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

Rockpocket block of Giano II/Discussion to address Kittybrewster's use of alternate accounts

Moved to subpage; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rockpocket block of Giano II. Horologium (talk)

Link to discussion dealing with Kittybrewster's use of alternate accounts Risker (talk)

Block review of User:Betacommand

Moved to subpage Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Block review of User:Betacommand. —Wknight94 (talk)

Uncle uncle uncle and PouponOnToast

I recently came across the disruptive single-purpose account Uncle uncle uncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor who claimed to have 92 sockpuppets according to his userpage. His sole contributions to the project consisted of popping up in contentious discussions, and updating a "sock counter" on his userpage.

Looking at Uncle's early contributions, it's clear he's an alternate account of DepartedUser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), aka "Hipocrite"; Uncle's initial edits to the project were to articles DepartedUser had previously worked on, and Uncle started getting involved in Tor-related discussions right after DepartedUser announced he was leaving the project due to frustration at our policies on blocking open Tor exit nodes.

However, DepartedUser also returned to the project as PouponOnToast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (implicitly confirmed on his talk page). This user has also contributed to many of the same areas of contentious discussions as Uncle; PouponOnToast has also recently admitted to sockpuppetry on his userpage, where he says "Obviously, I'll keep using the sock that I'm certain the checkusers found to go right on rvving and creating isoteric articles on things I find out about in my daily travails - and I'll use that sock as opposed to some other one so that the next time I find myself tempted to edit anything controversial at all, I'll be gone in a flash." (He also ends with the cryptic, trollish comment, "LAWL I DO IT AGAIN!")

It seems clear to me based on this evidence that User:DepartedUser == User:Uncle uncle uncle == User:PouponOnToast. If true, not only have they been engaging in long-term bad hand sockpuppetry, they have also been double-voting (e.g. in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MONGO 2). I have thus blocked Uncle and Poupon indefinitely. I welcome any further review or community input into this matter. krimpet✽ 04:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

As per the discussion below, I've personally unblocked Uncle, as new, solid evidence suggests he is indeed unrelated to DepartedUser/Hipocrite/PouponOnToast. Investigation into DepartedUser's sockpuppetry is, however, still continuing. krimpet✽ 06:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, an arbitrator emeritus and experienced checkuser confirmed to me some time ago in confidence that Hipocrite/PouponOnToast was "trolling with socks" for an extended period of time, but declined to identify any accounts. east.718 at 04:37, July 2, 2008

Support Block. Krimpet has a pretty solid case here. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

We should definitely consider what he's saying here, but it's a far cry from a solid case. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I still support block of PouponToast, there is still some abusive socking going on here. --Dragon695 (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad block. I don't see sufficient evidence to indef block User:Uncle uncle uncle, only suspicions, nor do I see the account doing anything disruptive. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have questions over the alleged connection between PouponOnToast (talk · contribs) and Uncle uncle uncle (talk · contribs). While I have no comment on PouponOnToast and his own possible sockery, myself and a number of other checkusers are examining all the data right now. More later - Alison ^❤ 06:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... based on this and other evidence I've received, I'm going to agree that Uncle uncle uncle is probably unrelated, and though his conduct has still been problematic, not worth an indefinite block, so I will remove it. However, evidence still seems strong that DepartedUser/PouponOnToast has been sockpuppeting - hopefully the checkuser evidence will shed light on this. krimpet✽ 06:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Krimpet. Ok, this checkuser says that PouponOnToast (talk · contribs) and Uncle uncle uncle (talk · contribs) are  Unrelated to each other. More on Poupon later ... - Alison ^❤ 06:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I did some checking as well, probably not as extensive as Ally's, and the most I could come up with was "possible but not all that likely" based on technical. Could have missed something but I didn't see the strong link. So I concur with Alison. ++Lar: t/c 12:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Uncle uncle uncle has asked that a link be placed to his talk page so people can see his response to the sockpuppet accusation. It starts at about User talk:Uncle uncle uncle#Yow! and includes a few other sections below that. -- Ned Scott 06:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have received a message from PouponOnToast, and have been asked to repost it here;

Thanks - Alison ^❤ 07:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that at least one of his socks was created for self protection. I also have to agree that while his style left something to be desired at times, he got it correct more times than most and I love it when editors cut through the bullshit like this guy.--MONGO 10:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It was fairly common knowledge that PouponOnToast was Hipocrite. I have found PoT to be a constructive, good faith editor. Hipocrite/User:DepartedUser was never banned, rather he chose to leave under that name and return under another subsequently. If the only remaining reason for this block is that PoT and Hipocrite are one and the same, the block needs undoing. However, if Poupon/Hipocrite is using other accounts, still, then that's different. I guess we wait got the Checkuser stuff to come back. Neıl 龱 10:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I did find evidence of other accounts being used by PoT. The sock policy does not absolutely forbid use of other accounts, it only forbids their use to evade or confuse matters or disrupt. More extensive research into contributions would be needed to see for sure. ++Lar: t/c 12:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Usually, such research is done BEFORE deciding whether a block is placed, not after placing the block. Unless evidence is forthcoming that PoT has abused multiple accounts fairly soon, suggest an unblock until and unless that evidence is provided. Neıl 龱 12:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Uncle created the userbox saying he had 92 sockpuppets just because he thought such a userbox should exist, so people can say how many accounts they have, as at the time no such box existed, he told me this himself and it will be written somewhere so you can see our exchange. I think I said 'do you really have 92 accounts?:)' as it was obvious most people would only say that as a joke. I doubt he has and think it was just a test of the box and an unrealistic number he didn't think anyone would take seriously. Of course, someone could checkuser him to get some proof before saying such things. At the time I became aware of this userbox it was the User:!! debacle, a lot of us including !! as you can see from his userpage were being ironic about sockpuppet paranoia, and you can see it says on my user page I have 9000 accounts in accordance with policy:) Sticky Parkin 13:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Except neither UUU nor PoT are anything like User:!!, PoT being mostly here to cause trouble and hassle those who oppose the WP:TE of WikiProject ID. PoT has even felt the need to reignite the long-since-dead WP:BADSITES debate by keeping a naughty log of comments individuals make on Wikipedia Review. PoT is at best a gadfly like myself and DanT, at worst he is socking to cause trouble. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I was saying, I was saying Uncle says he has that many as a joke, as I do. I didn't see any prob with Uncle's edits in the brief time I was chatting and if you look in his contribs he advises people to look at his contribs further back, rather than making assumptions based on his more recent ones. But I don't know enough to comment on Uncle's actions any further than that- I was just commenting on his being called an admitted sockpuppet based on that box being absolutely daft. I mean he may have socks for all I know but they can't be assumed from that. As for Poupy I don't know enough to comment but believe his recent actions have been trouble-making, take that or leave it though as I don't know the details of what he's been doing. Sticky Parkin 17:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have redacted my misunderstanding. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

[1] honestly, irony seems to be lacking here:) Oh it was via email but this is when I asked him User_talk:Uncle_uncle_uncle#email. Sticky Parkin 13:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, PoT has definitely been using multiple accounts abusively. No question. I hope to have an answer shortly re. checkuser, and he's already 'fessed up to some of them off-wiki. He should definitely remain blocked for the moment - Alison ^❤ 16:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• And while Uncle is probably mostly trolling, there are some throwaway accounts on his IP such as Versaversa (talk · contribs) which seem more along the lines of silly buggers accounts as opposed to dedicated disruptive accounts. This is complex and still under investigation. Krimpet erred in blocking Uncle and Poupon as socks of each other, but neither account is lily-white. Thatcher 16:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Prod, prod, prod - anything on this, yet? Neıl 龱 10:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser

The following accounts are  Confirmed either through checkuser or directly, as being sock-puppets of PouponOnToast (talk · contribs). There are some other, older accounts, which had all been previously blocked:

1. LegitAltAccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Archfailure (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - actually pre-dating the unrelated banned account, Archtransit (talk · contribs)
3. Throwawayarb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. MusingsOfAPrivateNature (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. MOASPN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

- Alison ^❤ 17:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at their contribution, I think trolling is an accurate description of the behavior of many of them. Combined with POT's contributions under his own account, this is an editor I think that we are better off without. Heck, even the contributions of these reveal more puppets, such as Semiprivatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Does anyone think we should do more paperwork to memorialize a community ban? GRBerry 18:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's up to the community, of course. But I'd like to point out that the guy apologized to me in full for this incident. It should also be pointed out that for all his trolling and disruption, this was relegated to projectspace talk and user talk and he never once, AFAIK, vandalised an article - Alison ^❤ 22:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Recognising that he never vandalised an article, or ever abused anyone, I would like to see Poupon unblocked, and asked to restrict himself to a single account on pain of a ban. I would be willing to mentor him if he'd accept me. Neıl 龱 08:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

We've been at least that generous to accounts much worse than Poupon, so why not? MastCell ^Talk 00:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note, please see User_talk:Lar#Mentorship (permlink) where, prior to recent events, PouponOnToast and I were discussing parameters of my mentoring him. I'm still willing if he is, and if the community decides that is an appropriate course of action. ++Lar: t/c 19:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Because if we let him comment further, he might tell it as it is and plain talk jus aint allowed around these here parts nomore. If I had a dollar for all the spurious accounts that come to some areas and troll about the virtues of nonvirtuous websites, I could finally afford to fill up may gas tank every week. But nah...we need not make a fuss about them, they are surely here for the benefit of this website. I'd be happy to mentor Poupon...my advice up front is to simply stick to one account and keep sticking it to those that seem to relish in demanding we link to garbage websites that are as notable as my pet rock. Nay, only anti-WR and anti-ED folks are disruptive...the opposite could never be the case.--MONGO 06:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Climb off the Reichstag, MONGO, considering one of the folks that post regularly on WR is the one who's pointed out that while PoT's other accounts have disrupted Wikipedia's processes (specifically the Attack Sites ArbCom case, amongst others), they've never vandalized a Wikipedia ARTICLE. Even considering my past history with him, I am also willing to see PoT unblocked, as long as he's restricted to one account, without even a topic ban. And to be quite blunt, I think having you as a mentor would not be at all a good idea. When you look for someone to be a mentor, you look for someone who is reasonable, and moderate, not an echo chamber for his own ideas, "turned up to 11", as you would be. SirFozzie (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

In my view and in this case Neil/SirFozzie's proposal has merit. Orderinchaos 16:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sir Fozzie, indeed you are so correct once again...the BEST mentoring would surely come from someone that uses offsite venues to post links to userpage vandalism that happens here and call it "funny". Poupon, in his way, tried to encourage yourself and at least one other to not feed the offsite trolls by giving them an audience or sounding board and to not collaborate in furthering axe grinding via such participation. The question is though as to why this matter IS being discussed offsite and if any decision making is happening based on these discussions, what power do such offsite venues have in formatting decision making here. When we start bowing to the drivel posted at forums that have a history of being anti-Wikipedia and or its editors, then we have a serious problem.--MONGO 16:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If no one listened to "the drivel posted at forums that have a history of being anti-Wikipedia or its editors", then Mantanmoreland's serial socking would still be "a WordBomb false theory spread by trolls and meatpppets". There are times when they are wrong. Spectacularly so. But they have been right, almost as much as they've been wrong. I know you have a history of issues (and I understand why you would, considering what happened) with off-site attacks upon you. And as for why its being discussed, gee, I wonder why.. Someone who accuses others of socking, disruption and bad faith is caught disrupting, socking, and acting in bad faith. The irony is so delicious, I expect it to be a dish on Iron Chef. PoT had moderated his activities in the last few weeks, which is why I'm calling for an unblock. SirFozzie (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

While I have no particular problem with unblocking and restricting, I'd like to point out that disruption isn't limited entirely to article-space. One can disrupt the encyclopedia just as effective from other namespaces as from article space, so I'm not really sure that the delimiter "he's never vandallized a wikipedia ARTICLE..." is important. It takes no less time for us to clean it up if it's in another namespace. - Philippe 16:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes and disruption doesn't have to be simple vandalism. However I would like to see Lar as the mentor. Would not want MONGO to take the job for the same reason as Foz gave. Viridae^Talk 22:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case I will be his mentor. I think the best mentor is someone who does not participate in offsite venues that have a history of sponsoring harassment.--MONGO 10:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose having MONGO as a mentor, as I don't see MONGO as open minded enough (a good mentor should not come from a very similar worldview, unless we are looking to reinforce cliquish or closeminded behaviour), and as being likely to reinforce the problematic behaviour that caused some of the issues in the first place, and as someone who does not have a demostrated track record of working successfully with others in a way that doesn't end in blocks, conflicts, edit wars, and so forth. ++Lar: t/c 12:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I am opposed to anyone with WR affiliation being his mentor. That would include Neil who started a thread there about me and posted that he thought vandalism that happened to my userpage was "funny". Look, so far I see that he did create sock accounts, some of which were deliberately insulting wordplays on another's username. Those were made almost a year ago...the top two are more recent, but I see no evidence of double voting or vandalism. He is not UUU either...so why are we demanding he have a mentor at all...all that need be done is get him to stick to one account and to encourage him to diversify his editing, the latter of which is voluntary of course. As Alison noted, he already apologized for his behavior and one of the rationals for his indefinite block...that he was UUU, has already been disproven. I am beginning to think that demanding he have a mentor is more and more about him questioning a few admins about their involvement in WR...we're not in the brainwashing business...if he holds that issue to be of concern, then he has that right, just as I do. Do you think he and I are the only ones that feel that way?--MONGO 17:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I am opposed to anyone with ED affiliation being his mentor. That rules you out, because you after all have an ED article. ... or perhaps you are no more "affiliated" with ED than I am with WR. Yes I post there. I've explained why, at length. I post there to correct misapprehensions, to criticise, and yes, when someone is right about something, to admit it. Even if it's uncomfortable for me. I highly recommend admitting someone else is right about stuff, when they are, as a practice to everyone. I said I'm willing. He asked for me. I said I'm apparently not that good (but I AM willing to admit mistakes, block, and move one). He's OK with that, and said he'd be the one to break the jinx. This is the community's call, not yours or mine alone. Your objection is noted but perhaps more folk should weigh in. It's no loss to me if the community says yes, or no. Are you sure you can say the same? You seem to have a lot invested in trying to prevent this. Me, I don't think I have nearly as much invested as you do, one way or the other. I again call for other voices, enough to see if there is consensus one way or the other (lack of consensus to do this to me means... don't). I will not unblock without a clear consensus to do so, and I will not mentor without a clear mandate to do so. ++Lar: t/c 19:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Lar#Accepting_your_offer (permlink: [2] ... where this user (presumably, I didn't yet run a CU to check but seems likely to me) has accepted my offer of mentorship, acknowledged that the scope is no longer voluntary, and offered full disclosure of all socks set up with a restriction to just one account. I am willing, he is willing, but it is not either of our decisions to make alone... it is up to you all, the community, to decide if this is acceptable or not. Fair warning, my track record on mentorship is pretty abysmal, I think (just about?) every one I've entered into so far has resulted in an indefinite block at the end, rather than a success. But I'm willing and maybe this will be the one to break the jinx? ++Lar: t/c 17:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

See this thread...he has yet to log into any of his former accounts or the Poupon one. Maybe he will...just saying. If you aren't convinced you can "reform" him based on past failures, then don't do it.--MONGO 17:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that he's waiting to come clean on all his socks based on this mentorship discussion's outcome. That's a guess... nothing more. ++Lar: t/c 19:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Which was wrong. :) ++Lar: t/c 21:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• sighs* PoT has now stated that he has yet ANOTHER sock that he's going to keep and edit with no matter what. [3]. SirFozzie (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record... the accounts posting at my and Neil's talk pages are not PoT per his statement. So that was a big waste of time. Got me. Well played. Etc. :) ++Lar: t/c 21:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't see a consensus for a community ban, so I withdraw that suggestion. If the good hand account does stay in article space, and no other accounts of this editor begin carrying on in the poor tradition of POT, then I'm comfortable. I do think if the editor begins using another account in the same fashion, it will be time to bid them fully adieu. GRBerry 14:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Repeat vandalism of Afds

A few editors have been engaging in some problematic edits on certain pages.

User 194.126.21.5 has vandalized Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Riachi [4] and vandalized the Afd tag on Jean Riachi [5] They have also vandalized Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emile Riachi twice [6] [7]. They blanked Emile Riachi twice [8] [9], then vandalized the Afd tag [10], then vandalized the page. [11]. This user has also made personal attacks agains Damien.rf in an edit summary. [12]

User 206.53.154.135 has also vandalized Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Riachi [13] [14] They have also vandalized Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emile Riachi four times. [15] [16] [17] [18] and vandalized Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism in a way to falsely accuse user Damien.rf of vandalism. [19]

User 83.229.109.156 deleted the Afd tag from Jean Riachi [20], then blanked the page [21], then deleted the Afd tag again [22] They also blanked Emile Riachi [23], then blanked everything but the Afd tag [24], then blanked it again [25], then removed the Afd tag [26]

User Lebprofiler has vandalized Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emile Riachi [27]. He also made personal attacks against user Damiens.rf in comments [28] [29] [30] [31] and in an edit summary. [32].

