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

User:Ryoung122 disrupting XfD discussions

Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) (aka Robert Young (longevity claims researcher)) is repeatedly disrupting XfD discussions relating to articles and categories in which he has a conflict of interest, despite the guidace at WP:COI to "if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when: 2.Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors", which presumably also applies to autobiographical articles.

A previous example can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Robert Young (gerontologist) (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Robert Young (gerontologist)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but the most recent problems are with Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_1#Category:Supercentenarian_trackers and with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At the current AfD, Young has:

1. made one edit full of personal attacks, with lots of badly-formatted and barely-relevant links (it appears to be another block-copy-and-paste of a screen of google results) [1]
2. Accused me as nominator of having a COI becaise I nominated a related category [2]
3. chopped up and disrupted the nomination, leaving it unclear who wrote what [3]
4. abusively accuses another editor of "conflict-of-interest and vote-stacking" merely because they frequently comment on my talk page, calling this "a 'pissing contest'"[4]

Young also appears to contributing under an IP adress: [5].

It can often be useful to have the subject of an article comment at AfD, but this disruption is too much. I have restored my nomination, but please could someone try to apply some brakes here before this AfD becomes as much of a mess as the other XfDs where Young's COI has led him to post screenfuls of irrelevancies? Thanks --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

PS I have tried discussing these problems with Young, both on his talk page and mine (see A, B B), including trying to discourage him from noting his canvassing, both in wikipedia and through his mailing list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 17:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: the above user has conducted an unmitigated campaign that borders on abusive of the power and authority bestowed to a Wikipedia administrator. Questionable activities include:

A. Deleting relevant arguments

WP:AN on CfD disruption See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ryoung122_disrupting_XfD_discussions.

Please note also that I have restored my nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) to its state before you edited it. Please do read WP:TPG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

B. Using negative terms

C. Avoiding attempts at negotiation

D. Engaging in retributive AFD nominations

A check of the records will find that this originally started with Category:supercentenarian trackers AFD when the above user decided to delete pertinent material. I am a reasonable person but when someone begins making false accusations and then deleting the reponse, that has gone way, way too far.Ryoung122 21:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, do read wikipedia's Talk Page guidelines. BrownHairedGirl reverted your edit because the additions of your arguments made the AfD nomination unreadable. Interspersing your own comments between someone else's is bad enough in general Talk page usage (it's a lot like repeatedly interrupting someone while they're trying to speak) but to do so on an AfD nomination is worse. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 22:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung, can you please provide diffs (Help: Diff) to substantiate your claims? Natalie 22:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

And we have now had a further series of edits from Ryoung122 chopping up the nomination for a second time, and in this edit breaking indentation and introducing many paragraphs of material irrelevant to the AfD.

Two editors have taken some steps to tidy things a bit, but the discussion is still a huge big mess, and on past form will get worse if Young contributes again. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If the issue is formatting, there is no issue. The issue is CONTENT. The content I added was highly appropriate. I merely documented the assertion that what I said about User:Aboutmovies was accurate: that he was the creator of the Mary Ramsey Wood page and therefore had a conflict of interest in this discussion, since he maintained that the woman was '120' years old, when research suggested she was around 97 or 98. User BHG claimed that some of the links didn't mention me, when in fact they did. Thus, in both cases the facts were on my side. The response, to delete them or 'claim' the issue is 'formatting', is a smokescreen.Ryoung122 11:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I had a previous encounter with Ryoung122. I won't deny that he is knowledgable in his field, but the fact he acts as if his expertise excuses all incivil behavior on his part makes him a difficult case. He has been blocked once, & I wouldn't be surprised if he is blocked again, for a longer period. -- llywrch 23:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is the other way around. Some persons have made themselves into 'Wiki-stars' and have made process more important than 'content', making Wikipedia an end unto itself instead of the tool to arrive at the theoretical purpose, education of the public. I don't believe that 'uncivil behavior' should be excused. I do believe that persons who 'claim' someone else is being uncivil, OFTEN are being UNCIVIL themselves. For example,

How about THIS comment:

Comment. I'm finding it increasingly difficult to believe any of the claims made by Robert Young. In a comment above made from an IP address, Young says "there's a big difference between 'rat catcher for the local council' and in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet".

If someone who claims to be a researcher thinks that they are "in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet", I have to seriously question whether anything they write can be trusted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the typical, BAITING, FALSE comment that BHG has posted. When the facts were on my side, the response is now an appeal to emotion. I note that her track record isn't clean, either, with disputes such as on the Erdos numbers page and others asking her to tone things down a bit. Saying that "I have to seriously question whether anything (they) write can be trusted" is COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE, given that what I said was VERIFIABLE and FACTUAL. Deleting references that support my statements hardly constitutes a fair, balanced, or civil approach. If the arguments get heated, remember it takes both sides. Remember user BHG started it, by deleting appropriate comments on a CFD page. If one as the accuser claims something is not 'verifiable' then, at the least, one would expect that the 'defendant' could post evidence of verifiability. Deleting proof is simply muzzling free speech.Ryoung122 11:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my comment. There is not the slightest bit of evidence that anyone has ever been "in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet", or even that such a position could exist. and the problem is that Robert does not seem to understand the sweeping nature of the claim being made. He probably intends to claim to that his role as a fact-checker for a popular publication is not limited to old people in any set of countries, but the inability to distinguish between the two is what leads me to query whether any of his claims is credible. This sort of hyperbole is one the things which fact-checkers should be rigorously hunting down, rather than employing it themselves. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung, I'd like to note some items in your response. First, as Natalie asked above, please furnish diffs -- or at least links -- to the pages you refer. I have spent a couple hours trying to find any trace of this exchange where BHG acted inappropriately. (I assume you are referring to this talk page.)

Second, there is a very clear line between commenting on a person & commenting on their actions; sometimes it is easy to blur the line between them. However, BHG's comment you quote above can be read or seen as a comment on your actions: she is making an observation based on your claim that you are "in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet". Taken at face value, the words "in charge" imply that you are responsible for their welfare -- you make sure that these people get enough food, receive shelter, are attended to by a doctor, and so forth. While I know from other contexts that this is not what you meant -- IIRC, you are in charge of maintaining a list of these people -- rather than clarifying this statement, or explaining that you were quoted out of context, you respond with a strongly-worded paragraph with six words capitalized for emphasis! (Using capitalization for emphasis is not like adding hot peppers to salsa: using a little goes much further than a lot.)

This makes for very unpleasant reading, & I wonder whether you are aware of how intimidating your responses can be. And I speak from experience. The one time we crossed paths was at the article Katr67 refers to below. Looking back I'm amazed that although I was only marginally involved in that dispute, reading that conversation left me with an unpleasant impression of you. Every point you made could have been done with fewer words & far less emphasis. Have a look at the discussion at the link I made above, to the CfD on Erdos numbers: people were passionate, even angry, in that discussion, but I rarely saw anyone need to capitalize their words for emphasis.

All of this leaves me with an impression of a person who is given to making sweeping statements, & who responds to questions not with careful, rational arguments, but impassioned assertions accompanied by wild gestures. I don't think this impression is accurate -- seeing how you have a job that depends on meticulous work -- but it is very hard to reconcile these two. I believe this led to BHG to make her observation about you. Unless you change your style here on Wikipedia, more people will come to believe she is accurate. If that happens, they will act appropriately. -- llywrch 01:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'd just like to point out that the conflict at the Mary Ramsey Wood article that Ryoung122 often brings up, (and in which he cited himself as source, which is what necessitated creating an article about himself) was not about whether she was 120 years old, a claim which nobody involved in the article was defending, it was about how to present the information that debunked the claim (which was made in 1908 and not by any of the involved authors, who were simply quoting cited sources). The article history and talk page gives the details of the mediation I requested by Trusilver, involving myself and Aboutmovies, with additional comments from Peteforsyth, who also made some attempts at mediation. I walked away from that article because of the relentless accusations of bad faith by Ryoung122, and I hesitate to comment here now because it's likely my comments will bring additional bad faith accusations, making my editing experience on Wikipedia stressful and unpleasant. If any editor previously uninvolved with the Wood article can point out how my actions there might be characterized as bad faith, however, I will certainly apologize to Ryoung122. Katr67 17:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• From what I saw on the talk page of that article it appeared that Young was attempting to brow beat anyone who didn't accept his word and opinions as irrefutable fact. Assuming good faith aside this guy seems to have a self-installed God complex. He appears to be rude, patronising and bullish. From what I saw you have no reason to apologise for anything. ---- WebHamster 01:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Since I’m apparently a topic of discussion, I’ll introduce my introduction to RY. After writing the aforementioned Mary Ramsey Wood article using reliable sources and no original research, I received this lovely message from RY accusing me of re-writing history. I replied to RY that he should really read the article and notice that it was sourced, so no I did not re-write history, I regurgitated it, otherwise that is a violation of original research. I and others then “battled” RY over his changes to the article, not because we cared how old she was, but as I think the talk page bears out, that it was about core Wikipedia policies of verfifiability and reliable sources (plus some WP:LEAD issues and undue weight thrown in for good measure). Instead of dealing with the issues in a civil, measured manner RY wanted to debate the whole age issue and god knows what else, when we just wanted sources per WP:RS, WP:V, WP:A, and then presentation in line with the WP:MOS. That’s all. We said the age discrepancy should be included, but it needed sources. Then RY’s auto-biography gets nominated for AFD, and well yes I will comment on that AFD as anyone can. I didn’t stalk RY to find it, I just followed the link he inserted for the autobio in the Wood page. Low and behold it is an auto, and didn’t assert notability per notability guidelines. So yes, I will vote for delete every time in that case, as to me that is the only reason to delete an article (outside of legal issues with copyright). And my past AFD participation shows that is how I roll. Not notable with WP:RS that provide enough substantial coverage, delete. One article with substantial coverage is not enough for me. So when the article was back up for AFD, I reiterated that argument (of which BHG's looks similar to my breakdown of the sources provided). Now, had I actually had a vendetta, I could email the large number of editors RY has ticked off to inform them of the AFD so we could all dance on his grave and start an offical anti-RY cabal. Additionally, I would have also become involved and voted for deletion of the category partially at issue. Then I would have gone around nominating all the other articles for AFD that RY has started. But I didn’t, and I would not. I have not with this or any other editors. I have several “enemies” if you will on Wikipedia that piss me off far more than RY, and I don’t go around nominating their articles for AFD or vote in AFD debates about articles they are involved in. Tempting as that may be, it is not inline with Wikipedia guidelines/policies and that is what is important to me, hence the strong policy based arguments (not random collateral issues like the meaning of the Wiki or Universe) I make whether it is in AFD, CFD, or just in general on talk pages like the Wood article or more recently on this article. This is not about RY, its about Wikipedia, despite rantings to the contrary. I will NOW TYPE in caps for emphasis, that makes my argument better. Oh wait, where’s the bolding and italics? Aboutmovies 19:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

More canvassing by Ryoung122

Just as he did at a recent CfD, Ryoung122 has now done some stealth canvassing of the AfD on his autobiography: see http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/9032

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. He's passionate and knowledgeable about his subject. Let's try and harness that. I'm prepared to work with him at Extreme longevity tracking. Let's see how things work out. Trust the closing admins to know what to do with the AfDs. Might be best to let this calm down now. Carcharoth 10:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung122: more canvassing and a sockpuppet

In addition to the self-promotional disruption, Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) has acknowledged creating a sockpuppet (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ryoung122). To add to the stealth canvassing ([6]) he has also engaged in extensive partisan canvassing on wikipedia: the AFD on his autobiography (see [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]), to which he has now posted over 4,000 words. He also been engaging on in more stealth canvssing off wikipedia, through his yahoogroups mailing list: [18], [19], [20]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've looked at the language he uses around the place - he's being pretty savage to people who don't support his "supercentenarian" neologism, falling into the classic trap of believing that not accepting the label implies disrespect to those so labelled. He's also quite blatantly engaged in sockpuppetry, vote stacking, and our od favourite vanispamcruftisement. I think he needs to clean up his act or get out of town, but he's unlikely to calm down while the deletion debates are underway since xFD is pretty brutal. What say we suggest a brief Wikibreak? Guy (Help!) 17:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note I did NOT use any 'sockpuppets' to 'VOTE' in any AFD debate. I did nominate the Keeley Dorsey article for deletion, which was withdrawn due to a formatting error (I haven't figured out how to create a 'second nomination' yet). The second ID was created with the first! What, that isn't obvious? Just the way that I suspect that User:Guy was once Just ziz Guy, You Know? Is that you?

How about this:

You claim the word 'supercentenarian' is a 'neologism', yet the only 'neologistic' aspect about it is that in the 1950's and 1970's it was hyphenated as 'super-centenarian'...and in the 1870's the term used was 'ultra-centenarian'. Thus, both the concept and the word are NOT new. This is just one of the many, many inconsistencies that others have not admitted to. Compromise and consensus-building must come out of not merely 'assuming good faith' but listening to what the other side has to say. I categorically deny 'vanispamcruft' on the grounds that there is no financial interest or .com link being used; all material is non-profit and scientifically oriented, save Guinness World Records, which in that case hardly needs mentioning as a COI since every 'world's oldest person' recognized by Guinness is considered 'notable.'

So, I ask: your NOT accepting that the word 'supercentenarian' existed before I came along, what does that mean? How can I assume good faith if others are resistant to even the facts? And while a Wikibreak seems like a good idea for everyone involved, continued tagging of articles like Habib Miyan (not created by myself) or A Ross Eckler Jr (not created by myself) is simply giving me 'more work to do' at the same time there are quite a few others. A non-Wikipedian e-mailed me that what is going on appears to be like Sherman's "March to the Sea." Consideration and rules-following must be in both directions. Both BHG and KittyBrewster have, at the very least, themselves engaged in questionable activity including COI nominations, name-calling, deletion of relevant material or crumpling into infoboxes, votestacking, canvassing, etc. Of course it's not called that when someone like them does it. But that's what it is, and the IP addresses show it.Ryoung122 23:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert, no wikikipeda notability guideline says that "every 'world's oldest person' recognized by Guinness is considered 'notable.'" The fact that you claim this suggests that you either haven't read the guidelines or that you pay them no attention.

As to your counter-allegations I have not canvassed anyone, I have not votestacked, I have not offered opinions on the XfDs other than at the XfD pages or when Robert and others have posted to my talk page, and I have no interest in these issues for there to be a conflict, as Robert would be aware of if he read WP:COI. If he has any evidence of any of these things, then he should post the diffs here, and if he he doesn't have the evidence then stop making accusations.

Meanwhile, I'm puzzled by the remarkably limited response to the evidence of disruption and votestacking which has been posted here. Should Robert and others conclude from this that such widespread canvassing, self-promotion and disruption of XfDs is acceptable, or at least sufficiently tolerated to be indulged in without being restrained? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• When the hell is some admin going to sort out the disruptive behaviour of Ryoung122? It's bad enough his overt and OTT canvassing for his autobio's AfD but when he starts resorting to canvassing other editors to help get an administrator blocked for trying to keep his behaviour in check, then that's well over the line. This guy needs cutting off at the knees before he does any more damage. So who's up for it? The evidence is overwhelming, c'mon, enough is enough now. ---- WebHamster 13:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed. For the past few days Ryoung122 has been running a campaign of harassment, bullying and intimidation directed against BrownHairedGirl and anyone else who has supported Delete on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher). Now he proposes on Carcharoth's talk page that BrownHairedGirl whose conduct has been unimpeachable throughout these constant attacks be blocked. Let’s have some action now please admins, as WebHampster points out, the evidence against Ryoung122 is overwhelming. - Galloglass 13:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Ryoung122 appears now to have brought his harassment to this notice board. See below for his latest attack on BrownHairedGirl. Past time something was done about this. - Galloglass 13:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

This kind of behaviour is wholly unacceptable. It's disrupting the encyclopedia. My reasons are outlined in the block log, of which generally they are "Attempting to harass other users: Disruptive editing, pushing POV, repeatatly inserting unverifiable information", as well as (omitted in the reason), abusing multiple accounts. Now, hopefully, we can get on with doing something more constructive than pasting hundreds of diffs on AN/I about a disruptive user. Like writing a neutral, verifiable, stable, well-written article. I have a few of them that I'm itching to write, and I intend to do so. Maxim 13:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well done, Maxim. Thanks. I'm afraid that I saw no indication that this editor had intention of engaging with wikipolicies on verifiabillity, notability etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree the current behaviour was not acceptable. I did see some faint signs of being amenable to working in a collaborative way, so I'm not going to agree that an indefinite block was the right thing to do. I would unblock if the user could demonstrate that they can change their ways, but they can't do that while blocked. I'm also wondering is who is going to edit the articles that this editor contributed? The ones that survive AfD, that is. Maxim, would you consider a long but not indefinite block? This editor has only been blocked for 31 hours previously, so possibly a long block might work better than an indefinite one. I fear an indefinite block at this point will only spawn more sockpuppets. Really, though, what is needed is for the editor to expand his editing outside his area of interest in order to gain more experience with Wikipedia. It is painfully obvious that there are basic things he has failed to pick up on, probably due to editing in such a narrow field. Carcharoth 00:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Surely the question is whether he failed to pick up on them or alternatively chose not to learn about them/not to abide by them? He has been repeatedly pointed to a series of guidelines, and paid no attention to any of them other than occasionally trying to find in some of them a point he could use, generally out of context. I admire your faith, but in this case I don't see the basis for sustaining it. I prefer your suggestion on Ryoung122's talk page that a prerequisite for any unblocking would have to include an statement from him "you understand why you were blocked and what has changed in the interim period". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Just one comment. Ryoung122 was editing in a small area. His attitude was abrasive but from my point of view seemed to arise more from inexperience outside that area and an argumentative attitude (neither of which should be reasons for blocks, though his arguments did tend towards the tendentious). I understand that it was the specific threats and personal attacks and levels of disruption that got him blocked, but, to be frank, I think you could have handled this better. Your approach does, in my opinion, contribute to the level of drama sometimes. Like it or not, people not used to AfD and Wikipedia's policies do see nomination of an article for deletion or tagging as an 'attack'. Sometimes just talking to people before tagging or nominating will help. And not just for a day or two. Sometimes turning situations like this around take time, and there is no deadline for Wikipedia. Slow improvement is sometimes better than scorching the earth and starting again. It is possible that Ryoung122 would never have reformed, but I don't think he was given a proper chance to do so. In my opinion, escalating lengths of blocks should have been used rather than an immediate indefinite block. If you read what I said above:

"He's passionate and knowledgeable about his subject. Let's try and harness that. I'm prepared to work with him at Extreme longevity tracking. Let's see how things work out. Trust the closing admins to know what to do with the AfDs. Might be best to let this calm down now."

Well, that was actually meant for both you and him to read. From what I can see, you both ignored that plea for calm, and that disappoints me. At some point, when disputes like this erupt, it is sometimes better to step back and become less involved and let others report the bad behaviour. I can understand wanting to see the issue through to the end, but trust your fellow editors and admins to do the right thing. You could have eased off on the tagging and nomination (for now), filed the sockpuppetry report and then stepped back and waited for things to calm down. Carcharoth 09:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Some truth in that. But an indefinite block is not necessarily a permanent block. And BHG has said she regrets this becoming such a trainwreck for RYoung122. The troubles is that that he took it very personally (in which he was wrong) and over-reacted. All is not lost for him. But he certainly needs to calm down during a time-out. - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Carcharoth, I would have been happy to let others report the disruption, but that wasn't happening :(

As to your suggestion that I should have tried talking to Ryoung122, I did. I tried lots of times, and it was as futile an occupation as herding cats or building a house out jelly: he simply wouldn't or couldn't focus on any one point at a time, and poured out masses of irrelevant copy-and-pastes. It's all there on my talk page, plentiful and lengthy efforts to discuss with him, which I invite you to read if you have a few days to spare.

It's quite possible of course that I could have handled it better, but one of things that's not uncommon in this sort of situation is for people who didn't do anything to criticise the imperfection of those who did do something. The core of this an editor using wikipedia to promote his own work, with non-notable articles on himself and his colleagues, and dozens of unreferenced or barely-referenced stub articles carrying links to his own sites. It would have helped considerably to have had other admins pointing out that wikipedia has plenty of guidelines about this sort of activity, but I'm not going to criticise any admin for taking the easy route (we're all volunteers, fully entitled to choose when to get involved).

Most editors skate over the piles of unreferenced stubs they encounter along the way, which is understandable because there are so many of them, and most editors don't tag problematic articles or bring them to AfD. That's their choice, but it might sometimes be appropriate to reflect on how much easier is to criticise those who do identify articles which fall short of basic standards than to try upholding WP:V and its sub-policies. Why is it that WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOTE come as such a shock to so many editors? Could it be connected with the fact that raising these issues is so often a very uncomfortable process that it isn't done as much as it should be? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to make one point regarding the recent article for deletion debate about Robert Young. I posted on the deletion discussion page, and my comments were immediately tagged as if I were a sockpuppet, or some lackey who had been manipulated into posting there by the subject. This assumption seems to have been made because I have only posted and edited one article on Wikipedia (an article on the Jazz singer Jimmy Scott), the reason being that I only recently joined, and am learning the ropes about wikipedia (there is a lot to learn and we are not all born experts! Maybe some people forget that!). Anyway, I found am interesting wikipedia guidleine "Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers" which I think some of the people on this website would do well to have a look at. I was disappointed to encounter such mistrust and such assumptions merely for expressing an opinion. "Newcomers" may be a bit green, and have a lot to learn, but give them a chance please. You have no idea what an individual might have to contribute once they have learned the ropes. I just thought it was worth adding this because it seems some people may not have considered it. Cjeales 10:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjeales (talk • contribs)

I don't want to spam this discussion by posting the messages, but I'll just note that Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) is urging all 800 members of his " his mailing list to come and disrupt wikipedia's AfD process.

In response to Cjeales, newcomers are welcome. However, newcomers who join wikipiedia as a result of an outside campaign to change the outcome of a particular debate will find that their views will not be accorded so much weight until they learnt how wikipedia works and earned the trust of the community. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Is that the same person as Ryoung122? I peaked at the account because I was concerned he was trying to evade Maxim's block above (there ought to be a rule stated somewhere that "even if you were blocked for the wrong reason, don't make matters worse by evading the block by creating more accounts"), but it's an old, currently inactive account with no traceable activity & therefore no clear evidence that the user behind it is the same person as Ryoung122's. -- llywrch 19:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my typo: I meant Ryoung122, and have corrected my previous post. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A newbie casualty of this war

A casualty of the user:Ryoung122 wars (which now includes an attack [21] on the notability of Stephen Coles by the same editors), has been the indefinite blocking of user:StanPrimmer as a sockpuppet, when actually he is at most a meatpuppet. For those of you who've not lately reviewed the difference, see WP:MEAT. Specifically: "As opposed to sock puppets, meatpuppets are actual newbies, and it is important to not bite the newbies." The obvious reason being that newbies do not know what meatpuppets are, either (far less than administrators seem to).

Now, Stanley R. Primmer is a newbie and real person (for photo of him and talk he gave while founding the Supercentinarian Research Foundation, see [22]), and this inconvenient fact was pointed out by to editor user:BrownHairedGirl, who had specifically acccused [23] Primmer of being a sockpuppet for Robert Young. Apparently on no other basis but supporting comments Primmer gave in defence of Young and Coles [24] [25]. Apparently, if you disagree with an administrator and have a new account, that makes you a sockpuppet until proven otherwise, and perhaps without anybody bothering to look one way or the other (as in this case). In any case, user:BrownHairedGirl went to administrator user:Maxim's webpage and asked for a range of Young IP sockpuppet blocks, and included Primmer as a meatpuppet [26]. Whereupon Maxim blocked Primmer as a sock, indefinitely, giving sockpuppetry as the reason [27] [28] without adequate checking of ISP locations. Wups. The two men (Young and Primmer) are on opposite sides of the country, as their ISP's show. A mistake, and not a good one for an admin (who is supposed to be careful about permanent blocks of nameusers) but perhaps honest.

From here on, however, is where things go beyond honest mistake.

Editor NealRC and I pointed out that Primmer was not a sock, but a newbie. At this point BrownHairedGirl thanked us, simply characterized him as indeed a meatpuppet, and went so far as to reference WP:SOCK [29]. Apparently not reading WP:MEAT. When I pointed out the obvious difference [30], I got no response from BrownHairedGirl.

