notability standard by providing multiple independent sources, which the copied-and-pasted nomination claims do not exist. This implies that the nominator is simply trying to find articles about scout camps and nominating them for deletion without even caring what camp they are about or the content of the article. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I see one broken link to an area newspaper. Which articles are sourced to multiple independent sources? —Random832 00:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Treasure Island has several sources, and as noted is inherently notable anyway.

Camp Pioneer makes a link to an article that mentions the page, and sources several other papers. As I noted in the AfD for that page, several do appear to be trivial, but there are at least two that would appear to be of some use. Two = multiple.

The remainder I do agree are not notable, however as stated above I don't think the nominator actually bothered to check on them, just noticed they were scout camps and slapped 'em on the board. Perhaps it would have been better to phrase the above "some are notable, one extremely so", but the point still stands. No attempt seems to have been made to find sources for these, no attempt seems to have been made to make a good faith nomination. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Block of vandalism only account and probable sockpuppetry

I indef blocked J-melz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and and apparent sock of him as Wikifreak99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). J-melz had only created a page and made some vandalism on a userpage, when the page went up for speedy deleted, Wikifreak99 was created to support the page. _→AzaToth 18:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Shakesomeaction (talk · contribs · logs) and WP:LEGAL

Resolved

I responded to this comment from Shakesomeaction by leaving them this message. I received the reply I don't appreciate this and will be filing sexual harassment charges later this week. While I do not think I am at serious risk of legal action here I would be grateful if somebody could have a word with them about our legal policies. Of course, if anyone feels I have acted in any way inappropriately I would welcome constructive criticism. Thanks, --John 18:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something? What was the sexual harrassment supposed to have been? From the looks of the discussion, I think Shakesomeaction misinterpreted your comment, and for some reason, took it personally. -- _{Folic_Acid | talk}  18:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I am at a loss myself. Perhaps it was meant to be a joke of some sort, but this is not a good thing to joke about. --John 18:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the sense it makes (or doesn't), I've blocked for WP:NLT. -- Merope 18:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt action. --John 18:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Closing discussions contrary to apparant consensus

I thought it was an isolated incident when looking at this delete decision, but after looking at other discussions closed by this user, it appears he is using the same rationale on others as well - in short, "I can choose how to weight arguments, and I chose to simply ignore most of them", regardless of whether that action reflects any apparant consensus, policy, or anything else. I've been advised by another admin that this should be posted here for discussion, so here it is...

On the above cited discussion, there was only one delete argument - that of the nominator - and a relatively weak one as well (later stating that all categories used for collaboration should be replaced with userboxes!). The other "delete" vote was simply "Delete per nom" with no actual argument. There were five "keep" votes, all with well-reasoned arguments, including one pointing to all the past discussions for keeping the category, one stating how this category had greatly helped a user collaborate, etc., and generally completely outweighing the (single) delete argument, in terms of number, strength of argument, refutation of the single delete argument, and every other metric possibly used to determine consensus.

However, User:After Midnight closed it as "delete", providing the rationale that, in essence, he can chose to ignore any arguments he disagrees with. Since there was only one actual delete vote, this means he decided to simply ignore every keep argument, as no other action could have resulted in a delete decision.

Were this an isolated incident, it probably wouldn't belong here, but it appears to be a trend, and not isolated to this admin either. Other discussions ended in "delete" despite an apparant consensus to keep as well, and one that was kept despite an apparant consensus to delete, but the above-mentioned discussion is the most obvious example, so the one I chose to discuss here.

While we should appreciate that admins are tackling these often backlogged pages, the closer's job is to ensure the decision reflects community consensus, not to apply his or her personal opinions to determine the outcome. Regardless of these personal opinions on whether the categories mentioned should exist or not, something needs to be done about mis-closing dicussions based on them. DRVs have generally proved fruitless - no one bothers making arguments on whether the discussion was closed correctly, instead it just turns into a repeat discussion with content-based rather than process-based arguments - and the DRVs are then subject to the same mis-closings that happen with the original discussion.

For this example, the response seems pretty obvious (it was closed in error, reverse it; just need to find someone with a bot to repopulate the category, as it'll take a lot of edits!), but what should be done about this in the long term, and for other debates? Should other users make more of an effort to watch closings to ensure they reflect consensus? The one mentioned above is so blatant that I suspect someone could have immediately overturned it and discussed it later, regardless of their opinion on whether the category should exist or not. Perhaps some effort to make sure deletion reviews only discuss process-related arguments? As much as I'm not a fan of even more policies, should we create one on exactly what leeways a closing admin does and doesn't have when evaluating a discussion? Or maybe we need more guidelines on categories, rather than the-whims-of-any-discussion-and-its-closer, preventing so many extra debates? Thanks for reading (and your ideas), Bushytails 18:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC).