User 85.195.139.202 has vandalized Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emile Riachi. [33], claimed ownership of an associated page in his edit summary [34] [35] and made personal attacks against Damien.rf [36]

User Nabuchodonozor has not assumed good faith about Damiens.rf’s edits and has called for that user to be banned. [37] Edward321 (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• The vandalism has continued unabated since last night. Just on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emile Riachi User 85.195.139.202 has vandalized [38] [v] , User Vikser has pretended to be User Vickser and vandalized [39] [40] [41]. User Teresa knott has pretended to be User Theresa knott and vandalized [42] . Edward321 (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • And it doesn't stop. User Lebprofiler has removed the Afd message from Emile Riachi as has user 194.126.21.5, falsely staing in the edit summary that the article closed as keep. [43]. Edward321 (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    • User Lebprofiler has also falsely listed the Emile Riachi article as Keep on its talk page. [44]. Edward321 (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

As a further update, User Lebprofiler has claimed ownership of Emile Riachi [45], vandalized the page while falsely stating the Afd is closed [46], falsely accused Damiens.rf of being a vandal [47] [48], and engaged in personal attacks against Damiens.rf in comments [49] and edit summaries. [50]

User Nabuchodonozor has vandalized Emile Riachi by removing the Afd tag again [51], falsely accused Damien.rf of vandalism and made personal attacks [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60]

So we’ve got multiple nicks (possibly sock or meatpuppets) vandalizing articles, Afds, and the associated talk pages; harassing, insulting, impersonating, and making personal attacks against other users. And this has been going on for several days. Edward321 (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Another user, Melkart1 (talk · contribs), created a page that has been nominated for deletion, and now requests deletion himself, accusing Damiens.rf: [61]. The user also removed links to the same article: [62], and a few hours after this a similar edit was made by Nabuchodonozor (talk · contribs): [63]. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 02:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I was invited by Edward321 to comment this page so this what I am doing, probably to show me how much harm he can do. The fact that a user edits is not violation just bbecause it does not please some editors and blanking or removing text is just to avoid names being "floaded" in the internet. If there is any violation of Wikipedia policy such as removing Afd's is only out of ignorance. The only fact that this editig option exists makes it a nonsense if it is such a "crime" that you have to be "lynched" on this "hall of shame". There was no hacking or harrassment as no name of existing people has been cited by me or the others users that are lynched here. Now the moore serious issue is that editors such asEdward321 are doing some serious defamation with people that are presumably not aware of the discussions here. This is not about website policy. It is about public order and laws regarding the internet, international laws and US laws. I sugggest to close this discussion as soon as possible by deleting articles tagged as Afd (I finally learned some of your langage)and removing alll discussions related. I read something about "llegal threats" leading to blocking. Although I really dont care about being blocked, I a not doing any threat. Honestlly, I dont think it would be worth it. But I think this is a matter that should not dealt by "volonteer" editors. By seeing some of their profiles, they seem to be amateurs who are addicted to this without enough background to assess such issues. Maybe some editors who knows about defamation claim could deal with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melkart1 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

What I think we need to do here is indef block every last one of the socks for disruption, block the IPs for a month to give us a break, delete ans salt the articles and semi the afds for a month. Is this sensible? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Repeated deletions by User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog and User:Folantin

Resolved

 – See note at end Papa November (talk) 10:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Over the past two days I saw in front of my eyes how all of my contribution to Chechen people disappear by the two editors with clear WP:MEATpuppetry engaged. Neither has provided any real explanation, and reverted to a heavy POV version that was semi-plagiarised from an amateurish source. Despite my attempts ([64],[65]) to get a discussion going, both editors have clearly expressed ([66],[67])their non-willingness in doing so. After the [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], sixth revert of my work, which included removal of disputed tags and the like, I have no option but to raise the issue here and request admin intervention and to explain to these users the principle of WP:OWN.
On a separate note, if one checks the history of the article or other articles the former user is editing, one can clearly see an attempt to have an edit stack. I do hope that if he chooses to have an RfA in the near future this record is kept for refrence. --Kuban Cossack 08:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

BAM, did not have time to finish writing this already a SEVENTH revert. --Kuban Cossack 08:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats true. He aslo had a revert war yestarday on the Russians page, and here you can see he started a discussion which he turned into a political debate and started arguing about things not even in the article. For a few times he was explained Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum, explanations he have ignored. Log in, log out (talk) 08:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(Referring exclusively to the Chechen people page): User:Kuban kazak is a soapboxing nightmare. I watchlisted the Chechen people page because I had made some contributions to the etymology section, including adding a valid reference. Then, last week, KK arrived and slapped a "citation needed" tag on my contribution, which was quite clearly referenced at the end of the paragraph, while adding a load of tendentious material of his own completely lacking in sources [73]. When he finally added references for his material (mostly in Russian), I checked out one of them and it did not contain any reference to the fact it was supposed to verify (see talk page for details [74]). Moreover, the whole tenor of the source he used said exactly the opposite of what he was claiming in the article (i.e. the Chechens collaborated en masse with the Germans in World War Two). When challenged about this misuse of sources, he tried to change the subject, then offered another source in Russian which again failed to back the fact cited. He has refused to give any explanation for his behaviour, finally telling me to clean up his mess myself: "So correct that part, after all you are interested in the article to be full and detailed and correct? Are you not?". I reverted him and began to source the previous version of the article, adding a reference from a reliable source in English to a fact he had marked as "dubious" [75]. This morning, he completely reverted this and reinstated his own material, including the completely unverified "facts" I had challenged on the talk page [76]. It's pretty obvious that this editor is pushing some kind of agenda (see his user page) and is completely untrustworthy as far as following WP:V and WP:RS are concerned. He probably thought he could get away with inserting some vague references in the Russian language and nobody would be able to check up on him. He should be topic-banned from editing this page and other Chechen-related articles. I'm neither Chechen nor Russian. I merely want a factually accurate page. As it happens I've also challenged User:Captain Obvious about material he added [[77]], so we're hardly "meat puppets" (and I haven't been involved in any of the disputes on the other pages). --Folantin (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all I am not a soapbox! You are! Second, what right have you got to remove the whole edit? Yes I admit that I've made a mistake on a small segment of it, and yes I encouraged Folantin to correct the parts he deemed incorrect, or re-write that particular part affected in light of his "better" refrences. Also the version he has reverted to five times now (slipping away from a 3rr by a very small margin) included material based on an non-professional source, parts of which were clearly copypasted and plagiarised! Once again I remind him that he does not WP:OWN the article, and that wikipedia goes by consensus not by reverts, so far he has made NO attempt at bridging our disagreements. Yet he already is demanding that I am banned. Talk about being agressive I've not even tried to ask for a sanction on the user. --Kuban Cossack 09:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

And you've provided no explanation for your flagrant abuse of referencing, your reinstatement of challenged material (which you know is dubious), your adding "citation needed" templates to referenced material (I had to spell this out to you at least twice in edit summaries) and your deletion of cited content. I do not have time to waste on national chauvinist POV-pushers. You are clearly untrustworthy and I have no faith in any content you might add. --Folantin (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all how dare you insult me? I hope the admin are watching this personal attack and will react, I've not set a word of your personal habit and views and opinions yet you are biting away aleady. Second I now know its dubious because you've pointed it out to me, ok a section is wrong, in a normal case you settle down on it and work at it improving it and expanding it, no you instead revert everything along with other parts that you did not challenge, and with the tags as well. FYI I did not remove the material that was there before but incorporated it into my large edit. Yet as you said above you have no interest in even looking for consensus, which means you have got a lesson to learn in manners and good faith and etiquette. --Kuban Cossack 09:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You've already referred to me as "arrogant" on an admin's talk page behind my back yesterday[78], so it's a bit late to be talking about "personal attacks". All of which is a sidetrack anyway. --Folantin (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes and your refusal to seek consensus, and persistant reverting is exactly the reason why I called you arrogant. Or is the culprit of the problem that the original text was heavily POVed which you endorsed now give times, particularly relating to the post-1956 events and the events of 1800-1930s, copied from a very dubious and no-reknown publisher Joana Nichols, and it suited your version to make WP:POINT that the Chechens for the past 2 centuries have been nothing but victims to the evil evil Russians (despite ethnically cleansing 250 thousand of them in 1990-1994). --Kuban Cossack 09:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Joanna Nichols is a professor at Berkeley. She's published an English-Ingush dictionary. I even replaced the reference sourced to her with one from Jaimoukha's book, which said exactly the same thing. Now are you going to explain your abuse of sources? --Folantin (talk) 09:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

She published a dictionary. Great. That still doesnt mean she knows history. And just for the record, there are proffesors who deny Gas Chambers at Nazi territores, and...? She's not enough known, she's not neutral, she's biased. You need a completely neutral reference of an author who doesn't try to make a point. Log in, log out (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, she is a linguist not a historian and on that paper in the intro she states black on white that this is not a professional history refrence but more of a public outcry to side her opinion. For example the post 1956 events with Chechens being repressed is pure bullshit, considering that by 1970s the whole administration of the republic was made entirely of Chechens who held all key cabinet roles. The original passage implies some colonial/labour camp administration. I have no idea what your Jaimoukha said, but I for one try not to limit myself to one source. --Kuban Cossack 10:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Had a look at the preview of Jaimoukha's book at google, on the whole can't say I am impressed with it, again same one-sided history written from a clear non-neutral perspective. For example it ignores the savegery of the Chechen attacks on Cossack stanitsas as documented by a wide scale of international historians such as Peter Hopkirk's book "The Great Game". Of course it does not even mention what happened to the Russian minority at the hands of the Chechens in early 90s nor will it bother to mention the even the name of the insurgent leaders. So in short good for political propaganda of like minders, but for encyclopedia... :( --Kuban Cossack 10:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Folantin, Do you know that if the source is not reliable you can delete it and out a citation needed? Your sources were not reliable, thats why Kuban Cossack challenged them. Bring references from nutral sources who dont have i bias. And you cant denie this user Captian loves edit wars. He came to the Russians page, started a revert war with a few users, then started a political discussion not having to do anything with the article. Log in, log out (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

My source was The Chechens: A Handbook, by Amjad Jaimoukha, London, New York: Routledge, 2005. In other words, a book in English from a renowned academic publisher, not some Russian source off the Net. --Folantin (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Jaimouka is not excepted by anyone but Chechen Nationalists. He's known primary for using more imagination then truth. Log in, log out (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

He's obviously not acceptable to National Bolsheviks, of which you are a supporter. Check their flag [79] - what a great way to combine Nazi and Soviet imagery. --Folantin (talk) 09:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I remind Folantin to Comment on content, not on the contributor. I could not care less what you stand for and here you go insulting a user who is not even involved in our dispute. --Kuban Cossack 09:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've not come across Folantin, but from the tone of his comments I can clearly see who is in the wrong here. I had a look at the edits and reverts, and although Kuban kazak's is far from perfect the old version that Folantin and Captain Obvious are sterily reverting to is much worse in terms of neutrality and accuracy. Some parts of Kuban's additions are clearly correct. I would recommend you to follow a WP:DR process, and Folantin to cease reverting. Log in, log out (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You can tell that just by tone, can you? What an amazing gift. But here's another explanation: Folantin is an editor who is sick to the back teeth with rampant national and ethnic POV-pushing on Wikipedia, which might account for the note of frustration and weariness at yet another attempt to mess with content. Obviously, your sympathy for Kuban Kazak has nothing to do with the fact you are Russian. --Folantin (talk) 09:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well Folantin the fact that you are not Russian is not something that bothers me, I deal every day on wikipedia with people of different scope. In other words no only do you have problems with political views you now have problems with nationlities of the editors. Well I do apologise for us resisting the invasions of Napoleon and Hitler and other times when Russia fought for her independence, obviously it made your life a lot difficult. --Kuban Cossack 09:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats funny, because that's what you, Folantin, were doing in the Chechens article. Pushing Nationalist and biased authors. Kuban Cossack, unlike you, brought links which are nutral and simply name facts. Simple facts, not more not less. No POV. Log in, log out (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep sidetracking. --Folantin (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You were brought certain claims. You were brought certain facts. You ignore them and go into personal. That doesnt work in your favour here. Log in, log out (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You haven't read a word I've said. Jaimoukha is a reliable source (he's published by Routledge). Your friend KK wanted to add material which claimed " In some areas up to 80% of the [Chechen] populations backed the [pro-German] insurgency [during World War Two]". He referenced it to this online source [80]. No such "fact" occurs in the article. Moreover, the page is written by Alexander Uralov, who's kind of pro-Chechen, and is entitled "Murder of the Chechen-Ingush People. Genocide in the USSR". Uralov completely rejects the idea of mass Chechen-German collaboration, citing "two decisive facts": "1) During the Second World War, German soldiers did not once set foot in the territory of the Chechen-Ingush Republic, unless you count the short-lived occupation of Malgobek, inhabited by Russians; (2) it was physically impossible for Chechens and Ingush to link up with German formations...[and so on]". In other words, it makes the exact opposite point from the one KK wanted to push. I had to spend my available free time yesterday afternoon reading that page in my rusty Russian. I doubt if KK even bothered read it in the first place. You could have checked up on this by following the links I provided in my first statement here. You obviously couldn't be bothered either. This is why I object to wasting my time checking up on obviously untrustworthy POV-pushers. --Folantin (talk) 10:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I admit that I trusted the article 1940-1944 Insurgency in Chechnya, however the original version of the Chechen people article did not even cite that as the reason for the deportation, only the POV statement: Moscow's repressions reached the apogee. Now how is that not being biased. Whether or not the scale of insurgency was as large as claimed is not of my concern, there is evidence for it (fact one; Khasan Israilov did exist) and there is evidence that Germans dropped paratroopers into Chechnya (fact two). That is of course sidetrack and maybe WP:UNDUE for the article, but omitting compleately along with other parts such as the post-war and pre-war events that I have added is worse. Maybe if Folantin and his meat puppet did not engage in reverts I would agreed to remove that particular passage, but whose fault is it that no consensus was reached? --Kuban Cossack 11:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know, it's all my fault. You've got a nerve. I'll give you that.--Folantin (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

And he did it again. Look. It was deleted and he recived a second warning. There won't be a third. Log in, log out (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"He" being "Captain Obvious". --Folantin (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Kuban kazak has been engaged in a slow-scale nationalist edit war with User:Riwnodennyk on European ethnic groups. WP editors have clear problems if they reject as recognized sources books written by reputed academics and published by long-established publishing houses. Johanna Nichols and Amjad Jaimoukha have respectable academic credentials. She is Professor of slavic languages and literatures at the University of California, Berkeley, in charge of a Chechen project partially funded by the NSF. He was educated in England, and is now Assistant President of the Royal Scientific Society in Jordan and member of the Central Eurasian Studies Society at Harvard University. Mathsci (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was not nationalistic edit warring, but more of fixing the incorrectly drawn map. WRT editors, again there are professors funded by most reputable organisations that deny Holocaust, I take it most of them never even set foot in Chechnya. Nichols srticle is out of date by more than a decade. Yes I reject that as reliable source, Jaimoukha's can pass wrt culture and tradition, history reject again because its laden with opinions, that were copied into the article. --Kuban Cossack 11:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"I don't like it" obviously trumps reliable sources. --Folantin (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem is they are not reliable in presense of contradicting material awailable and the POV the authors carry. --Kuban Cossack 11:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Evaluations of writers cannot be made in this way on WP; academic book reviews can of course be cited when relevant. Some details of Nichols' field trips to Chechnya can be found on her home page. Mathsci (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

We've already established Kuban Kazak's "reliability" as a source anyway, so I don't think we can have him going round dismissing scholars who don't fit in with his POV. --Folantin (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Those scholars are controversial and push their POV in their text. I'll give you an example. If a scholar, and there are many like that, will write that the Germans haven't built gas chembers, would you belive him even thought he's a scholar? I really hope not. The sources shouldn't be just of a "dud with a deploma", but from someone known as nutral. Log in, log out (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those credentialed scholars are clearly just like Neo-Nazis - and this is coming from someone who sports imagery derived from the Third Reich on his user page. --Folantin (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You know going into personal will get you blocked. You ignored a claim by going into personal. Thats a behaviour of someone who lost an argument. Log in, log out (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Violating WP:BLP by libelling accredited scholars by comparing them to Holocaust deniers will get you blocked a lot sooner. As for the "Third Reich imagery", Compare [81] and contrast [82]. Your user page as of this writing contains the latter image [83]. We've already had trouble with one notorious "National Bolshevik" editor (User:M.V.E.i.). We don't need another. --Folantin (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Action required

Appeal: could an uninvolved admin please deal with the essential issues here to stop this discussion sliding into irrelevance and obfuscation. --Folantin (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Johanna Nichols' work involves compiling Chechen and Ingush dictionaries. There seems to be no direct link with the Third Reich. There is a direct link with the NSF which has funded some of her projects. Mathsci (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"There seems to be no direct link with the Third Reich". Well, I don't think any ever expected there would be. It was just User:Log In Log Out engaging in diversionary smear tactics. More importantly, the question of User:Kuban Kazak and his abuse of sources and tendentious editing has not been dealt with. Yet again he's removed sourced content and added unsourced material of his own [84]. I really want some action to stop this, please. --Folantin (talk) 14:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've had enough of this. I'm simply going to revert this guy's edits as vandalism from now on. --Folantin (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Good luck explaining this to the 3RR patrol. --Kuban Cossack 15:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Gaming the system as a last resort (without issuing warnings for behaviour you are guilty of yourself). Any admins on the 3RR patrol would have to explain why they weren't aware of this incident which has been on ANI for seven hours or so now. --Folantin (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no last resorts, don't think that I am just going to abandon the article by your revert war efforts, I'll be here tomorrow the day after that and the year after that. But you are right the admin do have to explain for the lack of attention this problem gained. --Kuban Cossack 15:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, time for a response

I've been very slightly involved here, but this has gone on long enough so I'll take temporary admin action to stabilise the situation until an uninvolved admin can take over. Most of this is a content dispute, focused on reliability of sources. Consider options for dispute resolution instead of arguing about content here. Per WP:PROTECT and WP:EW, I will temporarily fully protect the page to stop the reverts, revert it to the last stable version and investigate whether any 3RR violations have taken place. Papa November (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• User:Kuban kazak and User:Folantin both blocked by User:Scarian for edit warring after Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Folantin reported by User:Kuban kazak (Result: 2x 12 hour blocks) Papa November (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have unblocked User:Folantin, after his request, as the disputed article is protected. However, I have warned him that any further edit warring or incivility will lead to a new, longer block. Papa November (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have declined User:Kuban kazak's unblock request, as he has received several blocks for similar behaviour previously, and is engaging in similar behaviour in other articles. Note that this does not imply any endorsement of User:Folantin's side of the content dispute. Papa November (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a serious problem with nationalist editing, or 'cultural and ethnic edit wars'. I've not been very involved and don't plan to be, but I would be very much surprised if Folantin has not been acting in good faith in this or any other dispute. What I see happening (and this is a very personal observation over a small number of articles so may not be represenative) is a very small number of people trying to stop nationalism from prevailing on a number of articles, and a large number of nationalists either taking over articles or edit warring on articles. Right now its a losing battle and it is pretty bad if any of the casualties are those trying to solve the problem. Doug Weller (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What Doug said. I've effectively been blocked for adding properly referenced material in line with Wikipedia policy and removing blatantly bad faith content. That's my reward after 10,000 edits and two years here. For five months I have been asking for a report from the working group on national, ethnic and cultural edit wars which is supposed to deal with this sort of thing. Look at the talk page for my requests and the answers I got. The only member of the group who's actually done anything in response is User:Elonka. It's extremely easy for agenda-driven tag teams to bulldoze through dubious content in the face of lone users trying to follow policy. Admins are supposed to stop this. This is an encyclopaedia. The only thing people judge us by is our content. I've long harboured the suspicion that certain "national" editors have been playing fast and loose with references in foreign languages, effectively using them to hoodwink anglophone editors. I have given an example of this in this thread and tomorrow I will try to offer a translation of the Russian material Kuban Kazak used as his source so others can judge for themselves. I'm forced to conclude from today's proceedings that Wikipedia is badly broken. Admins need to stop hiding their heads in the sand and start trying to fix it. --Folantin (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Folantin, although I know it's frustrating that so few admins are getting involved here, this is a huge task, and rather daunting for admins. It's hard for us, as non-experts on the content to judge what is nationalistic propaganda and what is good encyclopaedic content. It's unfortunate that you were blocked for a 3RR violation, but the complex circumstances make it very difficult for admins to decide who, if anyone, is breaking the rules here. You're right that Wikipedia isn't perfect, but it's a work in progress and your suggestion of forming a purpose made working group may be a good way of improving things. Why not put together a draft policy page, and take it to WP:VPP? Papa November (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There are 1500 of you. You had eight hours for one of you to do something about this. You have failed to enforce basic policies WP:V and WP:RS. The content I added was referenced to reliable sources. The content Kuban Kazak added was mostly unsourced and demonstrably falsified in at least one instance. I did the research (including reading Russian) to prove this and presented the evidence here. Nothing happened. I was then blocked for reinstating referenced material. I had no warning and the blocking admin couldn't even be bothered to do the most basic research into the issue or distinguish between me, a user in good faith with over 10,000 edits and a clean block log, and a user with a reputation for agenda-driven editing. I've spent a good deal of my time checking up on sources - I busted a hoax article on Illyrian mythology written by an Albanian nationalist which had been allowed to remain unchallenged on Wikipedia for two whole years [85]. In return, I expect to see admin support for such efforts to ensure content is reliable. If you admins can't enforce core policies then we might as well all go home now. --Folantin (talk) 06:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, it's true that it's sometimes difficult to judge the quality of source if you're not familiar with a topic, and that can make it hard to see who's working to make the encyclopedia better. However, I would think that when editors suggest that the work of a a tenured professor at UC Berkeley isn't a good source because "there are professors" who are Holocaust deniers, and reject sources published by prominent academic presses as "biased", that suggests that one "side" of the dispute has a severely deficient understanding of how we're supposed to use sources on Wikipedia. Sadly, this is the kind of thing that gets defined as a "content dispute" rather than being seen as a case of tendentious editing. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Or shunted off to "civility", something the kid admins can understand. There's always been something suspect about the Russian articles with regard to Chechnya. Get this: the main History of Russia article was passed for FA when it contained three longish paragraphs about post-Soviet Russia with not one single reference to the Chechen Wars of the 1990s. Would you trust a History of the USA article with no mention of the Vietnam War? (Actually, the Russian example is far, far worse than that). --Folantin (talk) 07:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be a red flag when someone is calling academic sources 'biased'. It may be that it has a POV and other sources with different POVs need to be added, but a clearly reliable source should never be removed simply because an editor thinks it's wrong. I've had a similar problem, a quote from an academic press book was deleted because the editor didn't believe it and insisted on another citation backing that one. As for FA articles, that isn't the only one that has been passed where I couldn't understand the rationale for it being FA.