My next action was to notify administrator user:Maxim on his TALK page that Primmer was not a sock, but rather, as a newbie, had been blocked by mistake at somebody else's request, and that this was pretty ironic action for people who were afraid of "meatpuppets" (people recruited into an argument!) At least meatpuppets only give unwanted opinions and don't do administrative damage! [31]. Maxim's response was simply to erase my comment from his talkpage [32], not reply, AND do nothing about Primmer. After the initial block for being a sockpuppet, Primmer had previously been both unblocked and then RE-blocked indefinitely by Maxim, both without stated editorial reason [33]. So it's not as though Maxim didn't think about it. This newbie remains blocked, due to his opinions (which he gave, by the way, in a case involving public notability of a wiki-BIO figure, so it's not as though outside opinion wasn't appropriate).

In summary, both editors know what they are doing, and they know it is against policy, having been notified. Neither deign to answer ME. But they did it anyway, because they wanted to, and it got rid of a "disruptive" opinion in two debates (one on Young, the other on Coles) which didn't agree with theirs. I suppose they figure they can let it stand so long as nobody brings it to ANI

Now, I've been editing Wikipedia for a while (in fact, a lot longer than either Maxim or BrownHairedGirl !), and I've seen how administrative abuse works. If you leave more than one message on a TALK page you open yourself up to charges of harrassment, and if you're too good at argument someplace else, you find that you're accused of being that nebulous thing which nobody wants to be: "disruptive." The last being a little difficult to use against me, with my rather wide range of constructive and still existant edits, but I know when it's time to leave the matter in the hands of people who can't get stomped on for their views. I've personally done all I can. You have two badly-performing administrators. So, your dead fish. SBHarris 04:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sbharris has omitted the crucial point here: that Ryoung122 has already used several socks, and is using his Worlds Oldest People yahoogroup to campaign for as many meatpuppets as possible to come and swamp AfDs. I will paste one example below (there are several others)

Also, Harris has alleged that other editors (apparently including me) have been "recruiting associates and friends to echo you from among people who are already here". I have asked for the diffs, without success, and if Harris is acting in good faith, I hope that they will now be produced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggie_Barnes

 I am reminded of the saying by Martin Niemoller:

 First They Came for the Jews
 First they came for the Jews
 and I did not speak out
 because I was not a Jew.
 Then they came for the Communists
 and I did not speak out
 because I was not a Communist.
 Then they came for the trade unionists
 and I did not speak out
 because I was not a trade unionist.
 Then they came for me
 and there was no one left
 to speak out for me.

 Pastor Martin Niemöller

 So, group members: do we really care, or not? If someone 115 years
 old is not immune to this, then who is? Again, one man is no army. I
 cannot be the only one standing up for these articles. If you think
 that supercentenarians are notable, then you all (800+ members) had
 better make your voices heard, lest it be too late.

 Moderator

• I find it ironic that you assume bad faith in alleging the assumption of bad faith. Are you helping User:StanPrimmer to help us to rectify this mistake? I don't see any actual evidence of that. I have left a message on his Talk page to try and straighten things out. Looks like he's being a bit more sanguine about this than you are. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Give us your fucking money

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image:Giveit.jpg and Image:Giveit.png was a little joke as the author Neil says at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Donation Banner. It is apparently only displayed on User talk:Addhoc, User:Jeffpw, User talk:Jeffpw and User talk:Dynaflow. They are just three of a huge number of Wikipedia editors and they personally chose to add this (see [34] for Addhoc) to their own user or talk pages. User space like this is not a part of the encyclopedia and I hope you don't advice people against Wikipedia based on something in user space. PrimeHunter 14:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shop steward's thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I added your userpage as an exception for all three images [35].--chaser - t 06:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed. In any case, a little harmless vulgarity can pay dividends beyond a chuckle from those unafraid to laugh at it: "Regular swearing at work can help boost team spirit among staff, allowing them to express better their feelings as well as develop social relationships, according to a study by researchers."[36] Leave the fucking thing be. --Dynaflow babble 13:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Deleted

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

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

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

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

User:Doctorfluffy

Resolved

 – Lar unblocked and will be monitoring for any further issues

I believe that the block for sockpuppetry is mistaken. The evidence given is not warranted:

Evidence of sockpuppetry + disruptive and trolling use of Wikipedia = eminently blockable. — Phil Sandifer 16:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I propose that the block be removed and the editor allowed to make his own case. Kindly note there was a related discussion now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Pilotbob which make have given rise to this problem. --Gavin Collins 10:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock. User:Doctorfluffy has been active since May; I'm not aware of significant disruption on his part, and I'm not persuaded that he is a sockpuppet. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• The first step should have been to ask Phil, not post here. I've left him a message to direct him here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• We have here a user whose stated purpose is to delete articles, who says he will only participate in AfD discussions to vote delete, and who has no meaningful mainspace contributions beyond tagging and trying to delete articles. We also have evidence linking him to other accounts with similar editing habits. This is straightforward. Note that I am not the blocking admin - User:David Gerard is, and he blocked for the checkusered sockpuppet evidence. The statement "the evidence given is not warranted" does not seem to me to be meaningful, as I can't find anything beyond David's declaration that Checkuser determined sockpuppetry. This is generally considered sufficient evidence. Phil Sandifer 17:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• First- you're right that I should have waited until the blocking admin was contacted, rather than endorsing an unblock here. Sorry. Second- User:Doctorfluffy has posted a defense against the accusations of sockpuppetry and disruption on his talk page, and since he can't participate in this discussion, he asked that someone point that out here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Doctorfluffy's claim that he and Pilotbob edit from the same IP during work hours but from different IP's at home (at the exact same time) is at least plausible. Phil, does this assertion comport with your checkuser results? Or perhaps is does not matter: Since other behavior has been found disruptive (on which I do not yet have an opinion), was the checkuser just icing? — Satori Son 19:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser accounts show all three usernames from different IPs at matching times. They're blatantly single-purpose sockpuppet accounts. Pilotbob has been blocked for AFD dickery before - David Gerard 19:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I understand. Wouldn't the three users editing from different IPs at the same time indicate that they are not the same person? Am I misunderstanding what you said? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect what David means is that, at any given time, all three accounts are on the same IP, and that when one changes IPs, the others do as well. Phil Sandifer 19:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's how I understand it: different IP's at matching times. Just wanted to make sure we did our due diligence. — Satori Son 19:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep. - David Gerard 21:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I really thought that User:Doctorfluffy was innocent of sockpuppetry. But if checkuser does not support his assertion, then that would make me wrong. Make a note of the date, because it doesn't happen often. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Blimey. Slap my blindcheeks and call me Mary. Mental note for future use: just because you've agreed with someone whenever you've crossed paths with them doesn't mean they aren't fucking over the 'pedia. Are there any AfDs we need to revisit because of this? Because I'm too tired to look for myself and must away to bed now anyway: I'm cooking for a party of six tomorrow and need my beauty sleep to achieve it and the associated shopping ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there's little more annoying than having someone you thoroughly agree with do dickish things to support it. This is an example of classic sockpuppetry: using second accounts to fake consensus. Which is a gross violation of the Wikipedia way of trying to do things by a real consensus - David Gerard 21:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I left notes on all the open AfDs he participated in (well, the ones that User:JoshuaZ didn't get to first). — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Socking to defend

Since there is no way for me to defend myself otherwise, I was forced to create a second account. I won't use it in the main namespace or for any other purpose than to resolve this issue, so please don't just block me off the bat.

I don't understand what exactly the checkuser has shown. To reiterate, Pilotbob, AndalusianNaugahyde, and myself edit at work at the same time. I've admitted this repeatedly. I wasn't aware of this, but apparently there are two possible IPs those edits could come from (not one as I originally thought), since we have two internet connections and sometimes users are switched between them. Regardless, all three of our edits during the workday come from that pair of IP addresses. At night, we all go home around the same time, and all of IP addresses would then correspond to our home internet connections. I don't see how this is so damning that the case is immediately closed. What exactly are Phil Sandifer's and SatoriSon's comments referring to? Why is it so surprising that our IP addresses change at the same time? I believe my initial explanation of the situation admitted as much. Doctorfluffytemp 23:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• We don't draw any distinction between multiple accounts operated by a single editor and multiple accounts acting in concert from the same or similar addresses. Guy (Help!) 00:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Have you read my defense? As I have stated multiple times already, we independently have an interest in notability debates and AfDs, but we have never "acted in concert". The overlap between our edit histories is coincidental due to the fact that we happen to patrol the same sections of Wikipedia, mainly the AfD cats and boards. At most, one of us may have !voted in an AfD the other nominated, purely by happenstance. Can you please find an example where our edits to the same AfD were more than that? Perhaps a situation we were vocally supported each other in an actual discussion? A situation where we acted in such an actively collaborative way that the AfD was tainted? Are our opinions invalid simply because we happen to be in the geographic location? Even taking into account that our separate interests lie in the same niche of Wikipedia, I would still venture that the number of AfDs we have both contributed to is very small in proportion to the number I have participated in. Is it somehow against policy for two people who happen to be in close physical proximity to both contribute to Wikipedia in the same manner? Doctorfluffytemp2 01:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  I don't know about the checkuser evidence, but creating an account for the exclusive purpose of indiscriminately pushing for deletions does seem rather troll-like. The rapid, indiscriminate delete !votes you cast and nominations you made really offer no insight into the merits of the articles they pertain to, and very short time gaps suggest that you couldn't have done more than glanced at the articles. So I really can't imagine what intent you might have had apart from creating the appearance of consensus favoring deletion where there might not otherwise be one. — xDanielx ^T/_C 01:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  I refer you to the extensive defense section on my original account's talk page. It fully explains the rationale for what I do. Continually blocking me and not allowing me to even comment in my defense is rather exasperating. Doctorfluffytemp3 01:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  It would be smarter to cease attempting to stretch our credulity this way. Even if you were NOT a sockpuppet of another editor, it would still be disruptive to create an account solely to attempt to delete content from Wikipedia. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  Your exact concern is addressed in my defense section. I articulate precisely why solely particpating in AfDs is not disruptive and is actually beneficial. I implore you, please read it - I have linked to it multiple times now. Doctorfluffytemp4 03:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Perhaps the indef block should be reconsidered, as you intentions don't appear disruptive. (Not sure about the checkuser findings; probably best for those with the CU tools to decide.) Still, I think your rapid AfD !votes and nominations can be seen as forceful overrepresentation of a somewhat outlandish view. Your philosophy seems to be if someone else thought this should be deleted, then it probably should be deleted by my standards, so I don't need to look carefully at the content. This makes sense, but I don't think it's how AfD should or is meant to work -- rarely do you see users saying "keep - this is admittedly not notable but I inherently disagree with WP:N," and those who leave such comments are rightly told to bug off and read our guidelines (even though a year ago such comments were generally seen as reasonable). To an extent, AfD participants are expected to !vote in a way that they think is consistent with what the community thinks is best -- a reasonable amount of deviation is always acceptable and helps gauge consensus changes, but in my opinion you were pushing too hard. Perhaps, if the checkusers decide that your explanation is plausible, we should hold a request for comment to discuss these issues? — xDanielx ^T/_C 02:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for reasons for a check

• (undent) I'm not aware that being a DeleteElf is a reason for being blocked. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing doesn't have a section that suggests a user should be blocked for taking part in AfDs, nor does WP:BLOCK#When_blocking_may_be_used. Care must be taken when looking at cases involving users whose behaviour one doesn't like or agree with, but whose behaviour as such is not against Wiki policy and guidelines. I understand that Doctorfluffy's participation in AfD's has attracted attention. Though I think this on Nov 5th - for which Doctorfluffy was cleared - followed by a block on Nov 9th looks close to harresment. And, out of interest, I couldn't find any discussion for a request for a checkuser search. I think there are valid reasons to question this block. I do however find that the situation that Doctorfluffy has outlined of three people working in the same office who all set out to concentrate on deleting articles to be one that will invite close attention. If this is true then all three users would need to accept that mass voting in AfD attracts attention, and that if three people are doing it from the same IP address then those users are going to be asked some stiff questions, and will need to be very careful as to how they conduct their accounts. I would like the benefit of the doubt given to all three accounts and the block removed on the understanding that if the accounts !vote or comment on the same AfD in the future that it is highly likely they will get blocked again. Failing that I would suggest to Doctorfluffy and the others that they open new accounts and take great care never to edit in such a way to call into question their honesty - not to support each other in editing articles or in AfD discussions, etc. They would need to accept that given their situation and their editing preferences, they must take more care than the average Wiki editor. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 19:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sound block-ness asserted

This is a sound block. I checkusered this user as well and reviewed contributions and the net effect is one user acting to disrupt AfD discussions. I have addressed the objections and made an offer (despite it being a sound block) at User_talk:Doctorfluffy#Regarding_sockpuppetry, similarly to how I counseled Pilotbob at his talk. ++Lar: t/c 20:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Second request

I notice that you mention at User_talk:Doctorfluffy#Regarding_sockpuppetry that you did the check "on request". Could you point us to that request because I've not yet seen it, nor the reasons and evidence for the request. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 00:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a request made privately, (estimates are that somewhere between 2/3 and 3/4 of all requests at en:wp are private and do not appear on WP:RFCU). I adjudged the reason for the request sufficient to warrant carrying the request out, so I did. ++Lar: t/c 09:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Third request

You have been trusted with checkuser, and part of the reason for that trust would have been that you are not dishonest or seek to conceal things. Yet you are reluctant to be as open about this affair as you could be. There are questions about this case, and it would give reassurance if there were evidence of greater accountability for the reasoning behind the action. I have asked twice already for reassurance, and I am now asking for the third time for the reasons for the check and the subsequent block. You needn't reveal the name of the person or persons who made the request if you feel their reputation would be soiled by this affair; though it would be reassuring if you could at least let us know the reasoning and the evidence. If the person who made the request would also come forward that would be even better. You must be aware that secrecy and evasiveness leads to greater concerns, so if you have reasons for not revealing part of the process that led to this user to get checked and then blocked it would be helpful if you could indicate that. Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 22:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Checkusers are sometimes privy to information that can not be released due to the privacy policy. The checkusers do check each other. Mercury 22:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Fourth request

It's more the reason for the check that I am curious about. I've just been spending some fairly dull time looking at the history of the accounts under question and I don't see the reason why a check needed to be done. Also, if two of these users are sockpuppets, and one is the puppet master, then the puppet master would appear to be AndalusianNaugahyde, as that account is the oldest. At the moment the puppet master is claimed to be Pilotbob. The situation is not giving me confidence that this case has been handed with due care and consideration. That a concern about the block has been raised here and several people have supported that concern, yet we still haven't been given sufficient reason for why the check took place, is piquing my curiosity. It has been suggested I request the Ombudsman commission look into the matter, and I think I will. I've just had a look at Lars userpage, and I can see that he is a straight up person who is a highly respected Wikipedian. The impression I get from his userpage is that he would understand my concerns and would support my approaching the Ombudsman as I have not had satisfaction here. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 01:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This was a pretty routine investigation. My entry into it came when someone I trust as a good investigator, someone good at spotting correlations, sent me mail asking me to look. For privacy reasons I choose not to reveal who that is, although they can if they wish. I also choose not to reveal what the particular correlations are (per WP:BEANS). It resulted in a pretty routine result, really... 3 accounts that very solidly correlate together. Which account is the puppet master is not something we always get exactly right, and it doesn't really matter actually, it can be changed if it turns out (in cases where there are a lot of socks) that better identification helps more. See also User_talk:Doctorfluffy#Regarding_sockpuppetry, particularly my latest entry, where I opine about happenstance, about cost/benefit and about levels of effort to prove or disprove things. I don't think there is a lot here to look into about why this investigation was carried out but if you want to go to the ombudsman I'd welcome their looking into it because if I've misstepped, or if David did, we of course want to know about it so we can improve going forward. But really, you should know, most investigations happen because of non public requests. What matters is what the outcome is. ++Lar: t/c 01:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Fifth request

Thanks for pointing me to your detailed message on Doctorfluffy's userpage. I can see you are a honourable and respected and admired person, and that you do strive to be careful and as helpful as you can. I'm still, however, not clear as to why there was a check made in the first place. I don't see hard evidence in looking through the histories of the three accounts of disruptive behaviour or of deliberate and obvious vote stacking. I see three accounts that had been editing on Wikipedia for six months or more before discussions on AfDs began. The more I look into these accounts the more I see either the rather odd but plausible story of three people who work in the same place and share similiar interests and concerns with AfDs which all occured at the same time (something that could happen if they were chatting together about their Wiki activity) or one person who set up two sockpuppet accounts six months in advance - planning for the moment when all three accounts would vote stack, and then do it so badly that he votes against himself in crucial debates and votes for himself when it doesn't matter, and quite late, when the discussion is all but ended! Hmmm. What I've been asking is where is the clear evidence of policy breaking and disruption that prompted a call for an investigation? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

due diligence versus reasonableness

I see that Lar has carried out his due dilligence work and made reasonable conclusions from the evidence he has accumulated, but at the same time, Doctorfluffy has given reasonable explainations for the reasons for the correlation, and now the block should be lifted. Both sides have given evidence, both have reasonable grounds for their concerns, and both have acted in good faith. However, I think keeping a block on Doctorfluffy has always been unreasonable on the grounds that he has come forward to explain his actions; now it is time for the admins to expalain what they intend to do next to resolve this issue.

The secondary argument for the original block by Phil Sanders ("disruptive and trolling use of Wikipedia disruptive and trolling use of Wikipedia") is unfounded. Participation in AfD debates is an important process in WP in order to enforce WP guidelines; without this enforcement, WP will be tranformed from an enyclopedia to a fansite in a very short time. I see no evidence of trolling by Doctorfluffy; there is no evidence of POV pushing in any of his edits. What I do see is someone who consistently and justifiably asserts WP guidelines in AfD debates, and as such is providing a valuable service to the WP community.--Gavin Collins 10:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well if Doctorfluffy is a sock of Pilotbob, how come the latter is not currently blocked?cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Gavin.collins: The problem with this argument is that you seem to assume as a given that P, D and A are different people, and then try to justify their actions. That they are different is an unwarranted assumption. The evidence makes it highly likely that is not the case. The assertions made by Doctorfluffy are not satisfactory to me, and absent proof other than by assertion, I am disinclined to believe the accounts are different. I am open to other suggestions than the one I made on the talk page as for ways to demonstrate difference, but I'm not just going to buy repeated assertion without proof. Note that normally, even if they were different people, if they were acting in concert as meatpuppets we would still block anyway if there was a clear pattern, as there is in this case, but I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt there, and watch to see if the pattern recurs. One of the sock accounts, the one that has undertaken to stop being disruptive, has been unblocked, that is sufficient, but if it goes back on its undertaking to stop being disruptive, it will be blocked as well. ++Lar: t/c 11:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Point taken; if two editors from the same office work together, then technically they are meatpuppets when they participate in the same AfD, because they are 'connected' parties regardless of whether they are acting independently or not. I think then what is needed is for Pilotbob and Doctorfluffy to disclose their close proximity on their user pages and to make an undertaking never to work in concert together. I think this might be the way to get the block lifted. --Gavin Collins 12:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)--Gavin Collins 12:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced they are different users. I believe David Gerard said so as well, referring to "different IPs at matching times" above. However, if these userids disclose the possible relationship between them in a neutral way on both pages, and if they undertake never to work in concert, (interpreted quite broadly, meaning not ever both participating in any discussion where consensus needs to be reached) I'd be willing to lift the block. Note that Doctorfluffy rejected the very suggestion of undertaking not to work together on his userpage: "There is no reason we should not be allowed to contribute to the same articles. This is blatant discrimination because we share a close physical proximity." (from User_talk:Doctorfluffy#Regarding_sockpuppetry his point 3). I'm not sure I'd characterise it as discrimination but I do agree that it's treating these IDs specially. Oh well. WP is not "fair". We are a project to build an encyclopedia, not a social justice experiment. Note that other admins might feel differently of course but I will reblock at the first sign of any collusion or disruption on the part of these IDs. The offer extends to AndalusianNaugahyde as well. By the way, I personally consider nominating articles for deletion, without any other contributions of a substantive and significant nature, as prima facie disruption. That is a personal feeling mind you, not policy, although perhaps it should be. ++Lar: t/c 13:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Note for those wondering: the reason I'm willing to lift the block in that cirucmstance is, once the relationship is disclosed and the IDs undertake not to violate our WP:SOCK policy by avoiding the appearance of stacking, they are in compliance with policy, we do not at this time ban socks outright. I want to work creatively to enable these users to contribute positively if that's at all possible. ++Lar: t/c 14:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Doctorfluffy can't edit this thread, but I was just talking to him IRL and we both are willing to refrain from participating in the same consensus related articles and anything else that would give an appearance of meatpuppetry. Pilotbob 17:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If he can still edit his talk page, let him do so, outlining this, (he previously refused) and I will unblock. Fair warning, you'll be on an unfairly short leash as far as I am concerned, one minor misstep and I'll block again, but as I have pointed out more than once, WP is not "fair". Note ALSO that you are welcome (recommended, in fact if you have doubts) to ask first, ask me if the edit is iffy, and if I say it is OK, and you get blocked for it anyway, I'll stick up for you. ++Lar: t/c 00:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

He did. I am seeking concurrence from David Gerard to unblock Doctorfluffy subject to monitoring. If David is opposed I would not want to see an unblock unless there is overwhelming and clear consensus here for that. We MUST stop overturning the blocks or unblocks of others because we disagree and can't be bothered to seek consensus first. ++Lar: t/c 05:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fifth request (simultaneous)

Some edits the acounts have made: [37], [38], [39] - I picked those up quite quickly from comments in the edit summaries. The accounts have not been engaging in disruptive vandalism. For a combined 18 months the accounts have either added material to articles, tidied up, reverted obvious vandalism, or tagged articles that were a cause for concern. Oversights can happen, especially when busy. What concerns me more, is that when this case is under such scrutiny, that assertions such as the above are made, which can be seen to be unfounded with a quick look at the history of the accounts. This started out as a small case, but it could end up with the reputation of a respected and valued Wikipedian being slightly tarnished because of his reluctance to be less certain of his own judgement. Lars, what is being asked is for you to show the diffs and other such evidence of the disruptive editing of these three acccounts that led to the need for a check. I don't know you, so all I can go by is what is in front of me. I see a user who has gained the deep respect and trust of other Wikipedians, but who may have made an error here. I'd like to see the evidence that will clear up the doubts. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I looked at those edits, they're not in and of themselves disruptive, but they're ("I added all these foods because I drink a lot" ?? we typically cite things rather than relate drinking experiences) marginal at best. Some marginal edits and wikignoming don't give a free pass. But what you seem to be harping on more than anything else is "why" I carried out the check. I carried out the check because someone asked me to. Someone I know is good at spotting connections and who I trust. As it turned out that person was looking for a different connection, which wasn't there. Checkuser is imperfect. Sometimes the reason for a check doesn't stand up when you look. But just like a mechanic can fix a different problem than the one you brought the car in to be address, or a doctor can treat one illness they found after you visited with a different one, or a policeman write you a ticket for one thing after pulling you over for another... (and note CU is not like any of those things, we are not mechanics, doctors or cops... it's just an analogy, ok?) sometimes CU checks turn up things you weren't looking for. There isn't anything wrong with finding something you weren't looking for, it's more of a bonus.

I'm starting to think you're just trying to dig around here ("with the reputation of a respected and valued Wikipedian being slightly tarnished"... is that what you're trying for???) for no particular reason other than to see how long you can make the thread, or whether you can get me to say something I'll regret later. I had probable cause to carry out the check, and I found something. Other checkusers and admins corroborated it. Do I make mistakes sometimes? Sure. We all do. And I think I'm pretty good about admitting it. Heck, I LOVE to be proven wrong about something and have them turn out better than I feared, it happens in all sorts of scenarios. But you're not going to get me to violate privacy or reveal investigative methods to clear up your doubts. End of story. Note that we are not a justice system and not inherently fair. ++Lar: t/c 00:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC) (Lar, long A, not Lars :) )

Let's clear up a misunderstanding. As I've wikied above, I have been asking for the reason why the check was done in the first place. As can be seen from the above, I've not been getting the response. Having asked a number of times and only having got - up till now - evasive answers, can you wonder why I started to indicate that a reputation of trust can only go so far? And that someone who continues to be evasive without due explanation is not going to keep a reputation of trust. Implying that I came here with an agenda to discredit you does not stand up to the facts. I have asked again and again why a check was done on these people. Only now do I get anything close to an answer. Your response has managed to irk me a bit as I have been asking a question, and getting evasive answers, and eventually I get accused of plotting against you merely because I have pointed out that you have been evasive without explanation.