In this particular case, it appears that the closer reviewed the opinions and didn't find the argument of "building community" to be a compelling reason to keep based on the goal of building an encyclopedia. Given that XfD is not a numerical count or vote, Closers are usually give some level of leeway on closing provided they justify their decision. We have DRV explicitly so these decisions can be reviewed if someone feels they were not correct. Personally I don't think we need more "rules" on AFD closing... but that is just my opinion.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

But the closer shouldn't be able to arbitarily decide to ignore all arguments on one side of the issue based on a personal opinion - doing so is no different than simply deciding the outcome based on ones opinion. Unless there is foundation policy or other strong reason to invalidate arguments, they can't simply be ignored. Bushytails 01:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

But if the community consensus is that "buidling community" is a valid reason to keep, on what grounds can an admin over-ride it? Unless it is in direct opposition to policy, I think that an admin is bound to determine consensus, not to substitute their own judgment for that of the community. I don't think we need more rules, but I do think that admins need to keep their own opinions regarding an article in check when closing an AfD. -Chunky Rice 18:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think 7 participants in a CFD really adequately represent community consensus either way... Regardless, I still am strongly of the opinion that additional guidelines and policies concerning XfD closure are not demonstrably warranted off of one CFD close. This is a case for DRV if the participants feel the closer got it wrong.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Closing admins need to be able to make judgment calls when, say, there is consensus to keep "Furry wikipedians" but also consensus to delete "identification categories". They also should take strength of argument into account: not all arguments are created equal. --Kbdank71 19:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a consensus to delete self-identification user categories? I can respect the decision (but think we need to visit the issue) if there's a strong policy against grouping wikipedias by personal attributes (gender, nationality, geography, birthplace, political party, occupation, etc). If there is such a policy, though, then unless the categorization causes some technical difficulties or grave disruption, I would find it rather autocratic and out of step with the rest of the world, at least America, in terms of self-expression and personal freedom. Further, the fact that furry or GLBT users wish to self-identify is evidence of a lack of such consensus. The outcome here is anti-gay and POV in practice, even if not by intention. If there is no such policy, it exceeds a closing administrator's discretion to decide that sexual orientation isn't as worthy as some other distinction. That kind of decision has to be made project-wide and not rest on the whims and prejudices of a single Wikipedian. But why not just nominate this and the LGBT category for deletion review? Presumably the reviewing admin will overturn if there is a consensus to do so and no policy otherwise, and this admin will start to notice if his/her decisions are frequently overturned that they need to pay more heed to the arguments made. If that fails, then it may be time to consider AN/I, mediation, or whatever the next step is. What is the process if one has a reasonable dispute over the outcome of a DRV? Wikidemo 19:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

See the DRV's here and here. --Kbdank71 19:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. It looks like we have a larger issue of people pushing an agenda against Wikipedias expressing their personal differences via categories, and possibly one of anti-gay bias. Still dangerous waters for admins to wade into, and a decision that should be made in a wider forum than a category deletion or deletion review, but not a clearly improper decision by the closing admin. This isn't my issue (nor, I assure you, do I feel so passionately about anything right now at the moment), but for people who do have a principled objection to the outcome of a DRV, what's the next step up the dispute resolution chain? Wikidemo 19:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, I nominated Category:Furry Wikipedians for deletion review. It was closed out because a small group have successfully deleted a variety of identity-based categories, and have used this to suggest that there is a "general consensus" to delete such categories. The closing admin of the deletion review apparently agreed with this, despite the significant support for the category displayed in response to the nomination. I don't think there is such a consensus, and the responses in this deletion show that others are of the same opinion. I think some editors - often the ones who are most actively interested in trimming categories - have been looking over time at various sparsely-populated or "joke" categories and saying "yeah, that's not useful". In many cases, they might be right. In this particular case, I and others think they were wrong, as was shown in responses to the original nomination. That is why these nominations got "keep" as a response rather than "delete". I don't believe they're pushing any particular POV myself - nomination does not signify an "anti-furry" or "anti-gay" bias, any more than attempting to delete a religious identity category signifies an "anti-Catholic" or "anti-Protestant" bias - but I do think that each category should be considered individually (I guess it is possible that they were attempting to implement this meta-policy in a roundabout way, but I doubt it). The assumption that they don't support collaboration is a little unconvincing, because where do you think WikiProjects come from? Successful projects are not started on a dime - they are at their root collections of users interested in a particular topic, and the easiest way to collect them in the first place and ongoing is to have an identity category. It is hard to show other tangible benefits to identity categories - just like it's hard to say why userboxes are worthwhile - but that doesn't mean there aren't any. Certainly where there is a demonstrated use for the category and no particular cost to the encyclopedia, they should be kept. Honestly, these I don't think the categories would cost anyone anything if they weren't constantly being nominated for deletion out of a sense of tidiness. The people who spent the time hunting them down and deleting them would undoubtedly like a simple rule such as "delete all identity categories", but I think an even better rule would be "don't bother nominating them unless a particular category does demonstrated harm." Then we could focus on the things that are actually causing a problem for editors - or, perhaps, on the people causing the problem ("categories don't start edit wars, people start edit wars"). GreenReaper 20:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with that... when I started the metalworking wikiproject, I had to go through quite a bit of effort to find members to consult, by looking at page histories to see who had edit patterns that looked like they'd might want to contribute to a wikiproject, etc - if there were a "Wikipedian Metalworkers" category, it would have made it much easier! Bushytails 01:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