One of the problems with nationalist editors is that their motivations are often extremely strong, and it only takes one or two such editors on a page to tire anyone else out, and you end up with a 'no-go' article. Something needs to be done, perhaps at a pretty high level, to stop this from happening. Doug Weller (talk) 07:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You know what the funniest thing about this affair is? Kuban Kazak was the one who insisted on re-adding material by a well-known Chechen nationalist. I'm referring to an author who used the pseudonym Aleksandr Uralov, though his real name was Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov. We even have a page on him on Wikipedia (reliability uncertain). Of course, Uralov's article did not support the claim Kuban Kazak said it did. I will try to provide a translation later on so you can judge for yourselves. This makes total nonsense of User:Log In Log Out's claim: "what you, Folantin, were doing in the Chechens article. Pushing Nationalist and biased authors. Kuban Cossack, unlike you, brought links which are nutral and simply name facts. Simple facts, not more not less. No POV". Turns out KK was adding the "Chechen nationalist" source! Of course, had he bothered to read the page (in his own native language, I presume) he might have noticed that. Instead he kept edit-warring to reinsert it. And I'm expected to waste my time on such nonsense? --Folantin (talk) 08:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If recently arrived editor Kuban kazak is consistently dismissing sources which easily meet WP:V and WP:RS and consistently adding material from sources which fail these tests, he is editing tendentiously as Akhilleus has said. His editing should be examined more closely. From comments on his talk page, this kind of tendentious editing/ edit warring is not restricted to one article. Mathsci (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look, and someone seriously needs to mentor the guy. EE is bad enough without this. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, can I offer a personal apology to Folantin for a lack of courage on my part. I did read this thread yesterday, and even went and looked at the unblock requests, but decided that I did not want to get involved. It seemed to me that Folantin, an editor in good standing, was indeed fighting a lonely battle on Wikipedia's behalf and had been blocked only due to his frustration at getting no help. However, I bottled out - as a relatively new admin, I was unsure of my assessment, and frankly was not hugely enamoured of diving into a nationalist POV dispute and making things worse. However, given my acceptance of the mop in the first place, that was no excuse. Sorry Folantin, and thank you for your efforts to keep POV under control.

Secondly, I agree that mentoring at the very least would be a good idea, though it's not a task I personally would relish. I think we should be showing far less tolerance of POV pushers than we currently seem to. KK does seem to be on a mission; perhaps the blurb on his user page re 'avenging thousands of ethnic Russian victims' should have set the warning bells ringing. EyeSerene^talk 09:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, don't take it personally, it's a system failure. Frankly, I'm not surprised hardly anybody wants to get involved in these problem pages given the endless grief involved. On the other hand, I'm far from impressed by the conduct of the blocking admin. I'd expect a little more background research before that kind of action. I was not even issued a warning. --Folantin (talk) 10:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW This is my rough (and, no doubt, imperfect) translation of the Russian source Kuban Kazak claimed backed his additions (with some commentary by me). It didn't and he didn't even realise it was by a pro-Chechen author who accuses the Soviets of genocide. Just one example of how foreign-language sources have been used to hoodwink anglophone editors. --Folantin (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Administrators, you missed the whole case

You ignored the facts that Captain obvious did have revert wars, and not only that, he provocated political discussions on talk pages which are not connected with the article. Ask user Papa November, who is an administrator who warned him about that.

All Kuban Kazak wanted was real sources, reliable sources by nutral people. The sources Captain Obvious and Folantin supporte are maybe by people with a degree, but those people have a clear political agenda. For example. A man can denie a holocaust, and have a degree in History, would you use him as a reliable source? I hope not.

Folantin wasn't blocked even thought he violated the law when he atacked me a few times for being a National Bolshevik. Thats against the policy of not going to personal level, whatever more we weren't arguing about a National Bolshevik topic. Can a Wikipedian who once out of arguments goes to personal be here? Kuban Kazak had never went to personal level here.

Administrators, you can't decide who to block and who not to by the political standing of the editor. Kuban Cossack had a solo-war against people who clearly try to push a political agenda. That doesn't matter if the opinion meets with your western views, or not. While it's not nutral, it's wrong. Kuban Cossack haven't searched to insert his views, but to insert a referenced nutral view that can't be argued.

Lets say Folantin and Captain Obvious entered reliable sources, but Kuban had brought other sources which are reliable to, but contrast Folantin's and Captain Obvious's sources, why should Kuban be blocked? The administrators clearly failed in this case when they let Folantin to get unharmed after he went to personal level. Log in, log out (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please restrain yourself. We do not need a repetition of this.[86] Mathsci (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Uuu, threats. Scary. I admit i did a mistake by writting it, but once it was deleted once, i haven't returned it because i understood it. By the way, the one who reverted me was Kuban Cossack, who you blame for nationalism and being not nutral. I would better be explained why it was returned (do is mell provocation?). I understood i did a mistake there, and haven't repeated it. Your threat has nothing to do with what a wrote above. Log in, log out (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"Half of your [Ukrainian] lands are not yours by right (Crimea and Donbass, New Russia, were opened by Russia for Russia, Odessa to. Lviv and the whole West were Polish), and instead of thanking us you act like pigs". Unbelievable. I hadn't seen that link before. And this from a user whose page says he is a member of the National Bolsheviks, an extreme Russian nationalist party whose flag clearly shows totalitarian imagery (both Nazi and Soviet). This is the kind of editor we have to deal with on these problem pages. --Folantin (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You do it again. You try to move the discussion to an off-topic to make people forget what you were blamed in. Once Kuban Cossack deleted what i said there and explained me Wikipedia pages are not forums. i, unlike you and Captain, have never returned to it. Log in, log out (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Simple questions

Can we get a clear answer from a blocking amdmin, first of all, but from the users who studied the matter (including the concerned editors themselves):

1. Did Folatnin technically violate the letter of 3RR?
2. If yes, were his reverts exempt from 3RR rule because he was reverting vandalism or because there was sockpuppetry involved?
3. Did Kuban kazak technically violate the letter of 3RR?
4. If yes, were his reverts exempt from 3RR rule because he was reverting vandalism or because there was sockpuppetry involved?

These are basic questions and it is always helpful to get the facts straight before discussing anything further. --Irpen 21:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Response by User:Papa November

I was not the blocking admin, but I was the one who unblocked Folantin and declined the unblock request from Kuban kazak, so here's my view.

I've boiled the edit war of 3rd July down into the following edits. I've used "KK" for Kuban kazak, "F" for Folantin and "CO" for Captain Obvious.

1. KK adds fact tag to "defeated Russian soldiers in 1732", and adds large amount of text to history section
2. F reverts KK's fact tag, added NPOV tag to KK's history section (1st rv by F)
3. CO reverts KK's history section, does some copyedits (1st rv by CO)
4. KK reverts CO's removal of history section, CO's copyedits and his own fact tag (1st rv by KK)
5. CO reverts KK's last edit, adds categories, further copyedits (2nd rv by CO)
6. KK reverts CO's removal of history section (2nd rv by KK)
7. F reverts KK's addition of history section (2nd rv by F)
8. KK reverts F's removal of history section (3rd rv by KK)
9. F reverts KK's addition of history section (3rd rv by F)
10. KK reverts F's removal of history section (4th rv by KK)
11. CO reverts KK's addition of history section (3rd rv by CO)
12. F changes reference to English source
13. CO adds "Noah's people" claim, some more copyedits
14. F reverts CO's "Noah's people" claim (4th rv by F)
15. CO reverts CO's removal of "Noah's people claim (4th rv by CO)

Several editors have blamed the situation on the slow admin response. Although this is disappointing, it is no excuse for the edit warring that continued. A whole range of measures could have been taken by the three editors involved, rather than the blunt tool of reversion, including

• Addition of maintenance tags to the disputed section
• Dispute resolution
• Waiting patiently for an outcome here
• Waiting for another editor to revert the material

So, my conclusions are as follows:

• All three editors violated 3RR by performing 4 reverts within a 24 hour period.
• There was no simple and obvious vandalism, copyright violation, or WP:BLP violation, so there is no exemption from the 3RR rule for any of the three editors here. WP:3RR explicitly states that "Content changes, adding or removing tags, edits which are against consensus, and similar items are not exempt".
• There is nothing here to suggest sockpuppetry taking place.
• Folantin's 3RR violation was not simply a case of him cleaning up after KK, as he also reverted an edit by CO.
• The blocks against User:Folantin and User:Kuban kazak were both therefore justified.
• I unblocked F later, as his edit warring was limited to a single article, which is now protected.
• I declined KK's unblock request, as he was engaging in edit warring in multiple articles, including Holodomor.

My recommendation is to continue the temporary page protection at Chechen people, while things cool down a little and to keep an eye on the three editors for the time being. Papa November (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The edits by Captain Obvious also removed sourced material and he added unsourced content of his own (the idea the word "Nokhchi" is derived from "Noah" is fringe crankery). You admins also failed to enforce core policies WP:V and WP:RS. Don't try and dodge out of that. I was protecting sourced content, you weren't. This is an encyclopaedia, not a place for process wonkery, remember? --Folantin (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not check the diffs carefully but unless someone else did and find Papa's summary incorrect, both KK and Folantine violated 3RR and both were blocked within the blocking policy. Now, Folantin claims that he should not have been blocked because his edits were "better" than Kuban's. This just does not cut it. Stick to 2RR and you will never pass the 4th revert threshold even in the judgment of the most block happy admin. I make no comment on Papa's decision to unblock Folantine but not to unblock Kuban. Personally, I think if both users stated the intention to stop reverting on the said article, it is best to unblock them both. But Papa's decision to not unblock Kuban was clearly within policy. I think Folantin should stop fussing and simple cut down on reverts. Kuban does not seem to be fussing anyway.

If there are indeed reasons to believe that one of the editors did not technically violate 3RR and one or both blocks fall under the discretion block category (that is for general revert warring), this is an entirely different game then. Discretion blocks should not be unilateral and should be suggested here first except in cases of emergency. This not being a discretion block but a clear 3RR block ends the matter, IMO. --Irpen 00:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Simple answer

Surprise, surprise. It's Irpen. There's no Russian editor he won't back. This is the situation we have here: "national" editors will always back their compatriots. We have previous history [87] (scroll down for "Ultra-nationalist alert"). As I said there: "Actually the more I think about this, the more I'm riled at you, Irpen. I used to have respect for you as an editor but now I see exactly why ArbCom pulled you up for violation of AGF. I attempt to maintain a modicum of neutrality and I get attacked in xenophobic terms by two Russian nationalist editors who are hardly the jewels in Wikipedia's crown. You naturally jump to the defence of your compatriots (or fellow Russophones). This is another problem with the nationalist gang warfare round here: even the half-decent editors will stick up for the rotten apples if they're on the right side". Lone editors have no chance against users who hunt in packs. --Folantin (talk) 08:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Surprise surprise, it's Folantin. There's no anti-Russian and pro-Chechen editor he wont back. That's what we have here. Editors without argument will always come down into a personal level. You jump on defence to your friends, and dramatise yourself. Log in, log out (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm sticking my head where it doesn't belong but this conversation is getting a little testy (and messy!). Lets have so more linear discussion and bulleted lists so my brain doesn't explode =| mboverload

@ 08:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added a section heading to clarify. It's testy because I'm furious at the way Wikipedia is being manipulated by national "pack-editing". --Folantin (talk) 08:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the "section heading" you added as an attempt of below the belt character assassination, Folantin. It is a fantasy too. If you don't cut it, you may get blocked again. Please calm down. --Irpen 08:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Folantin, thank you for the link to Moreschi's talk. It is instructive indeed. I welcome anyone to read it and evaluate it themselves. I so much welcome that I give a better link to the specific thread to make it easier for anyone to find it than from your link. The rest of your stuff does not even warrant a response. Your fantasies that I am defending Kuban after I said that if he 3RRed, the block is justified is obvious to anyone. Even that I am his compatriot is your fantasy. If you would have asked my opinion about how Scarian should have acted on this 3RR report, I would have given you one (and it is different from how he acted.) But since you came here to attack me, I will leave it at that. Happy edits! --Irpen 08:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, it's pure coincidence you turned up here. I note you haven't commented on KK's abuse of core policies. "Even that I am his compatriot is your fantasy". Sophistry. You are a well-known pro-Russian editor as ArbCom is well aware.--Folantin (talk) 08:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Folantin, I know it may sound harsh but it seems to me that you act strangely. Please cool down. --Irpen 08:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You act completely predictably. Your user page says your mother tongue is Russian. Go figure. As I say, you are well known to ArbCom for warring over East European articles. Here's one finding of fact against you [88]. --Folantin (talk) 08:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If anyone bothers to read the thread you linked at Moreschi's talk they would see how editors reacted to this "finding" too (none of them Russian.) ArbCom is very prone to produce strange things. Now, would you please be a nice guy and stop biting me? If you have an issue with myself, please start a thread where it belongs. Thank you. --Irpen 08:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This is totally ridiculous. You're both excellent editors. Stop sniping in this childish manner. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That goes more for you, Folantin, as on re-reading I see you're being considerably more heated than Irpen. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've had enough of this kind of thing

Sorry. I've had enough of this kind of thing. If uninvolved users aren't able to edit "foreign" history articles on Wikipedia (I'm British by the way) because the pages have been hijacked by "nationalists" and if admins can't enforce core policies like verifiability and reliable sources then this project is in serious trouble. --Folantin (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This group should be fixing these problems, but look at the talk page. I've been asking for a progress report for five months but nothing has appeared. I have even tried to solve things by hosting an alternative free debate on the matter in my own user space. Here's one of my comments there from April this year - it's rather relevant to this whole incident: "Insist on the enforcement of Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and reliable sources. Priority must be given to up-to-date sources which have been peer-reviewed and/or issued by respected publishing houses. Ideally, sources should be in English. This is an English-language encyclopaedia and the only language we can rely on all editors having in common is English. References in articles on controversial topics to sources in foreign languages (especially if they are not widely spoken) should be avoided if at all possible. Improving the quality of sourcing will inevitably improve the article. Intelligent general readers are not mugs and they can tell when POV-pushers have tried to hijack a page. Up-to-date referencing from books in English produced by well-known publishers (especially the presses of major universities) is more likely to persuade the intelligent passerby of its accuracy". --Folantin (talk) 09:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Shure. You tried to resolve peace by edit waring. Now you've had enough of it, after some things you dont wont are coming up. Now you'll play the role of the insulted and say "that stops here", or will again insult me and others personaly. Your predictable. If you were a man to have propoganda against Kuban Cossack, be a man to answer to critisicm against you. Log in, log out (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Folantin: warning

Folantin, your personal attacks on Irpen based on nationality above are shocking. And right on the admin noticeboard..! And against a respectable, hard-working editor..! I did a double-take when I saw your "It's Irpen. There's no Russian editor he won't back." Your behaviour is completely unacceptable. Just take a deep breath and stop it. Now. Not one more xenophobic attack. I mean it. I have copied this post to your talkpage. I mean it there, too. Bishonen | talk 09:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC).

Bishonen, please don't claim you are unbiased here. You are well known to be a close friend of Irpen. Irpen has a reputation for tendentious editing on Eastern European topics and everyone knows which side he favours. Several ArbComs have confirmed this. You know this very well. "There's no Russian editor he won't back" is a slight exaggeration but not much of one (not all our Russian - or Russian Ukrainian editors - sing from the same hymn sheet but a large number of them do). And he's worked closely with Kuban Kazak on Wikipedia. --Folantin (talk) 09:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Folantin. You are a well known friend of Captain Obvious, just see talk pages of both. You are not without bias here. You have a reputation of pro-Chechen editing. There ain't an anti-Russian editor you wont back. Log in, log out (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Some background

Some background on Irpen's editing of Eastern European topics:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Irpen
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Halibutt
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren

--Folantin (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Some previous history of Irpen and Kuban Kazak working together can be found here[89]. --Folantin (talk) 10:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I got the point. Is it nowdays a crime to edit articles. I have edited articles together with Irpen, Kuban Kazak, Folantin, Halibutt, Piotrus and Digwuren (probably about Latvia as well)). Should I permaban myself? Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you an uninvolved admin here? I don't think so. --Folantin (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I guess, I am a involved editor. My efforts to get some sourced middle ground between yours and Kazak's POV are gotten lost in the history of the protected article because of the edit war between you and Kazak. I am sort of hurt by your xenophobic comment. Still never mind my feeling, do you care to explain what this array of links is suppose to prove? Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

My material was referenced. His was in violation of core policy. You are not an uninvolved admin on Russian matters. Don't accuse me of xenophobia. My Russian friends will not edit Wikipedia because of the bias and shoddy editing allowed to dominate here. --Folantin (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Look who's talking. Alex is known for editing in a nutral way. You are known as an anti-Russian, so you are to, not "uninvolved here". (now as always when your out of arguments you'll come down to the level of insulting me and my opinions. Cmmon, show yourself again). Log in, log out (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolution

OK Folantin, these complaints against a great nationalist conspiracy are getting tiresome. I understand your frustration, but this page is not the Wikipedia complaints department. There's no sense in further discussion here, and I am marking this discussion as resolved, taking into account the following points:

•  Done: The original complaint about edit warring: The situation was resolved by stopping the edit war, albeit slowly. Sorry it took a while, but we can't change that.
•  Not done: Your grievance against User:Scarian for blocking you: The consensus supports your block, and no one here believes this is admin abuse. If you really think that User:Scarian was abusing his position, you'll need to go to dispute resolution, and explain why you think your block was inappropriate.
•  Not done: Your grievance against User:Irpen: Irpen has not supported Kuban kazak in this discussion - he actively opposed him. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. Sure, he has been the subject of comment previously, but if you have some tangible grievance with him, take it to WP:DR and point out exactly what you think he has done wrong, rather than making vague stabs at his background here.
•  Not done: Complaint about admins failing to act against "nationalist editing", verifiability or reliable sources: Administrative tools aren't the default option for content disputes - if we just blocked and protected every time a dispute arose, it would be very disruptive. The correct, and very effective way for you to deal with this is once again through dispute resolution, where the community makes a judgement, rather than a single (and potentially biased) admin. The number of Chechen nationalists is absolutely negligible compared with the size of the community, so your concerns about a biased response will be allayed if you go through the correct process. Admins will act in support of the decisions made, but it is not our job to unilaterally make judgements about the reliability of sources, and bias. Papa November (talk) 10:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Nationality removed - it's beside the point - Papa November (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• "The number of Chechen nationalists is absolutely negligible compared with the size of the community, so your concerns about a biased response will be allayed if you go through the correct process". What is this supposed to mean? Why would my concern be allayed by the negligible number of Chechen nationalists on Wikipedia?--Folantin (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

  (Answered on your talk page) Papa November (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I still don't quite grasp the logic here, going back again, I was blocked for 3rr fair enough I've served the block so that is clean, but how can an editor who has instead of even trying to discuss issues provoked the edit war and then degraded to insults get off with hardly any sanction? Now have a look at my text above, have a look at my text on the Talk page of Chechen people. where do you see me assaulting or even commenting of Folantin's ethnicity and nationality?, where do you see me take a bias because she is English? Where do you see me threatning to revert all of her edits as vandalism? Where do you see me trying to disgrace those who come to her aid out of their political beliefs? Now if that is not low enough, how the hell can someone who pleaded not for an endorsement of one's version, but for CONSENSUS get a harsher penality just because I had a rocky start to my career at wikipedia? Well I hope the concerned editors know that I am drafting an arbitration request and if the admin here don't want that I best see some sensible answers and apologies. --Kuban Cossack 08:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• You asked for administrative action to stop an edit war, and that is what was provided. Everything I have to say on my contribution here is in my resolution above. I think I've done more than my fair share here, and I do not have the time or inclination to get involved with the other aspects of this dispute. Papa November (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yes and I thank you for doing that, but with all due respect, I feel that a Robocop was unleashed on me whereas Folantin managed to get away with violating about 10 policies related to Civility and etiquette of wikipedia, and at the end of the day prematurely unblocked. How do you explain this justice? Now I understand first-time offenders can expect a bit of slack, but c'mon this is not an accidental slip of Personal attack here and there, nor is this a case of someone being carried away at an edit war. Folantin had a clear political agenda, she herself has openly stated that she will continue revert waring, and yet she walks off. Moreover has there been anything constructive wrt initial issue since. I heavily doubt that a WP:DR process will be even accepted by Folantin, let alone the facts of her wrongdoings, and if you can't relay the message to her that her behaivour was unacceptable then I will pursue an arbcom and yes Papa you will be asked to give a statement there. Is that really something you want? --Kuban Cossack 14:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

How about droping the stick and backing slowly away from the horse carcass? Just get to your arbcom case, I am sure I am not the only one dying to see this happen. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Folantin

And that user will be left unpunished, after coming not once down to a personal level, after blaming all Russian editors for not being able to edit because they are Russian (even thought we could tell him he's American, which's government is pro-Chechen, thats why he's biased from the fact coming from the West)? He didnt present any real arguments! It cant be that Kuban Cossack who acted in a civilised way will be punished, while that user who acted in a rude way is not punished. Not only Russian editors complained on him, and Irpan talked about it. I think we have here a user who pushes clearly a political agenda and while caught provocates a discussion on personal level. Log in, log out (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Shot by both sides

I'm not going to be drawn into this - and this is probably the last I'll say on this matter - but here are two relevant facts:

• I am not a friend or "meat puppet" of Captain Obvious. Before last week I barely knew who he is. In fact I reverted unsourced material he added to the Chechen people page[90] and queried him about it on his talk page [91]. I don't approve of some of the other edits I've seen him make either (e.g. at Russian people).