I see that under current guidelines someone with the checkuser facility can do a check on anyone whom they have reasonable cause to suspect of breaking policy, so that would include being notified in private by someone whose opinion they trust. (Though I am uncomfortable that checkuser requests are being made in private outside of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, no matter the personal relationship and mutual respect of the persons involved.) I also note that users with this facility must not give out personal information about the account (such as, that user A and user B work in the same place, especially if user A has identified that place on his user page, while user B has not). However, I cannot see in the guidelines that when a block resulting from a check is challenged and a discussion opened, that a reasonable request for the reasons why the check was done in the first place should not be answered. Continued evassive replies will only engender a feeling that something was overlooked, or a mistake made, and the person doing the check doesn't want to admit it - and this feeling is reinforced when the person who conducted the check is making statements that can be identified as mistaken (the three accounts having a long history of positive edits before the AfDs, and the wrong account being identified as the puppet-master). All this is a mater of record. So to be accused at the end of this frustrating experience of having deliberately engineered this situation in order to discredit the checker is galling to say the least. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 13:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your insertion of section headings to highlight how many times you asked (while leaving the text itself bolded) because section headings are meant to either be completely arbitrary or add some meaningful structure to discussion and the primary focus of this discussion ought not to be how many times you have asked basically the same question. ++Lar: t/c 15:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

To your repeated requests. I really feel this has been asked and answered, multiple times. Let's review the sequence of events. Note that for the record, you are not entitled to this level of detail, since you are an uninvolved party. In the course of investigating other matters, a user I trust asked me to look into Pilotbob, suggesting that they might be a sleeper sock of a very troublesome user. Based on that, I checked. The connection was not there, but I did find the socks that have been reported already, saw Pilotbob himself had been recently blocked for disruption and reviewed enough of the other contributions to conclude they were disruptive too. I revealed the connection, but not the underlying IP(s) or the nature of the correlation to the user that asked. I said that the connection was pretty solid. I suggested they block and tag if they felt it warranted. All perfectly routine.

Meanwhile, independently, David Gerard also investigated. I don't know why, exactly, but again, we do about 2/3 to 3/4 of our investigations because of being asked through means other than RFCU, and I find that perfectly appropriate. He substantiates my findings that these are stone cold correlated. Sure, mistakes are possible but we don't have to be perfect here. There is no rush.

As to the "months of contributions" part... our detractors are getting better at what they do and it is not uncommon now to find sleeper socks with a fair number of innocuous edits that have been around for months and months. Good edits don't give you a free pass to be disruptive. There are some ok edits, some marginal ones, and some bad ones with each of these accounts.

As to the motives part, I don't get why you care so much about this, this is mind numbingly routine stuff here, completely run of the mill checking and blocking... that you and Gavin repeatedly dig into this routine matter puzzles me. It's wasting valuable time that could be spent in other more productive ways, so it gives the appearance of disruptiveness or trolling, even if your motives are pristine. I feel this is as much explanation as you need, perhaps more. ++Lar: t/c 15:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"I feel this is as much explanation as you need, perhaps more." OUCH! If you weren't such a respected Wikipedian I would assume you were trying to pull rank here and put little me in my place. How far exactly have we come from Jimbo's statement of principles? Let me quote something from that statement: There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers. Any security measures to be implemented to protect the community against real vandals (and there are real vandals, who are already starting to affect us), should be implemented on the model of "strict scrutiny". "Strict scrutiny" means that any measures instituted for security must address a compelling community interest, and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective and no other. I respect that, as much as I respect many other aspects of the Wikipedia world. And I WILL question people when I feel something has happened (for whatever reason) that leads me to suspect that Wikipedia's founding principles are being eroded. If it annoys you that people will call into question your activities, perhaps you might consider not blocking other users on incidental evidence which you are not prepared to share with the community, but which doesn't appear to stand up against the explanation or editing history and behaviour of the three accounts involved. As part of the responsibility you have taken on board when you accepted the role of checkuser is the responsibility to account for yourself when reasonably asked. If anyone feels they are above accountability then I should say that they are clearly not fit for office. I am assuming here that you are human, and that I have irritated you, and that you have spoken out of anger, and that you don't genuinely feel that you are above being questioned. Please reassure me that your high office has not gone to your head and you are still capable of realising that we are all equal here, and that all of us are deserving of respect. I also hope that something of what has happened here will remain with you, and that you might just pause for more consideration when thinking of blocking in future - after all, as you say, there is no rush, and the accounts were not involved in vandalism nor in any activity that can actually be shown (despite your assertions otherwise) to break policy or to be disruptive. Why rush into a block when a few more minutes spent on checking the user's history would introduce some doubt into any reasonable person. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 20:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Gaming

They're gaming. If PilotBob wants to contribute, he can do so in a manner that doesn't act to undermine trust on the project by furious sockpuppetry - David Gerard 15:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no desire or need to use sock puppets. I have never used sock puppets. I know that you don't believe me, but it is the truth. Pilotbob 15:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I beleive the time has come either to extend the block for a certain amount of time or rescind it; either way, a reasoned decision should be made about how best to resolve this. The comments of David Gerard are unhelpful; what is needed is a resolution. Once again I propose ending the block. --Gavin Collins 07:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The comments of David Gerard are extremely helpful, actually, as they validate why this is a sound block. I'm not sure yours are quite as helpful, I am afraid. Nevertheless, and you may not be aware of it, a proposal has been made and accepted, and I've indicated I will lift once David is on board with it (see his talk and that of Doctorfluffy) or there is a clear consensus here. ++Lar: t/c 11:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

From my perspective, I see them as unhelpful, as basically he is making accusations that cannot be responded to by Doctorfluffy as long as the block is in place. I am not sure why this is being done; I will assume good faith and assume he is a bit grumpy today. Without providing evidence in support of these accusations, I am afraid they do nothing but raise the temperature of the this discussion. If David Gerard has an axe to grind, then let him make a case in full, but his remarks are not helpful. The question still stands, what action is going to be taken rescind the block on Doctorfluffy? --Gavin Collins 14:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Asked and answered. David will or won't respond to his talk page message and if he responds negatively, or not at all, I'll ask for consensus here and that will decide the matter. This was explained before. Constantly reasking is not helpful. Suggesting that David Gerard has an axe to grind is not helpful either. This is a routine matter that seems to be getting much more attention than it warrants and it makes me wonder what the heck is really going on here. ++Lar: t/c 14:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

In Gavin's case, he has difficulty accepting that his is a minority view - the RfC on his behaviour was brought by 5 users and endorsed by 28 more, with only 4 supporting Gavin, yet it appears not to have affected his actions at all. I'm sure Gavin would be demanding a permban on users opposing his numerous AfDs if they were found socking to rig the vote, yet clearly Gavin has no problem with this when they're socking to rig the vote in his favor. Edward321 16:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

resolution

After the agreement to abide by policy by both users, and after gaining concurrance from David Gerard: [40] the block has been lifted: [41] ... I undertake to monitor behaviour here and will swiftly reblock if needed, I consider these users on a very short leash, and frankly expect to be disappointed for being played as a softie here by determined trolls with an agenda, but would be astoundingly delighted to find out that these were just regular guys caught in a web of coincidence (and our pragmatic approach that doesn't need to handle edge cases well) who go on to contribute positively in many ways. One can hope. As always I invite review of my actions. (ahem, by those that have NEW questions to ask! :) ) ++Lar: t/c 17:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That the block has been lifted means I won't be coming back here. I have learned something in the course of this discussion, and I sincerely hope that Lar has learned something as well. I wish everyone involved here good editing! Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 20:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

TShilo12 (talk · contribs)

I was about to issue a short block to TShilo12 (talk · contribs), but thought I'd bring it here for pre-emptive review instead. I first noticed this user when he posted vague, unsupported accusations of anti-Semitism against another editor while simultaneously complaining about violations of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I warned him at the time, he argued with me, but ultimately there were no further problems and the issue dropped.

Today I noticed that User:TShilo12 added new "evidence" to the "Allegations of apartheid" ArbCom case, which closed several weeks ago. The "evidence" in question was not evidence at all, but merely a rehash of the unsupported, inflammatory accusations he's made in the past ([42]). All the worse, this was added to a difficult and controversial ArbCom case long after its closure, in what appears to be an attempt to inflame and perpetuate the dispute.

I view this sort of baseless accusation of anti-Semitism as a problem for 2 reasons: first, because it violates the core of WP:NPA by attacking the character of another editor rather than his arguments. Secondly, there are real, dyed-in-the-wool anti-Semites on Wikipedia, and abusing the term to smear someone in a personal dispute without any sort of evidence cheapens what is a very real problem. I see no mitigating factors to what appears to be a serious, unsupported attack, made in a long-since-closed ArbCom case, designed to inflame a dispute, and coming after a previous warning. My inclination is to issue a short block here, but as NPA blocks are always a bit controversial and I generally don't issue them (not to mention the underlying issue is inflammatory), I'm bringing it here for feedback before I do so. MastCell ^Talk 19:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I could be happy with the NPA block but a stern warning and reversion of the addition might work too. I certainly agree with your thoughts here. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 19:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised and disappointed to see that TShilo12 has done this again. As far as I know, I'd never had any interaction with this editor before he made his unprovoked personal attack on me and other unnamed editors ("an opinionated and misinformed gaggle of know-it-all admins") back in August. I've not had any involvement with him since, other than asking him on his talk page to withdraw his attack (see User talk:TShilo12#Your accusations), to which he did not respond. I have no idea what prompted this fresh attack, since I don't habitually edit Jewish-related articles and my editing lately has been fairly light. Once again it seems to be completely unprovoked. What makes this especially disappointing is that I see he's actually an admin of about two years' standing, so he of all people should know that Wikipedia:No personal attacks means what it says. Given all of this - the repeated attacks, the lack of any contrition, and the fact that as an admin he knows that this isn't acceptable conduct - I think a more significant penalty is merited. I'm not calling for a desysopping (though his conduct does make me wonder about his fitness to hold the sysop bit), but I do think this requires more than a 24 hour block. As an admin myself, I think we need to show that we can hold ourselves to a higher standard, particularly when it involves repeated, willful and unprovoked misconduct of this kind. -- ChrisO 20:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead with a 24-hour block for repeated and very serious personal attacks, aggravated by the choice of venue. If there is evidence that an editor is an anti-Semite then that's certainly a valid issue, but it's absolutely not acceptable to repeatedly make such a claim without any supporting evidence, based on what appears to be personal animus or something, and to aggressively complain about a lack of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL at the same time. Unsubstantiated and repeated accusations of this sort are corrosive to any sort of dialog or community-building here. I recognize this is potentially controversial, so if there's a strong feeling (i.e. multiple editors/admins) that this block is inappropriate, then I'm willing to undo it (or if I'm offline, I don't object to it being undone provided there is real discussion about it here rather than a unilateral reversal). MastCell ^Talk 22:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this block is totally inappropriate. MastCell was involved in the arbitration in question, and had a particular viewpoint, and should not be blocking people who take a different viewpoint. I also don't think TShilo's comments necessarily violated the rules cited. When an editor (and admin) such as ChrisO consistently takes a particular viewpoint, in this case on articles involving Israel, and has been accused (including by me) of using his admin powers to promote that viewpoint, I think it is acceptable for someone to speculate on his motives. (Compare this with ChrisO's past repeated references to a group of "pro-Israel editors", I can find some diffs if necessary.) The real issue here is that MastCell's use of his admin powers in this manner is an abuse of his authority. I also agree with the statements of IronDuke and Briangotts, below. 6SJ7 04:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no lack of admins around that are not involved in these disputes; why not to just ask an uninvolved party to look at the situation? I just do not understand what is the rush to put oneself in a compromising situation with these type of blocks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello? What rush? I brought it here for comment before imposing the block, and I asked for review after imposing it. The thread sat here long enough to be archived, and the only response I received was generally in favor. If you disagree with the block, then fine, but you really need to check your facts before accusing me of being in a "rush" or a "compromising situation" here. MastCell ^Talk 18:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Somebody neutral please take a look at this

Ummm… my God? This block is wrong in so many ways. First of all, MastCell, you seemed to me to be very much a partisan in the very arb case from which you excised TShiloh’s comments. To have blocked someone who you disagree with therefore is inarguably an abuse of your admin role, not to mention that blocks for NPA are not generally given except in very severe cases (which this clearly is not), nor am I aware of a block policy regarding adding evidence to a closed case—and if that were a policy, I’m sure the clerks/arbs could handle it.

What Tshiloh was up to, near as I can tell without having talked to him, was blowing off some steam because nasty things were being said about him in an arb case that he was not informed of until after it closed; I think most of us would find that pretty frustrating.

And you leave this up for just a few hours on AN/I (when you can clearly see TShiloh has stopped editing and can’t respond), and get exactly two responses, one lukewarm support at best, the other from ChrisO, who I think we can all agree would not be a neutral voice as this concerns him directly, and you take this as what? Community endorsement? Consensus? I recognize that there are tough calls to be made in blocking form time to time; this is not one of them. I urge you, or some uninvolved admin, to reverse this ASAP. IronDuke 05:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not willing to unblock at this time. Is MastCell in conflict with TShilo? Because simply "disagreeing" with someone does not prevent you from blocking them; that's not part of the blocking policy. I don't think MastCell is claiming community consensus; he made it clear in his message that he is planning on blocking, does anyone object? No one objected, so he did. I don't understand what would compel someone to make accusations (and that's using a far milder word than I think could apply) of the sort TShilo has made while being entirely unwilling to present any sort of evidence or support. Judging from the previous responses of TShilo to questioning, I'm unsure that a block will do anything to deter him from his actions, so it could be argued that the block is punitive rather than preventative. I'm not entirely convinced of that, which is why I'm unwilling to unblock myself without knowing much, much more background. If the actions do continue, then steps up the dispute resolution ladder must be taken; this behavior is absolutely not acceptable in any shape, fashion, or form. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

bbatsell, thanks for the quick and thoughtful reply. When I say that MastCell is in conflict with TShiloh, I mean that he was a party to a case that was brought against people who are, or who are perceived to be, pro-Israel, and that the strong possibility exists that, as no remedies of any kind were enforced in that case, MastCell is using a tenuous excuse to block someone he's had a political dispute with. See here among many other instances of MastCell’s taking a decidedly political position on this issue. If I may offer a mild global criticism; I think admins are far too willing to overlook fairly obvious conflicts of interest when other admins use blocking to gain an advantage in content disputes. It troubles me greatly. IronDuke 06:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The conflict of interest here couldn't be more clear. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Just chiming in here, but I find:

Secondly, there are real, dyed-in-the-wool anti-Semites on Wikipedia, and abusing the term to smear someone in a personal dispute without any sort of evidence cheapens what is a very real problem.

an incredibly important and valid point, just for future readers. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 04:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with IronDuke and Briangotts, and also see my comments before the section break. The block here was unjustified. 6SJ7 04:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You guys really need to take a deep breath and check your facts before you go off here. I don't even know where to start addressing such ill-informed vitriol, and I don't see the point in refuting every poorly conceived attempt to paint me as "politically motivated" here. I'll just refer the reader back to the diffs I originally cited as the justification for the block, and point out the following: I brought the proposed block here before imposing it and asked for review afterward; the truly neutral parties who have commented have no problem seeing the utter unacceptability of TShilo12's behavior; making excuses for him ("blowing off steam"?) instead of holding him, as an admin, to a slightly higher standard is incredibly lame; and I've never been in any sort of content dispute with TShilo12 and have no idea how I'm supposed to have contrived this block to win a content dispute. If you can't see this situation for what it is - a block for egregious, repeated, unapologetic, and unacceptable personal attacks - but instead see me pursuing some sort of poorly fleshed-out political agenda, then that's a bit problematic. Or perhaps it's just more "blowing off steam". MastCell ^Talk 19:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again, all of this falls into the usual death spiral of conflict among those of a supportive-of-Israel bent and those of a critical-of-Israel bent, of which I am admittedly/regrettably a part of as well. Any administrative action taken by a participant (or a perceived participant) of one camp against a member (or a perceived member) of the other camp is instantly met with suspicion, accusations, and voices of support for their respective members/adherents/whatever. This is a larger beast than Tshilo12 and WP:NPA that is rearing its head here, and something really needs to be done to address it. The latest ArbCom attempt went out with a whimper, so what else is there? Tarc 22:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat from U.S. military?

Resolved

 – dealt with on OTRS⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Could I get someone uninvolved to assist in a situation, and possibly give a NLT warning to a user who is threatening potential criminal charges over my reverting of their page blanking? This is all over the now deleted page Weather earl, this user's multiple blankings of that page, and their non-explanation/demands for the blankings on the article's talk. I'm a bit shaken by the threats, and even if I could write a civil enough response on their talk page, which I'm not certain I can currently do, I suspect that any more correspondence should come from someone uninvolved at this point. Also note that the editor in question regularly blanks their talk page, so if you want to see previous conversations with them you will need to go into their talk history. - TexasAndroid 21:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and warned them, it's a pretty b.s. threat to begin with so we can let it slide for now. -- John Reaves 21:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked (before I was aware you were warning them) on the basis that it was a clear threat of criminal charges. I've clearly stated that I'll unblock the minute the threat is taken back. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fine Ryan. I'm now more concerned after viewing the deleted page in question. It appears to be an article on a new military technology(?) The last deleted edit was also a legal threat, but given the WHOIS information, it may be credible. -- John Reaves 21:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you're right, it could be a legit legal threat. Maybe let the foundation know? Ryan Postlethwaite 21:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(After a couple of edit conflicts) My best guess is that he's trying to say that the page was "Sensative", if not "Classified" information, and it was from there that the idea of criminal charges built. If he's with the US Air Force, and in a position to act on the fact that WP had such information inproperly on the project, then I could see how it could somehow lead to such charges. (And that's a *lot* of "ifs".) OTOH, his demands for it's removal were far from clear on what the problem was, making it hard to know if he is for real, or a creative troll. OTOH, with the page deleted by another admin, the threats were mostly moot, which is a good part of why I recommended a warning, not a block. I'm an admin. I know I have to have think skin around here. But this one just has me a bit rattled for some reason. - TexasAndroid 21:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the IP taces back to "Air Mobility Command Comp/Systems Squadron" with *.mil adresses, I'd say it's not his creativity. I'm in the process of sending an e-mail. -- John Reaves 21:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that this is not an official legal threat; rather, I suspect that it is someone in the Air Force using their personal judgment of what is allowed/not allowed. Official channels would call the Wikimedia Foundation.

However, since the article cited no sources, deleting it was proper. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone wants to demand official action they need to do so though WP:OTRS and/or the foundation. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weather earl was deleted by prod "No real claim of notability, nor references to establish such.", but it looks noteworthy to me: forecasting weather at airfields is important to save lives and aircraft. Undelete it and AfD it? Anthony Appleyard 09:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If you want to, go for it, anyone can dispute and undelete a prod. Though it might be best to wait until the situation is settled out a bit first. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The version that was deleted should probably stay deleted: it appears to be the operating manual for a specific piece of hardware, and not suitable to be an encyclopedia article. --Carnildo 19:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't undelete; if it is a viable article based on sources you find rewrite it. The deleted version fails to meet Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook, point 1 "Instruction manuals". On the other hand, it is pretty obvious from the page history which user blocked for making legal threats was the IP editor. GRBerry 05:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot "rating" articles and leaving notes about it

For quite some time now the talk pages of articles have been filling up with WikiProject templates saying things like "This article is supported by the Sports and games work group" or "This article is part of WikiProject Oklahoma, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Oklahoma". I personally think this is, at best, meaningless non-sense. Saying that an article is supported by a certain group should mean that there is a group of people which is actively involved in improving it or maintaining it. Usually nothing of the sort is true - the article is usually written by a random Wikipedian and then some other Wikipedian involved with a vaguely related project has auto-tagged the talk page to claim it for the project or some subgroup thereof. What we get out of this is cluttered talk pages containing misleading and distracting text. This is probably particularly misleading for newbies who will think that this stuff about projects and workgroups "supporting" the article means something and will get the wrong idea about how Wikipedia works.

These WikiProject templates typically contain a parameter for rating the quality of the article. Quality assessments could potentially be useful but there's no reason to tie them in with WikiProject templates unless, and I think that's the original idea, an article could be of different quality depending on from what project you're looking at it. For example an article on a famous chess player who's also a politician could cover the chess part of his career in an excellent way (meriting, say, an A rating) but be lackluster in the political part (say, a B rating). In reality people don't seem to apply the tags this way a lot, the different projects seem to usually have the same rating for a given article. User:Betacommand seems to have picked up on this and is now having his bot go through articles and duplicating ratings across different WikiProject tags. So if an article is already "rated as Stub-Class" on the scale of WikiProject Biography then it now gets to be rated as stub class on the scale of WikiProject Oklahoma too. This is massively redundant. If ratings are not project-dependent (and they don't really need to be) then don't keep them in the project tags - make a new tag just for that and cut down those banners a bit.