So, let's see: you (plural) didn't get the result you wanted in the UCFd discussion, So you posted a DRV. YOu didn't get the result you wanted there, so now you're posting here. At what point is this "asking the other parent"?

As far as I can tell, all the concerns illustrated above were discussed both in the UCfD and the DRV. And please remember that consensus, not voting, is how discussions are resolved.

That aside, I understand that identification can be considered a personal thing for some people. You shouldn't take the nomination personally, however. They were (and are) about cleaning up the Wikipedian category structure. If your concern is that you'd like a larger forum for the idea that "identification-based" Wikipedian categories should be kept, then please feel free to start a Village pump discussion concerning it. But please don't start attacking good faith editors because you didn't get your way. - jc37 22:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, the result of the ucfd _was_ keep. Like everyone expected. The problem is that decision was ignored by the closing admin - "I disagree with what people are saying, so I'll just ignore them." This is not the proper way for a wikipedia administrator to act - except for foundation issues, consensus trumps just about everything, especially one person's opinions. That one category is but a drop in the lake of admin actions not agreeing with consensus or policy, and just serves as a good example. The DRV serves as another example - most of the "endorse" votes were about the content of the category, rather than the process of deletion - exactly NOT what DRV is for. Of the three remaining endorse votes, two of them were "because it's a sexuality category, and we just deleted those" - wrong because it's not a sexuality category, and wrong because having just deleted something else (in a controversial and abuse-prone decision) does not automatically make policy. That leaves only ONE actual endorse vote... the original closer defending his right to ignore all who disagree with his opinions. And he lumped it in with the unrelated sexuality categories as well. There wasn't actually ANY argument for endorsing the deletion made there other than the category-lumping one by the original closer, and several for its undeletion ("I don't really see consensus to delete in the debate, either numerically or by weight of argument. ... Starblind 16:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)", etc, indicating significant concern for consensus not being reflection in the decision) yet it was closed as "endorsed".

Your opinion is the category shouldn't exist. Fine, you are allowed to have that opinion. But you must keep in mind that the obvious result of the discussion was that it should - you were the only person to make an argument as to why it shouldn't, while every other person who made an argument said it should. As to good faith... while I try to assume it of everyone, I am forced to conclude otherwise in this case. Someone can not simply ignore one side of the debate and be assumed to be acting to benefit the community they just ignored.

This discussion isn't about a category, it's about the ability for an admin to say "my opinion is this side is wrong, thus I'll completely ignore them". As soon as that is acceptable, we might as well toss the concept of consensus out the window - something I hope no one here agrees with. Bushytails 01:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Dominic J. Solntseff (talk · contribs)

This user is an spa, who registered to defend the now deleted Marion van de Wetering article, and to hound users whom he feels have somehow wronged Van De Wetering's husband Mark Bourrie. Now that said article was deleted, he resorts to repeated recreations of it. Not to create an article, however, but to fling insults at the people who he holds responsible for the deletion of Marion van de Wetering. Oh, and this lovely message was only just posted on my talk page. Someone please block this highly obnoxious spa, who contributes nothing to the encyclopedia.--Atlan (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to block a newbie without at least trying to reform him first. I've left a warning on his talk page asking him to play nice. Let's see if he takes any notice. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As if it's a newbie trait to insult and harass. Oh well.--Atlan (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You know not everyone in the world is aware of Wikipedia's rules on polite debate. Actually being rude is pretty much the norm on most other websites. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright. I just thought ignorance wasn't an excuse. Doesn't matter, I'm fine with your warning.--Atlan (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: As he readded the personal attack to Atlan's talk page I've blocked for week. This will give him the chance to cool off and the deletion review debate the chance to go ahead minus the insults. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ombudsman banned

Ombudsman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor of two years plus, with thousands of edits and no prior blocks, was recently blocked indefinitely by Jimbo Wales, who noted in the block log that the name suggests a "role account". I doubt an editor of such long standing can be considered a "role account" and I don't believe Jimbo realizes this; in any case an indefinite block for such a tenured editor is not the only means of preventing the person from posting inappropriate links. I've posted a note on Jimbo's talk but he's rarely online so I doubt he'll even see it. Obviously no one should be wheel warring with Jimbo but maybe if anyone agrees with me they can mention something on User talk:Jimbo to increase the visibility? Milto LOL pia 19:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd lean towards Jimbo's side on this one. The name could easily confuse new users into thinking the user had some special status. Is there some reason why the name can't be changed to something less confusing? Ronnotel 19:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