• I have been abused by a Chechen editor on the very same page involved in this dispute for maintaining referenced material [92] ("hands off my nation u infidel").

I have attempted to maintain referenced material on the page. For this I have been abused by both Russian and Chechen editors. I have also been blocked after admins failed to assist me. Thanks, Wikipedia, you really know how to reward people who are foolish enough to believe in your policies. --Folantin (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Just what i said, now you will dramatise and victimise yourself. Predictable. With the Chechenians eventualy you dound a friendly language, with Russians you chose to continue the war. You completely ignored a few facts i wont let you ignore. 1. You cane down to personal level, instead of talking about what the discussion is about you came down to a personal level of touching opinions. 2. You deleted eventualy referenced material by Kuban Cossack, and the references were reliable. 3. You ignored how the discussion started. If your not a friend of Captain Obvious, then why have you ignored he started revert wars ond political discuiions on talk pages (and i remind you talk pages on Wikipedia are not forums. And you cant say he didn't do that, a very reliable administrator, Papa November, saw it). 5. Blaming all Russian administrators and users in nationalism, while Irpen and Bakharev are known by all for their nutrality. Again, coming to the personal level of nationality. 6. Trying to built an impretion that people are against you because you reverted their nationalism, when turned out most of people opposing you were actualy not Russians nor Chechens, and people without any connection to nationalism. Stop trying to victimise yourself. If you would really be against pushing agenda's and fanatism you would long demand to block your friend Captain Obvious who started insulting users on the Russian talk page and cursing communism. You dont have to like communism, but it had nothing to do with the topic. And personal dislike to anything, doesnt give the right to revert referenced information. By the way, you did that to, coming down to personal level. I thought your twins. Infact, if your nutral, why have you turned your user page into a McCarthist witch hunt document spreating lies on National Bolshevism, while you haven't written one line against Chechen nationalism? Interesting and terrorism. I dont remember National Bolsheviks kidnapping children and cuting them to pieces. Log in, log out (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved editor, apart from having followed Kuban kazak's edits to European ethnic groups. Following the discussion above, User:Log in, log out left this message on my talk page.[93] It seems to imply that he believes only the writings of an inhabitant of Chechnya can be used as a source for Chechen people. This contradicts all the WP guidelines for WP:V and WP:RS. Did he really mean to write this? Mathsci (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

1. What i ment is that it's better to use a Chechen proffesor when talking of Chechen language. 2. Dont push the discussion away. The discussion was of the behaviour of Folantin and captain obvious who came down to personal level. Log in, log out (talk) 06:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Unresolvable - mark as "resolved"

This is obviously a waste of time and now so tangled there's little chance of an uninvolved admin making sense of it (had one stepped in in due time things might have been very different). Slap a resolved tag on it and archive it if you like. The wider issues won't be going away any time soon due to the very nature of Wikipedia. --Folantin (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I am second here. The article is protected for month, so the immediate problem is resolved. The discussion went down to personal level and is not helpful Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Block the user for 24 hours and the case will be resloved for 24 hpurs. If he will learn - it will be resolved much more. If he wont - their ain't a law not allowing to block twice. Log in, log out (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll post a final comment from my talk page. "It's Irpen. There's no Russian editor he won't back". I'll certainly apologise for saying that. It's an insult to some of our good faith Russian editors who aren't here to push a POV. --Folantin (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikidrama

Wow. Give Folantin a break. He may have lost his nerve here, but let those who reprimand that "these complaints against a great nationalist conspiracy are getting tiresome" spend some time around nationalist hotspots themselves. This whole sad mess is a competence of our excessive lenience towards clearly disruptive editors with a nationalist agenda. There is no "conspiracy", ethnic nationalism is simply a thing that exists in the real world with a potential to do damage to this project (its aims and rationales being anti-encyclopedic in the sense that nationalism taylors history into national myths, and is interested in biased over-representation of the selected group's merits, viz., everything we specifically do not want on Wikipedia). We have good faith editors of every nation here, but the recurring drawn-out and entirely pointless (in a WP:SNOW sense) dramas over ethnic nationalist editors has the effect of wearing down good editors like Folantin or myself to the point of assuming bad faith on a knee-jerk basis. We're only human, and we're left alone against a huge influx of disruptive activity that cannot be noted by the vandalbots. Admins, take some responsibility. Less arm-chair adminning, more actual involvement in the trenches. Warn and block the disruptive and WP:POINT accounts (which we'll always get) before everybody loses time, nerves and good spirits over something like the above. dab (𒁳) 11:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So Ddachmann basically I am the evil, and every piece of garbage that Folantin threw at me is fully justified, because my view did not coincide with hers. So instead of being Civil and showing a bit of WP:FAITH, I was mercilessly humiliated and the admin just stood there and jerked off not seeing the tell tale signs of someone on rampage WP:AX grinding mission to sercure her WP:OWNership of that article. Now before you say anything why not have a read of my comments. Where do you see me assaulting or even commenting of Folantin's ethnicity and nationality? Where do you see me take a bias because she is English? Where do you see me threatning to revert all of her edits as vandalism? Where do you see me trying to disgrace those who come to her aid out of their political beliefs?

Need I remind you that it was Folantin who made the first revert [94]. Then comes this comment: Thanks for reverting all that guy's additions. It seems the best solution in the circumstances. So here, very early in the conflict she is actively supporting a revert war. Now yes I made a mistake of trusting another sourced article that was writtne from a dubious source. In fact my latter corrections to the article were completly different than the original addition, and that questionable passage was removed. The remanining of the material which was sourced and accurate was verified, yet that did not stop Folantin from reverting me twice. I did everything in my game to try to seek consensus, I broke the section into headings, added disputed tags yet Folantin kept on reverting and reverting. The talk page discussion immediately went off track where she assaulted me with Personal attacks and kept on using my small mistake as a justification to continue her sprawl. Forget the fact that someone was released early on from their first (though most likely not last) block. I might have violated WP:RS and WP:V but how does someone who violates WP:CIVIL, WP:FAITH, WP:EQ, WP:POINT, WP:OWN and WP:NPA not to mention my concerns regarding the same WP:RS and WP:V which I was more than keen to question. I wanted a consensus and one can only be blind for not seeing the obvious in comments. She wanted a battle and now I want you to tell me on what grounds should I not file an arbitration. --Kuban Cossack 12:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother. I'm seriously considerintg filing a whopping great arbitration case myself, incorporating every single problematic Russian nationalist user I can think of. You can have your say there. That will probably be sometime next month, when I get back from holiday and have some more free time. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well good luck, because I'll be on my own holiday in Abkhazia overwatching maneouvres of the Abkhaz Army, but then again I don't consider myself a Russian nationalist, yet if you do need a third opinion let me know. --Kuban Cossack 12:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User;CarolSpears

Due to recent discussion at WP:AN/I diff the editor was advised that they had been banned from editing. I have a couple of issues with the conclusion;

1. the discussion had comments from editors opposing the action, including an editor who has had extensive contact with the editor, including content disputes.
2. the discussion focused on wikilawyering over how a series information should be labeled PD rather than PD.
3. the most significant issue that the discussion only took place over 2 days, noting that XfD's have 5 days and RfA/RfB run for 7 days

I have some concerns over this though agree that a block was an appropriate action in the short term. What I see is the issue of calling it a ban, especially as one of the issue raised was the lack of response to the RfCU despite being told not to respond[95] go do something else for a while yet in doing just that other editors only inflamed the situation by following her around and revert edits. I'm inclined to unblock now when looking at the way these event have transpired, though I do recognise that there are some legitimate concerns so suggest consideration resetting the block to a specific period. Gnangarra 14:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I come at this from a Commons perspective where I have interacted with the user for some time now. They are a little unusual. Force/bullying/threats really do not work. Interaction has been successful there despite the odd call for a block. A challenge - yes, indef block or whatever - not in my mind. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• You are right - the consensus was for an indefblock, not a ban, and I hope that has now been clarified. Please see my rather long comment on her talk page. I've tried to give her a full explanation of what happened and why - ongoing copyright violations are not a trivial concern, and action had to be taken. However, despite being willing to unblock her myself, I would strongly object to resetting the block until we've had some assurances from her regarding editing and behaviour (preferably including accepting mentoring). EyeSerene^talk 14:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• I am not comfortable with an unblock or a reset until a consensus can be achieved here regarding the matter. We can't keep the charades going for much longer; blatant and ongoing copyright violations are a serious matter, and she has so far refused to modify her behaviour. I would feel comfortable with a reset on a block if she accepts mentoring. seicer | talk | contribs 16:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Please stop accusing me of stalking Carol Spears based on her say so and no diffs ("that other editors only inflamed the situation by following her around and revert edits"). I reverted 5-6 of her edits on new plant articles she created based upon the discussion on the RFC talk page. I told her this. Her edit history shows clearly that these were the only articles of hers I reverted. I did not follow her around to do this, and, in fact, only looked at her edit history after being accused of doing so. I found the articles from the new plant articles, which I monitor and sometimes banner talk pages.
• If the basis for the desire to revert the community ban is solely that she was stalked, provide some evidence. Carol provided none, because there was none.
• Please remember the plagiarisms are a minor issue in comparison to the fact that most of the information she has inserted into articles appears to be factually wrong, except for the taxoboxes. All of this information should be corrected before she is allowed to edit again. She not only refuses to help, but she added these new articles, including one which was a major misinterpretation of the article she referenced. I don't think Wikipedia readers deserve to be given wrong information. This is particularly problematic in the case of plant articles because Wikipedia is a main source on internet source engine returns for plant species articles. All of her wrong information must be removed before she's allowed to add new wrong information. This request is what led up to the ban. --Blechnic (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

  "Block", old bean, block... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Wait a minute, Gnangarra. I'm rather stunned by this and I'm having trouble reconciling this statement with the fact that you previously blocked Carol for one week for this comment. I certainly wish you would look at some of her more recent comments with a similarly critical eye. You say you feel "inclined to unblock now" because you don't agree with "calling it a ban". This makes no sense to me and even less when I see you saying that you agree a block was warranted. You made this statement some two hours after I had already corrected the incorrect non-admin closure and had removed her name from the ban list. If you think it's been closed too early and should stay open for another couple of days, then by all means remove the tags and reopen it but to use a mistake by a non-admin as a basis to lobby for overturning a clear consensus discussion seems like the very definition of wiki-lawyering to me. If such a thing warranted overturning a block in the face of strong consensus, then we're screwed. You compare the discussion length to XfDs. Consider also that an incorrectly closed XfD simply gets corrected and a closing mistake by a non-admin closer does not corrupt the entire process. You say that there was wiki-lawyering in the block discussion but it feels to me like your argument is wiki-lawyering because the issue of the incorrect closure was already fixed. I do believe that there was a consensus for an indefinite block with *only one* person opposing the block. I opposed the initial proposal two weeks ago because I felt that she just needed mentoring and education but she has been resistant to both and I feel this is our last option. The people who have spent the last two weeks cleaning up her copyvios and incorrect information she added to articles should be commended and supported, not blamed. I do not support unblocking now and I would not support a fixed term or unblocking until there was some undertakings from this user, including the acceptance of a mentor. The discussion regarding this user and the extent of her damage to the mainspace took place through at least three separate ANI sections, an RfC and over a period of 16 days; it wasn't simply a two day discussion. Carol needs to be blocked until we have undertakings from her about her future editing and an agreement to accept the mentor, whether that means that she remains blocked for one hour or one year is entirely in her hands but I will not support an unblock without such undertakings. Please consider, instead of doing this, helping carol by helping her see how a mentor like LessHeard could help her and the importance of our copyright, verifiability and other content and behavioural policies. Sarah 20:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this summary. We're dealing with chronic disruption that is going to take weeks to fix, and if the user had had a better attitude about helping to rectify it, we wouldn't be here. If we saw a major change in attitude and a willingness to help fix past matters, then I'd be minded to support an unblock, but I think it will need some fairly solid (and enforceable) undertakings. Orderinchaos 01:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Related issue -- ban template on her talk page

I disagree with a ban template being put on her user page, though, and would like this to be discussed, since so many uninvolved editors feel strongly about templating her page. Is this necessary under the circumstances of this particular ban? --Blechnic (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it back in by error by misreading the talkpage, I have no strong feels about the use of the template otherwise. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. --Blechnic (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now protected the Userpage; the editor has now retired, is indefinitely blocked, and is therefore no longer contributing in any way to the encyclopedia. There is therefore no need to cause any further distress to the departing individual. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, she has said she is considering coming back as a sock [96], but hopefully won't. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Just taking the piss

see here, lock it down, let her email someone if she has a valid reason for unblock. --Allemandtando (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Why? Ignore it, if it irritates you. Perhaps a decreasing audience may encourage her to address the communities concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It shows the utter contempt she has for the community. She posts nonsensical ramblings in response to the clear, well thought out explanation to her block. I can't believe anyone still thinks she will ever work within the community standards. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 14:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Closing down the page is not necessary to protect the encyclopedia. If you dislike what you see when you go there, then I suggest you take the advice of a doctor who replied, when told "It really hurts when I do this!", "Then stop doing it." LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think it's helpful to give this troll a forum? At this point that is all that she is. People keep going to that page to keep an eye on the situation. There are, evidently, people that think that her feelings are much more important than policy and will unblock her as long as she promises not to do it again, but they won't bother to actually follow her and check her work because that would be insulting to the poor abused editor. This is a symptom of a bigger issue on WP. People who operate in contravention of community standards and WP policies are allowed to do whatever they want as long as they are "doing important work". So go ahead and unblock her, but be sure to warn the foundations legal team because you can be certain that she will continue to pass off other people's work as her own because she simply refuses to accept that it's wrong. We'll have lots of pretty plant articles with stolen passages and incorrect information, but Carol's feelings will not be hurt so everything is good. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 15:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

When someone is blocked, they're only supposed to use their talk pages for requests for unblock, or non-controversial stuff. If not, then typically the talk page will be protected, to shut up the whiner. But if the talk page in this case is to remain unprotected, anyone going there should forget about being upset, and simply consider the entertainment value of it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I do see the entertainment value, I mean I haven't heard such disjointed rambling in quite some time. However, as I said, there are some of us here to keep others honest and keep her from being unblocked while she continues to rant and refuses to (or simply is incapable) of seeing what she is doing is wrong. Why does she have so many defenders is my question. She's rude, sarcastic, and obstinate, not the qualities we'd like in a member of a collaborative community. I don't understand how anyone can read the myriad threads about her and still think we can redeem her? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 18:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That user has less chance of being redeemed than Frequent Flier miles from Braniff Airlines. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Any redemption should be mindful of the editors trying to correct her existing garbage. One of her major articles is being edited right now, and, yes, it's full of incorrect information--the article where she said the mountains of Central and East Africa are just like the European Alps because the mountains of northwestern Africa (a different and far more ancient by hundreds and hundreds of millions of years tectonic regime) are like the Alps. These are good editors who could be contributing to Wikipedia in other ways, but are instead deleting pages and pages of misinformation posted by CarolSpears.

In addition, if she can't communicate to others in English designed to convey information, which she apparently cannot, how can she communicate with a mentor? She ought first be required to learn to communicate in a usable English on her talk page before being assigned a mentor.

I do suggest folks stop reading and replying to her until she does that. The problem with getting up in arms against her current level of communication is the assumption that she is trying to communicate. I think she continues in this way because she gets feedback from it. Really, it's not as clever as the space it has consumed, and it wasn't, even the first time. When people willfully choose not to communicate, instead of fighting to understand them, is it too much to ask that they make an attempt? If you really think she can write encyclopediac worthy articles, then how can you think so if you think she can't communicate in colloquial English with her peers writing the same Encyclopedia?

A mentor of her own choosing will, imo, have to be monitored, creating more work for editors already overburdened by her "contribution." How much should Wikipedia continue to be burdened to accommodate one editor whose clean up is going to take months? Let's ask her to learn to use her talk page to communicate with people first. Then, if she can learn that, she might be able to learn to write articles. Her word games are not clever or interesting or part of writing an Encyclopedia. They're just nonsense. What part of writing an encyclopedia includes nonsense? Besides correcting CarolSpears' existing nonsense, that is. --Blechnic (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Good points, and ones on which I will give an opinion - for what it is worth; she has communication difficulties, and I think that may be the case no matter what degree of faith she is currently editing under. Our/My inability to engage with her is no basis on which to close down the page. She has also obviously got access to some very good sources; ones which would be very useful if ever we could persuade her to channel them positively. Penultimately, she has brains - they are not being put to the best use at the moment, but perhaps a little more time will permit her to see that the only way she can indulge herself within the community is to follow the standard practices. Lastly, we iz zee goot guyz unt gurlz; We prefer to give everyone one final chance to contribute usefully. Your patience may be exhausted, and I respect your right to voice your feelings so, but mine is not quite. I think this weekend will be sufficient to see if there is indeed no further point. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I for one would like to see linked evidence of her good sources and intelligence when it comes to writing articles. One of the articles she objected strongly about reverting (earlier than this current incident) she claimed that she mixed up two species on two different continents because she figured insects couldn't tell the difference. Unfortunately, the sources she used for the two species articles were far from the major sources for the species, all of which she ignored. Ignoring them removed the highlights of why her mixing up the two species was so bad, these were two species of plants that have been extensively studied in different locations and are well known throughout the literature for the studies being done on them. One, a British plant that has unique geographical records of its being introduced that go back hundreds of years, and the other a plant that has been famously discussed for its insect pests.