Now, I'm used to seeing my watchlist spammed by useless juggling of project tags on talk pages but now BetacommandBot has started leaving notes under new headings that the bot has rated the article with the method above. Enough is enough. Talk pages are for talk. Human talk. They shouldn't be full of clutter. I asked Betacommand to stop the bot. Five hours later I followed the link on User:BetacommandBot which is supposed to stop the bot. Nothing happened so I went ahead and blocked it. Haukur 22:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the last edit made by the bot before I first blocked it: [43] Haukur 22:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject tags have a broad consensus and universal use. Presumably Betacommand has proper approvals for the assessment project, and it's very useful for the projects that care about assessments. What are you asking for? That the bot not leave a note? I don't think the note is terribly obtrusive, and it does highlight a relevant change to the article. What are the pros and cons of omitting it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 23:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Question: Have you even tried talking with User:Betacommand? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I left him a note and then waited five hours before doing anything. He doesn't seem to have been around for the last ten hours or so. The method he gives for stopping his bot doesn't work, forcing me to manually block him and that's why I brought up the matter here (not that I think blocking bots is a big deal but still). Haukur 23:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot is making useless clutter. Of course we can live with it but there's just no need to. If what the bot's doing is uncontroversial then it doesn't need to leave a note. If it's controversial then it shouldn't be done by a bot. The bot will even happily leave more than one of these notes per page: Talk:Neel E. Kearby. And why, oh why, doesn't the bot handle all the project tags on each talk page in one pass? Haukur 23:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And you didn't address the thrust of my criticism: Why should the ratings be embedded in the project tags if they're going to be the same for every project? Why not just have a separate little tag for the ratings? Haukur 23:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not useless, if you don't think a practice is good them discuss, don't block. 1 != 2 23:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I blocked a bot, not a person. I did leave a note at the bot talk page, but wouldn't you know it, the bot went right on editing into the night without attempting any discussion with me at all. Rude fellow, you should scold him. Haukur 23:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot was approved for what it was doing and many other bots do this task as well and have done so for a while. This is not the type of thing to block for. Mr.Z-man 23:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It was never approved to add comments to thousands of talk pages. Nor was it really approved for the specific thing it is doing. Nor is it doing what it's supposedly doing very well. Haukur 23:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"Adding wikiproject banners to article talk pages and associated issues." - how was it differing from that scope? Mr.Z-man 23:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Is leaving comments under new headings to explain that it rated an article an "associated issue" to adding wikiproject banners? That's certainly interpreting its mandate very broadly. Haukur 23:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And I should note that even this approval you cite urges caution, saying: "please be aware that there is mounting dissatisfaction at the number of talk pages with multiple tags" Well, I'm part of this mounting dissatisfaction, I suppose. Haukur 23:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it might be worth, your comment about trying to consolidate ratings across the board has been discussed, and rejected, before. Part of the problem is that there is no centralized discussion forum for determining an article's precise rating, and, probably more important, it would basically require an entirely different tab to keep track of the banners, which is probably all but completely unworkable, and would certainly be rather expensive and time consuming. If you really want to reduce banner clutter, then probably the best thing to do would be to use either the {{WikiProjectBanners}} or {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} to reduce the amount of space they take up. In fact, it's even recommended that one or the other be used if three or more banners are in place. However, in several cases I've seen today, there has been absolutely no discussion ever on a given article, even if it has existed for several years. In those cases, adding the banner and at least letting the associated project know that article exists might be one of the few ways available to get any attention to the article. John Carter 23:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

there is no centralized discussion forum for determining an article's precise rating I don't follow, what about the article's talk page? Is a more central forum for discussing the article's worth needed? trying to consolidate ratings across the board has been discussed, and rejected, before But isn't that what the bot is doing? Anyway, yes, hiding those silly banners under yet another banner is somewhat helpful - but the edits doing it still throw up dust on my watchlist so I'm a bit apathetic. Haukur 23:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot was approved for adding WikiProject tags to pages in specific categories, not for anything having to do with ratings. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Striking comment per link to another approval page posted by Betacommand. — xDanielx ^T/_C 04:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm off to sleep, you lot do what you want. If you honestly think edits like this and this are useful then go ahead and unblock the bot. (Not that you need my permission.) I stand by everything I've said, though. Haukur 23:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well considering your invitation, and the general consensus here that the block was not the best solution I am unblocking Betacommandbot. 1 != 2 00:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Haukurth on this one -- I just don't see any benefit to adding redundant ratings. It just causes page clutter, watchlist clutter, and possibly confusion. If it's just done so that a human from a Wikiproject never has to touch the article, then the article probably shouldn't have the WikiProject tag in the first place. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If you dont like bot edits on your watch list there is a nice little option to hide them, use it. Ive got full approval for what Im going, Ive been doing this for a long time and have had over 10,000 pages fixed prior to today. β^_command 01:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. I don't necessarily want to hide all bot edits - I want to review some of them. It's the useless talk page edits of your particular bot I don't want to see. You say you have "fixed" 10,000 pages, I say you have done marginal damage to 10,000 pages. Besides, your bot is just plain buggy. Why doesn't it stop editing when its talk page is edited like it says it does? Why doesn't it add this redundant rating stuff to all WikiProject tags at the same time? Why does it leave the same message twice for pages it does two passes on? Haukur 09:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

When was this approved? Link, please. (And I don't use my watchlist, FYI in case anyone was dying to know.) :-) — xDanielx ^T/_C 02:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 8 is where this task was approved. β^_command 02:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no harm, and actually a lot of benefit to adding ratings to existing wikiproject templates. One of my projects, WP:BAY, has a drive to help identify important articles that can be expanded beyond stub status. I for one often look there to see how I can help. In the past few days it has assessed about a dozen, probably more than any of the project members. In fact I was about to give the bot a barnstar until I realized it had been blocked and brought here, which would make my barnstar a little ironic. There are probably things to improve such as the way it leaves messages and how it decides what to do if the ratings are contradictory. But it's a great start and in my opinion doing a lot more good than bad. Incidentally, I consider it bad form to rate articles I create or significantly expand, and a little pushy to add assessments for projects I have no involvement with, so that's one way tags are left without ratings. Also, if I know the bot will soon conform the ratings it's a lot simpler for me to just add it once than to multiple templates...kind of the way you don't have to add the date to the {{fact}} template because you know the bot will fix it for you. Wikidemo 02:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there is substantial harm to filling talk pages with redundant bot output. For one thing it makes everything less accessible and friendly to newbies. They go to the talk page of an article they may be interested in and find that it's full of this bureaucratic claptrap. They might think all this non-sense about such and such a group "supporting" the article is actually meaningful and maybe figure that they shouldn't edit the article because they're not a part of the right group or whatever. I'm sure redundant messages from bots "rating" article don't help. Talk pages that should be empty are now full of cryptic template code and redundant bot output. I've never seen any of this lead to actual improvement of articles. Haukur 09:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

My god, why are people getting so worked up about this? Calm down, have a cup of tea, a biscuit, and go edit an article. No more bongos 05:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

All out of biscuits. :( — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This practice must stop. Does Betacommand also use "autocontent wizards?" There is no such thing as an "automated assessment." It is a contradiction in terms. If it's automated, then it's not an assessment. If it's an assessment, then it can't be automated. This -bot, from one of the shabbier folks about, insults everyone who has ever performed article assessment. Their work has hereby been reduced to the level of a checksum. Their minds have just been evaluated by Betacommand and concluded to be negligible. It is also an insult to anyone who has ever written an article. Your work at putting together sentences, at being concise, at finding the correct terms, has hereby been called irrelevant by Betacommand. Those arguing "for" not blocking are, essentially, saying that convenience trumps both the editing spirit of the people doing assessment and the people doing writing. If you think that is no big deal, then you probably need to go do some checksums and leave the world of editing articles. Geogre 12:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do you understand what the bot is doing? the bot does not do any real assessing. what the bot does do is add a already present assessment to another template. you seem to misunderstand what it is doing. β^_command 13:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And what is the point of having the exact same assessment duplicated across multiple templates? Why are you making thousands of edits to talk pages which add nothing to them which isn't already there? And why do you feel this activity is so important that the bot needs to leave notes about it at every talk page it visits? Haukur 13:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Its part of the WikiProject system, since you seem to not understand that system and hate it, I will not attempt to explain it. Also I was requested to do this and have had a lot of positive feedback. β^_command 13:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And now, Betacommand, you "have been requested" not to do this. In fact, you say that you won't communicate with people who don't like the "system" (because they don't understand it, of course!), so I'm not sure that claiming virtues of listening to people really sticks. Try listening to people who don't want the autocontentwizarding. Consider the following: in the absence of consensus, the status quo is the preferred form. Is there consensus for you? Is it just consensus among those you like? Is it only consensus in your mind? Again: you're being asked to stop, so stop. Geogre 18:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"It's part of the system" - so it doesn't have to make sense? How is your bot leaving comments on thousands of talk pages a part of a system useful to Wikipedia? Why do you feel you don't even have to explain this? You are completely responsible for every edit done by your bot. If you can't (or won't) explain why you think edits like this and this are useful, then you shouldn't be doing them. Haukur 14:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just assuming here, so I could be completely wrong, but doesn't assessing the articles allows the WikiProject's to decide which articles they can collaborate to improve? If they are unassessed then it means a human being has to do it and it's time-consuming work, more easily completed by a bot. Is it the action you find disagreeable or the note? Seraphim ^Whipp 14:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Supposedly, yes, all those stub/start assessments and tags are supposed to lead to actual people actually improving articles. I can't say I have observed this happen, though, and the plan seems rather Dilbertesque to me. Step 1: Tag lots and lots of articles and automatically rate them. Step 2: ????? Step 3: Profit! If anyone has diffs which show some causal relation between a bot editing templates on an article's talk page and that article being subsequently improved then please present them. Haukur 14:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Haukur, Im choosing not to explain it because you obviously do not like or understand the wikiproject system. What the bot does is share the basic rating of stub or start between wikiprojects that are unassessed but have been rated by someone else. β^_command 14:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand what the bot does - I don't understand how what the bot does is supposed to be useful. I'm starting to think you don't either because you're not making any sense. How is my not understanding something a reason for not explaining it to me? Haukur 15:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's useful for the reason I pointed out. I don't know if there is a relationship between the articles being assessed and improvement, but there it is, that it what the bot is for. Seraphim ^Whipp 15:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

<-- moving back

The bot is useful in that it addresses the thousands of project page that have been tagged but left unassessed, this occurs purely because editors create a stub add the project tags but dont include the rating on each one. As such I see the bots action as useful in addressing that, but maybe it should be expanded to add {{WikiProjectBanners}} or {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} thus combining project tags. Gnangarra 15:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

id rather not mess with re-arranging text, (its open to a lot of errors) and there is already a bot for bannershell. β^_command 15:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that the maths WikiProject does not want this given Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive 24#Tagging math articles (which is admittedly not quite about the same thing but in my opinion it's sufficiently similar). Personally, I don't think this is useful. I'd prefer that the bot stopped doing this, and I think I have a good case to request this at least for maths articles. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand has decided to listen to those who agree with what he's doing ("like the project" = "agree with him," and he has said that he doesn't want to talk to (presumably to hear from, as well) those who do not "like the projects") and substitute that for general consent. It isn't. The eventual crisis of "Projects" contradicting site-wide policies remains in the future, but we are merely seeing someone with a -bot executing across all articles without reason and refusing to listen to someone. I'm sure that the Math Project will fail to understand or like Projects, too, by Betacommand's rhetoric.

If the only way to forestall autocontentassessmentwizardbot is to go through and remove all assessment tags from any articles that one believes deserve human consideration, then so be it. I imagine, though, that that would only prompt another -bot that understands Projects to go on another rampage (and count all those edits toward RFA). Geogre 18:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot performs a valuable service

As someone who regularly goes through the Category:Stub-Class Wine articles and Category:Start-Class Wine articles for the Wine Project, I am one of the many different project members who are grateful for the work of the Betacommandbot in assessing start/stub articles (feel free to look at our assessment logs). There are many times when a new editor or anon IP will slap the {{wine}} tag on a new article they created and then forget about. Being a project that is fairly active about the status of our stub articles, with Betacommandbot's assistance, we can better categorize our articles and areas of need. Now there are times when I disagree with the Bot's assessment but it an easy fix to reassess it. While the extra "talk page message" is probably not needed, the basic function of the bot is useful in catching articles that project members might not be aware of. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Why can't this be an opt-in service for particular projects? Assuming for the moment that ratings are useful, different projects are surely rating against different things. An article about a scientist can be a decent biography but do a mediocre job explaining the science, an article about a protein can adequately cover its structure but give short shrift to an associated disease, etc. If two projects opt in and both have their tags on the talk page, then the assessments get duplicated; if not, no need. This would at least keep the clutter restricted to articles where projects are active and actually use the ratings. Opabinia regalis 02:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. An opt-in option would be the best way to resolve this. Carcharoth 02:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This is no longer an incident needing admin attention, please go to the bot noticeboard, a project discussion area, or a user talk page. This is page is for incidences that require admin attention. This is an argument that can be settled in a more appropriate venue(perhaps you can talk to the people that participated in its approval discussion). 1 != 2 14:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Terribly shoddy block by the way. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, WikiProjects are largely useless and arbitrary article ratings even more so. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Nonconstructive reverts and edits to ancestry templates by IP address 24.57.196.130

24.57.196.130 (talk · contribs) is habitually reverting changes made to ancestry templates in royalty articles. A lot of these articles are in my watch list, where I am monitoring changes, and the anonymous user is making nonconstructive edits to the effect of linking to redirects and adding in titles where they were not before and where they are not needed. Generally, ancestry templates have names linked in them according to WP:NC(NT) which simplifies names for kings, queens, etc, by omitting titles and using territorial designations. While I can understand this happening once or twice, I have already left a note on the user's talk page, which appears to be stable and used by one individual and it is still happening to the point where it is disruptive. For instance, it just happened again at Charles I of Austria. It is becoming disruptive and it is coming to the point where it is vandalism as the user will not respond to the talk page or to requests to stop. Charles 01:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Please also note these differences and the respective article histories [44][45][46]. Charles 01:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Something odd is going on, he adds soome titles, and removes others. Unusual behavior, and no edit summaries. ThuranX 06:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

There are some minor constructive edits, but to me it seems, for the most part, that it is this continual reverting which is taking centre stage in his/her editing activities. I would like to change the templates back to the form generally used for articles, to bypass redirects and have names in compliance with WP:NC(NT), especially if someone decides to turn an unlinked name into a link (so that the article is first created at the right title). I do not, however, want to break the 3RR. Would you consider this habitual, nonconstructive editing to be vandalism? Charles 07:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The user just now is continuing his or her reverting spree for no apparent reason. Are there, or when will there be, grounds for a block of the users account? The edits cannot be restored without it leading to edit warring, because the user will only return. Charles 23:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me as well that Cladeal832 *may* be the same user as the IP address because the edits are never at the same time (but close sometimes and always in blocks) as if the user was accidentally logged out and continued editing. The edits performed are the same, infobox edits to locations and flag icons and some non-constructive edits to ancestry templates. I should probably leave this thought out for now and deal with what is known for certain. Charles 23:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

More reverts and changes:

[47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]. Charles 00:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Someone's yanking your chain to wind you up. I gave you 48 hours off. If it happens again you can request semi-protection of the articles. Guy (Help!) 17:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, I don't know who would do that as it is not a terribly mature thing to do. Anyway, there is such a volume of articles that requesting protection for each of them might not help. Also, I think looking into what I previously thought may help, as I believe the user I struck out above is doing the same thing or might be the same person. Charles 21:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

For instance, take a look here, here, here, here, here and here. Exact same activity which has gone on fairly consistently as well. Charles 22:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Also [53][54]. Charles 22:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about Charles. He follows my edits and changes them and them and then accuses me of doing the same thing. Fine, I don't always write up what been done, but still if you look at these edit history, more often then not, I'm the one who wrote out the ancestry tables in the first place. Charles has already been blocked this week. Again, I don't care about Charles or anything personal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cladeal832 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have many articles on my watch page and monitor royals on the basis of house lines, etc. I was blocked for a matter related the actual presence of an article here on Wikipedia and an improper close. It was classified as edit warring and I am trying to avoid it by having persistent, disruptive users dealt with by administrators. Know what you are talking about before you bring up a block to try to discredit me. I am not the one using meatpuppets/sockpuppets. Charles 22:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I helped implement the ancestry templates when they were being added to articles. It is standard to monitor them and link names as they would appear in article titles, to bypass redirects and to have them listed according to a standard such as WP:NC(NT). Charles 22:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Improper conduct of admin user:Butseriouslyfolks

User:Butseriouslyfolks improperly unblocked an aggressive user which was blocked after several warninngs about improper behavior, see User talk:Nergaal under ridiculous justification "as the blocking admin apparently has a relationship with the other party". I was not informed about the unblock. I insist the block reinstated and user:Butseriouslyfolks warned. `'Míkka>t 09:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Why did you not initiate a discussion with the unblocking administrator first on User talk:Butseriouslyfolks, rather than 'reporting' them here? Out of general courtesy and common practice, this noticeboard is used in these situations only after discussion has been tried and failed between the involved parties (in this case, yourself and Butseriouslyfolks). Daniel 09:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, the last time Mikka reported me here was after he unilaterally restored about 25 pages I had deleted, without any prior discussion or subsequent notice, other than the report here. Then, after his insult laced reports here, he refused to respond to the notes I left on his talk page. This incident is preserved for posterity here. And yes, I admit my deletions there were . . . overzealous. (OK, they were wrong!)

In this particular case, Mikka went after Nergaal after the latter was embroiled in a content dispute (or perhaps a format dispute) with Fabartus. After the two had apparently settled their differences, with some positive comments on both sides, Mikka escalated the conflict with warnings left for Nergaal and encouraged Fabartus to go back to doing whatever had upset Nergaal in the first place. Fabartus told Mikka "long time no see", and when Nergaal suggested that Mikka had abused his admin powers by taking the side of an old acquaintance, Mikka blocked Nergaal for "trolling" and deleted Nergaal's comment that pointed out the friendship between Mikka and Fabartus. In my view, Mikka was clearly wrong in two respects -- the block was completely undeserved, and Mikka should have reported it and then stepped aside due to his friendship with Fabartus so someone else could decide whether Nergaal should be blocked. So I unblocked.

Look, I know I'm not ZScout, but neither is Mikka Jimbo. I know a rotten block when I see one, and I also knew Mikka would refuse to discuss the situation, per my past experience and the friendly notice on his user talk page that "Any messages left here will probably not be unanswered [sic]", so I did the bold thing. -- But|seriously|folks  10:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Under the circumstances I feel you should at the very least have advised the blocking admin of your intention to unblock and given your reasons, but preferably have initiated a discussion on why you thought the block improper - notwithstanding your belief that such a discussion was unlikely to formulate a consensus. In this particular case, per your comments, I think it even more appropriate to have followed procedure. This may be an example of the end not justifying the means. Them's my tu sense. LessHeard vanU 10:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree. Mikka has made it well known that s/he's not interested in constructive dialogue per his (or his friend Irpen's) deletion of many legit comments/questions from his userpage, deeming them "trolling", "bullying", and worse. BSF was justified in his/her belief that Mikka would not be responsive to dialogue. K. Scott Bailey 19:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This admin now viciously attacks me because I violently protested against harassment of me because of my voting WP:RFA, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 109#Response to recent bullying, which only confirms my opinion about my RFA voting. The logic of this remark is unfit for an admin, to say the least. `'Míkka>t 21:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If a comment to a talkpage is removed without response it is still deemed to have been read. It doesn't matter what Mikka's response is, but a complaint of no notification cannot be made and an avenue of dispute closed. I therefore believe Butseriouslyfolks should have notified Mikka of his intentions.LessHeard vanU 23:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

(Edit by banned user:Bonaparte removed) --Irpen 23:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

He was blocked six times and "at least". It seems doing mathematics today means "load this thing into a Word processor and have the comp count the number of times "is blocked" is mentioned". Have a good look: he accidentally blocked himself once, one block was obviously incorect and one was a re-block in an wheel war. Leaves three, two of which are more than a year old. --Paul Pieniezny 19:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the remaining three was another improper block by an admin who was edit warring with me (unblocked), another was erroneour 3RR revert: I and another user were editing in turn some text, in a series of iterations, during which he erroneously duplicated a paragraph, and the trigger happy admin decided I am persistetly deleting a piece of text. The first block was when I was reverting edits form open proxies by especially nasty troll, banned user:Bonaparte. `'Míkka>t 21:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

An amazing feat of jumping at conclusions and turning tables by two admins, who are supposed to be careful in judgement. Even now no one bothered to ask me to explain my actions! I am out of this Kangaroo court. `'Míkka>t 21:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You initiated this section by complaining about the actions of Butseriouslyfolks, which is what is being discussed. Why do we need an explanation of your actions? LessHeard vanU 23:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Because for some mysterious reason this talk turned into an accusation of me! And this is not the first time done by the two accusers. `'Míkka>t 20:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Desysop of Admin Mikkalai

It's about time now to have this admin desysopped http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Mikkalai —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.254.193.119 (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Why This is a Secret ^account 18:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Because he's an Admin that use his power against Romanian editors. He hates them, don't you see him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.244.14.11 (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

And this open-proxy anon wouldn't be our old friend Bonnie by any chance, would he? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Surely not. Oh, wait, actually it is. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Bonaparte has a long history of posting to this board via open proxies. He even posted lengthy threads with forged signature by many users and experienced users bought this trick and replied to forged posts promoting threads that should not have been there or should have been removed on sight. Anyway, I am removing his posts now. Please do not forget to remove such posts in the future. --Irpen 23:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Corticopia

This user is abusive, adopts a confrontational stance at all times, and makes the experience of editing Wikipedia less enjoyable for others. This is a long-running low-level irritation at the Cyprus page, and I would ask interested editors to refer directly to both the talk page and to the edit summaries on the article history: similar issues can be seen at Geography of Mexico, Metropolis, North America, and so on. It is not a question of accuracy, but of incivility (and, on a side note, an insistence on incorrectly marking changes as "minor"). I and others have repeatedly requested that the user abide by the usual WP:CIVIL guidelines, but he refuses to do so. I note from his contributions history that he is engaged in similar low-level unpleasantness on several other geographical articles, involving many other editors: this reassures me that, while my own behaviour is certainly not perfect, I am not alone in finding Corticopia a disruptive and aggressive presence. An experienced administrator's intervention would be useful here. This complaint was originally posted to the Wikiquette alerts section [55], and has been redirected here with the comment from User:Jamessugrono as follows: "This should be at either WP:AIV or WP:AN/I, this user has been blocked far too many times for this to be simply a matter of incivility - there are plain, obvious, disruptive edits". Vizjim 10:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, since he created that account he's being contributing mostly to Mexico-related topics, for reason that couldn't explain in one paragraph but if you check his record you'll see what I mean, I myself have had countless confrontations with him, usually reverting my changes with the excuse of NPOV, and it's not just me, users Jcmenal and AlexCovarrubias (who's been absent for a while) have had the exact same problem, Alex even suspected he was a sock of a previous user that was banned, he even has some evidence but for some reason nothing happened, I would really like the intervention of an administrator here, he uses profanity and uncivil manners and it should not be toletared in Wikipedia, there has been too many warnings for him. Supaman89 17:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll just add to the list the constant playing around and gaming of the system with respect to 3RR, again visible at Mexican and Cypriot pages. Vizjim 08:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I guess I'm being dumb but... I don't see these disruptive edits. Any chance I could have some specific diffs for the violations you mention (i.e., incivility and edit warring)? If you can substantiate these allegations, I will certainly take them seriously, given Corticopia's history of being blocked for these reasons. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

He constantly deletes his talkpage to hide his messages but here are some of them:

• Edit War - Geography of Mexico
• Bad Attitude - Cyprus
• 5 reversions in less than 24 hours - Hawaii
• Erased the whole comment and only left the part where the other guy looked bad - Hawaii
• Someone told him that he could archive his talkpage instead of deleting them - He erased it anyways
• He's blocked again for one month for engaging in edit wars
• Again he erased another comment listing all his negative and disruptive attitude
• Once again blocked by 72 hrs by breaking the 3RR rule
• Look at the summary, what's up with "crap will be expunged"?
• 3RR breakage
• Another edit war in Mesoamerica

And those are just a couple of examples, I could easily keep looking for two more hours, but I think it gives you an idea of what this user is like and how he's been behaving all this time. Supaman89 16:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Couple of add-ons - Rude edit summaries, e.g. [56], and abusive arguments - e.g. [57]. Vizjim 19:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Revertionist reverting to bury AfD template

ARUNKUMAR P.R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been reverting on the article Mappila Malayalam irresponsibly. He never cared to explain the questions or address the concerns raised on the talk page. As a result the article went to AfD. See the AfD. However, in stead of participating in the AfD or answering the concerns the user has again reverted and buried the AfD template. User's disruptive behaviour is evident from his log, Uploading stolen images under GDFL license repeatedly, for example. Admin action sought. --Stray cat ano 04:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's Kuntan. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any recent attempts to engage the user on the user's talk page. I left a template warning about AfD template removal, but I don't see a need for administrative intervention at this point. -- But|seriously|folks  04:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Troll-free Wiki (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – One step closer to a troll-free wiki, it seems Guy (Help!) 00:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Troll-free Wiki seems to be an account created specifically for the purpose of harassing User:Rhinoracer; TfW's first edit is a post to User talk:Rhinoracer asking for him to be banned [58]. His fifth edit is to start an SSP case against Rhinoracer: [59]. I'm inclined to block this guy as a harassment-only account, but I'd appreciate some additional opinions. There seems to be some kind of off-wiki dispute being imported to Wikipedia here. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I would support a block for harassing other users. Troll-free's attacks are despicable, and reek of sockpuppetry. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 04:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have indefblocked Troll-free Wiki for legal threats here. -- But|seriously|folks  05:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I missed that contrib. Thanks for taking action. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Goon rush

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2681321&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1 Someone should probably keep an eye on that and revert accordingly. Jtrainor 05:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That forum thread cannot be viewed by unregistered members. What's the issue? -- Satori Son 06:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe he's referring to Summer of Vile.--Atlan (talk) 06:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

why haven't we speedied that yet? --Crossmr 06:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted and blocked several of them. It seems User:Rubber cat, recently blocked 48 hours for vandalism, has been encouraging fellow Something Awful members to vandalize various articles as revenge. --krimpet⟲ 07:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Daniel got him indef. east.718 at 07:43, 11/12/2007

Block of Rubber cat

Rubber cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I have blocked this user indefinitely, as my block message says, for inciting and encouraging vandalism and disruption in a deliberate and blatant manner. It was done on an off-Wiki forum, link, and hence this as well as the fact that the account has a fair few edits (900-odd) I bring this here for review.

I have no objection to people criticising Wikipedia off-wiki, and I also recognise that attacking people off-Wiki isn't often blockable. However, in this situation, inciting others to vandalise in such a blatant and deliberate manner is not compatible with also being allowed the ability to edit Wikipedia, both given the blatant attempts to negate what we're doing here (constructing an encyclopedia), and the disruption this user is directly, deliberately and knowingly causing by doing so.