? What? That wasn't the meat of the block, just an indication that Jimbo didn't realize the guy has made a career here. But if the guy's been editing for over two years and the username is a problem, then why don't you point out where it has caused a problem int he two years+ the guy's been editing. Surely such a problematic username has caused such problems given the long time of his activity. Milto LOL pia 19:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

While I can understand the confusion about the name, perma-blocking the guy seems more than a bit harsh. Couldn't he just have Ombudsman's name changed? -- _{Folic_Acid | talk}  19:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue is also the harassment block, not just the username. Milto LOL pia 19:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not involved at all in the BADSITES nonsense (no opinion implied either way there, BTW) but Ombudsman has been a massively tendentious editor for years on vaccine and psychiatry-related articles. His behavior resulted in an RFC and an arbcom hearing, and he was almost certainly editing in violation of his arbcom-imposed restrictions. I also think the name issue was raised in the past, though I haven't dug enough to find it. I'm amazed his block log remained clean until now. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not relevant to this issue. Milto LOL pia 19:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, yes it is, because you are promoting him as a good editor, when he was far from it. Skinwalker 19:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• There was some previous discussion of possible problems with this username. Concerns were also raised at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ombudsman. See also m:Ombudsman commission --JWSchmidt 19:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, but there's also the issue of the harassment and whether or not an indef block is the best way to deal with it. Milto LOL pia 19:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest renaming the account. Is that possible, or does he have to create another one? -- ChrisO 19:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest looking closely at Ombudsman's contributions rather than solely the length of his tenure. He's a highly tendentious soapbox-style editor, and recognized as such and sanctioned by ArbCom. Since then he's edited less frequently but no less tendentiously, generally throwing around charges of vandalism, whitewashing, etc. Here are some recent (and entirely typical) highlights:

• "Restore unscrupulously vandalized article" (for an article PRODDED and deleted without comment)
• [103] (not even sure how to describe this)
• More of the same

It would appear that Jimbo's block was based on repetitive insertion of a particular link, but before anyone agitates too strongly that this guy be unblocked because he's been here awhile, I would strongly encourage a more detailed review of his tenure and impact here. The username thing has been done to death and deemed not to be a violation in the past, but there is more than enough reason for this editor to be banned. MastCell ^Talk 20:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Block has been reduced to a week. I suggest those of you with other problems pursue dispute resolution, but my involvement here is done. Thanks everyone for your comments. Milto LOL pia 21:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Good job, Milto LOL pia. A permaban out of the blue did not seem right, at least I could not find a reason for it. Guido den Broeder 21:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The one week block seems reasonable. The attempted link placement seemed like a clear cut-case of trolling/harassment. JoshuaZ 00:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Violation of COI by user:Avahram

There is an ongoing mediation about the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad initiated by myself hoping to reach a compromise with different parties.

Unfortunately the mediation has not gained any result since its beginning on 20 May. Since then, the article has been fully protected (except for a couple of days in last two weeks).

Today User:Omegatron unprotected the article with this reason "no justification for protection. mediation has been ongoing for months and is not a reason to lock the page. we don't leave entire articles in a protected state for months because of a dispute about one statement." and then User:Avraham, himself a party of mediation and previous edit-warring, reverted the article then protected it with this reason "Ongoing mediation".

The other problem is that in my opinion the current lead is clear violation of WP:BLP and completely POV for an article about a high ranking official of a state, me and some other users tried to reach a compromise with user:Avraham by adding his own response to the allegation in the lead. But this proposal was rejected by above user with the reasoning that it doesn't belong to the lead (but of course details of the allegation belong).