I have not found this show of good sources in her articles. A good source wrongly applied is worse than a second rate source. If you read a source about the mountains of northwest Africa being like the Alps of Europe and decide that is good enough for saying the mountains of Central Africa are just like the European Alps, you are not using good sources, but wrong sources, and you are not using intelligence, imo. --Blechnic (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think her current behavior on Commons, where she has not been banned, is going to be a good indicator of her potential for future success on en.Wikipedia.[97] "I am left to interpret your silence when I asked you if you considered yourself to be intelligent enough to know that sometimes, areas have names which also means areas." --Blechnic (talk) 05:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have now protected CarolSpears talkpage for 48 hours, as the level of discourse there (which does not involve the participation of CS) was becoming unseemly. The editor is indef blocked (with no current likelihood of the block being lifted) and cannot edit WP, and we have no jurisdiction here over what happens on other Wiki's. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Socking

I'm not sure why we're even debating this now. She's just created Spears, Carol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to get around her block, and after a CU, it was found she created TheConsensus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to support her feature picture candidate a month or so back. There's a lot of disruptive behaviour here and the evidence just gets more damning. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. The gift that keeps on giving. That should add at least 2 more weeks to the user's indefinite block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record she's recently used an IP [98] to write to my talk page.

Also, for the record, TheConsensus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created for sockpuppeting at Custard Apple, and particularly its talk page, and was only later used at FPC.

However, in the first case she didn't hide her identity, and used it for the purposes of communicating with an involved administrator, while her talk page was blocked for reasons unrelated to her behaviour. IMHO, that is hardly an egregious offense. (But it would have been nice if she had been capable of being patient enough to wait for a 48 hour block to expire - she could also have used that - or another involved - administrator's page on commons.) Also, compared to what has happened since, a little past sock-puppetting pales. If Carol takes stock, and resolves to reform and behave in a collegial manner, IMHO this would not be grounds to refuse to let her back. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleo123

User:Cleo123 has refused to respect my wishes and remove off topic comments from my talk page. As you can see here, I made it clear that my talk page is not for those comments. Cleo123's comments were then duplicated here, which verifies that they do not need two copies of the same comments especially when it is addressing that other user. Other pertinent information can be found here and here. Could someone please explain to them about talk page respect? This user insists to fight with other members of the community on my talk page, and I do not enjoy it. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove the comments yourself. Since it's your talk page, you can do that. Then tell him to kindly refrain from posting to your talk page and to use article pages instead. If he persists in this behavior, let us know. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Did that, twice. Hence why I am reporting it now. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

For the diffs, see this, this, this, and this. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

They have responded to my alerting of them of this thread here. As you can see, I am accused of posting derogatory remarks and being incivil by removing comments. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Reprinted from my talk page:

":: Well, let me begin by apologizing. I did not intentionally revert your removal twice. I was, in fact, still editing my message when I lost power. I mistakenly thought that it had not posted the first time. You had apparently reverted my remarks unbeknownst to me. I did revert your second removal (which I thought was your first) which occured within one minute of Tendancer's removal of my message from his talk page. Now there is a very odd coincidence! Nice edit summaries - very civil. The time stamps and similarity in tactical strategies, will also undoubtedly be of interest to administrators. [99][100] Perhaps you can explain what would appear to be very uncivil behavior. You and Tendancer post derogatory remarks about me on a notice board with a link to your talk page. When I attempt to respond to these false allegations with facts, both of you seem to be reverting me with in seconds of one another. What's that all about? If you truly object to "our dispute" being on your talk page, please, explain why you haven't removed Tendancer's "off topic" remarks? Cleo123 (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)"

More pseudo legal threats from the above user and claims about "libel" and "defamation" that are not based on actual text found here. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, enough is enough. As the link from the BLP noticeboard clearly indicates, I was explaining WP:LIBEL and WP:BLP to this disruptive editor for the umpteenth time. Can he be blocked for incivility and disruption? This is getting to be ridiculous. Cleo123 (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Enough is enough. Forcibly restoring comments which have been removed by the editor on whose page the comments were placed is unacceptable conduct. The editor in question is under no obligation to explain to anyone which comments he chooses to remove. The above editor's failure to recognize this is troubling. John Carter (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Stalking editors from page to page and harassing them, as John Carter has been doing to me for over a year now is unacceptable conduct. It looks particularly bad when an administrator continues to engage in behavior of this sort against an editor in good standing, after they have repeatedly been asked to stop. It looks even worse when that same administrator escalates his campaign of harassment after the editor (who has good cause to complain) supports a motion to have him desyssoped as I did here and here. John, again I ask you to stop following me and attempting to create conflict and confrontation on articles that I am editing. As I have stated previously, I deliberately avoid articles you are involved with. Extending me the same courtesy might be considered conduct befitting an administrator. Cleo123 (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears that on top of attacks and claims about rule violation without any real proof, the user also resorts to bullying others as seen here. Not only is the above user dramatically reinterpreting Wikipolicy, but making outrageous claims about US law. This disruption has spread to multiple talk pages and seems to revolve around one person in particular. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reinterpreted policy? Gee, WP:BLP seems pretty clear cut to me. What part of this do you think I'm misinterpreting?

"Basic human dignity. Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."

Now the numerous sources available make it clear that Steve Windom was the victim of defamation that resulted in criminal charges. The incident is currently discussed in a neutral and fair manner in the article. Yet, you have been arguing for a detailed reprinting on Wikipedia of the material that a court ruled to be libelous. You have even encouraged a new, inexperienced user to create a free standing article in order to showcase this libel, insisting that Windom who you claim to have contacted in real life, (in violation of Wikipedia's policies on original research) will have to sue Wikipedia if he wants to get it removed! When users attempt to explain Wikipedia's libel policy to you, you have repeatedly taken the unusual stance that only actual libel victims are allowed to mention the word WP:LIBEL on Wikipedia.

For the record, I do not think I've made any "outrageous claims" about US law. I've said that a court ruled the material in question to be libelous, which it did. I've cautioned you about knowingly reprinting libel on Wikipedia as you could be exposing Wikipedia to potential legal problems. I think WP:BLP is very clear that libel about living people is to be removed immediately. Please, explain what part of these policies you think I am reinterpreting? And if you are, in fact, so confident that your interpretations of WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL are correct, please, go right ahead and create this free standing article yourself instead of encouraging a newbie to do it for you. Cleo123 (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you just admit that your incivil actions are based on the possible language of something you have not yet seen? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. You entered the article's discussion late in the game and have been defending the view of an editor who was repeatedly inserting defamatory material into the article. It would appear that you may not have taken the time to review the contribution history of the editor you've been encouraging. I have "seen" the material, and removed it from the article in accordance with WP:BLP some time back. The editor in question has apparently "seen the light" thanks to my intervention and stopped reinserting libelous material into the article. As I see it, the conflict between the two editors was resolved a while ago. For reasons unknown, you are still on the page fighting like hell to "mediate" a dispute that no longer exists, even going so far as to contact the article's subject and argue for the creation of a separate "scandal" article for reasons unknown. You seem to be trying to create some sort of new conflict, not mediate one. Cleo123 (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Game? You think this is some game that you can go around making up rules, harassing users, and the rest? No editor is listening to anything you say, because you are a disruption. Audemus and Dem came to terms before you started attacking people. They are waiting for you to stop your harassment so we can continue to expand the page. You already admitted that you are here to attack people, and now you admit that you have no grounds for your attacking people. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am a disruption? LOL! Sorry, but that is downright amusing coming from a user who has been banned from participating in FAC discussions (for behavior that is strikingly similar to your conduct in this matter), cited by numerous editors for extreme incivility and blocked numerous times. I, by contrast, have never been blocked for anything during my years on Wikipedia. Please, do not make false accusations against other users. I have not harassed anyone. I have not edited the talk page of the article in nearly a week. So, I'm not sure what anyone might be waiting for. Although I haven't edited the article in a while now, none of my edits to the article have ever been reverted by anyone. Considering Dem1970's message on your talk page, in which he says I am "right on", your above statements seem to be very misleading at best. Cleo123 (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

None of your statements have support except by yourself. That should clue you in about the nature of your comments. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's more fact twisting by Cleo123--as usual. Looks to be like John was open to recall for desysop'ing while involved in a content dispute with another couple editors, and haven't even corresponded with Cleo123 for about a year. Then Cleo123 can't let go of his old vendetta after all that time--which's really sad--and WP:STALK'ed in and reposted his old WP:CIVIL-violating diatribe from the year-old and already-resolved dispute from List_of_converts_to_Christianity, a dispute which Cleo123 lost and twice refusing to accept the outcome of mediation (against him) and insulted the mediators, and got his tag-teaming friend User:Bus_stop indef-banned for disruption, incivility, tendentious editing among other vices (The mediator back then already noted Cleo123 has a tendency to misstate facts and "twist other's words in obvious ways", this is just another example). Don't worry, RFC is coming in a few days once I find the time to assemble the factoids, hope you'll all participate. Tendancer (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please, provide some links for these less than civil allegations. Cleo123 (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of BLP

The above user has proven that they are using a misinterpretation of BLP to make unnecessary changes. Look at this current string of actions which incorporates WP:CHILD, a policy that has nothing to do with pages on notable children - here, here, and here. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The editor in question has on more than one occasion cited a non-existent policy that notability requires "wide notability" (an undefined term) and stating that notability should be established by national sources, a statement which is in no way supported by policy. I believe the editor in question would be very well advised to review the policies in questions, and, should they wish to make changes to those policies, to request such on the talk pages of the relevant policies, rather than by fiat elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Kossack4Truth disruption on the Barack Obama talk page

User:Kossack4Truth is someone I've generally agreed with on the Talk:Barack Obama page, but this behavior is now more of a hindrance to all of us.

A little while ago, LotLE added a comment on the talk page that attacked me. [101]

I ignored it, and other editors asked him to remove it. [102] and [103]

Wisely, he did. [104]

Today, Kossack4Truth took LotLE's removed comment and added it back to the page, then posted K4T's own message condemning it. [[105]]. Touching LotLE's comments on the talk page violates WP:CIVIL as pointed out here and this kind of behavior is so over the top that the relevant WP:TALK section doesn't even contemplate it.

LotLE then removed his own comment again. [106]

One might get the impression that K4T is simultaneously trying to provoke two editors into a fight. When you think about it, it's actually pretty creative. Also destructive, disruptive and pretty damn far from encyclopedia building. I thought about leaving a note on his talk page, but I'm not going to bother. I'll notify him, and LotLE, that I've left a note here. Admins, please do something about this. If we had administrators continuing to watch the shenanigans going on at the Barack Obama and related articles, this would already have been dealt with. Noroton (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor comments

I'm inclined to block for at least 48+ hours for this kind of provocation, especially as the editor already has two blocks (both for edit warring -24 hrs, and 48 hrs) and the ongoing problems surrounding the Obama article. But I would prefer to get a sense of the community for how long it should be. What say you? R. Baley (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is not the first time he has appeared on ANI and elsewhere, and given this is more of a longer-term abuse issue, I would recommend at a minimum, a 55-hour block that would increase with each offence. seicer | talk | contribs 04:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• • I was thinking it should be higher myself, but given the lack of admins/editors who want to deal with this stuff so far, I'm not sure what the level of community support is. R. Baley (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • I'm uninvolved with the situation -- outside of reading the comments here at ANI and at the talk pages, and wouldn't mind watching the pages when I am back at home. seicer | talk | contribs 05:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Wow, I've seen (and been a part of) a heated discussion in my short time here, but this really surpasses anything I've seen. I agree with the initial post that it appears he was trying to provoke two editors into a fight. This is extremely disruptive, and counterproductive to the mission of the project, which is creating good content. As I'm just dipping my toe into thinking about these kind of issues, I'm not sure how much weight my opinion carries, but I would think a much longer block (on the order of 1 week or so) would be in order. This prevents both further disruption, and would (hopefully) allow the conversation at the page in question to proceed more productively. In the alternative, perhaps a total topic ban might be in order, which would at least accomplish the latter of the two objectives. S. Dean Jameson 05:03, 5 July 200
• Mastcell already blocked for 72 hours. Beat me to it. I'd suggest the next incident results in an immediate page ban of at least one month. Any support for this?. Barak Obama now on my watch list. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  Per my above comment, I'd definitely support a long page ban for this editor. S. Dean Jameson 14:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support 6 month topic ban for Kossack4Truth per MastCell and FCYTravis below. R. Baley (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Involved editor comments

• The other Barack Obama article-related thread on this page is here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WorkerBee74 on Obama page, yet again. It links to some previous ones. I think there have been about six over the past six weeks. I welcome seicer's eyes, but the talk page generates an enormous amount of volume and the bad behavior has sometimes spread to related pages. I've suggested in the past that a group of admins watch it because the page is crazy and big. Noroton (talk) 05:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Noroton and I don't agree on some Obama content issues, but I completely agree with his bringing this here, and with his request for an increase in admin involvement in dealing with disruption on the Talk page which has also included possible vote-stacking. Tvoz/talk 05:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• If it's worth anything, I would advocate for a longer term topic ban—e.g. for three months —instead of any outright block. This duration seemed to be rough consensus of admins on an earlier AN/I report (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Barack Obama pages). K4T has predominantly edited Obama related article, and mostly been disruptive doing so. However, his/her contributions to other areas seem to be productive and reasonable. Ideally, s/he could continue to do useful things elsewhere on WP. LotLE×talk 07:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Since I've looked in on behavioral issues on this page in the past, I've blocked Kossack4Truth for 72 hours, essentially for the reasons outlined by Noroton in the initial post in this thread. In doing so, I note a long history of focused advocacy-driven and disruptive editing by Kossack4Truth on pages relating to Barack Obama. I had previously proposed a topic ban for this editor, and he apparently took a voluntary, though relatively brief, break from Obama-related pages. I would support a formal 3- to 6-month topic ban as well-earned at this point, but will leave that for further discussion and for another admin to implement if there's consensus for it. MastCell ^Talk 07:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Concur with topic ban proposal. The user has shown that he/she is fundamentally incapable of editing articles relating to Barack Obama in a collegial manner. FCYTravis (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This witch hunt is unbelievable. With the exception of this one incident, there is exactly zero indication that since returning from his 22-day "relatively brief" Wikibreak, K4T has done anything except demonstrate exemplary collegial conduct. Here is what actually happened, without the spin-doctoring:

1. K4T takes a Wikibreak from Obama related articles.

2. LotLE posts an endless series of snide remarks, personal attacks and false accusations against Noroton and WB74.

3. Noroton approaches LotLE and requests removal of the false accusation against Noroton. LotLE complies, but he leaves his personal attacks and false accusations against WB74 intact.

4. Since he is on Wikibreak, K4T is unaware of Event #3.

5. Upon his return, K4T notices LotLE's attacks against WB74 and starts going through LotLE's diffs on the page, copying all of his snide remarks, personal attacks and false accusations, including the one against Noroton that had been refactored.

6. K4T posts all of these excerpts as part of a warning to LotLE to stop making such offensive remarks or he will be reported.

7. And MastCell blocks ... K4T ?!?!?

That was the last straw. WorkerBee74 (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee74, you're absolutely right that other editors on that page have been responsible for some bad behavior. But K4T's response was essentially to bring a gun to a knife fight. Since some admins have shown a willingness to watch the page and get some perspective, the thing to do is present problems to them and bring along some diffs for evidence. The thing not to do is respond in kind and worse. The Talk:Barack Obama page doesn't function well as a behavior-changing noticeboard, and its function as an article-changing forum is hurt when we use it that way. I blame myself for responding to some bad behavior by occasionally scolding the parties on that talk page in the heat of argument, and I hope that bad example didn't influence K4T. I've apologized for doing that. Wikipedia has a system for dealing with bad behavior. Either deal with the frustrations of Wikipedia's barely navigable, clunky, stalling, backfiring, inefficient, inadequate, bruising, exhausting, often rude and sometimes perverse dispute resolution system or put up with some of the abuse or walk away. Lowering the tone of the page even further is a worse option. Noroton (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec):::During K4T's self-declared break from the Obama article he filed a bogus AN/I report to try to get one editor blocked / banned on a false accusation of lying and edit warring on the Obama page,[107], left an uncivil notice about the foregoing on the editor's page[108] and another involved editor's page,[109], defended an apparent sockpuppet against evidence of sockpuppetry on the pages by repeating an odd hypothetical having to do with racism and rape,[110][111] repeated his taunt that people he opposed on the Obama pages were "Obama fanboys" and accused one of "false allegations" while accusing administrators dealing with the matter of "censorship",[112] accused them of POV pushing, "revenge", and again of lying,[113] asked another editor to represent his interests on the page,[114] agitated on an administrator's talk page over the issue[115] accused then of "whining", holding discussions hostage, bad faith, and lying yet again,[116], and again[117] and again,[118] jumped into an edit war on a related article to support edits for which WorkerBee74 had just been blocked,[119] filed an inaccurate[120] and apparently retaliatory[121] 3RR report against one of the editors WorkerBee74 had been edit warring against leading to that block, got into some kind of edit war in another politics-related article and was referred to AN/I for that,[122] made uncivil accusations and began meatpuppeting yet another tendentious editor,[123] As soon as he did return to the Obama article he immediately began baiting and accusing other editors on the talk page,[124] initiated another edit war (see WorkerBee74 AN/I rerpot above) by breaking the agreement to avoid making changes to a particular section until consensus was reached,[125] then made the edits for which he was just blocked. The "break" from the Obama talk page was in name and form only - he continued the pattern of aggressiveness on the matter of Obama, just on different pages. The time on other articles does not seem to have changed his outlook or behavior on the matter. When he (and WorkerBee74) returned the tone of the page rapidly deteriorated, and the consensus that was building seemed at least for the moment was jeopardized.Wikidemo (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"Since he is on Wikibreak, K4T is unaware of Event #3"

K4T was not on a Wikibreak. He has clearly been monitoring the discussion and contributing by proxy (just 8 days into the "break") so it is not unreasonable to assume he was aware of the comments. Also, these comments were not aimed at K4T in the first place, so I'm not sure why he felt it was necessary to re-light a fire which had already been put out. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the comments occurred on LotLE's User Talk page rather than Talk:Barack Obama, it is most definitely unreasonable to assume he was aware of the comments. But I see that all of the Obama campaign volunteers have arrived to ensure that any admin reviewing the block is deceived into believing it has "broad community support." WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that would seem to be a pretty blatant personal attack. Not everyone who disagrees with you (and Kossack) is an "Obama campaign volunteer." We're just editors who happen to find Kossack's action in this case (and previous ones) completely unacceptable. Before noticing this thread, I was completely uninvolved, just for the record. S. Dean Jameson 18:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It disgusts me that LotLE was the one posting personal attacks and false accusations, but K4T was the one who was blocked 72 hours for warning LotLE to stop. No good deed goes unpunished. And LotLE is still here unblocked, urging admins to take even more draconian action against K4T for warning LotLE to stop making personal attacks. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

He seemed to be intentionally reopening bitter wounds by readding a retracted statement. This combined with his history at Barack Obama makes the block completely justified, in my view. S. Dean Jameson 19:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If you'd bothered to read his explanation on his Talk page, you'd have seen that he was unaware it had been retracted, or that he was reopening anything. But I see that he's deleted all that and hung out a "Retired" sign, so you got what you wanted: K4T is gone, and the Barack Obama Whitewash Brigade remains. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'll ask you again to stop with personal attacks. I've made not one edit to Barack Obama or Talk:Barack Obama. How am I part of the "Barack Obama Whitewash Brigade"? I came to this with an open mind, as a completely uninvolved editor. S. Dean Jameson 20:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

We really need to do something about WorkerBee74 as well. This one has been socking under IP accounts, name calling, incessantly accusing people of lying, edit warring, antagonizing, calling perceived opponents "Obama campaign volunteers", dragging neutral third parties into the accusations for trying to keep the peace, and the like for more than a month and is a large part of the incivility - a few days ago blanking the article inadvertently in an attempt to edit war from a cell phone. The two of them have been enabling and joining in each other's disruption for some time and show no sign of letting up. Repeated warnings and blocks have done no good, obviously. All that is very clear if you look at the edit histories and this page's archives. Wikidemo (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's plausible that K4T made a mistake in not seeing that LotLE removed that comment. It's also a point in K4T's favor that other comments by LotLE remain on the page, even now (something I hadn't realized until now -- the comments K4T were quoting came from 2-3 different spots on the page). It's also true that K4T's decision to post that on the talk page was harmful. I think this is worth considering. I think the subsection "LotLE's recent behavior" that I'm posting below also puts it in some context. I don't claim to know what would be appropriate for a block length or a topic ban. Noroton (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

LotLE's recent behavior

I took a look at Kossack4Truth's (K4T's) recent comments on his talk page (here and here; since replaced with a "retired" sign). I see I was inaccurate in my initial posting here: I thought K4T's scolding post simply added back the single LotLE posting that attacked WorkerBee74 and me. Since LotLE had taken that post down, I thought the problem with LotLE had been solved, at least for now, by LotLE himself. But that's not true.