I welcome a review of this block and, if consensus supports it (for whatever reason), an unblocking.

Because the forum is private, many users won't be able to access the information. If any established user so requests the content of the posts, then I will email them via the Wikipedia email interface. Cheers, Daniel 07:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this from the thread above - unfortunately their forum is private, and pay access is required, but I happened to have an account left over from when I was active there years ago, and I can confirm that on Nov 10, 2007 15:13, while he was serving a 48-hour block for vandalism, he made a thread in their "FYAD" forum inciting "everybody go vandalize at least 3 wikipedia articles right now." I support the block; we have no need for this silliness. --krimpet⟲ 07:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Merged this thread into the above one as a subthread. Daniel 07:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

PS: This edit may also be of interest - see Footu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Daniel 08:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If it hasn't been done already, all edits by Footu should be automatically reverted, since that was a vandalism only account. Bread climp should also be speedy deleted, since it was created by Foot to vandalize Bread clip. Cumulus Clouds 10:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. However, there's another problem:

Revision history of Bread climp 21:18, November 10, 2007 WikiWilma (talk · contribs · block log) (←Redirected page to Bread clip) 21:06, November 10, 2007 Cumulus Clouds (talk · contribs · block log) (vandalism) 19:12, November 7, 2007 Footu (talk · contribs · block log) (←Redirected page to Bread clip)

Administrators can see this at Special:Undelete/Bread climp. Block straight away or not? Daniel 11:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A protected redirect to bread clip would probably make sense. I don't see a reason to block based on that (note I just acted too hastily and indef blocked WikiWilma (no edits other than that and own userpage) before I realised a redirect was reasonable, and unblocked straight away). Neil ☎ 11:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The user has posted an appeal for unblock on talk. It doesn't acknowledge any wrongdoing on his own part, specifically not asking others to vandalize. Since asking others to vandalize is vandalism, I'm not going to act on it. GRBerry 21:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• User:Justaddcorn is another vandalism-only FYAD import, as seen by his edits here, here and here. User has been issued three warnings, but blanked his talk page. Cumulus Clouds 03:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• User:32000BTUGasGrill is almost certainly a sock of User:Footu, the newest incarnation also being a vandalism-only account revolving solely around the Flipmode squad. Cumulus Clouds 07:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Both indef blocked, and WikiWilma too after I saw the edits they had started to make. Neil ☎ 11:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Elvey (talk · contribs) Personal attacks, Civility, edit warring

It starts with this on the paypal talk page [60] He makes claims that those links had been defended on the talk page but I could find no evidence of that. He then adds another link here [61] which seems to have no purpose. it doesn't seem to support anything in the text of the article as the text its citing is about the location of the offices and not what phone numbers to use to get through to various departments. In addition to restoring this link he makes some comments on the talk page [62]. Including You are really pissing me of now, But as I said, pollute away, and How dare you? Are you looking for or do you have gig as a corporate Public Relations shill? . I removed the link from the article stating that I saw no relevance to the text in question and also left him an NPA warning on his talk page. He reverted with [63] unfounded accusation of violation of WP:NPA. Looks like he didn't carefully read what I actually wrote. I wish I could run CheckUser to look for sock puppets Which as vague as he wants to word it is still a direct accusation of sock puppetry since I and cool caesor are the only two involved in this right now with him. He then flat our denies he said these things [64], then removes the discussion claiming "libel". He also reverts the removal of the link again claiming it supports the text, but doesn't clarify this. (I did clarify this! -E) As a challenged source, and given the other abrasive language, 3 reverts or not its clearly edit warring [65].--Crossmr 06:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My edits to PayPal show I am willing to discuss things, address legitimate criticism, and compromise. I have responded to the various points made and accusations and welcome a response from Crossmr to the responses I have already posted. This escalation seems to be an attempt to avoid responding. How 'bout doing that before dragging others in? There's a lot to read at this point, and I'm not keen to re-answer questions/accusations already asked/made and answered/refuted. For the record, the above has several factual errors, which have already been refuted, as the record shows.--Elvey 17:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Your edits are a matter of public record and those are direct quotes from you. I already gave you a response on the paypal talk page and clarified that whether your directly insult someone or simply asking them if they are <insert negative insult here> makes no difference and is just as uncivil and a personal attack. If you can point out some factual inaccuracy in the diffs I provided above, please do so. Your edits to paypal don't show you're willing to discuss things, they show you're willing to hurl insults at anyone who disagrees with you. I already made an attempt to discuss this with you on your talk page which you reverted with insults and false claims of sockpuppetry and denial. Since you were unwilling to have that discussion I've brought it here for further input since I didn't really feel talking to you was going to generate any forward progress.--Crossmr 18:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Also I don't see where you clarified it. You made a claim that once again wasn't supported by the reference. Clarifying something means more than just saying "yes it does". It means taking the reference and pulling out the text from the reference that supports it and saying "I feel this reference supports this because of this text in it and here is the text". You claimed it supported the omaha part, but omaha is only mentioned in the user comments which aren't considered a reliable source. There is no other mention of omaha in the link provided.--Crossmr 18:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have only come across Elvey's incivility and assumptions of bad faith at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 11#Universal Savings Bank and Upfront Rewards (closed). S/he is confrontational towards everyone who disagrees with him/her, or doesn't fully agree with him/her. S/he sees only one way, and that's his/her way. That is detrimental to a community project. Arguing your case is one thing, but what Elvey has done is way out of line. Aecis^Brievenbus 19:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

He not only was behaving inappropriately there an administrator closed that discussion based solely on bad behaviour was demonstrating.--Crossmr 19:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This user is looking at a block if he doesn't get a clue soon. -- John Reaves 20:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Crossmr (talk · contribs) Personal attacks, Civility, edit warring, blanking

Resolved

 – pointy

-- John Reaves 20:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Repeatedly makes false claims (e.g. that links had not been defended, that I used a forum post as a reference), unapologetically. See User_talk:Crossmr. See also User_talk:Crossmr/Archive/Archive_07#SLOPPY_WORK; it was resolved, but it perhaps that has led to a vendetta.

Then demonstrate where it had been defended? You've provided no actual diffs to demonstrate that I made any personal attacks against you. You claimed that a link was defended on the talk page but I searched both the talk page and archives and found no evidence of it being defended. The only thing providing that link does is show your past incivility and personal attacks you've made to show this is a pattern of behaviour and not something you're interested in changing.--Crossmr 18:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to ask an uninvolved admin to close this discussion as an attempt to prove a point. Aecis^Brievenbus 19:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Indef block for Kadiddlehopper/Dichotomous?

Useful links

• Kadiddlehopper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dichotomous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Summary of events

Recently, Kadiddlehopper earned a week-long block for a personal attack in which he called another editor a 'lieutenant in the SS': [66]. I subsequently protected his talk page for 24 hours when decided that the blocking admin (not me) should also be described by the same name, quoting 'to call a spade a spade': [67], [68], [69].

Coincidentally, I was reading questions on the Reference Desk and I came across this gem from Dichotomous asking, in essence, if black people had trouble keeping clean because dirt (actually 'fleas, roaches, feces, mold and dirt') was more difficult to see on their skin. A couple of editors had made game, good-faith attempts to answer the question sensibly and scientifically, but it was the sort of question to raise eyebrows, so I had a look at his talk page.

At this point, I saw the thread User talk:Dichotomous#Editing from 2 accounts, where another editor asked why Kadiddlehopper was making comments and signing them as Dichotomous (as here, for example). Further investigation showed that both Kadiddlehopper and Dichotomous (and no other editors) also edited Dichotomous' sandbox: User:Dichotomous/sandbox (history). Dichotomous claimed to be '...at a neighbour's workstation.'

Applying WP:DUCK, I concluded that Dichotomous was likely a sock of Kadiddlehopper and blocked that account indefinitely as an abusive sockpuppet. (Evading a block to troll the Ref Desk meets the definition of 'abuse', methinks.) Dichotomous has responded on his talk page (User talk:Dichotomous#Indefinitely blocked) that they're separate, unique individuals who share the same internet connection and occasionally use each other's computers ([70]); he then offered up the comment 'Perhaps Clem is right that [Wikipedia] is nothing more than a Jewish boy's club.'. He subsequently sent me a rather odd email the repeated his suggestion about our 'ploy to eliminate non-Jewish contributors' and made reference to our 'intolerance' and (oh, delicious irony) 'hypocrisy'.

Topic for discussion:

Should Kadiddlehopper and Dichotomous be banned as abusive sockpuppet(eer)s? Are there any other socks?

They certainly appear to be acting as sock/meatpuppets. (Even if we take Dichotomous' explanation entirely at face value – which I am somewhat disinclined to do – Dichotomous is a meatpuppet for a blocked user and is himself blockable on that basis.) I admit that I will shed no tears over an editor who has only been around for eleven days and who has chosen to embrace various sorts of racism and anti-Semitism.

Kadiddlehopper is slightly more complex case. Looking through his contributions, I find that he is the 'Clem' referred to in Dichotomous' comment: [71]. Aside from the occasional low-key rudeness, his only really overt personal attacks were the ones that earned his block. On the other hand, the Kadiddlehopper account also doesn't seem to do much that contributes to Wikipedia; he seems to be pretty busy trying to start debates (philosophical or economic) on the Ref Desk.

Any comments or thoughts on how best to handle Kadiddlehopper? Any suggestions that the Dichotomous indef block should be reviewed? Anybody know of any other socks?

Your comments and assistance are appreciated. Sorry for the long post. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

An indefinite block for Dichotomous was entirely appropriate. The current block for Kadiddlehopper should, I think, be enough (with a warning that any further crap will see it reimposed indefinitely). Neil ☎ 15:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Works for me. Guy (Help!) 15:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Works for me as well. Any further harassment by Kadiddlehopper, should be followed by an indefblock as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Looks good here. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 18:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• That was me who asked Dichotomous to stop editing from 2 accounts (linked above) after a charming exchange at the Computing Reference desk. He responded by making another comparison to the Nazis. I re-iterated my concerns at his talk page, he referenced the Nazis (again!) and asked me to provide him with all of my personal details, at which point I backed off (although I probably should have reported or something at that point). The two users editing patterns do seem similar, even before Dichotomous arrived on the scene, but I suppose it's impossible to tell who's who. For what it's worth, thanks for blocking Dichotomous - I think it was a good decision. --(Not an admin) Kateshortforbob 23:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Outcome:

Thanks for you all your input, everyone.

• Dichotomous remains indef-blocked as a fairly obvious sock/meatpuppet.
• Kadiddlehopper's current 1-week block stands.
• I have warned Kadiddlehopper that anything that looks remotely like sock- or meatpuppetry will result in a permanent ban, as will any antisemitic attacks or reference to Nazism to describe another contributor.

If anyone encounters another sock or is on the receiving end of further abuse from Kadiddlehopper, let me know. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Single Afd for 2 articles

Donald_Sinclair_(veterinary_surgeon) is being Afd'ed jointly with article Brian Sinclair, under Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_Sinclair. Is this the right way of going about it ? I don't know much about deletion protocols. I tried to add a crossreference on the Biography project page Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Deletion_sorting but the script didn't work presumably because of the joint Afd. Before I go and hard code an entry is it possible for someone who knows more about this to review ? I've notified some users already so a redirect rather than deleting the Afd might be better. Thanks -- Daytona2 17:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's fine to nominate multiple articles when their subjects are so closely related that they can be considered as one unit, as long as notices are placed on all affected articles. If problems arise, the AFD will be split into smaller pieces. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Carl. -- Daytona2 20:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive re-categorizing anon

There has been a disruptive vandal using anonymous editing to bypass a block. Here is a list of suspected socks:

• 81.130.215.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.133.14.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.136.30.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.139.117.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.154.229.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.159.138.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.153.172.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.71.120.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.146.167.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.147.27.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.147.5.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 87.74.16.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 87.74.46.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 87.74.46.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 87.74.94.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 212.158.244.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.120.125.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 217.34.36.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• Bad as a child (talk · contribs · block log)

• Goodmann (talk · contribs · block log)
• Fighter C. (talk · contribs · block log)
• Andrev c (talk · contribs · block log)
• EAGacey (talk · contribs · block log)

Note, nearly all of the IP addresses go back to England and BT Broadband, and some addresses are for public internet cafes.

The initial 3 month block given to User talk:212.158.244.124 by Maxim a month ago. The main editing pattern has been described by dave souza as "berserk deleting categories". The issue isn't simply vandalism based content blanking, but instead POV based removal of categories (like "Allah" doesn't belong in the category "God" and that Anglicans aren't Christian, and that any openly gay priest is somehow a "queer theologian"). I made an initial report of the user at here. The user has slumped to stalking users (look at the two obvious doppelgänger), and has been offensive and incivil at times, with edit summarizes like: "fuckin gays have sex with a woman OR love your mother", "Bible said to kill gays"[72], "No more bullshit cause gay is a pervert"[73], "Leave a queer alone he is a pervert gay"[74], and "Stop vandalism fuckin gay EALacey".

Because the user is avoiding a 3 month block, and has said these incivil comments, and continues the disruptive editing, I usually block the IP on sight, but I'm uncomfortable blocking a dynamic IP for 3 months (especially if a new one comes back each day). The bad part is that the dynamic addresses are so varied (81.130.x.x to 87.74.x.x with a few in the 21x.x.x.x range) that a rangeblock is not feasible based on the number of affected users. At this point, the 3 month block seems pointless because the user knows how to evade the block, has not shown any interest in communicating, the personal attacks have not stopped, nor the disruptive editing. Just letting you know the background of the situation. If anyone wants to help monitor the situation, please consider watchlisting some of the most frequently visited articles in order to catch the user in the act to prevent further disruption.

Does anybody have any ideas on how to more successfully handle this user (through dialogging, blocking, or even contacting the ISP?) I apologize for the length of this in advance.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, this one? Unless I'm mistaken, he has a much longer history... In Lithuanian Wikipedia he worked (in a rather similar way) as lt:Naudotojas:Fun-da-mental-is-t-as, lt:Naudotojas:Pro-test-a-n-t-as, lt:Naudotojas:Kryžiuotis, lt:Naudotojas:Knutuxovas, lt:Naudotojas:Knutuxevas, lt:Naudotojas:Spyris ateismui, lt:Naudotojas:Religinis žinys etc. There are also numerous IP addresses... He was blocked for the first time in January 18, 2007 and has evaded a block lots of times, often retaliating against the blocking administrator's user page or user talk page in the English Wikipedia (you might wish look at the history of User:Dirgela, User:Elnuko, User:Hugo.arg, User:Knutux, User:Pontiakas, User:Qwarc, User:Windom and respective talk pages). I guess that of all three potential solutions that were mentioned (dialogging, blocking, contacting the ISP), only contacting ISP hasn't been tried yet. You might also wish to consult Renata3, who has dealt with him previously (for example, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive284#User:Pionier). --Martynas Patasius 00:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is definitely a tough situation. I feel like blocking the IP on sight, with no warning and no block notice, can be effective, but it takes a long time. Does the vandal have specific targets and, if so, do you feel like having many people watchlist these affected articles might be helpful? Do the IP addresses that vandalize also have positive contributions in their history, suggesting that they are used by other, non-vandal, editors, or are the histories solely this particular vandalism? If it's the latter, you may consider a mid-length rangeblock. Natalie 01:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Compromised account?

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

The above account is a long-standing one, with the first edit in early 2004 - however, over the last few months it seems to have devolved into vandalism only, with joke edits, introduction of misinformation, and POV commentary. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My account has not been compromised. The information you quoted is an actual fact that I will substantiate and correct. Kultur 18:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

None of my additions to Wikipedia have been harmful in the long term. Mistakes are made but that's the point. Don't Nanny the site into a state of uselessness. I have not made harmful edits. Kultur 18:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You cannot substantiate something that isn't true. IrishGuy ^talk 18:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Do we have a content dispute or a genuine suspected account compromise? Mercury 18:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• I don't see any significant changes in edit patterns over the life of the account. I won't block. Mercury 18:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering how he just altered his userpage I suspect a compromised account. IrishGuy ^talk 18:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the account. It's either compromised or this user has gone bad. -- John Reaves 19:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I shot an email to the address he posted a while back. If his account has been compromised, hopefully his email hasn't as well! — xDanielx ^T/_C 19:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There may be some relationship to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Goon rush thread above. Is/was this user a Something Awful forum member? I make the connection through the page Flying Squid Studios (this user tagged an earlier version for speedy deletion, months ago) - which is now where Daniel Geduld redirects, and the DG page was recently a target of Something Awful driven BLP vandalism. Putting this out for thought. GRBerry 20:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Block review by uninvolved parties please

Resolved

Znznzn (talk · contribs) has just been indef. blocked by User:Accounting4Taste. I deleted the user page on the 6th November as a G10 attack on A4T, where this editor called him a "fat nazi". The user was subsequently blocked for 24 hours by User:TimVickers. Znznzn returned to vandalise my user page [75] (and by putting up a personal picture vandalism is inevitable, I accept). I warned the user [76] that this was not tolerated and subsequently A4T blocked [77]. I have only bought this here as A4T and I have both been at the wrong end of this user and I would like transparency with regards to the block. Pedro :  Chat  19:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's cute. Indef block heartily endorsed. east.718 at 20:02, 11/12/2007

Vandalism only account. Keep blocked, though if an uninvolved admin cares enough to put an uninvolved name on the block log, go for it. GRBerry 20:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup, single-purpose account. The fewer, the better. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Marking as resolved. Uninvlolved parties have commented and confirmed actions. Thanks all. Pedro :  Chat  20:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming this, and if anything further crops up, I'll ask an uninvolved admin to take a hand. Accounting4Taste 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper and Whitechapel murders

Looking for an additional opinon or two or three. The situation at issue involves User:DreamGuy and User:Colin4C, a pair of long-time combatants, and part of the key reason that the Jack the Ripper article has been fully protected for a while now. This link shows where this all started today, with DreamGuy reporting to me a likely WP:CFORK violating page from Colin4C. DG had redirected it to the JtR page, and wanted me to protect it (the WCR page). Looking into it, I saw what did indeed appear to be Colin4C maintaining a separate page that refleced his own view of how some of the JtR related information should be presented, but that the page had been in existance for a number of months before the latest dust-up on the JtR page. I did however ask Colin4C not to revert the redirect, and to let a recently launched RFC, which included the key idea at issue, work itself out.

This has progressed in the last hour. Colin wrote several versions of scathing complaints about the situation on the JtR talk page, and then deleted them (his own comments). DG restored them, and responded. Colin and DG have started a minor revert war over this, which I could easily see becoming more than minor.

I, however, have a history with DG, and really should not get too far into the middle of this with him on one side. So I'm looking for reviews. Was the pre-redirect WCM page a violation of WP:CFORK or not? Was I in-line to request/warn colin4C not to revert the redirect? And what, if any, policy covers the removal of one's own talk page comments and the restoration of them by another? And could one or more uninvolved admins keep an eye on the JtR talk page and help prevent a revert war there, preferribly before anyone crosses 3RR? - TexasAndroid 21:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Frankly I think this has got ridiculous. The pair of them need either compulsory mediation or an arbitration case. Nobody else's opinion matters to either party, from what I've seen. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you are just jumping to unwarranted assumptions of bad faith here. I have been trying very hard to get more opinions expressed on the Jack the Ripper article, patiently trying over and over to get people to figure out the items actually under dispute (which was very unclear for a while because of other people's habits of blind reverting the article to the last version they edited, wiping out all sorts of new edits in the process) and to facilitate discussion. I also opened up an RFC on the article which so far hasn't really attracted anyone other than the people who were already there. But when people remove the talk page comments of both themselves and other people, I can't see how restoring them can possibly be considered a bad thing.

Considering TexasAndroid's past history with me, I regret going to him about the issue of the WP:CFORK file in the first place, but I had hoped he would be willing to get over that and deal with a pretty basic situation. I also contacted another admin who had been involved in the lock on the main article, and he said he'd lock it if it becomes a problem but for now there didn't appear to be a need to, as Colin4C had not reverted it (just put up a huge rant about it). As far as that situation goes, it's case closed. Why TexasAndroid feels the need to report a revert war in progress hours later when no such thing has happened I don't really know. I think admins need to cool off sometimes too and not end up escalating a problem when they were approached in good faith to try to help smooth things over. DreamGuy 20:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

TexasAndroid, can you post instances of incivility and edit-warring by each party here? At least one of the parties is under Arbcom restriction regarding civility. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Wherebot

Sigh. Wherebot (talk · contribs) is sick again. Could an admin please block it? — Coren ^(talk) 21:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've done it, but how was it malfunctioning? I took your word on it because you're an established bot operator. east.718 at 21:19, 11/12/2007

It's not inserting the potential copyvio links, therefore making it pretty much useless. --EoL talk 21:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That, and it doesn't look like there were copyvios to be found at all. Our best bet it that, once every so often, Wherebot looses the ability to compare (or perhaps to get search results entirely) and start giving "empty" matches over and over. The fact that Where is on hiatus lately complicate matters, but the bot apparently self-resets after a little while and starts working okay again. — Coren ^(talk) 21:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In the past when Wherebot is broken, I've contacted Where by e-mail, and he is usually rather quick to respond and address the issue. I'd suggest doing that in the future. --Iamunknown 22:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

User:71.177.247.31

This little gem of an edit summary (warning, rated "R" for adult language) led to me extending the anon user's block to a week.

I just wanted to get a quick reality check on the lengthening of the block and the original reason for the block. The anon in question was making a number of grossly unproductive and offensive edits to the sandbox. It was an WP:AIV report, so obviously people were taking offense and there were no productive contributions to the project. Any concerns here? Caknuck 22:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No concern from me. Of course an ip could be on another address in seconds, but no problem with the block or length. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 22:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd support 3 months, even if it's an IP. It's a direct allocated IP. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Just me, but you may want to block him longer, that "picture" that he created appears

to be the infamous "Goatse" picture. KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 13:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Golf clap for the creativity though. I wonder who created that table first... spryde | talk 13:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Dethme0w

I have been threathen with a block from user User talk:Dethme0w in regards to EgyptAir and feel I can no longer debate this issue. I am cross posting this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#EgyptAir to indicate that I feel I can no longer safely debate this issue. For more information please see

• [[User talk:Dethme0w#Warning! Breach of WP:OR. Violation within EgyptAir]]
• Reliable sources Noticeboard #EgyptAir
• EgyptAir Main article
• Talk:EgyptAir#WARNING! Violation of WP:OR

Thank you for your action on this. --CyclePat 22:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I just receive another message on my user talk page which I believe lack good faith. [78] --CyclePat 22:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This regards my removal of a ((fact)) tag from a piece of information that should not require sourcing. I have (prior to this user's abuse of this noticeboard) already added a reference to that article against my better judgment in order to resolve the issue once and for all, but this user is apparently escalation-bound nevertheless. If we had to defend, on this noticeboard, every template we place on a user talk page when we see content deleted without justification, the vandals would take over Wikipedia in about 10 seconds (and the noticeboard would be a gigabyte long). Dethme0w 22:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It certainly appears that you're committing a breach of WP:POINT here, CyclePat—and that this is far from the first time you've done so. Looking at the timeline:

1. CyclePat adds a {fact} tag to the two-letter IATA code in the EgyptAir airline infobox on 9 November: [79].
2. Dethme0w removes the tag on 12 November, with the edit summary rm fact tag from IATA code. If we required every bit of minutiae in articles to be sourced there'd be more references than text! on 11 November.
3. CyclePat then removes the information from the article entirely on 12 November [80].
4. CyclePat puts the information back a short time later, again with a {fact} tag: [81].
5. CyclePat leaves a lecture about OR and WP:V on Talk:EgyptAir.
6. Dethme0w adds a footnote for IATA code as the only way to get Pat to stop being disruptive: [82].
7. Dethme0w adds {fact} tags to some statements in the article that actually ought to be sourced. Why Pat ignored these I can't say.
8. CyclePat proceeds to file these crossposted complaints (here, Talk:EgyptAir, the reliable sources noticeboard, at least) to draw attention to his obstinate timewasting.