I would be happy if some third party user invistigate the issues of this article. --Pejman47 19:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a BLP violation. It's distinctly less than neutral, in my opinion, but I don't think it's a reason that so egregious that it requires some kind of immediate action if there's ongoing mediation. I'm not going to offer an opinion on the utility of long-term protection like this, since I'm not familiar with the circumstances surrounding it, and the mediation. --Haemo 19:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI violations require edits "in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups." I am in no way related, either personally or professionally, with any groups whose interests are either pro- or con- the article's subject; unless Pejman is implying that because I am Jewish I am automatically considered incapable of editing the Ahmadinejad article. From my previous interactions with him, I highly doubt he meant something as insulting and ridiculous as that, so I am left to assume that referencing WP:COI was a misunderstanding on his part. Any explanation would be appreciated. -- Avi 20:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It means that you are an admin and you must not use your admin's previlage in an article that you edit-warred. I also told you the same thing when you edited this article when it was fully protected. (do you remember it?)--Pejman47 20:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Restoring the article to the stable, protected state, especially after an unauthorized unlock, is maintaining and protecting the project. The unlock should have been discussed with the locking admin, user:Riana, and the mediator user:Daniel. It was not, and was an improper use of admin tools. Restoring the stable and locked version was anything but, and I believe you know better. Omegatron, as an admin, certainly should know better. -- Avi 21:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I mean in here: Talk:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad/Archive_17#Image, I got angry in the previous case nad also in this case (even if it seems illogical to you). But please do not use your admin's privileges' in a debate that some of the users are not admins. I hope your misunderstandings have been solved --Pejman47 20:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that your use of WP:COI in the title was a mistake, and you meant possible sysop priv abuse, a completely different issue. See above how protecting the project is the responsibility of the sysops and what actually may have been the abuse here, per WP:ANI#Admin edit rights privilege abuse. -- Avi 21:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I also insist that some third party admin investigate the protection level of that article. I don't see any logic for full protection of an article for about six months. --Pejman47 20:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The page has been protected since October 2, which is 20 days; a far cry from the six months (182 days) stated. -- Avi 21:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Azstatelibrary

Resolved

Azstatelibrary (talk · contribs) apparently is attempting to use Wikipedia for their own purposes, which do not involve writing an encyclopedia. Their User page as well as the articles they have created and the edits they have made to existing articles appear to be problematic. Corvus cornix 19:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Newbie who go mixed up over what wikipedia is all about. Has asked to be removed so I wil;l delete their user page and blank thier talk page for them. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Theresa. Corvus cornix 20:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

StevenBlack repeatedly removing AfD template

Could someone else please talk to this user? I tried explaining the policy to him but he says I'm bullying him. It's my AfD nom and he's called me a whole bunch of names, so I don't feel right blocking him myself. Thanks. -- But|seriously|folks  20:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed he's now moved it to the bottom of the page. Less problematic but still not where it belongs. -- But|seriously|folks  20:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply by StevenBlack: My view: It is simply not proper, nor fair to volunteer contributors, to be strafing a topics within the first few minutes or hours of a topic's appearance. I live, work, and play on Lake Ontario, and I have first-hand knowledge and experience in this area. If you look at my contributions I've given a lot to Wikipedia about Eastern Ontario. I've also been a Wikipedian for many years, and I've been operating a very successful technical wiki since 1999. I must tell you: I have NEVER been bullied like I have been bullied today, firstly by the arbitrary deletion of the L.O.W. topic by Butseriouslyfolks (with no backup available!) then the slobbering of that AfD box on the topic within the first hour, well that's too much! Please knock it off, and show due respect for nascent topics. - StevenBlack 01:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you show me the policy where it says articles with insufficient content and/or context should be left alone to "cook"? JuJube 01:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

We're very pleased for your contributions — however, if there are concerns about the notability of a group you've written about, the correct procedure is to address them calmly and carefully at the proper venue. In this case, AfD. It is inappropriate to attack other editors, and to unilaterally remove tags. The first deletion was not "arbitrary" — the text was a copyright violation. --Haemo 01:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT removal of sourced content by User:Pupluv

After an extended effort to add a non-notable at Clifton High School (New Jersey), User:Pupluv has gone on a WP:POINT rampage, removing a notable alumnus with a Wikipedia article, claiming that the source does not meet his definition. This comes after an earlier rampage in which WP:POINT warnings were provided by other editors, in which Pupluv was removing content from other articles I have edited. Any assistance in this issue will be greatly appreciated. Alansohn 20:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, can you state this request so that even an admin can understand it.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• User:Pupluv has repeatedly removed Ronald F. Maxwell as a notable from the Clifton High School (New Jersey) article, claiming that the entry lacks a reliable source to demonstrate notability. This is in retaliation for an entry he had attempted to add to the article for which no sources were added to demonstrate notability or a connection to the school. He has removed other content from other articles and been warned by other users for WP:POINT violations. Alansohn 20:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note that I can use even simpler words if that would help. Alansohn 20:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It does read a "sour grapes" power play, and I've commented as such on the talk. ThuranX 21:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Duckhunter6424

User Duckhunter6424 refusing to participate in discussion [104], and keep pushing his original research by brute force without any sources provided [105] [106] Necator 20:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

BLP violations on Haroon Siddiqui

An anon account [70.181.35.102] has been singularly interested in violating WP:BLP in Haroon Siddiqui article for the last 10 months. Only interested in adding negative information, that too from blogs such as [107],[108].[109]. Looks very peristant. I have also reported it at the BLP violation notice board Thanks Taprobanus 21:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Database problems?

I wasn't sure about some of the others, but I know for damned sure I didn't make this edit. Are we having database issues?--SarekOfVulcan 21:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, the edit I made with that summary was removing a {{notability}} tag -- I didn't touch anything else.--SarekOfVulcan 21:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you weren't looking at an older version when you clicked "edit"? This diff looks like what you did, i.e., you opened version 166171808, then clicked "edit", then removed the tag, then saved. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of racial, sexual preference epithets - general policy?