K4T took LotLE quotes from different spots, and LotLE still hasn't taken down those (they're on the page right now). And they are also venemous attacks:

• I take it the 2-1/2 editors swipe refers to WorkerBee74 as the "1/2", which is a nasty insult; the "condemnatory enough" is impolite. I'm happy to skip 'nonetheless', it probably even reads better without it. 'Although'... well, I suppose 'While' would be OK also. Generally the wording is very nice. It's all moot though, however, since there are 2-1/2 editors who will never be satisfied that wording is long enough or condemnatory enough. LotLE×talk 21:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC) diff

• Accusing another editor of want[ing] the article to be as negative, even slanderous, as possible is a personal attack. LotLE is also urging editors to move away from discussion and simply impose their will on the page, although even when he posted this various editors were working together constructively, so this post was disruptive, as well. I'd forgotten it, but when he talks about his/her goal is to prevent a "rough consensus" is actually a personal attack; have no complaint about his other comments about me, because simply being a bit snide and inaccurate isn't worth considering here, and I was willing to ignore them: Workerbee74—who has happily been blocked for a few days (not long enough, but it's a start)—simply wants the article to be as negative, even slanderous, as possible, apparently out of a political antipathy to its subject. Those "concerns" can most certainly never be addressed within an encyclopedic article, so our only choice is to simply disregard and ignore any comments by him/her. Noroton seems primarily concerned with an avenue for his/her long political essays (probably 30k words on the topic by now, far in excess of every other editor; probably all others combined). I have suggested with a genuine absence of ill-will that a better forum for these long essays is a personal blog, or other opinion publication. A WP talk page is just not an appropriate place for this type of material. In any case, it appears that his/her goal is to prevent a "rough consensus" from settling, because doing so would remove the justification for the continued essays. So please everyone, just let the discussion fall silent. Let's use this talk page for productive discussion, and let the article keep it's perfectly neutral and concise version of the Rezko material. Dont' feed the trolls. LotLE×talk 18:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC) diff

If these were occasional, in the heat of argument, and not representative of LotLE's contribution to the discussion about Rezko (or below, mostly about Ayers), then I'd discount them quite a bit -- but they're a significant proportion of the occasional comments that LotLE has contributed to the discussion about Rezko; they aren't in response to someone attacking him, and the one removal of his one attack, at the request of other editors, wasn't accompanied by removing any other attacks on WorkerBee74, who's made some solid contributions to that talk page (it's obviously not a competition, but WB74's contributions are a lot more focused on the subject matter than LotLE's, from what I've seen).

I've previously brought up two of these quotes at AN/I [126], and I'm posting them again to show that it's a continuing problem, not a flash in the pan (a two-week break from the Obama page was suggested at one point, but LotLE was never issued a block or even a warning for these, and I never asked for one, but I did bring it up):

• LotLE edit that's relatively mild: 17:13, 2 June 2008 diff

• LotLE edit I removed (it was in response to an edit I made which ended with me saying he was guilty of some of what he was accusing others of, it's worth looking at in context on the page) 17:40, 2 June 2008 diff
• LotLE edit I partially removed (quoted because it's short): The problem with Noroton's characterization is that it is at best WP:OR, and at worse an outright lie. [...] LotLE×talk 00:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC) diff of the removal
• Another LotLE edit worth looking at: 08:21, 6 June 2008 this diff seems to encompass the whole comment

On a page that's had a lot of harsh words, these rank with the harshest. In context, they brought down the level of discussion, although just about every contributor to that talk page has probably made comments they regretted (including me). This amounts to continued, disruptive behavior that clearly led to Kossack4Truth's response, and WorkerBee74 is right to be annoyed that it hasn't been dealt with. I think administrators should consider his behavior as contributing to the ongoing bad atmosphere on that page. Noroton (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You're too late, Noroton. You got rid of K4T, which is what they wanted. The only way you're going to get anybody's attention is if you demand sanctions against me too. The people who are here to whitewash the Obama article get a free pass. (No Jameson, I'm not talking about you. Let me spell that out for you.) WorkerBee74 (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You're doing a great job of making sure no one listens to you, WorkerBee. Noroton, I see the issue you're describing; what do you propose we do about it? MastCell ^Talk 23:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I was afraid I'd be asked that. I don't know what to do about it, specifically. I'd like to see what he has to say about it. I'm not an admin and I don't pay much attention to what kind of sanctions tend to be given for what kind of behavior. I do know we need to stop this kind of behavior on that page, and LotLE has significantly contributed to that bad atmosphere. I see an attitude behind these comments that doesn't seem to recognize that people who disagree with him about Obama are sincere and worth listening to (somebody please correct me if there's evidence to the contrary). Either some kind of civility restriction, which would have to be monitored, perhaps with a mentor, or simply topic banning him until after the election. I'd like to see what other editors familiar with the page think about that. If he can't take down the attacks on WorkerBee that are still on the page, I'd give him a block for incivility. I can accept whatever editors on this page want to do about it, as long as the problem is addressed and, going forward, we've got some reason to believe the Obama talk page and related pages will be more civil. Noroton (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This is worth something: I just went to LotLE's talk page to inform him about this new subsection, and I read this there: [...] I apologize for initially making the overly hot-headed comment... the process has been frustrating for many editors, as I am sure you are aware. LotLE×talk 04:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC) That's a good sign. Noroton (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Watch and learn, Noroton. LotLE will get a free pass. He might get another useless warning on his Talk page which will be ignored and deleted. That's it. WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting to address question not directed to me) Thanks to Noroton for thinking to remind LotLE. As I understand it the goal of blocks and topic bans is to stop ongoing disruption and prevent likely future disruption. All to maintain a productive, civil editing environment. Many on the Obama page said something out of frustration, suspicion, etc. But will they cause disruption if they stay, and will removing them quell the trouble? That's a separate judgment to make in each case. We don't ban people out of fairness, punishment, setting examples, trying to be balanced, avoiding perceived article bias, other content concerns, etc. Nor do we avoid blocks simply because someone is a good writer. From my observation, LotLE and to some extent some others have been aggressive in their comments, and have the block history to show for that attitude. My hunch is that LotLE will probably be contentious in an unsupervised contentious environemnt, but will not initiate trouble where none exists. WB74 has had many chances and after a month and counting is still repeating the very taunts that nearly earned a ban a month ago. He/she seems unable or unwilling to edit one of Wikipedia's most important articles without attacking peers. But that's just my hunch. If there's anything short of removing these editors that will ensure calm (and assuming no proven sock puppetry), that's preferable. I can't think of anything but there are wiser editors here than me! Wikidemo (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I respond out of frustration when well-established practice on WP biographies and quotes from WP policy, are ignored in a campaign to keep anything resembling criticism out of the article. A lot of work has been done by Noroton, by me and by others and we have proven WP:NPOV and well established practice require us to give criticism as much space as it's been given in comparable articles. Responses? Relentless personal attacks, false accusations, badgering, baiting, and lies about policy and the facts. When anyone responds out of frustration to the baiting, the lies and the personal attacks, you come running to WP:ANI. WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this editor accusing me yet again of lying and abusing AN/I process? That would be at least the 5th or 6th time in a few days. If not, exactly who is he accusing of lying (not to mention the other things)? Wikidemo (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It's most peculiar how you have always come running to WP:ANI after any real or imagined slight from Noroton, WB74 or K4T, but you never seem to notice the outrageous misconduct of such editors as LotLE until someone points it out for you. Please explain, WD: if you now concede LotLE has been "contentious" (another impressive understatement), why have you never reported him? WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that question is predicated on an untrue premise and seems rhetorical so I won't respond. I've given my opinion of WorkerBee74 and LotLE's prospects for good behavior, and I'll leave it for any willing administrator to make of it what they will in fashioning a course of action.Wikidemo (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice dodge. Like I said: watch and learn, LotLE will get a free pass. He was baiting everybody who disagrees with him; and now that someone has taken the bait and been blocked for giving him a warning, he posts a bogus apology and expects others to clear away any remaining bait. Then he'll wait for the next inevitable content dispute and start putting out bait again. Classic passive aggressive behavior. WorkerBee74 (talk) 10:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

As I mentioned to Noroton before much of this current AN/I discussion happened, I regret having adopted an uncivil tone at some points in the discussion. I think he did not see my talk page comments until the last couple hours. The comment on my talk page was this:

Thank you! Your report on ANI is very reasoned and calm, and I appreciate that you are working toward a good article and willing to consider compromises. I apologize for initially making the overly hot-headed comment... the process has been frustrating for many editors, as I am sure you are aware. LotLE×talk 04:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If there are any comments I have made on Talk:Obama or elsewhere that any editors feel continue to inflame the discussion, I authorize their removal, and will thank editors for doing so. LotLE×talk 01:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Translation: "I don't want be bothered. Clean up my mess." Would this be an awkward time to bring up the fact that LotLE retaliated against an editor who disagreed with him in a content dispute, by posting that editor's real name? Isn't that some sort of serious policy violation? WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The previous comment is typically inflammatory and unnecessary, seeing as it is in response to an apology - as well as misleading. The post WorkerBee refers to was the editor's extremely common first name and last initial only. Perhaps not the best move, but hardly "that editor's real name". (And it was readily available to all with information the aggrieved editor had posted himself on his user page.) I'm not defending the post, just clarifying for readers that it was not as WorkerBee chose to describe it. Tvoz/talk 05:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The goal of any administrative activity is to prevent disruption and improve the editing environment. It is always preferable for an editor to see that their behavior was causing problems and to voluntarily amend it than to have them blocked, banned, etc. In that sense, LotLE's apology is a step in the right direction, though of course it needs to be substantiated by a visible commitment to civil interaction and lowering the thermostat wherever possible. I don't know what other admins' practices are, but I'm not about to sanction someone for something they've just finished apologizing for. If actions don't follow the words, then that's a different story.

When an editor apologizes and authorizes anyone interested to remove any of their posts which are deemed inflammatory, it reflects remarkably poorly on WorkerBee74 to spin this as "Translation: I don't want to be bothered. Clean up my mess." In the end, one of you at least provides a reason to think their behavior might improve, while the other confirms that they'll view this as a WP:BATTLE to the last, no matter what olive branches are extended. Is that how you want this to play out? MastCell ^Talk 18:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I told you so

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Barack_Obama_pages#Kossack4Truth_banned. That was the last individual editor that was left on the list (made by Scarian and myself) who needed to be sanctioned in this area. What else can I say? Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you did tell us so. You were right. In looking over that three- and four-week-old page, I see suggestions then for months-long topic bans based on behavior up to that point, including a long topic ban for Kossack4Truth and something short for LotLE. In light of the more recent behavior, what do you think is appropriate now? Noroton (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If Kossack voluntarily found a completely different (non-controversial) article area to be involved would be a great step forward. Wikipedia isn't the place for edit warring or controversy. I'd suggest another voluntary wiki-break for K4T from Obama. He was doing so well staying away from it. Perhaps this next wiki-break from the article area could be permanent? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

K4T was not doing well staying away and arguably not away at all - please see my summary above under the "block" subheading of a dozen and a half disruptive article-related edits during the self-described break. "Voluntary" is not going to cut it - the editor's blown at least half a dozen chances in the past few weeks to reform on his own. If the "retired" message truly means retired, fine... but there has been a lot of game playing and strong hints of sock puppetry. Are we going to have to start this whole thing up again from scratch if he does it again? Wikidemo (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit concerned that we will soon see a newly created account making all the arguments of K4T, in the same tone, on the same pages. Any advice on what to do if that happens? LotLE×talk 04:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:SSP first. Otherwise, leave a post here on ANI. But he's retired, for now anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You know what would work well here: something similar to the ArbCom remedy used on Derek Smart topic banning the user and all surrogates of the user (i.e., suspected sockpuppets advancing substantially the same arguments as the user). That way, you don't even need to go through a complicated process every time you see a newly created account making the arguments of K4T. The first time they make the edit, you revert and inform them of the sanction on surrogates. The second time they do it, you block the account for a short time, and warn them that they are topic banned from that area. If they violate the topic ban again, they're indefinite blocked. Simple.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 13:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The enforcement instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart were pretty intelligently laid out (and repeated at the top of Talk:Derek Smart). They only applied to SPAs, and they cautioned against mechanical enforcement. When you start talking about "surrogates" or any account "making the arguments of K4T" or "advancing substantially the same arguments as the user", whose arguments overlapped with many of my wise, finely tuned and always reasonable comments, we start getting into territory that a number of people are going to call censorship in a prominent article that's already received media coverage for its editing. As I understand it, it was never so much K4T's opinions that were a problem so much as his incivility and edit warring. Every new account that shows up on that talk page is going to get a colorectal exam from the editors there, given the past history of comments there about SPAs and IP accounts. When we concentrate on discussions there rather than votes, that kind of bad behavior is even more weakened. I think demanding that reverting editors get themselves over to the talk page before reverting further, maybe linking in the edit summary to a Derek Smart-type of statement at the top of the talk page about 1RR or 2RR restrictions on the page, would help. Noroton (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee74 again

In the last 12 hours or so, WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) despite this conversation and after a month-long history of the same (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive440#Repeated incivility by User:WorkerBee74 (also a SPA), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive438#WorkerBee74, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/WorkerBee74, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/WorkerBee74, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive442#WorkerBee74 on Obama page, yet again), edit warring[127][128][129][130] and contentious comments. Removed edit war caution from talk page[131] and responds on an editor's page with the same taunts and AGF violations discussed above[132] ("Barack Obama whitewash brigade", "obstruct this material until after the election (their obvious goal)"). Plus this contribution to the above:[133] ("nice dodge", "bogus apology", "classic passive-aggressive behavior"). Wikidemo (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's been made pretty clear to WorkerBee74 that his attitude has been an ongoing distraction for the rest of us trying to edit the encyclopedia. Some of his arguments at Talk:Barack Obama have been sound and useful, but I'm not sure too many people are taking them in, given the stuff pouring out of the abuse spigot. Why not give him a final warning, and if that doesn't work, a very long block? Noroton (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggest a topic ban for Levine2112

Resolved

 – ScienceApologist blocked for edit-warring. Insufficient evidence to suggest topic ban is needed for Levine2112. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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

I suggest a topic ban for User:Levine2112 from articles having to do with alternative medicine. This user has exhausted community patience. See the incessant disruption at Talk:Quackwatch, Talk:Atropa belladonna, and Talk:Chiropractic. He seriously prevents discussions from moving forward, is tendentious, and generally one of the worst examples of an editor we have. We've discussed this option before, but Levine2112 has just gotten worse. Please, someone needs to do something. He's driving good editors away. Also note that many of the article talk pages that Levine2112 has been disrupting are covered under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy and Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I took a quick look at those pages, but didn't see the "incessant disruption" that is being referred to. I'd also point out that anyone who says that such an editor is "one of the worst examples of an editor we have," needs to get out more, because I see much much worse, dozens of times a day. Or in other words, ScienceApologist, can you please provide a few specific diffs? Otherwise this would seem to be a violation of the "bad faith" ruling from your ArbCom case. Thanks, Elonka 19:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious, Elonka? Editors who make flagrant abuses are much easier to control than the civil POV-pusher that is Levine2112. Check it out, he is Wikilawyering right now at Atropa belladonna. I have patiently explained to him that we need to establish WP:PROMINENCE for a fringe subject to be included in an article that is not strictly about the fringe subject. There are megabytes worth of text where he essentially thrusts his fingers in his ears. We have policy on it. Levine2112 rejects for reasons I cannot begin to ascertain. The last few sections of quackwatch is basically a case study in how he trolls on Talk:Quackwatch. What has he added to the project? What is his purpose EXCEPT to disrupt? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidence that Levine exists solely to disrupt

• just a revert
• just a revert
• threatening another user
• WikiLawyering a closed case
• just a revert
• just a revert
• WikiLawyering a closed case
• Reporting a user for 3RR that he baited
• Removing comments from a user he is baiting as vandalism
• A disruptive comment, to be sure

Etc., etc.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know all the ins and outs of it, but I do know how you have described the diffs above is your own interpretation and in the case of what you call a threat, I can't see how that can be seen as a threat as all. Even if you disagree with Levine, he has been here for years, and to survive here this long he clearly has not been seen as being here solely to disrupt. Sticky Parkin 21:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see these prior discussions:

1. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Levine2112 (Durova's comment towards the end is particularly apt)
2. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive287#real-life_identity_outted
3. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive380#Vandalism_by_Classic_Tendentious_Editor

Levine2112 is an inveterate edit warrior and single purpose account whose purposes on Wikipedia revolve around pushing pro-altmed

POV and painting Stephen Barrett in the most negative possible light. In addition to several blocks, he was

de-Twinkled for using automated tools to edit war. There have been several prior

discussions about what to do about him, none of which came to consensus. This is a real problem. It is driving serious, encyclopedia-minded editors away from the articles he camps out on. Skinwalker (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I have looked through those diffs, and I'm not seeing the same thing that ScienceApologist is. I did see one place where Levine2112 got into an edit war on his own talkpage, where Ronz kept putting a comment there, Levine kept removing it, and in one of those removals, Levine called it vandalism. Levine then reported the situation at 3RR, which both I and another admin felt was unnecessary. Both Ronz and Levine have been cautioned, and I don't see any further action required at this time.

It is my feeling that ScienceApologist is skating the line of his ArbCom restrictions right now, so my advice to SA would be to drop this, unless he has a new and blatant violation by Levine2112. If not, take it somewhere else please, as ANI is not the proper venue for this dispute. --Elonka 23:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(followup) ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 24 hours by Scarian (talk · contribs), for edit-warring. I recommend closing this thread. --Elonka 23:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your careful attention to the issue. I recommend reading Talk:Quackwatch and its associated archives, if you can summon the time and patience. Skinwalker (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the time and patience to do a full on defense of Levine, nor do I really have a ton of experience with him, but I do have experience with SA. I've yet to see him add a reference. A reading of the diffs that he provides (we might assume that he's posted the worst of them) shows him reacting fairly civilly to insults and edit-warring.

• what SA calls "a threat" is actually Levine counseling Ronz to be try and be more civil (diff).
• Wikilawyering a closed case? If an editor has an interest in keeping up discussion on something, it is not closed.
• Several of the reverts deal with Levine reverting the hiding of Levine's comments. Per Talk, messing with other user's comments is highly discouraged.
• The 3RR is, as Scarian noted, an example of silly behavior by both Ronz and Levine, but that has nothing to do with Alt. Med. disruption.