I note that the link immediately above the IATA code in the airline infobox points to our page on IATA airline designators, which contains an external link (this one) that lists all of the IATA codes. Footnoting the abbreviation in every airline infobox is a waste of time and space, and Pat's actions here are nothing more than disrupting Wikipedia to make a point—again. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think I agree with Dethme0w here. The item of information is apparently the EgyptAir IATA Airline code, apparently MS.[83] I don't see how CyclePat can, in good faith, claim this is either controversial or incorrect. It's just a couple of letters, unless there is something I'm missing about a dispute with another airline over them or something, I find it hard to imagine this could be a big deal. It is, of course, possible to look this up in less than one minute,[84] which is almost certainly much less time than it took CyclePat to post the fact tag, edit war over it, post his complaints on the article talk page, on the reliable sources notice board, and finally here. This is a mountain being made out of a molehill. I won't block CyclePat over it, but I do strongly suggest he go and drink a tall, cold glass of the beverage of his choice for a while, and contemplate the relative importance of those two letters as opposed to keeping peace and harmony with a fellow Wikipedia editor. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(further) Prompted by this report, I examined CyclePat's recent contributions, and found that EgyptAir is not the only article where there has been trouble. I have warned CyclePat that he should cease to act on his idiosyncratic understanding of the use and application of WP:OR and WP:V, as he has been simultaneously engaged in disruptive editing on MS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

comment from CyclePat

This is difficult comment to reply to because again, it seems to lack good faith. :-( Nevertheless, I will try my best. To help me out, I have looked into "Netiquette Guidelines" an article published by S. Hambridge, Intel Corp. October 1995... used in colaboration with Nortel. It says I should :

"Wait overnight to send emotional responses to messages. If you have really strong feelings about a subject, indicate it via FLAME ON/OFF enclosures. For example:

FLAME ON: This type of argument is not worth the bandwidth it takes to send it. It's illogical and poorly reasoned. The rest of the world agrees with me.

FLAME OFF

So... I will wait overnight before maybe giving a full response. Nevertheless, it makes me happy that you helped provide a reliable source to properly reference MS. We have solved the main issue! :) I hope if we have to work together in the future, particularly in regards to verifiable information, that we will be able to resolve our issues. (Perhaps in a less draconian fashion as today). In particular, regarding WP:V. As for EgyptAir, may I suggest you include the citation within the articles main text, (ie.: EgyptAir (abrv. MS)(reference # here), which would make the table look a little better. Best regards. --CyclePat 22:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, not again. Pat - you are very enthusiastic and we value your energy but you really need to learn a bit of self-criticism. You're slinging tags around, and people are disputing them in good faith, and seeing you slinging them around, and they perceive that you are being disruptive - and they are right! Why not just chill? Go for a ride on the bike, mull it over, and come back, pick one article and work really hard at actually finding the sources and background info? Visit the library, even. If only your enthusiasm could be diverted to digging up sources we'd have a dozen featured articles with your name on them. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh...

Mind if I remove the sourcing for the MS code? Custom is that people can look it up using the IATA designator. I have already added numerous sources to the article and that [1] hanging up there in the infobox bothers me. I would rather make sure that I am not pissing people off by doing it :) spryde | talk 01:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found an alternate solution. spryde | talk 01:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It would make me happy if the footnote were to disappear. The complainant in this case is incorrect when he states that the issue is resolved - he missed the part where I said that I added that [1] against my better judgment. I will consider the issue resolved when the article is allowed to return to - and stay in - the state it was in prior to this mess. Excepting, of course, constructive edits such as yours. Dethme0w 01:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Closing Statement: May I suggest that the discussion regarding content placement and formatting remain within the talk:EgyptAir's discussion page. Also, please see my aforementioned comment which states: "...may I suggest you include the citation within the article's main text, (ie.: EgyptAir (abrv. MS)(reference # here)..." I would like to point out, that this has been done and contrary to what the article used to be... it's now possible to actually find the sources, cited as per WP:CITE! (I would like to clarify: I really don't know, and still can't find within this Airline codes-M list a reference for MS being the code for EgyptAir.) Finally, may I also suggest that this issue is resolved, as per Dethme0w own admission that he is not an administrator and that his warning to block was simply his belief that my "edits were disruptive, and that my behaviour had exhausted his reservoir of AGF." Obviously, everyone here seems to have made a consensus that, for some reason, my edits where disruptive. I apologize if you don't believe in WP:V and WP:OR rules and that my methodology of application (as suggest be general consensus within these policies) offended you. But, back on to the main issue, again, the reason this was reported to the Admin board was primarily because I feared having to be blocked after Deathme0w placed this warning template on my talk page. Given it appears, as stated above, that I have a reputation for allegedly being disruptive, I didn't want things to escalate any further and decided to report this threat first thing. Thank you for your feedback on this situation and all your help. Indeed, I believe I could respond with many things. Nevertheless, as suggest in the "Netiquette Guidelines" article, published by S. Hambridge, Intel Corp. October 1995, p.2... which says "On the other hand, you shouldn't be surprised if you get flamed and it's prudent not to respond to flames." Adieu! I will be moving on to Malay language which, it too does not have proper sourcing for it's MS code. Any help would be greatly appreciated. --CyclePat 22:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Fightfan101

Resolved

Check the revision history on Mills Lane for this ([85]). Rather obvious sock account of User:Laneinc, who claims to be the son of Mills Lane. He created the sock in a poor attempt to circumvent WP:COI, of which I notified him earlier. Someone please block the sock, while I try to get User:Laneinc to discuss.--Atlan (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. IrishGuy ^talk 22:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Wormwood66

Resolved

Persistent disruptive editing at Winston Churchill - see - Special:Contributions/Wormwood66. The user has not responded to request to stop. Jooler 23:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

24 hour block for edit warring. IrishGuy ^talk 23:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Nicholas1995xlt

Would somebody kindly block Nicholas1995xlt (talk · contribs)? I see nothing good from any of his edits, but he doesn't have a final warning yet on his Talk page, so making a request at WP:AIV, which currently has sweveral vandals already listed, proably won't do any good. Corvus cornix 00:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Now could somebody please protect his Talk page? Corvus cornix 00:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about User:TougHHead

Hello, this user has been constantly adding non notable references to aircraft related articles, particularly F-15 Eagle and F-22 Raptor. [86] [87]. Looking at his contribs and talk page warnings, he has been disruptive as well. Perhaps suggestions would be in order? Thanks. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 01:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Leave me and those users alone. I got banned from Wikia and all Wiki Projects and now not here too. PsiSevereHead and Angela banned me without showing how long I am blocked and finally someone plots to get me banned everywhere.(TougHHead 01:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC))

Perhaps I misread that, I am can tell you that I am not plotting to ban you everywhere. No one is. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 01:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt but I have noted a particularly uncivil and intemperate series of exchanges involving TougHHead. The following are recent examples of editwarring: removing an admin's cautionary note, edit war with two other editors, replacing titles established under WP:AIR/PC guidelines, inappropriate edit note, edit conflict and an indication that this is a banned user. FWIW Bzuk 06:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC).

Also, this example of blatant vandalism ensued after this admonishment by me to do right in his edit warring. The user appears to be continuing a pattern of bad behavior from his time on Wikia until he was bannished. - BillCJ 07:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, he's had one short block (which I now understand from Angela should have been longer), and he's now received multiple warnings, so any further disruption, in my opinion, is grounds for a much longer block. When he transgresses again, I'll be happy to take care of it, unless another admin happens to get to it first. A note here would probably be best to keep everyone coordinated. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Loopers

I'd appreciate someone taking a second look at this editor. His less-than-30 edits include moving the Help:Merging and moving pages page, playing in the X9 sandbox with parameters of templates, a improper move that mentions redirects in the edit summary, an edit of another editor's subpage, and creating a template. (If someone would speedy the template, it would be appreciated.)

All in all, a rather impressive display of knowledge for a newcomer, I think, but I'd welcome a review by someone more experienced with these things. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Taiketsu again

• Earlier I reported Taiketsu (talk · contribs) for bad behavior towards anonymous users. Now I have to report him again for attempting to start a revert war. As far as I know, articles containing lists of dubbed anime articles have the original airdates and the first airdates for the English version. It doesn't say "American version", as in some cases dubbed episodes air in Canada or the U.K. before in the U.S. In Yu-Gi-Oh! GX media and release information, there are two episodes which aired in the U.K. before the U.S. User:Taiketsu has been reverting these dates with the explanation that "we been using american dates from the start". I explained that this is English Wikipedia and not American Wikipedia at first, but he is obstinate and refuses to discuss the issue. I don't think this can be called a content dispute as policy is clear about avoiding systemic bias, plus his behavior indicates he will keep on reverting until he gets his way. Can an admin please help settle the issue? JuJube 02:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 24 hours due to edit warring on a couple of pages. Hopefully he'll calm down and contribute constuctively. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR

I have suggested merging 3RR into EW at Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule#Merge. Mercury 03:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Jakie21 etc.

Resolved

Not sure what is going on here, but WhatIWanted21 (talk · contribs), Jakie21 (talk · contribs), and Smashout21 (talk · contribs) appear to be the same person, creating multiple user accounts and user pages that seem to be a transgression of WP:NOT a free webhost... no contributions to the encyclopedia at all, only the creation of multiple linked user pages that seem to serve as a collection of interlinked vanity articles. Should these be dealt with in some fashion? Not that these user pages are hurting the encyclopedia (a few music-related categories had to be removed, however), but they're ultimately not of any benefit either, as these users only appear to be here for one purpose, and it's not improving the project. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's User:Explode24 all over again. See here for his previous appearance. --Calton | Talk 13:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted them all and issued warnings. -- Merope 13:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

Hello, User:Gchx91 and User:Scsgurl123. They edit each others talk pages and vandalize the same articles, not to mention the accounts were created less than 20 minutes apart. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked both. Likely sockpuppets, but definitely some sort of coordinated vandalism at the least. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

More sockspuppets than feet

I was hoping to get some input and feedback on a problem I have been encountering in the John Lennon page, and - lol - I will try to be brief. :)

Sixstring1965 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked some time ago for sockpuppeting and a host of other issues. Quickly thereafter, a bunch of his sockpuppets started making appearances in the article. Here is a list of his proven socks and his suspected socks. I've noticed a lot more apparent puppets showing up, and filled out a SSP report. I was hoping that I am following the protocol more concisely,and thought I would post because Realsanpaku, like the others has been pretty much either attacking me or asking the article be deleted. talk about your salt the earth' revenge. The likely socks I reported are as follows:

• ImagineNoPossessions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  
• MindGuerrilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  
• 24.168.17.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  
• Jeffrey_O._Assmunch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  
• Realsanpaku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  

If I've filed wrong, or need to do something else, could I trouble someone to pipe up and let me know? I'd prefer to avoid any confusion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure that it even matters, but the user listed inthe SSP, Realsanpaku, tried to alter the SSP report (inserting my name instead) but it was then reverted, and made legal threats on my User Talk page. Looks like paydirt. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Extended to indef while legal threat is outstanding. Suggest you not email him further (if you even did). -- But|seriously|folks  09:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have never emailed him at all. In fact, aside from notifying him of the SSP and limited contact on the John Lennon page, I've had no contact with him. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring and removal of talk page comments

User:Adam.J.W.C. is edit warring on swamp. This user also removed my comment on the associated talk page. Enternoted 04:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Adam.J.W.C. also seems to have violated the Three revert rule by reverting me (at swamp) three times within 24 hours. Enternoted 04:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Providing diffs per instructions:

Revert 1, Revert 2, Revert 3.

Removing my comments to the talk page

Sorry to add these diffs so late. Cheers. Enternoted 04:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not a revert I am restoring content removal by a new user who only seems to be concerned with removing one of my images and nothing else since signing up. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. 04:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I can also see that this new user has made know other edits apart from the content removal and this message here. So a new user just signed up simply removing content of images looks more like content removal (vandalism) and nothing else. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. 04:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Enternoted, it takes two editors to revert war, not just one, you are being just as disruptive with the reverting. Another thing, an editor does not break 3RR with only 3 reverts, 4 reverts must be done for a violation of WP:3RR to occur. I would suggest both of you take a break from each other and from editing on the Swamp article. — Save_Us_229 04:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I was simply restoring deleted content, even though I may have been wrong in remove the talk page content. I was simply looking after what is on my watchlist. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. 04:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Adam, the edit was done with good faith as the editor removed the image because he had a concern about it. Nothing in WP:VAND describes that as vandalism. Removal of content doesn't always mean it's vandalism. Also reverting claiming vandalism does not exempt you from WP:3RR were to go to the noticeboard for these violations. I would chat with Enternoted on the talk page of the article and address concerns he raises about the image. Cheers! — Save_Us_229 04:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

See also: Deletes two users' comments on his talk page.

I did not notice that the image in question was Adam's. Since it is Adam's, it could be an ownership issue. I could upload a better image of a swamp if necessary, but as things are going, I'll wait and see how things go. Enternoted 19:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Uploaded a better image. Retracting issue with his own user page as some kind sole instructed me that this is okay. Enternoted 20:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Brenda Xiong "Tiberius" Hmong

An administrator may wish to do something about this. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

and this. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Given the lack of any legitimate contributions, and because this appears to have been going on for a while, I've extended the original 48-hour block to an indefinite one. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User:131.216.41.16

I believe that User:Bremskraft, who was previously confirmed as having used multiple accounts to contravene 3RR (see Archive 280, "Possible Sock Puppet" and Archive 304, "Confirmed sockpuppetry by User:IronAngelAlice), has recently returned to making the same type of edits as before as User:131.216.41.16 (see contribs). 131.216.41.16 has made edits to the same narrow range of articles as both Bremskraft and IronAngelAlice, including Harry Reid,[88][89][90] Jon Porter,[91][92] David Reardon,[93][94] Gardasil,[95][96][97] and Post-abortion syndrome.[98][99] -Severa (!!!) 06:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the user is not banned. Wknight94 blocked the Bremskraft account indefinitely but left IronAngelAlice open to reuse after 1 week. This IP did not edit during that week, so no block evasion. I will leave a note for the user suggesting that they log in as IronAngelAlice and read our policies carefully. ··coelacan 11:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Sfacets and WP:PUI

Resolved

Sfacets (talk · contribs), an editor with a history of questionably self-tagged images, has come up with a novel theory to defend his images from deletion. Relying on the language at WP:PUI that states "Images can be unlisted immediately if they are undisputably in the public domain or licensed under an indisputably free license", he asserts that images with free license tags can be unlisted regardless whether the propriety of the tags is disputed. On this interpretation, he removed WP:PUI templates from many of his own images that were up for discussion. This interpretation can't be correct, as the statement at the top of WP:PUI indicates that "This page is for listing and discussing images that are used under a non-free license or have disputed source or licensing information." Indeed, one of the primary uses of WP:PUI is to discuss images with dubious free licenses. Free license tags cannot insulate an image from scrutiny.

I'm raising this here because I nominated many of the images for deletion, so I am asking uninvolved admins to take a look at the situation. The deletion discussions are at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 October 25, and most of the discussion between Sfacets and me is here. Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  08:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been a protagonist in this issue. In my opinion Sfacets has a history of unsupportable claims about images that he's uploaded, and is no longer reliable in that regard. Sfacets feels that questions about his claims are personal attacks. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but that's not why I started this thread. I was trying to get other admins' opinions on the PUI process. But I have since realized that this isn't the proper forum for that. I'll copy my question over to WT:PUI. And while I was posting the question here, Sfacets was blocked for 72 by another admin, so any admin issues have been resolved. -- But|seriously|folks  09:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Page move vandal

Resolved

Could someone experienced in undoing such messes please sort out Special:Contributions/Qutsucks's recent burst of page-move vandalism? -- Karada 09:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. WjBscribe 09:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! The use of sleeper accounts shows this is clearly the premeditated work of a persistent vandal. I've protected the page move=sysop for a month to stop any further planned attacks. -- Karada 09:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If the vandal is using sleeper accounts odds are he'll just go to a different article. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 16:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Correcting a misspelled defamatory statement/word

Hi User:Animesouth corrected a misspelled defamatory statement/word rather than removing it [100] and has complained about it on my talk page after I reverted and warned them. See User_talk:Daytona2 and User_talk:Animesouth#Your_recent_edit_.5B1.5D. Did I handle this correctly ? Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 10:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Animesouth on this one. WP:AGF...and in any case, it wouldn't have been worth a final warning. --Onorem♠Dil 10:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I didn't assume good faith because of the warnings given by other editors on their talk page User_talk:Animesouth. Doesn't making a libel clearer mean that an editor is in the wrong ? When do you stop assuming good faith ? -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 11:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You were correct to remove it, but a stern warning was probably unnecessary. Neil ☎ 10:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Revert and warn is correct (though probably not a final warning); it's difficult to WP:AGF when they actually expanded the libellous statement with their next edit. ELIMINATORJR 11:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Which next edit was that? The next edit I see for Animesouth was this one. We have articles on people saying correctly that they've done corrupt things. There's no reason if we assume good faith to believe that Animesouth knew anything about this person, and knew that the statement was incorrect. It's not a statement I would have left unsourced in an article if I saw it, but that's not the point here. --Onorem♠Dil 11:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

My mistake - I weas looking at [101] this edit, not realising it was a different section of the article. ELIMINATORJR 11:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This was a spelling corrective edit, with no content being added, deleted, or modified. It's akin to prosecuting a person for conspiracy to murder after it is discovered that the person helped to change a man's tire, but that man turned out to have murdered someone beforehand. -Animesouth 16:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

While I applaud your correcting the spelling, to extend your metaphor - fixing the spelling of unsourced critical information on the article of a living person is akin to fixing the tyre of a burning car. Neil ☎ 16:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The car wasn't burning. If we give out warnings to everyone who corrects spelling on an article that might be considered controversial ('burning car'), no one would be left to edit. Spelling/grammar error fixes is what I mostly do. If we now have to check the content, validity, and living status of an entire article before making every single spelling/grammar edit, nothing would ever get done. -Animesouth 16:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the perils of metaphors. The sentence was the burning car, not the article. To clarify - there's no point copyediting unreferenced contentious POV sentences in articles, as they will just be removed anyway. Neil ☎ 16:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

For years, I have been copy editing, usually without even logging in. I usually do not edit content. If it becomes required to verify facts, contents, and POV before even correcting the spelling of one single word in an article, I think we've lost sight of the mission of Wikipedia: improving the Encyclopedia. Maybe I didn't improve it the way you wanted it, but it was improved. When I worked for USA Today, they loved me because I copy edited everything I saw, even though it wasn't my main responsibility, because it improved the paper. They never once warned me because the content of the article might have been amiss. -Animesouth 22:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

FC Steaua Bucureşti and Aecis

Yesterday I closed a move request, moving FC Steaua Bucureşti to FC Steaua Bucharest. The discussion on the talk page itself was against the move, but community consensus (WP:NAME#Sports teams, WP:COMMON, WP:ENGLISH) and many many precedents (Bayern Munich not Bayern Munchen, Dynamo Kiev not Dinamo Kyiv, Spartak Moscow not Spartak Moskva, etc) are clear on this. Aecis undid the move, reverted the changes, and has posted to a number of Romanian-related pages ([102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], and [110]) asking them to chip in to the discussion. I suggested he also post to WikiProject Football to at least avoid any inference of votestacking or canvassing, but this was ignored.

When I asked Aecis why he reopened the discussion and suggested it may have been because he didn't agree with the result, his reply was "That's bullshit" and dismissed the whole thing as "ridiculous" [111]. Have I done anything wrong here? Am I being ridiculous? Is this canvassing by Aecis (Do not attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view. )? Neil ☎ 13:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably Aecis didn't appreciate your "Oh, for crying out loud." I don't believe there's something for the admins to do for now. Try WikiProject Football. As for canvassing, yes. I don't see why someone would discuss X at Y talkpage. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You followed the naming conventions in the MOS; that should have been enough. Why are we even having a discussion on the name of the article when our policies quite clearly state what it should be? ELIMINATORJR 15:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You should wander over to Dynamo Kiev as well. The discussion has occured twice on that page and still continues. Most editors who have arrived simply for the discussion are asking for its return to Dynamo Kyiv. It is an argument fraught with nationalism and I have already offered my opinion on that page which is why I will not get involved in the moving. Woodym555 15:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the MOS must be respected though it is useless to argue about that since it is just a guideline. That's the dilemma. It is clear that this is an English version of the encyclopedia and that tells a lot. Probably the Village Pump is the right place to sort these issues. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why this should be discussed on ANI, since there is nothing for the admins to do here. I can live with Neil's position; if he had responded normally to this matter, we would have agreed to disagree and that would be the end of it. But Neil's utter incivility and confrontational response was completely uncalled for. That is what I called ridiculous and bullshit. Not his move.
With regards to the issue of canvassing: that too is completely uncalled for. Yes, I left a notice on the talk pages of seven articles. And why? Because if Steaua Bucureşti‎ would be moved to Steaua Bucharest, there would be a ground for moving Dinamo Bucureşti‎ to Dinamo Bucharest‎, Rapid Bucureşti‎ to Rapid Bucharest‎, Maccabi Bucureşti‎ to Maccabi Bucharest‎, Progresul Bucureşti‎ to Progresul Bucharest‎, Unirea Tricolor Bucureşti‎ to Unirea Tricolor Bucharest‎, Venus Bucureşti‎ to Venus Bucharest‎ and Victoria Bucureşti‎ to Victoria Bucharest‎. Since this would involve so many articles related to Romania, I thought it would be very reasonable to notify the WikiProject Romania of this. And why I didn't notify the WikiProject Football of this matter? Because the move request was already listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Nominations for deletion and page moves. The WikiProject had already been notified. What I did doesn't even come close to canvassing. Aec·is·away ^talk 15:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I expressed a mild exasperation at your reverting a closure without discussion. That's hardly "utter incivility and [a] confrontational response". The breach of etiquette was yours. I hope someone other than yourself will close the reopened move discussion (I know I certainly won't try and get involved again).

Above, I asked for clarification on whether your actions amounted to canvassing - I didn't accuse you of it. Your explanation satisfies me no vote-stacking was intended (even if it may now occur as an unintentional side-effect). Neil ☎ 15:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I see your assumptions of bad faith as highly incivil and confrontational. Two examples:

"So will you reopen the discussion again when the next administrator trying to clear the WP:RM backlog closes it in a manner you don't agree with, too?"

"Is that good conduct?"

I have tried to be civil with you. You have earned your marks and deserve respect and the assumption of good faith. If I have given you reason to believe that I didn't, I apologize. But I feel that I deserve the same.

My explanation of "the issue of canvassing" was in response to FayssalF's comment "As for canvassing, yes. I don't see why someone would discuss X at Y talkpage."