My natural inclination is to come down pretty hard on the use of racial and other epithets but there doesn't seem to be a blanket policy. User:Lunkhead2 caught my attention as a potential problem a while back and I noticed this recent edit. I blocked for 48 hours, but I'd like to make sure I'm not over-reacting. The epithet was directed at a bot, after all. Any input? Ronnotel 21:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Offensive enough that nobody is likely to give you flak over it. I wouldn't. — Coren ^(talk) 21:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say that's definitely excessive and blockable. I think the relevant policy is just gonna be WP:CIV, where under "more serious examples" we see "Racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs" listed as personal attacks. --Masamage ♫ 21:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Use Common sense when no specific policies describe what to do.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Eric / Éric Cantona

As I am probably now involved, can an uninvolved admin step in and stop two French users changing all the instances of Eric in the Eric Cantona article to Éric? On one side we have prior consensus, Wikipedia policy (WP:UE), and all relevant reliable sources in English and French([110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116]) saying it's "Eric" , on the other we have a French user who insists it should be "Éric" because that's how he spells his name, and the other citing the French Wikipedia (not reliable). It's too lame for RFC and as I've edited now, I shouldn't do anything more about it personally. Neil ☎ 21:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup. In English we spell Montreal thusly, not as Montréal. Raymond Arritt 21:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Cooldude13233

Can someone take a look at this user's contribs? Seems to be a long history of copyright violations, uploading under misleading tags and removing speedy tags from pages. Latest is Michael Kuss - there are copyright violations left in the edit history, speedy tags being removed and the picture has been uploaded and tagged as a poster when at best it's a promotional image. Exxolon 21:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, at least Image:140 ddb-aen.gif was uploaded with false copyright claim. I'm too sleepy to decide anything but he probably should be blocked IMO. MaxSem 21:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible BLP concerns, old AfD

Resolved

 – Discussion closed and article deleted. Woodym555 23:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Can an administrator please review and close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda as needed? This AfD is now seven days old, and there were extensive BLP concerns surrounding the subject article that were covered on ANI last week. Thanks! • Lawrence Cohen 21:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Irresponsible editing on Archimedes Plutonium

Although the page in question has been deleted, against the vote of the AfD, the discussion here is more relevant than ever.Likebox 23:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been involved in editing the page Archimedes Plutonium, and I would like to bring a matter of some concern. The case involves unfortunate editing of the page, which I tried repeatedly to correct.

The editor in question is User:Arthur Rubin. Similar additions were made by User:EdJohnston.

The subject of the page was questioned about a murder, and I didn't know very much about the case then. I wrote that the accusations were groundless (specious was the word I used), and the next thing I know, it reads (specious). While I accept that in any other circumstances this is a legitemate and supportable tag, in this case the effect of the tag on an unsuspecting reader is to sew suspicion. It would have been more responsible to rephrase this section directly, instead of putting tags which have the effect of casting shadows on the subject's character.

Just to be clear about the known facts: Archimedes Plutonium was living in another state for two years at the time of the murder, and he was at home online at the time of the murder. The murderers were two teenagers who confessed to the crime, and fingerprints, boottracks, purchases, matched the scene. Nobody considers the case in the least bit open, and the chance that anyone else was involved is zero.

Further, I was writing about this as an example of the way in which this eccentric character has been harassed because of his notability.

I changed the tags, and tried different wordings, but each time the wording changed back to again be ambiguous about his culpability. No matter what wording I chose, I could not edit this page to make it unambiguous, despite bringing up the comments on the talk page of the two users. EdJohnston placed an incriminating link on the talk page of Archimedes Plutonium, and I had to place a link to a later page on the same site, where the whole thing is solved in order to (hopefully) correct the misleading impression that the previous comments made.

After many days of back and forth, the wording eventually settled down to an acceptably unambiguous phrase, the intermediate stages were so fraught with libel, that I was on edge for many days. I tried to explain my concerns to Arthur Rubin, because at first I thought this was done out of ignorance. But his responses were so bureaucratic and unhelpful, and did not alleveate the dangerous ambiguity. Then I came to the conclusion that this was happening as a result of either gross irresponsibility or of malice.

A representative sample of the edits in question are contained in these links::[117] [118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126]. The relevant comments made on the talk page Talk:Archimedes Plutonium under the section heading "Harrasment, Specious, etc.", although I later added a link and a bolded statement to remove insinuations of culpability. The comments on Arthur Rubin's talk page were made during the same period of time, and the briefer comments on EdJohnston page also.

I would like to point out that the amount of insinuation was so large, that I personally began to think that the two users had some extra incriminating information about Archimedes Plutonium. They never made a single mention of the fact that this case is closed, either on the talk page or in the main page. I had to actively read about the case in great detail to convince myself that indeed he wasn't involved, and then fight with them to get this wording into the page, again and again.