An illustrative example of SA's behavior happened at Quackwatch the other day: ScienceApologist reverted back a couple dozen edits, which used sources and RS/N for outside counsel, using Twinkle (so it was automatically tagged minor). When we objected that these would have to be taken apart piece by piece, he proceeded to edit war until he was blocked. I opened a "Compromise" discussion a couple days ago, requesting that we start discussing the offensive material piece by piece. The responses have been done without even reading what I've written, and no sources have been brought up. II 23:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is the proper venue for discussing Levine2112's behavior. He has an extremely long and consistent history of misbehavior in Wikipedia, breaking policies and guidelines too numerous to list here. The fact that he gets away with misrepresenting others in this case is nothing compared to his other misbehavior. I'll participate in any RfC/U (or the eventual, necessary ArbComm) about him to detail the many, many times he's been cautioned, warned, etc for misbehaving. --Ronz (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Levine2112 has a pattern of misbehaving. But what is his motivation? Levine2112 does not like Stephen Barrett. The strong evidence is below.

Levine2112 claims Stephen Barrett is a crook! Personally I find Bolen's site much more reliable than anything a crook such as Barrett has ever put out there.

False allegations by Levine2112. - make no mistake about it - he is also a paid attack-dog.

More false allegations. Talk about a scam.

Libel and personal attack by Levine2112. Very interesting. The more you dig, the dirtier Barrett gets.

What are the motivations of Levine2112 who is a chiropractor true believer. I too have noted an excessive use of links to Barrett's sites all around Wikipedia. I would like to see this minimized too.

Stephen Barrett criticizes the chiropractic profession and Levine2112 does not like that.

Levine2112 has acknowledged his motivations for his editing behaviour on various Quackwatch related articles. A topic ban is the next step. QuackGuru 17:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that those comments by Levine2112 were unacceptable; however, I would point out that they are from 2006. Administrators are not going to take action against an editor for something he did two years ago. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. If you have recent diffs of problematic behavior, please bring them forward, otherwise, please drop this, as diffing something from two years ago is fairly disruptive. Pretty much every editor on Wikipedia has had moments where they said something inappropriate. In most cases, editors calm down, learn from mistakes, and move on. If someone doesn't learn from their mistakes, then we can block or ban them. But as long as someone's behavior is currently civil and constructive, I see no reason to take administrative action. --Elonka 20:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This evidence does not support a topic ban against Levine2112. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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

User Arcayne & His Multiple Oxford Degrees

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

IP blocked for 48 hours for harassment; no other administrative action necessary; further such attacks on this user from dynamic IP's should probably be dealt with expeditiously in the future. MastCell ^Talk 18:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Where is the proper place to discuss the posturing use of "Superior Authority" on Wiki? Arcayne, a self-proclaimed poly-degreed Oxon with 18,000 edits in 22 months can be, indeed is, a formidable Wikipedian exerting a vast influence on the quality and tone of this entire project. Here is the meat of the complaint:

Editor Arcayne (talk · contribs) has claimed not one, but Two, degrees from Oxford - and has claimed to have written several books [The two, of several he lists on his User page that he claims to have been published are Love Songs and Other Mysteries (1991) and Bad Choice (1989) - For which no ISBN numbers exist to link to ...] and has made just a hair under Eighteen Thousand edits[134] in 22 months at Wiki.

As he has frequently invoked the "Superior Authority" of his multiple Oxford degrees and education and on numerous occasions brandished his Oxford academic honors to defend and enshrine his edits in Wikipedia and to eliminate the need for discussion, this is having a very strong influence on many articles and editors - and are riddled with ignorant errors:

"With respect, I went to Oxford, so i am fairly well aware of Brit English...penultimate being the climax of the story."[135] - Arcayne

"Regarding the 'penultimate' stuff - not worries - as I said, it's just a word. I always thought is was used as next to the end, as in right before the ending. A slightly different meaning has become popular, like how the original phrase "buck naked" (meaning, naked as a male deer) becoming mispronounced so often that now people say "butt-naked". It would render me a crabby old man to decry the loss of the word meanings. It was also make me something of a jerk. Words evolve. - Arcayne 14:34, 3 July 2008"

"I did attend Oxford. I did graduate from there with the two degrees I have previously noted"[136] - Arcayne

These are the two degrees Arcayne previously noted:

the EU is not a single nation, nor is the UN or UAE. They are actually something called NGO's, or non-governmental organizations. - Arcayne

The EU is nothing BUT a governmental organization. Its purpose is to politically unite the countries within the European Community. ... it is a united entity. Ditto the UAE. Kapowow

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the EU is not an NGO? ... If you consider me throwing my political science and international relations degrees at you to be derogatory, then I have to say that I am sorry you feel that way. I am not a potted plant; I know the policies of which I speak,'' ... - Arcayne[137]

Surely Wikipedia has a policy for those such as Arcayne, who are able to place 18,000 edits in 22 months using his Superior Authority" as an Oxfordian with multiple degrees to bluff and cajole in an effort to "Win" for winnings sake.

Wiki must have greater, more idealistic, purpose than to simply be a place to facilitate and support fantastical self-aggrandizement. 75.57.205.135 (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

[citation needed] - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

How come al of these nonregistereds hate User:Arcayne so much?? Its kind of creating me out!!! Smith Jones (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to take a giant leap of faith and assume the initial post here is sincere. If so, the solution is simple. Cease being intimidated when people mention their degrees and the institutions at which they've studied. It's not that hard, especially on Wikipedia where the default position is suspicion of any sort of real-life expertise. MastCell ^Talk 23:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe I'm the only non-registered user to post here RE:Arcayne. My purpose in participating in Wiki is to move the project forward without regard to the Social Networking uses of the site. My complaint regarding Arcayne is that he damages the mission through the false and self-centered nature of his words and actions. Fraudulently misrepresenting oneself in an effort to further ones effectiveness and "win" - while employing patently false arguments based soley upon ones claim to "Superior Authority" is a violation of all social norms and is a gross violation of Wiki trust. It is unacceptable behavior that harms the very foundation of Wikipedia. It is in and of itself a profound violation of the communities trust that one operate in "Good Faith". 75.57.205.135 (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that in each and every one of the examples from Arcayne above, he brandishes his purported advanced academic credentials to support a position that has no greyness - he is simply, utterly, and childishly wrong. The EU is not an NGO, Arcayne's multiple post-graduate Oxford Degrees in Political Science and International Relations to the contrary. Nor does Penultimate mean Climax, no matter how much Arcayne wished that it did. Utterly and completely wrong, told so by large groups of fellow editors and he still forces the point based upon his "Superior Authority" as an "Expert." It harms the Wiki mission and violates the communities trust that others operate in Good Faith. 75.57.205.135 (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Talking about "Wiki trust" is quite interesting when we take under consideration that you have been using a lot of IP addresses to edit war with him, you wouldn't believe how many times I have seen the "sysop abuse" drama-magnet being used here. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've claimed all of my Dynamic IP's. As was fully noted in your link. There is no violation of the rule, or even the spirit of the rule. All I am guilty of is not joining the Social Networking side of Wiki. My edits stand or fall on the merit of the idea's contained in them. After overcoming the institutional skepticism placed upon them as anonymous contributions. 75.57.205.135 (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not claiming sockpuppetry, you already admited working on these addresses. However, when the contributions of these accounts are reviewed its obvious that you aren't a victim like you claim in your argument, its evident that you two are involved in a content dispute. That being the case this is not the place to work with it, after all "this is not the Wikipedia complaints department", try WP:DR. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no content dispute. It's simple: Arcayne claims multiple advanced degrees from Oxford and uses this as the basis to close discussion and "win". The claims he has put forth are ludicrous and make a mockery of his purported intellectual pedigree.

That he makes these claims and by doing so forces false information into the Encyclopedia while bullying his fellow editors with lies is harmful to the mission, principles and spirit of Wikipedia. 75.57.205.135 (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what you expect to hear from someone involved in a content dispute, it should be noted that I actually reviewed the contributions of your other addresses, there are a lot of "Undid x version by Arcayne..." in them. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the anon's fifth unwarranted AN/I complaint against me. Clearly, he doesn't like me (not that it really matters to me, but I guess the 500-lb gorilla in the room needs to be noted). In each of his prior AN/I whine sessions, he has been advised, somewhat stringently that he needs to stop interacting with me. I have not sought him out. I have not created multiple IP account after multiple IP account - almost a dozen that I could find. And each one, almost without exception are attack pages directed at me. For an assumed superiority I feel from having attended the Ox and worked my ass off for two undergraduate degrees. Honestly, the only reason I would feel superior to any user is if they are solely content to use Wikipedia as an attack forum or to grind ut a personal agenda. This person has been proven to be using it as both since at least April of this year.

I would like to propose for the second time that, as the user 75.(et. al.) has used his post block time to create attack pages and generally disrupt Wikipedia, that his IP range be blocked. His continued personal attacks are simply disruptive. No one creates five ANI's against a specific user and devotes 8/10's of all their posts in attack. The most recent canvassing at the [of Oxford] and well as adding a saccharine apology to my user page with the Oxford userbox pretty much proves the point. I would very much like this particular troll shoved back under the bridge and the span covered in an indef ban. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Why would anyone be impressed by someone having a mere two college degrees?Edison (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually Arcayne claims three. In addition to the Oxford undergraduate degree in "Political Science" and the Oxford undergraduate degree in "International Relations" he claims an unspecified Associate degree as well. Perhaps Cambridge?. Only one small problem ... Oxford simply does not offer such courses, majors or degrees to undergraduates.[138] At Oxford one would study the very famous and long standing PPE. 75.57.205.135 (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I missed something. What administrator intervention is anyone looking for here? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

None. this is a vendetta by a non-reggie against User:Arcayne. There is nothing that any amdin could do hear except to try and take away Arcaye's college degrees whjich we cannot do as per WP:D Smith Jones (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Lying about ones academic credentials while using them to claim "Superior Authority" during article editing in order to mislead editors and enter patently false prose into the Encyclopedia is a gross and flagrant violation of "Good Faith". It undermines the mission of the project and fosters a culture of dishonesty. Administrators must choose to either accept that an editor with 8,000 edits in 22 months may lie at will without reprobation - and the insidious harm that results from it, or they must censure the individual and take a principled stand on community standards and the projects purpose. 75.57.205.135 (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I had been clear when I asked twice before; I am asking for the user to be range-blocked.

• The user has created no less than a dozen IP addresses (and admitted to by the anon at two different RfCU and previous AN/I), and virtually every edit from these anonymous addresses attack me personally or my edits.
• He has wasted this noticeboard's time in having filed or contributed substantially to no less than five frivolous AN/I complaints (1, 2, 3, 4) since April, and all of them are attacks towards me me. Of course, the anon has pointedly avoided notifying me of the AN/I posting.
• Luvasfbr also noted that a wikiquette alert was also filed by the anon a few weeks ago, though I was never notified of its existence (again) and cannot find it in the archives.
• He has disrupted Wikipedia with his multiple attack accounts, including going to wikiprojects where I have never made a single contribution ([139]) (he was correctly named as a troll there) and then further disrupting wikipedia by point-style adding a saccharine apology to my user page with the Oxford userbox.
• He appears to be seeking personal information about my educational background by questioning it (ie, calling my earned degrees "advanced" degrees knowing that the correction of noting they are undergraduate degrees). Because of this, I am very concerned that the attacking of my educational credentials is a subtle attempt to gain personal information about me.

These attempts are additional nuking expeditions by the anonymous user to poison the well of wiki opinion by calling me a liar, an "aggressive kiss-ass and political networking gladhander, etc. For the most part, the users here have suggested the venue of DR or simply walking away. To date, the anon has 'never pursued any avenue of DR, instead following me to articles and discussions where they have never contributed before, and then only to contribute stale arguments.

It was previously suggested I simply ignore the anon's effort, which, until recently, I have. However, I should not have to overlook the continuous, bad-faith efforts by an anon who pointedly refuses to set up a public face to his edits. He has argued in the past that as a public editor, he is doing this for ideological reasons (a reasoning strongly criticized by both Ed Fitzgerald and Bzuk in the previous AN/I's) or is encountering ISP problems. However, a careful look at his contributions notes that he only switches IP addresses to avoid restrictions placed upon his editing behavior. Despite the "ISP problem", he has managed to contribute with the same ISP here for the past few days - following exactly the same pattern his previous times at AN/I. The user can maintain a single IP address - he simply chooses not to. It is in this way that he is able to escape admin scrutiny and oversight and continue his attacks largely unabated.

I feel that even though range blocks are a fairly blunt instrument, it is required here. The user has used their post-block period to do little but attack another user. As the focus of that user, I find myself a little concerned for my personal safety, as the user appears to be seeking personal info about me. I am also concerned that the user has tried five different times to have the noticeboard, never once having notified me; a clear indication that the user is attempted to have me back-door blocked. It cannot be confirmed, but is reasonable to suspect, that this renewed attempt by the anon was inspired by Edokter's retracted block of a few days ago.

In conclusion, the anon user is not interested in contributing to the encyclopedia; they are interested in attacking me and having me removed from Wikipedia. Almost all of the anon's contributions have been personal attacks. This doesn't represent the goals that we set for our editors. The anon should not be allowed to continue harassing me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

A rather lengthy reply which conveniently fails to address in any way the most important point. In addition to an unspecified associate degree you claim an Oxford undergraduate degree in "Political Science" and an Oxford undergraduate degree in "International Relations". Except ... Oxford simply does not offer such courses, majors or degrees to undergraduates.[140] At Oxford one would study the very famous and long standing PPE. 75.57.205.135 (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, if I choose to be a little vague as to how my degrees are specifically noted (or that my associates' degree may or may not have been earned at my alma mater) in order to protect my privacy, I will do so. That you have taken a lot of care to explore my educational background demonstrates the need for that non-specificity. You aren't getting anything more specific, anon, no matter how many ANI complaints you fabricate. Hope that is clear enough for you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Portal:Current events

There is a lot of trouble with at least one IP removing perfectly good entries from the portal. Trouble is, they defend their actions and seem to feel that they fall within policy. Can someone more delicate than I (I'm getting kinda anoyed by now) have a go at putting things straight? Because the portal is rapidly ceasing to be the good at-a-glance update that it has always been. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted entries restored. Reasons given by IP are too vague to warrant such action. If the IP elaborates, then we'll reconsider, but in any case, the IP can't revert or it's a 3RR violation. —Kurykh 22:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

They're not perfectly good entries! Read guideline. Stories without English reference are not properly referenced. Stories about shooting in US is of regional or topical interest. And they don't belong to main pain of current events portal. Don't like the rule? re-write it. You don't like my reasoning? You don't give any reason at all! Am I elaborating enough? --87.198.133.62 (talk) 09:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

At it again. Request someone uninvolved to get involved and sort things out, please. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I restored the item about the Stockholm museeum being destroyed by fire. If that's not "important enough", we'd better scrap Wikipedia altogether. 213.50.111.114 (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the Milwaukee shooting is particularly world-news-worthy. Corvus cornix_talk 18:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Violation of WP:OWN on WP:RADWP

On Wikipedia:Radio Wikipedia, User:StewieGriffin! is trying to own the project. Among many other things, he has

• Raised the minimum of Episodes completed to be considered an actual staff member when Vhoscythe and I joined from 1...to 2...to 5 full episodes.

• Got mad at Gears of War because he couldn't listen to them via the internet, but "could comment about putting it on iTunes".

• Didn't want to put it on iTunes because "we can't track listeners there". Non-starter argument.

• "Didn't like it" because "You don't have my permission."

• Not in favor of uploading to iTunes, but "wanted to do it himself".

• And also made a childish poll with one of his arguments against saying, "one of the staff is against".

Would a topic ban be appropriate? Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban on what exactly? RADWP? Considering he's the only broadcaster, it would end the project. However, WP:OWN is a policy, and I will speak to the user about this again. No one can grant permission once it's released into the public domain; it's there for public use (hence the term). PeterSymonds (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

me, User:Red Thunder, User:Xenocidic and User:Vhoscythe contribute to the project. We can certainly carry on.

And yes, a topic ban from the page of WP:RADWP. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 00:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Stewie: Here are the options open to you:

• Broadcast only off Wikipedia from now on. If you wish to own your work, don't upload it here; simple.
• The same cannot apply to your previous broadcasts. You released those under a free license. You even said, and I quote, "this sound file is in the public domain".
• Permission is not something that exists for public domain work. PD is without limitation.
• If you do decide to withdraw your work, it will likely be continued in your absence by the contributors above.
• Let's see where this goes before a topic ban is implemented.

--PeterSymonds (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I simply said the fact that, I don't understand why we need it there. I prefer it here. Plus, with our website in development, that's just another source. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign Listen 09:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I also put up the episode limit because of one user just put them as staff. Every user who wants to be one, can't just put themselves as staff. Vhoscythe hadn't even hosted an episode! StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign Listen 09:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Raised the minimum of Episodes completed to be considered an actual staff member when Vhoscythe and Shapiros10 joined from 1...to 2...to 5 full episodes. Because of people just adding themselves as staff

• Got mad at Gears of War because he couldn't listen to them via the internet, but "could comment about putting it on iTunes". Yes, if he hasn't listened to these. How can he comment about iTunes.

• Didn't want to put it on iTunes because "we can't track listeners there". Non-starter argument. Subscribers are all well and good, but it is for Wikipedians, and we can see our listeners here

• "Didn't like it" because "You don't have my permission." For my reasons

• Not in favor of uploading to iTunes, but "wanted to do it himself". Because if it gained majority support, I would do it officialy, not Red Thunder's Media. And I would at least put the episodes up daily.

• And also made a childish poll with one of his arguments against saying, "one of the staff is against". To resolve this

I suggest Red Thunder renames the podcast and updates it daily. You can put my episodes on, but I will not be involved with this. I do not like the idea, and I will continue to upload it here. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign Listen 09:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, first off: you kept raising the limit when we actually met the criterion. What's up with that?

You don't have to be able to listen to it to comment on where it should go. I know for a fact that Gears of War can only play sound files using iTunes, so that's why he was able to comment, because he wanted to listen to them.

Seriously, why do we need to track our listeners? It's in the public domain.

And "your reasons" are a violation of WP:OWN.

Why, do you think you need to do everything officially just because you founded it? WP:OWN.

But the argument of "A staff member is against it". Do we vandalize because a WMF board member said so?