Aec·is·away ^talk 15:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for being blunt. It was born out of frustration - trying to quell nationalistic edit warring on Wikipedia is often dismaying enough without a fellow administrator reverting good faith and policy-mandated closures of requested moves without any discussion. I hope we can put this behind us. Neil ☎ 16:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is how this issue should have been dealt w/:

• There was no need for Neil to state "Oh, for crying out loud."
• There was no need for Aecis to state "that's bullshit"
• There was no need for FayssalF to believe that it was canvassing before going deep into the matter
• WikiProject Football needs to sort this out in a whole and not on a per-case basis because one day soon you'll get back there again. See this example at the WikiProject Military history. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If there's gonna be a wider discussion about this, I don't think the WikiProject Football is the right forum for this. Not only because it involves a naming convention, but also because it might extend to other sports. To avoid clogging up the Village Pump, it might be better to start a centralized discussion about sports teams, to sort this out in a whole, as FayssalF says. Aec·is·away ^talk 16:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's now been closed (against the MOS and against convention, but I don't care any more, someone else can sort it out). Neil ☎ 22:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Sarvagnya

Please would somebody note the actions of User:Sarvagnya. Edits such as this are clearly disruptive and vandalising yet nothing was done about it and this which shows a clear aim by this user to remove existing content and damaging the encyclopedia - to destroy a whole license which has been previously been authorized and would affect hundreds of articles and then attempting to persuade the authoriser User:Riana at the commons to "nuke them all" on the grounds of his belief it isn't adequate. There is a clear purpose from his recent actions to attempt to erode existing articles related to Indian cinema and destroy the weeks of work and effort from other contributors brnading their work a "pile of garbage". If new editors did all this they would have been blocked. He has excessively tagged many main existing pages with often 4 or 5 different tags to portray the articles as terrible such as the Bollywood article. Addressing tone and ordering references is fine but this editor has gone so far that it is clear he isn't acting in good faith when many articles will be under threat. Is this what people want? He has been warned by an admin before Please avoid making personal attacks. because he personally attacked one editor. But it is time to do something about this. It is rude and it is disheartening to other editors, and is certainly not an environment I want to work in particularly when content is under attack and I am having to continously against my wishes having to become involved in it and try to protect existing content. I haven't got time to waste on people or this sort. I seriously fear that hundreds of articles or going to be degraded in this way and going unnoticed ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: How do you qualify this as disruptive? Shouldn't a user be allowed to express his opinion on Wikipedia? So what do you want to indicate? That people who are notifying copy-vios in Wikipedia are damaging it and should be blocked? Nice try.. And if you are complaining about personal attacks, may be you should see this, arse jockeys, eh? -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 17:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad try yourself there. Now, if someone could address the substantive issues of the user in question's repeated apparently unjustifiably tagging content for speedy deletion, repeatedly adding other tags without any explanation, and the other substantive complaints made here, the discussion might rise above the level of the comment above. John Carter 17:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't normally react , count it lucky I didn't react even worse and leave permanently - I was crying out at the same procession of editors following Savagnya in bringing things down and that an ameniable alternative wasn't made from discussion first ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Lucky, eh? Lets leave out the personal attack business from the discussion... -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 18:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Sarvagnya seems to have developed a bit of a history misusing the speedy deletion template, as per his talk page and elsewhere. Is there any way to formally recommend that such misuse cease. Regretably, he doesn't seem to misuse it often enough to qualify for a block, but he does seem as per his talk page to misuse the template with some regularity. John Carter 16:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Please notify the user of this thread. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

See the above thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sarvagnya Woodym555 16:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)(threads merged) Woodym555 16:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This user has been warned many times about this the latest warning about speedying existing articles and images and general disrpution was removed as "nonsense". I don't know what it'll take for him to get the message. He has actually been warned more times than I had previously though see User_talk:Sarvagnya#speedy but continues to ignore warning at disruption. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I would ask anyone interested to review the contents of the editor's talk page. Placing all sorts of templates without any justification given, removing verifiable and appropriate content, making legal threats, etc. User seems to have a history of unilateral action without any explanation. John Carter 17:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

blah blah blah.. I made legal threats? Where? Point out or shut up. Sarvagnya 17:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Seeing the editor's talk page would only be like looking at the one side of the coin. If some one is reviewing, I request to review the complete conversation, which could have happened in multiple talk pages. Thanks - KNM ^Talk 17:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If I am misstating the content of User talk:Sarvagnya#no legal threats explanation, my apologies. However, I cannot help but be amused that much of the content of your talk page, and the purpose of this discussion, is your own failure to abide by that principle, given your repeated failure to justify any of the seemingly irrational tagging you so often engage in. John Carter 17:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)Much of the content on my page has a history of which you know nothing about. Many a time the allegations are as ill informed and ludicruous as your own here and so I dont even bother replying to those.. that doesnt make those allegations true! So stop shooting your mouth off and making a fool of yourself. If you find the contents on my page amusing, good for you but keep it to yourself. Dont waste people's time on ANI by misrepresenting conversations and slandering others. And next time, do your homework before you come on ANI.

And oh, Blofeld that applies to you too. Before you crib that I reverted or attacked someone, make sure that the user was not a banned troll. Also if you're going to complain that I tagged 'brilliant prose' as nonsense, be ready with a diff to back it up. You're surely not faulting me for removing that gem of a "Bollywood is entering into the consciousness of western audiences" etc., on Bollywood, are you?

Can anybody here say honestly and with a straight face that articles havent improved after I've paid them a visit? Can you say that Zinta didnt improve after the FAC? Can you say that Bollywood hasnt improved in the last 12 hours? The amount of bad faith and witchhunt against me is appalling. This is probably the second such thread in a week. For what? Because I opposed your article on FAC on the grounds that it lacked RS sources?! Sorry, I'd rather clean up non-RS and copyvio cruft on wikipedia than make friends.

If you have a problem with me cleaning up cruft, too bad. You can cry hoarse on ANI.. but its not going to change the way I go about cleaning cruft. And dont make it sound like I've tricked Riana or Yamla or Guy or anybody else into buying my POV over those images. They're sensible and intelligent people too and your insinuations against me are really an insult to them. Blofeld, if you werent wikipedia's 'most productive editor', I wouldnt be dignifying this screed of yours with a response. You should work on assuming good faith and examining the edit and not the editor next time. Nichalp, a bureaucrat, also supported my stance on that FAC. Have you considered opening a thread like this on ANI against him too? Anyway, I'm out of here.. dont expect me to keep replying here. Sarvagnya 17:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah Nichalp I'm wondering when he'll turn up. If you concentrate on adding content and really improving articles I support you 100%. Its when articles are made to look pathetic and hard work attacked and branded as a "pile of rubbish" that I find offensive. Each time I log into wikipedia I find you have gone further and are attmepting to ruin something else or putting articles up for speedy, when I really want to continue with something else. If you got on with adding the content and improving articles like you claim to do which I beleive you are capable in a half ameniable fashion I wouldn't give you a second glance. I don;t know how you expect to systematically pursue your course of actions and not expect anybody to be evne slightly concerned ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Boy.. should I be concerned that people get worked up for no reason? I simply cannot help it. If people are going to keep taking ill informed stances about me, I cannot help it. And I didnt make the articles look pathetic. They were pathetic. I merely tagged it and brought it to people's attention! Nothing gives me more joy on wikipedia than writing articles. But I wouldnt be able to sleep at night if I wrote nonsense like Bollywood. Writing articles takes time and diligence. at the moment (as you can see from my talk page), I am too busy in RL to write articles. I've been working in snatches last few weeks and I only have time to do drive by cleaning.. and that is waht I am doing. Also when I create articles, I usually create them on notepad and hoist them up in one shot like I've done

here, [112], here, here, here, here, here and several other places. For that matter, even at this moment, there's a half done article sitting in my sandbox. Those edits obviously get buried in my contrib history and all that someone assuming bad faith can pick out is edits like the one you've chosen to misrepresent here. I usually hate making a case for myself even when I run the risk of being misunderstood, because I see it as vanity. This isnt the first time I've been dragged to ANI nor will it be the last. Only this time, it isnt the usual rank troll who would drag me here. It is you, Blofeld and that is why I'm even bothering to reply.

And what do you mean by irrational tagging? I tagged and got dozens of images deleted by dozens of admins and I've been doing it for months now. So you're accusing all of them of acting in bad faith? Same with articles. For your information, there used to be a List of Tamil film clans or some such which I tagged as unencyclopedic. Another editor, a Tamil himself and one who considers me his sworn enemy supported me, took it further and tagged it for speedy. And it got speedied. So that is what I had in mind when I put Bolly clans up for speedy. Its appalling how people can think that such a list is even encyclopedic! And stop making up stories like the edit war on Shahrukh had anything to do with my edits on Zinta FAC. I've explained this before and let me explain again. If I remember correctly, from SRK I went to AB where again I saw the same non-RS sources. From there I clicked on several Bollywood articles and all of them turned out the same. So I went to WP:INB to leave a message where I saw your message about Zinta FAC. It was from there that I landed on the Zinta FAC. You led me there! Sarvagnya 18:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Look that Bollywood article did have some misleading statements -thankyou for identifying them. Statements such as "Bollywood is generally making a breakthrough in the west" or whatever it was is a dreadful generalization to make in an encyclopedia article - its not about that -we both know there is some bad text in a number of articles. Many of the Bollywood articles need serious work to address comments and bad references and if this improves and eventually builds content this would be ideal. However, it is the way that you conduct yourself and your course of action that I am concerned with with little regard to the concerns and protests of others time and time again and it is clear you look on many editors and their work with disgust and in a condesending manner.. Now I have done no real editing on Bollywood articles at all, in fact my only editing there has been with adding film posters or templates and cast sections on existing film articles rather than actors. However terrible you think articles are, you just don't make decisions to nuke articles with no consensus with other editors and however terrible you think an article is ,you most certinaly should not discourage anybody who attempts to add constructive content to this encyclopedia. You keep claiming good faith, but how can your continous disregard for the genuine efforts of hard work , whether it is in article content (or with images which I helped with) be acceptable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - He has been warned by an admin before Please avoid making personal attacks. - No, that user who warned is not an admin. Also, the user on whom Sarvagnya is alleged to have made a personal attack appears to be an obvious sockpuppet, and his edit in the same page was reverted back by admin. - KNM ^Talk 17:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Either way, within minutes of the edit war and vandalism here on the Shahrukh Khan article, when his edits were reverted within minutes he influenced the Preity Zinta FA nomination by declaring "strongest possible oppose" as a response. This is when this user came to me attention as I was rather surprised at how it seemed to be overly degrading. Follwoing each of these events his close friends such as KLF turn up to offer their support. Nobody seems to be notice the misconduct here -this is what worries me. Would somebody please see the edits here and how entire paragraphs of article being removed and branded as nonsense ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Influence?? What do you mean by influence? The article did not pass the GA review, because the lead editors could not address the review comments. Why do you want to make Sarvagnya as the scape goat, when the lead editors inability to move the article to a GA was the reason for the failure? Didn't you see the page history of Preity Zinta after the GA review, where a lot of cleanup is in progress? Please be more objective than trying to put in your opinions... -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 17:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It is possible for such a profound statement as "strongest possible oppose" to sway votes, even if that "swaying" is accurate. It is also legitimate to point out that the party seems to have certain "tag-alongs" or "defenders" who appear shortly after the initiatior himself. And I don't find a User:KLM. Was Blofeld perhaps referring to User:KNM, who has posted here already? John Carter 17:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Carter, may I point you to the history page of the Preity Zinta article to show you the clean up happening after the FA review. This is ample evidence that the article did not deserve to be an FA. What do we want next? Half baked articles being promoted to FA? Please... "Tag-alongs" and "defenders"? Would User:Shshshsh and Mr. Blofeld be an example of what you call as "Tag-alongs" and "defenders", since they seem to edit together? -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 18:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I used the example because it seemed highly suspicious and quite a coincidence that is occurred within minutes of that conflict. That article had some issues which have nothing to do with this editor. Now please don't try to justify all of his latest actions as good faith, it is clear he has gone beyond this. I am amazed how the same group KNM and Amargg turn uo in the same succession everytime to run to his aid ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly Blofeld. Exactly! Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is quite serious, worse than i thought.This article was vandalised and emblazened with a "hoax" tag and he received a warning about this. This is a serious threat to our encyclopedia on major articles such as this. The question is are people happy to let him undertake such actions to our articles? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

All that tag summarily says is "The truthfulness of this article has been questioned.", which is perfectly fine for an article like in that state, where there is absolutely no references (not even single citation), and when a long-standing editor has concerns over its truthfulness. Looking from the positive perspective, that edit would only help bringing the article into a better shape by having references, inline citations and removing the original research. Once we start assuming bad faith on an editor, everything from him/her will be start appearing as -ve contributions to Wikipedia. Thats the whole purpose of, WP:AGF. - KNM ^Talk 17:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, such, potentially conscious, misstatements of fact are themselves troubling, particularly from an editor who so frequently seems to rush to defend the editor in question. I presume you didn't bother to read the second sentence of the template, "It is believed that some or all of its content might constitute a hoax." Such distortions of fact for the purpose of defending actions could themselves be seen as being potentially problematic. And perhaps the editor could explain on what basis clearly and specifically alleging something is a hoax without foundation can be counted as being acceptable. John Carter 18:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What distortions and what potential problems are you talking about John? Do you see any references in that article? One single reference at least for it's sake? What is the notability of that err...committee? I believe Sarvagnya was well within his rights to tag the article as hoax. There is no distortion or misrepresentation here. Things are just fine. Gnanapiti 18:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes. By any stretch of imagination, I cannot see that as a vandalism. Perhaps I must request you to see WP:Vandalism. Thanks - KNM ^Talk 18:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Look you know that my main concern is to improve article content and quality this is why I am here. Often sources and tone does need addressing yes but if you exmaine the course of actions over the last fortnight the actions and attitude of this person which is pretty obvious in this disccusion you'll see why I am concerned. Now it has become plainly obvious these edits are not done in good faith. How can anybody possibly justify the edits and behaviour identified as in good faith? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This whole complain thing is nothing but trolling. Not even one legitimate diff to back the complaints. All I see are incomplete complaints about personal attacks, hasty lies about legal threats and not so wise ways of looking at things. Tagging hoax for that completely unreferenced article was absolutely fine and well within wikipedia polices. And you wanted Preity Zinta to qualify as an FA? That would be a dishonor to all other well deserved FAs. I know what's coming next. Keep them coming, only if at all I need to reply. Gnanapiti 18:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No, there is also the matter of the absolute refusal to address valid points on the part of those who are defending the subject of this thread by attacking those who have commented on his misconduct, and the clear evidence on his talk page of possible repeated abuse of the speedy delete template. It would be interesting to see if anyone will actually directly address that matter. As they seek direct evidence, I would point to the following threads from his talk page:

• User talk:Sarvagnya#Suspect Licensing (possibly legit),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#ICFI (in which hoax and OR tags were placed without any comments made to justify their being placed),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka (in which the party removed cited material without any discussion),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#WP:RS (removed a reference without any apparent prior discussion),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#Chennai (removing cited material without discussion again),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#Tamilikam (regarding tagging articles),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#Carnatic (in which the party is suggested as possibly "causing more edit wars of this kind"),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#regarding tagging (again adding tags without seemingly bothering to indicate why),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#Hi friend (another reversion of information),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#Chola bell (reverting again),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#on kongu nadu (yet another complaint about sources, with allegation of a "jehad" from the Karnataka workgroup),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#hi (yet more reversions),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#speedy (being told about misuse of the speedy deletion tag),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#Apology needed (regarding personal attacks),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#Please stop (marking templates for speedy deletion),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#Image tagging (again regarding tagging images for deletion),
• User talk:Sarvagnya#Image:JasmineSimhalan-kalaripayatt-silambam.gif (in which an admin questions the suggestion for speedy deletion and warns that going admin shopping when he can't accept a decision won't work), and
• User talk:Sarvagnya#Changing a cited quote (changing a cited quote without discussion). Rather a longish list. I would welcome any defense of the complaints individual, but I also believe that the sheer frequency and repetitive nature of them are more than sufficient for this editor's actions to merit scrutiny. John Carter 18:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk pages represent only one side of the issue and I had expected an experienced editor like you to realize this already. More legitimate and trustful would be actual diffs of misconduct and any further discussions done on the issue, if you have any. Gnanapiti 19:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but about three of those are explicit statements from admins about misusing the template. I note that once again no direct responses regarding points made are forthcoming from the subject's apparent allies. And I think it can be understood that the sheer weight of allegations of misconduct regarding this party from both admins and regular editors can be seen as being at best reason to question the actions of the editor, particularly when they come in such rapid proximity to each other. John Carter 19:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah I wondered when Gnanapiti would turn up, Sarvagnya gave you an award didn't he. Has anybody noticed that so far all editors supporting him are from the same close group from India ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I just want to point out that I normally stay far away from such discussions as possible and have never reported an existing user before. However over the last weeks it has become plainly obvious the actions of this user are disruptive time and time again to the point I have become shocked-and he has a clear attitude problem in ignoring these warnings as nonsense which is very disappointing from a user who I feel has the ability to constructively edit this encyclopedia. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding non-RS. Previously, on the Shahrukh Khan page, Sarvagnya came from nowhere and started removing references and placing fact tags instead. A few days ago, I requested Sarvagnya to turn always to the article talk page and list his non-RSes there. Because it definitely can be subjectve, and every source can be proven as RS. This is a debatable case. That's why removing references without prior discussion is unacceptable.

Regarding tags. It is very hard to work when tags are being added. Yes, as Sarvagnya said, the Bollywood article has improved (I have cleaned up), but not because of these tags. It is also subjective, and again, if he has a reason to place these tags there, he must provide his reason on the article talk page with explanations. If you say, it reads like a magazine, so you probably have examples, so why not intrduce them on the discussion page? I've cleaned up the Bollywood article and it had a major tone down. Yet, I forgot to remove the tags. The only important thing is to discuss things before making drastic edits (and these were drastic), and then act further. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This image again is a blatant copy vio and I'll be putting this image for deletion soon. If you guys have problems with this image getting deleted, please fix the license now. Gnanapiti 20:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That image has nothing to do with the Bollywood blog agreement. It is isn't from that site. I can get a replacement ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

comment I think Blofeld should take this discussion off ANI and workout the issues on each other talk pages.thanks Dineshkannambadi 20:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Now Dineshkannambadi is a clearly constructive editor who I have a lot of respect for. All I want is for articles and images to be secure and not under attack so I can continue editing in peace and not be concerned hundreds of articles are going to be chopped up ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 21:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

All this guy needs is some serious lessons on consensus to stop speedying or attempting to delete existing content without real justification and in doing so try to treat other editors with an ounce of respect ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? —Preceding comment was added at 22:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Requesting block of MichaelCPrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Michael Price has violated an editing restriction imposed by ArbCom for sustained edit-warring Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ebionites#MichaelCPrice_restricted. MP reverted content on the Tachyon article without discussing it on the talk page as required by ArbCom. [113] [114] Ovadyah 14:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• This probably should have gone to Arbitration Enforcement. I have left MichaelCPrice a note to explain that he appears to have broken his editing restriction. Whether further action should follow is dependent on his reaction. Sam Blacketer 14:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's my first experience dealing with ArbCom-related issues. Ovadyah 15:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sam Blacketer is correct. The Arbitration Committee does not handle enforcement of our remedies. Arbitration Enforcement is the place to notify administrators about violations of editing restrictions. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

VoABot_II

Could an admin please shut this bot down, or change its settings? This bot is reporting editors after two "violations", including at least one false positive where an editor (User:Eng rashid, (contribs)) was warned and reported for edits to an article he or she had created and was making updates to (Grid fabric). --健次(derumi)^talk 15:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Not only were they warned, they were actually blocked. I have contacted the blocking admin to find out if there was any other reason for blocking; looks like a new user with not a great command of English trying to create an article to me. ELIMINATORJR 15:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • As the blocking admin appears to be offline, I have unblocked the user and asked the blocking admin to contact me if there was any other reason for the block. (Edit: or I was about to, then found that User:Neil had already done it :) ELIMINATORJR 15:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to tell VoA about his bots reports to AIAV for nearly two days he's either completely missed my comments on his talk page - or has completely ignored them. I'd support a block of the bot until he fixes the problems plaguing it. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 15:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot blocked til resolved. Neil ☎ 15:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Neil. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 15:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I was just compiling evidence with which to request it be shut down myself. As well as the various reports of overzealous reverts and poor reports to AIV, I have discovered various instances where it is warning users that have been reverted by other bots / people. This means many people are getting mutliple warnings for a single edit. Examples include [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125]. These are just a handful that I found within its last 6 or so hours of edits. Furthermore, here not only did it warn someone it didn't revert, it managed to completely misplace the warning. Given the bot seems to have so many errors at the moment, I think keeping it shut down until it is properly fixed is a good idea. ClueBot will make many of the same reverts anyway (it currently reports VoABot II beat it to 2200 reverts recently that it intending to make), and warns / reports much more reliably. Will (aka Wimt) 16:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The warning was not misplaced, but missing a newline. This has been fixed. Voice-of-All 21:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've changed it to report only if there is a final warning. I've added a check to see if someone beat it to avoid extra warnings. Voice-of-All 21:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Northmeister's disruption of a WikiProject

Northmeister (talk · contribs) removed Wikipedia: WikiProject Rational Skepticism from the list of related wikiprojects at Wikipedia: WikiProject Alternative Views here. He then claimed that there was "no relationship between the two" projects. He then went further to say that the projects have "conflicting points of view" here. This is a very troubling violation of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, in my opinion. Northmeister seems to have taken it upon himself to specifically attack one particular WikiProject and group of editors. I am nervous because he is so active on many of the pages relevant to Wikipedia: WikiProject Rational Skepticism that he may be trying to subtly push his POV. I was considering filing this at Wikiquette alerts, but did so here because this particular user is an administrator and I'm concerned that he may be tempted to abuse his administrative powers. If someone thinks that this alert is better placed over there, please move it. Thanks. ScienceApologist 15:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Just to point out that User:Northmeister is not an administrator. ELIMINATORJR 16:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  Quite right. Sorry about that. ScienceApologist 16:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  Stupid question - What point would that be? It isn't clear from the links nor that particular page. spryde | talk 16:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  It seems to me that Northmeister is trying to claim that the Rational Skepticism WikiProject is at odds with other WikiProjects and perhaps Wikipedia in general. ScienceApologist 18:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  Northmeister appears to have acted boldly, but is willing to let project members decide, according to this posting. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Uncivility and personal attacks from User:Apostolos Margaritis

Over the past two days, User:Apostolos Margaritis has been launching personal attacks at me and other users, in connection with negative votes on this AfD on an article he started. The problem was first noticed in his original posts there, aimed at User:NawlinWiki: "Why are so biased not to say plainly incorrect as to this issue of the so called "one" refference? There're more than that. One, two..three...Learn how to count. It's arithmetics. Let me be clear: I'm gonna mobilise wiki users who are gonna defend the right of this article to exist." Continued in his following posts: There are reputable, respectable sources making the case for NyLon but you've got no eyes for them and seem to refuse the evidence . next comes this one, aimed at me and others here: "As to all the other wiki-flunkies [i.e. the likes of Dahn (a native Romanian speaker he claims !? Well, I ought to be one of them too should I not? Hmmmm) & the ones he's unctuously aping]". In between these, he left the following Romanian-language message on my talk page, with the headline "Ca in ograda noastra nationala si ca la noi la nimenea" - "Nobody has it as bad as our national courtyard" diff here:

Inca o data se adevereste arhicunoscuta si rasverificata de pe-acum banuiala de-a mea ca noi romanii nu suntem solidari unii cu altii. Ura de sine? Ok...nu "ura" dar in mod cert un soi de nemernic dispret fata de tot ce tine de propria etnie. Sigur, nu am exact nevoie de "solidaritatea" ta in particular, dar mi se par usor gratuite afirmatiile tale vis-a-vis de Nylon. Exact ce vrei sa dovedesti prin sprijinul care-l acorzi celorlaltor "contrarians" (ca sa folosesc o sintagma de-a lui Cristopher Hitchins)? Vrei sa "te pui bine" cu ei maimutarindu-le opinia? Chiar vrei sa se epureze NyLon?. Exact ce sti[i] tu despre NY si Londra? Locuiesti aici? Eu da, de bunicel timp..Si articolul cu pricina reflecta o realitate pe care tu n-ai cum s-o banuiesti, intuiesti. Pentru simplul motiv ca tu n-ai acces la aceasta realitate. Strugurii la care nu ajunge vulpea sunt socotiti de ea, oricum, "acri". It's as simple as that my friend. Habar n-am daca esti roman si detaliul asta n-are importanta. Dar simplul fapt ca vorbesti romana ca limba materna te face, automat, membru pe viata al acestui jalnic "club" romanesc. Pacat. Il numesc "jalnic", fiinca noi il facem sa para "jalnic". In speta cei ca tine. Sorry. N-o lua in nume personal. "Cei ca tine" e o generalizare, aproape o metafora (trista) daca vrei.

Translated as:

Yet again does the arch-known and over-verified hunch I had that us Romanians are not in solidarity with one other prove itself true. Self-hatred? Ok...not "hatred" but for sure a sort of scurvy contempt toward anything related to one's own ethnicity. To be sure, I do not need your "solidarity" in particular, but I find your statements in relation to NyLon [ie: the article up for AfD] to be gratuitous. Exactly what do you aim to prove through the support you give to the other "contrarians" (to use one of Christopher Hitchins' syntagms)? Do you wish to "find a good spot" with them by aping their opinion? Do you really wish for NyLon to be purged?. Exactly what do you know about N[ew] Y[ork] and London? Do you live here? I do, and have been doing so for quite a while..And the article in questions is a reflection of a reality you cannot possibly presume, intuit. For the simple reason that you have no access to this reality. The grapes that the fox cannot reach it considers, under any circumstance, "sour". It's as simple as that my friend. I have no idea if you are a Romanian and this detail is of no importance. But the simple fact that you speak Romanian as your mother tongue makes you, automatically, a lifetime member of this pathetic Romanian "club". Too bad. I call it "pathetic", because it is us who make it seem "pathetic". Especially those like you. Sorry. Don't take it personally. "Those like you" is a generalization, almost a (sad) metaphor if you will.