I believe these actions are a blight on wikipedia, and reflect gross abuses by the editors in question, whether they were done out of irresponsibility or malice. I hope that something can be done to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.Likebox 21:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I may not have been clear, but LB is using "specious" to imply "unjustified", but the sources only imply "inaccurate" (and not considered credible by the local police chief, who may not have involved in the actual investigation.) As for "harassment", you would need a source other than AP that he was unjustly harassed.

For what it's worth, that AP was home online at the time of the murder was not known at the time, and would have been difficult to verify even if it had been suspected. (If I had reason to believe I would be suspected of the murder, I could easily set up an anonymizer at my home PC, and connect through it.) The parenthetical remark is WP:OR, but can easily be seen to discredit the unsourced assertion that the police knew that he was home online at the time of the murder.

The "blight" on wikipedia is the recreation of an article deleted under authority of the AfD. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This would be perfectly legalall-right to speculate if the case weren't solved and you were speculating in your own home. To speculate that AP used an anonymizer to go out to another state, put on some teenagers boots, steal a knife from their home, stab a professor and his associate, put the bloody boots back in the teenager's home, and then go back to his home state is Original Research, and more fanciful than anything that Archimedes Plutonium has ever written.

The fact that sources do not say explicitly that he wasn't involved is because it is so bloody obvious that he wasn't involved that they don't feel the need to say it. The only reason the books mention him at all is because he is so interesting and notable. After the obligatory Fun Archimedes Plutonium facts, they go back to talking about the actual case, which goes on and on, and is eventually solved. If you were actually ignorant of the facts of the case, that would have been ok. It should only take a small discussion to explain that he wasn't involved, and the page would be reasonable. But I am not completely sure that you were ignorant of the facts of the case, when you persisted in making ambiguous edits despite pleading and begging on my part. All I was asking was to find some way, any way, to state unambiguously that he was not involved. Eventually, such a way was found, by me, after many, many attempts, but it cost me a few gray hairs.

In my opinion, this is the definition of irresponsibility.Likebox 22:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. But, AfD4 has closed with a delete outcome, so it probably doesn't matter. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether you disagree or not, the talk page needs to be kept as evidence for other editors to take a look at, and determine if indeed you acted irresponsibly, and if so, if any other actions need to be taken. The fact that the page has been deleted does not matter, because AP is notable enough and brilliant enough for his page to be recreated along largely the same lines in the future. Your possible wrongdoing, though, is evidenced in the talk page and discussion page. The evidence is overwhelming. The talk page needs to be looked at, as also the edits.

For future reference, the vote on the AfD was a definite keep, and the person who brought it up voted to keep, with no hesitation, and once he understood who AP was, wrote "I am withdrawing my nomination for various reasons. VICTORY FOR USENET".Likebox 23:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This AN/I discussion has no relation to the page. I will only close it after the issue of irresponsibility is settled by a review by other administrators.23:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Specious and inaccurate mean different things, especially in context. If you say specious, and another user says the sources say inaccurate, then a request for souring was valid. --Haemo 01:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read your comment carefully enough. He didn't say "inaccurate", he just put tags on the "specious" (although, to be fair, he later took out the ). Please go through the records. Then I changed it to something else. I didn't know what he wanted. I was completely at a loss.Likebox 02:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes. I know it follows the letter of the law. But I later changed the phrase to "Nobody suspects him of any involvement" using the present tense, and it got reverted. I tried "but he was never under serious suspicion" or words to that effect, and it got deleted, later it got to work the opposite effect of my intention. I racked my brain on this each time to come up with something new that would be OK with Rubin et al, but I couldn't think of anything they liked, and they wouldn't help. This was really jarring, because, I understand disagreements on dubious mathematical content. I also understand disagreements about notability. I understand the controversy about this page, and I sympathize. Even if the whole page is deleted, I understand. But this is an accusation of murder for God's sake. Where is the humanity? This is a human being here, and a human being that I respect very much. I thought I would get an apology at some point, or at least an acknowledgement of error. But all I got was more bureaucratese. This is not decent human behavior in my book, no matter what the disagreements on content.Likebox 02:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

User:CieloEstrellado

G'day. I made some changes to the article "Chile" and then later found out that the user CieloEstrellado had reverted them all, well he/she changed everything back manually, which I find a bit odd when one can revert much faster with the "undo" thingy. But anyway that's not my point. What I had done was I simply made the mark-up more readable, and I used the article "England" as an example of good mark-up. I also added dots at the end of every thumbnail's description text, which seems to me to be standard practise. As I waited for his/her reply I decided to look at his/hers previous discussions on the talk page. What I found out was that this user has continuously been involved in edit-wars and disputes, and in many cases acted without reason.

See the user's talk page archives here:

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3

I don't believe that the user in question is a vandal but he/she is ill-mannered and has been warned often enough. I think it's time the user is blocked. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 23:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A curious case

User:KXS-KXS has declared that they are a "secret user", and appear to have no intention of ever editing articles. Instead, they seem to be planning some kind of social networking activity called the "brown monster club" (possibly involving giving prizes to editors for treasure-hunting?), and are constructing numerous templates for that purpose.

I've invited them twice to come and join the encyclopedia project, and it's clear from their replies that they have no intention of doing so. What to do now? -- The Anome 23:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hide him in your pocket for seeecret eeeeating. JuJube 23:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Surreptitiously slip in a WP:NOT#MYSPACE warning. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. -- The Anome 23:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And of course, point out to him that every 'sekrit page' of his is available in his Contribs. Poor dear. --Thespian 23:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm getting old and curmudgeonly, but I'd be inclined to block the account (at least until s/he voices some interest in building the encyclopedia) and delete everything seen here without looking back. MastCell ^Talk 23:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree, it should all be deleted right away, and the user indef blocked. It may seem harsh, it doesn't seem like they plan on doing any real editing, see this edit, [127] totally ignored the message, and showing no sign of stopping.--Jac16888 00:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a general subgroup of users creating "secret" pages (which aren't secret to anyone who knows Special:Prefixindex) and "autograph books" (where people can parade around huge signatures that violate WP:SIG). I think some of these people need a serious reminder that Wikipedia is not MySpace. Maybe the autograph books and secret pages aren't intrinsically harmful, but they're a waste of time and database space for those who actually want to use this site as an encyclopedia. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Faye Resnick

To whom it may concern: The above article was PRODded on October 19; the PROD notice was deleted without justification or reason by an anonymous IP, which comprised his/her sole contribution to Wikipedia.

Can the PROD 5 day notice be corrected/given credit for the time since October 19, so the PROD will expire on October 24 as it should have done as no one else has contested the PROD, instead of expiring on October 27?? Thanks. 216.194.3.161 23:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If I read {{PROD}} and WP:PROD right, anyone can remove a PROD tag if they disagree with it, and explanations are strongly encouraged but not required. I think if anyone removes your PROD tag, your only recourse is to go to WP:AFD. Also, there's no reason to automatically think that this is their only contribution to Wikipedia; they could very easily be on a dynamic IP. Unless, of course you have only been here two days too... --barneca (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Attacks in Evangelos Venizelos article

I want to ask your keep an eye at the Evangelos Venizelos article. The article is about a greek politician. At about a month ago some people "inspired" by an article in a greek newspaper the started vandalizine the page. After that Venizelos wrote in his blog against WIkipedia and said that he will move against the persons who wrote against him using the Law. In the next days, me and other users discussed the subject in the article's talk page we ended up in a very neutral reference to the article story (since it the subject was covering in the following days by many Greek media), always taking WP:NPOV under consideration.

Some Venizelos' followers, ignoring the consensus and the discussion in the talk page, using anonymous IP adresses, are trying to remove the paragraph they think it's against him. (Obviously the still have in mind an early version made by anonymous users from the other side). I requested semiprotection until the end of the Panhellenic Socialist Movement leadership election, 2007 (November 11) where Venizelos is candidate, twice but it was rejected. Me and two other people are reverting (seldom) vandalism attacks but it's not nice at all to revert personally this kind of attacks. I am usually delaying to revert a vandalism attack on purpose in order to discourage edit war, so maybe the attacks don't look to happen so often, but in reality they are constant. What can you do for that case? -- Magioladitis 23:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it. That seems like any easier solution. I have semiprotted until the 11th, but I may remove the semiprotection earlier if things quiet down. JoshuaZ 00:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope the things will calm down in the next days. -- Magioladitis 00:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Second opinions

Any second opinions about this? The editor is a 13-year old who I've recently taken on as an adoptee.--chaser - t 00:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like the right course of action, based on the lack of information in his comment. It's hard to tell if he's asking you to keep away the predators, or if he wants you to tell the kid to go play outside every now and then. --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. (and tell him the basics of ID protection, for the former, and tell him the latter flat out, LOL.) ThuranX 01:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Issue with Mississippi governor article

User:Govtwatcher comes out of the blue and removes sourced content from Ronnie Musgrove then warns me for vandalism. I haven't touched the article since October 11 until today when I reverted the this users vandalism of removing sourced content and warned him/her for removing sourced content. User came and warned me again for vandalism and a ban threat. As of this writing, he/she hasn't reverted to the edit that he/she did earlier that removed the sourced content but I expect it to take place any moment. See Ronnie Musgrove history, and my talk page with users 2 warnings against me. Would someone calm this person down and get them off of the article and stop them from removing sourced content? -- ALLSTAR ECHO 01:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)