I took offense to such a message, and indicated to him on the AfD page that I consider this material for AN/I, and asked him to stop [126]. To this, he replied (note the threat): "Calm down Dahn! Under no circumstances my missive to you can be described as "hate mail". So stop using self-made labels and sticking them on this message board. You do not impress anyone around by playing the pathetic "tough guy" card. I tell you what: better mind your own businesses by which I mean the dull platitudes gathered under the title "the 1848 revolt" [in reference to an article I contributed to, which he probably came to from my user page]. Articles such as NyLon are perhaps an inch too demanding and too ground breaking for your peace of mind." (diff here)

He has already been warned twice on his talk page in connection to the insults he posted on the AfD page: [127], [128]. Dahn 16:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Continued just now by another post on my talk page, In addition to the accusation of "backstabbing", the part in Romanian reads "I see that he is reporting me to the High Porte" (in what I presume is a reference to the allegedly servile nature of boyars and princes who complained to the Ottoman sultans about things going on in Wallachia and Moldavia). Dahn 16:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

And yet another attack, aimed at yet another user: [129]. Dahn 21:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet of Grant Chuggle

Daniel Case was persuing this matter but has become extremely busy and seems unable to continue. Recently MaryPoppins878 has been making edits much like Grant did and even is from the same area. They make edits based on their personal decisions, much like Grant did. There is a long discussion on both my user talk page and Daniel's user talk page regarding the behavior of MaryPoppins878. Could another admin take over what Daniel started? Please. Irish Lass 17:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this may need a case at Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets. Qst 17:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have referred the matter than but would request this is not immediately removed as I have put a link back to this page on the case. Thank you Irish Lass 17:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Third complaint on William R. Buckley for extensive abuses

Umm, i very much doubt that any admins are going to want to read through such a long essay of a report, could you just clarify to the main points, i.e. what the user is doing, why its a problem, etc. thanks--Jac16888 18:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've looked into this a bit, it looks like a content dispute between fraberj and buckley which has gotten out of hand, with neither user looking particularly angelic as far as i can tell, both within this dispute, and in general. However, buckleys last edits were nearly a fortnight ago, in several of which he said he was leaving wikipedia, why bring this back up now?.--Jac16888 18:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it appears to be fundamentally a dispute about the importance of different people's inventions, and a question about whether one of them is sourced only by the patent itself, without secondary sources. However the language used and the nature of some of the arguments is highly unsuitable for Wikipedia. I think Fraberj and Buckley and the various ips involved --some who admit personal involvement in the underlying question--should all back off from the article, and let some uninvolved people who understand the subject edit it. This is a field where we have enough people with relevant expertise. We have no formal way of doing a topic ban here --perhaps we should. DGG (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Requesting block/ban of BigBo14 (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – Indefinitely blocked. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User has been active for about a week. In that time, user has managed only three things: copyright infringement, personal attacks, and vandalism. Zero constructive edits. User contributes nothing of worth, and after myself and East718 reported his uploaded image as possible copyright infringement his only responses have been to repeatedly vandalize the incident page.

Time frame of block left to admin discretion. Tuckdogg 17:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The bizarre travels of the Bizarre behavior from Jehochman thread

This incident is currently being investigated by the Arbitration Committee. Users may contact the Committee privately with any questions or concerns. Kirill 20:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Now you got my attention! El_C 20:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Continuing incivility

"LOL. 2 macho guys in a tag team (Armon and Tewfik). Beaten by a woman (oh dear) with their own fish (red herring)" - I don't know, perhaps this bizarre comment and its "progressive" ideas on gender would actually be humorous to some if it wasn't the latest of literally dozens of extremely incivil and disruptive comments. While I would be glad to submit a list of incivil language directed against myself, perhaps more telling and more "neutral" is this "exchange" with multiple random administrators responding to his recent unblock request as an example of the problem attitude. Does anyone have a suggestion for conveying to this editor the importance of respecting WP:CIV and WP:AGF, especially in the midst of a content dispute? Tewfik^Talk 18:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hydroponics

Resolved

 – IP Blocked 72 hrs Arakunem^Talk 19:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please protect this page or block the multi IP vandalising it. Giano 18:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the IPs has been blocked for vandalism. I've seen some other vandalism to that page, but it doesn't look like it's related or from the same IP range. If the article continues to get vandalized, WP:RFPP would be a good place to report it. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry it is blocked now! Giano 19:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Anittas (talk · contribs)

relisted to bottom by Nat to create more discussion about this situation (05:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC))

I want to bring up an issue I and many others have with Anittas (talk · contribs). I personally have never interacted with this editor until a few day through another editor's user talk page. The issue that I and many others have with Anittas (talk · contribs) is the fact that he has pretty racist comments which basically violates WP:NPA. the comments I am refering to is, and I quote:

"This just strenghtens my argument that Muntenians are of a different race from the rest of the mammals"

which can be found at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Anonimu#Discussion of "outside view by Anittas speaks". I myself am not Romanian, but my best friend whom I consider a brother is, as well as being Muntenian; that is why I personally found the comments insulting and offensive to myself as well as many people out there including several Romanians who edit and who try their best to improve this encyclopedia. As I find myself possibly having a COI if I block Anittas (talk · contribs), I am asking the community if he should be blocked/banned for these comments as well as other comments he has made in this past. Let me remind you that, according to several editors that I have been interacting with, this is not the first time that Anittas (talk · contribs) has been sluring out racist comments much like this one, and I would find that a block in this case would be primarily a preventive measure as I and many do not see him stopping this distruptive attitude that will undermine the efforts of those who try their best to improve this encyclopedia. I would like to point out that Anittas (talk · contribs) was blocked at least 7 times , 5 being for trolling, harrassment or being uncivil, 1 for 3RR and 1 by Jimbo. Although the blocks were in 2006, I believe that Anittas (talk · contribs) will continue his racist, uncivil attitude and therefore become a liability to the encyclopedia, if he hasn't already. So I would like to see how the community views this issue and reach consensus on how we should proceed. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 21:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoa. I'm not touching that viper's den. That RfC is little more than bad faith, personal attacks, and finger-pointing from all parties. If Anittas has to be blocked, so does most everyone else who participated. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

How many of them have made racist comments though? Many have been incivil. Here are some recent edits by Anittas "This just strenghtens my argument that Muntenians are of a different race from the rest of the mammals. " (in the RFC), [182], [183], [184], there are more. There was one about denigrating their language too, but I can't find it again right now. We should not tolerate racist remarks. If that means more people get blocked, so be it. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin review invited re my actions here. There's no excuse for the racist, nationalistic venom that has become standard fare in certain topics. There's even less excuse for tolerating it, as we have been doing for far too long. Raymond Arritt 04:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorsed. Disagreement is one thing, but racism is irreversably divisive. -- But|seriously|folks  06:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorsed (obviously...I did initiate this ANI discussion...), however I believe that it should be extended as a preventive measure as he has a long history of being uncivil and making racist comments, the latter clearly violated our policies on WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. As I have noted before he had been blocked before similar and outright uncivil comments before. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 07:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

When Anittas (talk · contribs) made that comment that "Muntenians are a different race of mammals" I hoped it might be an isolated racist joke (just to make this clear "Muntenians" means person from Muntenia) but his continuing behaviour (after I specifically asked him to tone down his racist rhetoric) shows that this is a racist pattern, please see the comments here He basically claims that Bucharest is a filthy city inhabited by people with Asian background (which is patently not true and even if it were it's still a racist comment). In general he seems to use "Muntenian" as a pejorative term as you can notice in the page where he calls them a different race of mammals, he calls an editor: "Muntenian number two" as a response, like that was sufficient to prove his point -- attacking editors nationality/ethnicity is clearly against "no personal attacks" policy, that's the bullet number one in WP:NPA. To make things clear, I didn't have much interaction with Anittas (talk · contribs) before that RfC and his racist comment and I don't have anything against him personally, I clearly asked him and others to stop racist/nationalistic discussions: "It would be nice to keep this discussion out of "race" and "nationalities" issues and people restrain from name-calling" as you can see in that talk page. If other editors reacted badly to that discussion is only because they were constantly provoked. -- AdrianTM 05:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Based on this, and noting he had been previously blocked indefinitely by Jimbo, and was only unblocked 9 months later after pledging good behaviour, I am baffled as to why Anittas has not now been blocked indefinitely. Neil ☎ 11:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Anittas got a harsh temperament and it seems that it is bothering. I'd support an indef block (or at least a long term block) if this unacceptable behaviour won't stop. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As the admin who placed the current block I would concur if anyone sees fit to lengthen it. Raymond Arritt 15:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear that he's blatantly violated that pledge. I think a re-imposition of Jimbo's indef block is in order.  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  15:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reimposed the indefinite block - review welcome. Neil ☎ 15:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fully support Neil's indef block. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Even though the can of worms (with {{unblock}}s galore) has been opened, it's now for the best. Will ^(talk) 16:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree I believe reinstating the indefinite bock is a mistake. First of all, let me say that I believe that the first indefinite block by Wales was not justified in the first place, as I did not believe that Annitas's actions were of sufficient gravity to take such a drastic measure as the latter took, thus Anittas should not have been subject to such a strict parole in the first place. Having said that though, I can see how Anittas's behavior can be construed as offensive and not in line with the guidelines and spirit of Wikipedia. Yet, I do not believe that his recent comments are sufficient cause for an indefinite block. Most of his statements were made in jest, and other users he was corresponding with made similar comments as the ones he is accused of. Furthermore, I have to point out that Anittas has made significant contributions to numerous articles, and that most of his edits are of a constructive nature. This is no excuse for his actions, but these facts do in my view constitute extenuating circumstances for this case. If other editors believe that a longer block should be instituted to give him a time-out and send a message that such behavior cannot be accepted, I would agree. However, I believe that such a block should be in the order of days or weeks at most, but not indefinite. TSO1D 16:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a question: Why are his requests for the representation of the not so bright parts of Bucharest (there are plenty of documentaries about them) and Bucharest's communities of Asiatic origin (Bucharest has a thriving Chinese community and an equally developed Arab one - although I think Arabs are not ussualy called Asians) considered uncivil/racist?Anonimu 16:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the thing that's racist is calling a certain type of people inhuman. Will ^(talk) 16:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeap, but someone put them here as evidence of his racism. Does this mean that person acted in bad faith?Anonimu 16:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not 100% in agreement w/ the indef block for now (1 month would be enough for now) but let me Anonimu show you how it is really uncivil and racist. Google search 'Muntenians anittas' and click on whatever link you'd want to. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Anittas said on Bucharest I think this article misses a few important things, such as the subject on straydogs; orphans and streetchildren; gangs, organized crime and corruption; poor infrastructure; arrogance of the city's inhabitans; and lastly, the Asian influence of the city: in both culture and genetics. That is a highly offensive and racist comment, and when taken in conjunction with his other comments and his previous actions, an indefinite block was in order. We have to stop pandering to a few racist, nationalist, bad faith, edit warring editors. 1% of Wikipedians take up 99% of administrators time - they are a drain on everybody's patience and resources, and they drag a lot of other editors down with them. Neil ☎ 16:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said, he crossed the line in some instances, including some parts of the above statement, however this alone comes nowhere close to forming a sufficient basis for an indefinite block. If you feel that the editor has violated Wikipedia rules, then explain the situation to him and/or render a punishment commensurate with the infraction. Expediency should not replace fairness; after all, you probably wouldn't support the execution of a man accused of multiple cases of trespassing and petty theft because he takes up the courts' time. TSO1D 16:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That's called "hyperbole." Back to the point, I don't agree that making some constructive edits gives one free rein to create a poisonous atmosphere of disruption and intimidation by spewing racist vitriol. Raymond Arritt 16:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not necessary rasist, as it is pure reality and sourced fact. I strongly support TSO1D and Fayssal's suggestions. --Eurocopter tigre 16:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

And you're accusing me of hyperbole! He made some off-the-cuff remarks that were inappropriate, and now he's creating a poisonous atmosphere of disruption? TSO1D 19:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User continues to be incivil and doesn't let me post relevant info on his talk page [185] and [186], therefore I will post the response here: "How can one be racist against his own ethnicity?" -- Your comments were against "Muntenians", you declared you are not a Muntenian, and even if you were they are still racist comments by any measures no matter your nationality/ethicity/race.

He also made blanket accusation in that RfC page where he asked Muntenians to "denounce Bucharest, orientalism, and abuse against women, children and animals." implying that this is what Muntenians usually condone, how is this not racism, how is this "sourced"? -- AdrianTM 17:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Users are given latitude in managing their talk pages. The deletion is evidence that he noted the comments. Just let it go. Raymond Arritt 17:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that, but there were arguments about his case and I think I have the right to provide my arguments, that's why I added them here. -- AdrianTM 17:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As admin TSO1D says, this alone comes nowhere close to forming a sufficient basis for an indefinite block (opinion also supported by admin FayssalF), User:Neil clearly abused of its admin powers when he indef blocked Anittas. I'd like to see a response here.. --Eurocopter tigre 18:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

He had explicit support on thisw page from several other administrators. That indicates good faith to me, not abuse. DGG (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just indef'd Sputnik Sattelite (talk · contribs) as a disruptive SPA who is an obvious sockpuppet of... somebody involved in this political topic. Could someone who is familiar with this mess have a look at his contribs and give some hints as to the puppetmaster? Raymond Arritt 18:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think he's user:Bonaparte -- AdrianTM 18:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, for sure. --Eurocopter tigre 18:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to say this clearly.

1. Anittas posts derogatory image.
2. Jimbo blocks him, for gross incivility.
3. Jimbo unblocks him, because he "asked nicely".
4. Anittas continues incivility

While, if by another user, it would be just an npa-x warning, this is the straw that broke the camel's back. He's had too many chances and warnings. Will ^(talk) 19:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Dissagree, as he was many times provoked by other uses. And, were are the warnings + chances given after Jimbo unblocked him? --Eurocopter tigre 19:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

But that is exactly my point. His most recent infraction are so minor by themselves that in the case of any other user they would have probably resulted in no more than a warning. So for this to serve as the pretext for Anittas's indefinite ban seems extremely excessive. Again, to have been blocked for that silly pictures of kangaroos, which meant as a protest against admin abuse, was ridiculous in the first place. However, even if you accept the legitimacy of the first ban and the resulting probation he was placed on, you cannot expect to have user behave angelically for the rest of his life. Prior history should be taken into account in determining punishment, and given previous problems, I could understand giving Anittas something more than a warning in this case. That is how such infractions are normally dealt with, disruptive behavior is punished through longer blocks in the hopes of deterring the user from continuing such actions. However, an indefinite block should only be administered in the most extreme cases. I definitely believe that this is far from being the case. TSO1D 19:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If Jimbo blocks an editor, he has a good damn reason for doing so. As for "if it was another user"... Straw. Camel's back. Will ^(talk) 19:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean warnings like this and this? Corvus cornix 19:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I note Eurocopter tigre's user page includes a charming userbox that states "This user does not believe in the Montenegrin ethnicity or language". That is not helping me be convinced by his wikilawyering. Neil ☎ 22:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but how are Eurocopter's linguistic beliefs relevant to this discussion in any way. And it seems unfair to accuse him of wikilawyering. He has collaborated with Anittas on many occasions, and if he wants to present his opinion on the subject here, he should be encouraged to do so. TSO1D 22:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is good enough for me to assume that this editor is going to continue making racist remarks here. Honestly, if Jimbo gave him a unblock to begin with, then he must have had to come to agreement that he will not be like that agian, and it's evident that he is still. The indefinite block is certianly justifiable. — Save_Us_229 19:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

So how exactly do you apply the concept of the camel's back here? Does the fact that Anittas agreed to behave civilly when he was unblocked mean that even the smallest infraction would lead to his banning. In that case, he might as well have been left banned, because to expect a person to not make any mistakes in their interactions with others is impossible. And yes, maybe, Anittas does not have the most conciliatory personality and is not always as sensitive to the feelings of others as he should be, but nobody is perfect. In fact, over the past eight months (the entire period since his unblock), he has not received a single ban. And in that time, he has done great work on multiple articles. My point is that you should look at this matter from a utilitarian perspective. Instead of trying to "get him" for bad behavior, you should look at the pros and cons of the situation. What's the worst that can happen if you let him stay? If he breaks any rules again, it would take no more than a few seconds to impose a ban, thus to claim that he can be perpetually disruptive is disingenuous. On the other hand, banning him permanently will not permit him to make numerous further contributions to Wikipedia. I urge you instead of looking at this as a policing matter, where you have to punish the criminal to the fullest extent of the law, that you think of whether in the long Wikipedia can benefit from his presence. So I'll say it again, if you feel that he should be punished for his recent comments, give him a brief ban, but do not completely banish him. TSO1D 20:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I partially agree with this, I'm against permanent bans, but taking into consideration that he's not apologetic about what he has done and he continues to claim that his (in my view and some admins on this page) racist comments were "sourced" what good do you think slapping him on the wrist will do? I think he should at least apologize for implying that Muntenians are condoning "abuse against women, children and animals" and show some remorse for his racist jokes (not taunt people in their talk pages that they will not obtain anything if they complain about that). -- AdrianTM 21:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I've been too slow in joining this discussion, but, as someone who has been called Muntenian number two, just after being informed that "Muntenians are of a different race from the rest of the mammals," I can only applaud the quick action taken in this case. I'd sort of given up hoping that anyone pays attention to the unbecoming conduct of certain editors around here — glad to see there is some justice, after all. Turgidson 21:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

TSO1D, this is not a punitive measure but a preventive measure. Racism should never ever be tolerated and he has been warned over the last two years about it and yet he continues. And due to that fact, Anittas has shown that he will not stop making racist comments and therefore to prevent him from doing so again, we must be the ones who must take action to stop Anittas from making racist comments. We must also consider if he is a liability or an asset, and weighing them together, I would have to say that he is greater as a liability than an asset because he will not stop making racist comments and because he has been given way too many chances and each time he returns to the same pattern. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 21:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If it were simply a matter of racism, it would be one thing. However, this is just another episode of the silly game "who's the best Romanian," which has been going on Wikipedia for years. Unfortunately Anittas is not the only who has made such remarks, and his actions should be viewed in that context. I am not saying that it is excusable for a user to attack another simply due to his origin, however, in many cases this rivalry is done in jest, although I agree that Anittas crossed the line here. However, I don't believe that such banter among certain users should be grounds for their expulsion from the project. I find it regrettable that Anittas has engaged in such behavior, however, I still believe that his net impact on Wikipedia has been greatly beneficial. He has been one of the most active and able editors on Romanian-topic projects. His departure would be a great loss for Wikipedia. All I am asking is that instead of taking the extraordinary step of banning him permanently, that you should simply follow a more limited approach and treat him as you would other users in similar situations. If he breaks the rules, he should be banned temporarily in order to show that such behavior is unacceptable, however to simply close his account seems both excessive in light of the circumstances and would be detrimental to the project. TSO1D 22:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Long term disruption, multiple warnings and chances, broke an agreement with Jimbo and some of you said the indef isn't warranted. Hmmm. No wonder we continue to have so many problems in this area. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD request for closer

Resolved

Hi, this AFD has been open a while now and needs to be closed as keep per WP:SNOWBALL. Sorry to bring it here, Thanks. Tiptoety 20:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Mh, I wouldn't say a snowball keep is in order here, I think we should let this run its course, personally. Qst 20:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As a non-admin second opinion, it certainly turned around from a CSDA1 to a keeper :) spryde | talk 21:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I do think a Speedy Keep is in order, as the article is now no longer the same article that was nominated, due to an interesting coincidence mentioned in the AfD discussion. *deposits $0.02* Arakunem^Talk 21:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and closed it. The original version of the article should have been speedily deleted as nonsense, but the current version asserts notability. I don't think it's necessary to have a deletion discussion about an article that has changed radically (and for the better) after the original AFD was submitted. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Neverpitch

User:Neverpitch's only contributions have been to randomly remove PRODs from articles in bad faith with the same reason of "Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy, Wikipedia is not paper." Appears to just be a POV/ideology push rather than legitimate PROD disagreements (it looks like he just went alphabetically through a list). Originally reported to Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. An admin left him a note about being distruptive, and his responses seem to confirm that he is only doing it to make a point about his disagreements on the deletion process. The vandalism case was closed as not being obvious and it was recommended I posted here. Here are the comments from other admins about the issue from there [187] including one that notes this may be a sockpuppet account. Collectonian 20:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look. I don't see how proding makes us bueracratic, it's a good way to get around AFDs when the result will obviously be delete but the article meets no CSDs. I think an admin should have a word with him--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 20:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot blocked

I've blocked BetacommandBot for incorrect operation. It's been tagging images that are not claimed as "fair use" as "orphaned fair use": see, for example, [188]. Betacommand has not responded to my concerns that this is confusing for new users; he thinks that because templates such as {{no copyright holder}} place images in the category Category:All non-free media, it is appropriate to treat them as fair-use images. --Carnildo 20:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

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

(As an aside, I deleted the image, it was an obvious copyright violation though the tagging was somewhat unclear. It was taken from [189] and the source image is copyright General Electric... Georgewilliamherbert 21:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC) )

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

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

Have a couple: [190] [191] --Carnildo 21:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Slight correction, [192] is an inappropriate NFCC #10C tagging, not an inappropriate "orphaned fairuse" tagging. --Carnildo 21:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misza13 (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – A mistake has been made here. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Misza13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)- In the past few months has appeared to have been running an unauthorised blocking bot and an unauthorised deletion bot under their main account. These bots may be doing a good purpose but I must complain about this as there has been other sysops who have been blocked and had their rights took away. Betacommand (talk · contribs) for example. I don't see why one admin should be allowed to have unauthorised blocking and deletion bots when another hasn't. Please inform me if I have made a mistake here. The sunder king 21:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Everybody knows this...Qst 21:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

See User:Curps, he was a block bot (although still a user), he made over 26,000 blocks during his time here. Qst 21:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x2) Betacommand didn't get desysopped for running an unauthorized bot. They are two different situations. In many ways, it is one of those "as long as it ain't broken, don't fix it" situations, IMO, such as the Curps blocking and rollback bot a while ago. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the community generally takes a laissez-faire attitude towards adminbots as long as they aren't disruptive. Misza13's bot has been running for quite a while, performing a useful service without disrupting the project --krimpet⟲ 21:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The {{resolved}} wording is a bit insulting... the Betacommand decision included a [193] "Admins should not run bots on their sysop account that are enabled to perform sysop actions (blocking, deleting, etc) without specific community approval from Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval and/or WP:RFA". It can hardly be a mistake to actually think that would be fairly applied. --W.marsh 22:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

205.155.32.81 blocked?

Resolved

Per User talk:205.155.32.81#Regarding your edits to Business card:, it appears this IP was to have been blocked for 1 month beginning 9 Nov 07. However, the IP vandalised Fire[194] today? Fireproeng 21:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The block log says that the user was blocked today. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The block was done one minute after the vandalism to Fire. Corvus cornix 21:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The confusion is probably coming from the fact that FisherQueen placed the block notice under the Nov 9 warning without signing or dating it. Leebo ^T/C 21:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the sig hidden in the block notice. I've been meaning to update the instructions for that parameter coding. -- Satori Son 21:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, folks! This page receives about 15-20% vandalism. Can we get it semi-protected? Fireproeng 22:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

5 days anon-only. Should flush some sleepers and also give real editors a nice rest. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

more User:Ryoung122/Gerontology related disruption

Suggest some uninvolved admin eyes over at Bart_Versieck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (aka Extremely Sexy)'s recent action tagging a large number of Irish Politician stubs with refimprove templates, and initiating this AfD. Some evidence suggests WP:POINT violating reprisals aimed at articles created by User:BrownHairedGirl, possibly involving off wiki canvassing for such disruption by the recently banned User:Ryoung122. Pete.Hurd 23:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)