Stewie, I suggest still contributing to Radio Wikipedia, but not wanting to do everything yourself. And raise the Episode limit back to 2. Red Thunder has done only 4 so far. And Xenocidic hasn't done. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 12:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh my guys, come on. How about building the damn encyclopaedia instead of arguing between yourselves about a radio show about the encyclopaedia. What the?! Alex Muller 14:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to just chime in and agree with Alex on a point: Rather than spend time arguing, build the encyclopedia. On another point, I'd like to say Stewie has stated multiple times that as "Founder", "Head", etc, he holds the ability at his discretion to add, change, or remove various points of the episode and the main page. If the project was one's business, the situation would be different, but this is Wikipedia, and one doesn't hold the ability to exert power over others, especially if that power exertion goes against policy and/or consensus. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 19:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are some pretty disturbing diffs: [141] [142] [143] [144]

RedThunder 21:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, but are any of you actually asking for admin help with anything? We're not going to run your project for you. – ırıdescent 21:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No...just a topic ban from that page. I think that's an appropriate action. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 00:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I was about to say that. RADWP is a little project for Wikipedia news, why don't we stop wasting our time and actually contribute to the encyclopedia? StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign Listen 08:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Because you'll keep thinking you own in unless something is done. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 10:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed stalkish attack post

Resolved

 – Ranges blocked by Maxim and myself.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• 72.76.8.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 72.76.0.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) posted some seemingly concerned comments about David Shankbone who was sadly driven away from this project by wiki and real-world stalking. It directs to an offsite blog which seems to be nothing but the attack site of the stalker likely responsible for driving him away. Banjeboi 00:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Help please. 72.68.117.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is now attacking me as well. Is this a case of floating IP so we just have to revert and ignore? Banjeboi 01:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree as do many people with Benjiboi's description of why david left, this site and blog are unlikely to be his. If you do a 'whois' search on the domain it reveals that it was only created a month or less ago, and the person does not disclose their name etc even setting up the site, but use a proxy email or something which doesn't show their location. Sticky Parkin 02:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

David's own account of why he left (linked from his talk page) explains that he was being stalked. I don't dispute his account and indeed got residual nonsense likely from the same person who now seems to be back. Banjeboi 02:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Help please! they have nothing better to do apparently. Could someone at least semi-protect Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies? Banjeboi 02:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

A block on 72.76.8.234 would also be in order here. Banjeboi 02:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Maxim and myself have blocked the two Verizon ranges he had been using tonight to vandalize this thread and post the unwanted content at the talk page of the WikiProject.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, hopefully it's over. Banjeboi 03:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I semi-protected the wikiproject talk page for 36 hours before I learned of the range blocks. Accordingly, if the project wants to undo the protection just let me know and I'll unprotect or anyone else can. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please look at this comment left by an IP user on my talk page relating to David Shankbone: [145]. — Becksguy (talk) 04:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

See above: WP:ANI#Removed stalkish attack post. I've reverted this trolling and blocked the individual IP. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That particular IP was in one of the blocked ranges. This is resolved unless he finds a new IP within the next 12 hours.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This is what happens when you don't understand rangeblocks. Should I undo my block? -MBK₀₀₄ 04:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Leave it be. I'm pretty sure that if you unblock it, it will undo the entire range block (or something). Check mw:Help:Range blocks.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

72.76.87.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) — Another IP comment here on David Shankbone. I reverted. Changed tag to unresolved. The semi on the LGBT project pages expired, but he has only commented on my talk page so far. — Becksguy (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• 72.68.125.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) seems to be the same one who wikistalked David Shankbone, please block this IP and semi-protect Talk:Twink (gay slang) and Twink (gay slang) - their latest interests. Banjeboi 01:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked both of these IPs, however with just a couple of edits to Twink (gay slang) and its talk page, I am hesitant to protect them unless the IP strikes again. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. If it's the same one that we've seen a few times their interest is gay porn and those that edit them so they cycle for a few days and then return. A semi is likely only needed if they just kept targeting the same article. I feel in almost every case the net result was - perhaps unintended - improvements to the articles so will repost if this gets out of hand. Calling me "bentjewboy" doesn't help their case much either. Banjeboi 02:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I initiated a RFPP on the twink article also, however, I requested full protection due to edit waring, but will remove that request since it's here also. See comments on talk page. BTW, did someone block 72.76.87.231 for the comment on my talk page? — Becksguy (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. You can click on "block log" even if nothing is posted to their talk page. Banjeboi 03:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully this will stay resolved for a while. RFPP request removed, so I think we are done for now. — Becksguy (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem's solved for another 12 hours. If he comes back, I'll reblock the ranges. Contact me on my talk.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ha! I knew this anon had done some other work - posting here for tomorrow's round. User:David Shankbone/72.76. Banjeboi 03:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Abusive language

I requested an editor, Fennessy (talk · contribs), to observe NPA and CIV and his response was a personal insult, calling me a crying Jew saying he's surprised that I'm not crying antisemitism. i.e. suggesting Jews always follow some mold of pointing a finger and whining "antisemitism" every time they face adversary. Comment: I initially summerized this issue as 'calling me a crying Jew'.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Celebrations_of_the_September_11%2C_2001_attacks&diff=next&oldid=223720716

The diff contains his initial offensive comment, my request that he observe civility and his offensive response.

1) Calling people who disagree with him 'pro-Israeli Bigots':

"practically every user who wants this POV piece to exist is an Israeli or pro-Israeli bigot with an axe to grind." - Fennessy, 09:09, 5 July 2008

2) Abusive language towards Jews (and me):

"I'm actually surprised by your tone that you didn't cry antisemitism at the first given opportunity". - Fennessy, 13:09, 5 July 2008

The fact that he suggested it to be unique that I'm not crying antisemitism is extremely insulting. I was pretty miffed at his first "pro-Israeli bigots" comment but this one raised the bar quite further.

Anyways, to try again and avoid conflict despite this double insult, Durova noted him about the problem of using the term 'bigot' and suggested he refactor it, to which he responded "Storm in a Teacup. Sure maybe throwing in the word bigot was a little much, regardless of how accurate it may or may not have been."

It goes without saying that he did not refactor either the 'bigots' or the 'crying Jew' comments. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC) clarify user 07:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC) fixes 07:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

At my request, Jaakobou held off from posting this while I contacted the user at his or her user talk page. With each post on the subject Fennessy repeats the offensive insinuations. Durova^Charge! 07:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And at least you didn't call him a 9/11 celebration denier (good form). Judging by his talk page, these particular personal attacks and incivility are not an isolated incident. — CharlotteWebb 10:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Left a brief note. Will keep a loose eye on things. Interested in further developments, should any arise. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that in the cited text, Fennessy did not use the term "crying jew." Edison (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

He didn't call you a crying jew at all, this is a false report if I've ever read one. Beam 03:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the error. I've asked Jaakobou for a correction. What Fennessy did say, though, was far from unobjectionable and he maintained it three times. Durova^Charge! 05:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not an error. You'll note that Jaakobou did not not say he was quoting Fennessy when he referred to the phrase "crying Jew"...it is splitting hairs to the point of silliness, however, to ignore here that what Fennessy is actually saying, is that anyone who might raise a claim of antisemitism is a whiner. Whether he actually said Jews who cry (call out) "antisemitism!" when it raises its head are "crying (whimpering/weeping/whining) Jews" is immaterial at this point...that he didn't say the exact phrase does not excuse that that was exactly what he meant. Villainizing Jaakobou for quoting Fennessy incorrectly when Jaakobou wasn't quoting Fennessy at all, is disingenuous and counterproductive to resolving this clear breach of WP:NPA. Tomer^talk 05:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Uncalled for, intentionally provocative language. Note left, and further violations should result in measures being taken to protect the project. -- Avi (talk) 10:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Still, he's saying he's surprised you don't cry antisemitism, not that all jews cry antisemitism all the time. You shouldn't take offense for all jews. And his assumption that all users are Israelis or Pro-israeli bigots is a poor assumption. Then again, if you had assumed good faith you wouldn't have taken these as personal insults. I don't know. Warn him, no block seems necessary from these excerpts. Beam 12:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam I didn't say all users. Change the word "bigots" to "bias" & be done with it. Enough already. The reason I choose that word is because the article I was talking about —just from its title alone— smacks of the worst kind political POV pushing and intolerance of others, singling out a small country for an extremely negative grilling over the actions of a few. To take one word and run with it to the point where you are evoking heil Hitler salutes is really such a stretch. ʄ!•¿talk? 13:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Question re notifications

How many deletion notifications is considered too many before it is considered whether a user is really getting the message? I am referring to the 90 warnings that Weissmann (talk · contribs) has received since April this year at User talk:Weissmann/Archive 1 and User talk:Weissmann. -- role^player 13:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The deleted contributions listing is quite long, but so is the contrib history. It appears that the account is a "fling it up the wall and see what sticks" type contributor. I am not sure that there is a policy or guideline that covers such an approach, or if they are in violation of any should it exist. Any suggestions? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Short block for WP:DE? Editor really should be aware of WP:N by now. --Rodhullandemu 13:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) (to RoleplayerI don't know of any policy; I usually stick {{uw-create2}} or {{uw-create3}} after someone has three or four CSD notices, but I usually only deal with new users, not ones with several hundred edits. :/ J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

We had this conversation last year about User:Billy Hathorn, who also follows the "suck it and see" approach to notability (it'll be in the archives somewhere); consensus then was he wasn't breaching anything. – ırıdescent 14:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that case, but if articles are created in good faith and in full knowledge of "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it" and some of the creations are deemed encyclopedic, then it seems that there is little to be done here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks to all for the clarification. -- role^player 01:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollback BLP issues

Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) keeps rollbacking the removal of bad-links from talk pages of articles. I've already brought it up on their talk page and the BLP noticeboard with no success.--Otterathome (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, he's restoring comments with external links to Uncyclopedia that you're removing. Is there some policy against linking to Uncyclopedia on talk pages that I don't know about? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs please? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

They are on the talk pages of:

• David Icke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Paul Barry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• John Reid (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

They are being removed as they are of no value and intentionally mock the subject which violates WP:BLP.--Otterathome (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what admin action you want. On the one hand, it's customary to grant wide latitude to editors making comments on talk pages and be extremely circumspect about messing about with others' posts. On the other hand, the posts don't seem to have any relevance to article improvements and off-topic posts can be deleted, especially if they're seen as excessively disruptive. (Full disclosure: I am not an administrator.) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, you're supposed to notify another user when you start a thread about him on this page. You didn't do that, so I did. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

How does "intentionally mock(ing) the subject" violate WP:BLP. Mocking is constitutionally protected. I realize WIkipedia is not directly subject to the Constitution, but there seems no way that mocking is excluded by WP:BLP. Furthermore, it's Uncyclopedia doing the mocking; with the exception of David Icke, there's no trace of mocking in the text itself, and the mocking there seems justified by the context. Need I mention WP:TALK#Others' comments? (And thanks, Steven.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps those (other than David Icke's) are not related to article improvement. But neither are transwiki requests, technically, and two of the comments looked like "transwiki to Uncyclopedia" or "take this discussion to Uncyclopedia". Furthermore, Otter is continuing to remove the talk sections, despite having no support. Is WP:3O appropriate for a dispute covering multiple articles, or do we need to take this to a content RfC to see whether there is any support for Otter's position? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to violate the BLP policy, on the face of it, since there is no other information other than a link on the talkpage. Either way, you should both stop edit warring before one of you ends up blocked. Not often I see an admin involved in blatant revert warring. Avruch 14:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Canvassin' (no pun intended!)

I just received this rather interesting message on my talkpage. It's from an editor I've never interacted with, on a subject I know nothing about. I can't be bothered to look into it, but someone else might want to, it looks as if others have been spammed/canvassed too. Cheers! ╟─TreasuryTag╬contribs─╢ 14:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's canvassing - it doesn't seem to be written in a way to influence the outcome; it's mere notification of a community discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

But it's being given to loads + loads + loads of totally unrelated contributors, on a non-wide issue (as in, not deleting the Main Page, just a routine DRV-type thing). That sounds like canvassing to me, or at the least spamming. ╟─TreasuryTag╬contribs─╢ 14:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)

It's weird if TreasuryTag has never had any interaction with the user and/or the article. I know on at least one occasion I mass-Talked about 20 or so users who had participated in a particular AfD discussion, because a discussion relevant to the previous AfD was taking place and both sides of the discussion were concerned about making sure any interested parties were made aware... but I'm not sure how I feel about pinging random users to get more participation. It's not canvassing, for sure, but... I dunno, that's weird. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi: Thanks TreasuryTag! This will hopefully get a few more editors over at the deletion review for the Alan Cabal article: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_3#Alan_Cabal I have seen too many of the same people from the AFD there so I'm trying to get a fresh group to opine.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. Manhattan Samurai is trying to have the article on Alan Cabal undeleted, but all the references provided in the DRV are blogs, blog comments or trivial mentions. He has also refused to accept userfying the article, insisting that it be in mainspace while he works on it. Finally, he has resorted to direct insults in the DRV, which I already warned him about. I refrained from !voting in the discussion because of that, but this is quickly becoming tendentious. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I now see that Manhattan Samurai has already reached his final warning for personal attacks. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

He was just addressing editors active on other subjects on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 3‎, (I was one of them) as he wanted some independent opinions. Maybe he took things too personal, but I believe that everything has been settled. [146] Cst17 (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Persistent disruptions by User:JeanLatore

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Has admitted as sockpuppet of a banned user; user will remain indefinitely blocked per both Wikipedia policy and community consensus. —Kurykh 21:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

---

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

JL started editing on April 1, 2008 and has demonstrated a persistent pattern of disruptive behaviour. His initial contributions were disruptive (e.g. Anal Sex with Sluts, an article he created, was speedily deleted as vandalism) and his disruptive editing has continued to this point, although he has also made some good and solid contributions to a number of articles about Sepreme Court cases. He had a couple of blocks already[147] but they did not seem to have worked. Just by looking at what the user has been doing in the last 10 days or so, one sees quite a bit of apparently deliberately disruptive behaviour. First there was his own abortive self-nom RFA on June 28, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JeanLatore, that apparently was intended as a joke‎ or a WP:POINT of some sort. Then there was another one on July 6, which really looks like a case of vandalism Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JeanLatore 2. Also on July 6, even worse, he nominated another user ‎ for RfA, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Red Phoenix, and included a bunch of obviously bogus information in the nomination. For JL to behave like a clown and damage his own WP reputation is one thing, but to hurt another user in good standing by damaging their RfA is quite a bit worse. There are also recent inappropriate and disruptive posts at various talk pages, such as [148], [149],[150][151],[152], an apparent WP:POINTy AfD nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monkey (advertising character)(2nd nomination), and so on. JL seems to enjoy being disruptive and deliberately provocative and to treat WP as some kind of an equivalent of a blog. I think some kind of administrative or community action regarding this user is overdue. Nsk92 (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've given a block before, but I don't think it addressed the problem adequately. I have given final warnings before but they had no effect, and this disruption is too recent for those warnings (that I gave) to be of any effect. I'd strongly recommend an extended block for this user. Rudget (logs) 16:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I would endorse, at minimum, a ban from WP:RFA. An offer he made to nominate another editor for adminship showed up on my watchlist, and I took the unusual step of e-mailing an editor with whom I'd had no prior interaction to advise them against accepting Jean's offer. I think Jean's behaviour elsewhere has been tolerable if sub-optimal, but nominating users who are too new to be familiar with the RFA process or adminship in general and bringing a snow close upon them is not acceptable. All exprienced Wikipedians are in a de facto position of trust when it comes to their interactions with new users, and in this respect Jean's been violating trust. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

There have been occurences in the mainspace which are in equal measure to the disruption sustained at RfA. Rudget (logs) 16:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This user si very new but hsi behavior worreis me. He created an article bring them on and when it rec'ed for deletion due to the fact that it was almost entirely WP:OR but then he simpl removed the prod and made a silly comment on my talk page about him having aspergesr. I am not sure that this user has been operating entirely in good faith when editing this encyclopedia and someone needs to get through to hime before he does something silly again that gets him sanctioned like what he did to User:Red_Phoenix. To deliberaltey set someone up with a WP:RFA without angood faith to work.. Smith Jones (talk)

I issued a final warning re his harassment of User:Plutonium27 and he doesn't seem to have edited since then. If this idiocy continues I'd have no problem with an indefblock. – ırıdescent 16:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

We generally tolerate quite a lot of kooky and/or trollish behavior. Whether this is good or bad is a matter of opinion. When this behavior crosses the line into sexual harassment, I suspect hardly anyone wants to tolerate it anymore. I have no problem with an indefinite block at any time, but failing that, a series of blocks of escalating length should be applied liberally at the next sign of trouble. Friday (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, he amdits to deliberately edditing Wikipeida when he is too high on drugs to edit responsibley and constantly posts sexually-harassing/charmed conmments on multiple peoples' pages. Is there nothing to do about that??? Smith Jones (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Smith Jones (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thought I should make my response known here. I'm leaving Mr WooWoo's charming little piece of geo-ethnic come-on up on my talkpage despite the heaves it gives. A reminder I hope to anyone who feels like giving this loser one.more.chance. Ever. Ta Plutonium27 (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Indef block per the hundred people that beat me to the punch. The user has rarely shown any good faith or constuctive behaviour, and his trolling and harassment is completely uncalled for. - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

At least ban him from WP:RFA in my opinion, and do further if it is deemed necessary. I still can't believe I fell for that little trap of his, but I guess assuming good faith doesn't mean you shouldn't be wary. I can only hope that his actions toward me have not damaged my reputation on Wikipedia like they already have to my RFA. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 16:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Doint worry RedPhoenix. We know that you had nothing to do with this abomination, and i wish you the best of luck re: your adminship request. Smith Jones (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Upon a more thorough examination of the diffs provided, I've changed my solution from "RFA ban" to "indef block", and per what I believe to be consensus here, I've gone ahead and pulled the trigger. If he wishes to explain himself, which I think it likely that he will, he can do so through the unblock template. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have spent a long and painful time reading through this editor's edits, and I concur in an indef block. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 17:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The below section is transcluded from JL's talk page. –xenocidic (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC) It is now subst'ed since JL has since gone offline/stopped contributing to the discussion. –xenocidic (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Transcluded section of User talk:JeanLatore (now subst'ed)

I apologise for my recent actions. My behaviour on Wikipedia could have been fairly characterised as mischevious from the get-go, but I can see how the events of this weekend have far surpassed my usual level of flippancy. I guess I've just been under a lot of stress lately. That being said I have a few preliminary comments to make:

1) An indef block this quickly is a bit too harsh, 2) I have a multitude of what I think we all consider very helpful edits to wikipedia concerning U.S. Supreme Court cases. Any review of my contribs will show that. I would like to continue making edits in that vein, and benefits of banning me would outweight the costs. 3) I take issue with some characterisations of my comments by above editors. I do not "regularly sexually harrass" anyone, that comment on "Plutonium"'s talk page was my only comment that could be construed as such, and really, it was not that bad. Her comments about me and my friend user:Darkspots really bear scrutiny as well. 4) I apologise for the "Red Phoenix" contretemps -- I had no idea that the situation would get so controversial.

In sum, I admit my behaviour this last week has been less than ideal, with fewer than normal constructive edits to counterweigh them. But that is not wholly characteristic of my entire career at Wikipedia. I would have been indef-blocked well before 1,100 edits if this were my "norm." I realise sanctions are in order and would feel a 15-30 day block would be fair. Upon returning from that, I promise to resume editing legal articles and lay off any shenanigans at RFA, which is what brought this matter to a head in the first place. Thank you. JeanLatore (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain the Red Phoenix episode more clearly? If you weren't out for controversy, what were you trying to accomplish? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I came across that user on VPP where I often read policy threads. I clicked on his user page and saw a user box that said he would like to be an admin and had 3,100 edits. So I decided to nominate him, having no idea that my involvement in the RFA would become an issue at all. The user accepted my offer. I in no way was trying to make fun of him or harm him. I cannot stress this enough. I'm sorry if i didn't realise just how unpopular I was on here. JeanLatore (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And by what reason did you claim that he'd brought more articles to FA since Giano, or that he was a "strong young strapping buck"? And could you clarify your offers to nominate other users, including some with under a thousand edits, for RFA? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that young strapping buck thing was stupid. I realise that was wrong. I just thought it would be eye-catching. And SesquipedalianVerbiage was the only sub 1,000 edit editor I discussed adminship with. I feel that edit-count-itis is wrong and I honestly did not care that he had less than 1000 edits. I did feel that he is intelligent and well-spoken. That's why I offered. That certainly was not a "blockable" offense. JeanLatore (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You also seem to have a trend for creating inappropriate articles. For example Bring em on, OMGLOL!, and Small Sluts, Nice Butts... I would like to know the reasoning behind so many inappropriate article creations, and if you are unblocked, what you plan to do about creating articles in the future? - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Adolphus79. There has been a lot of questionalable edits made on this account. Also you leave inappropriate comments on people's user page: [153]. America69 (talk) 18:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Break 1

Endorse indefblock. This wasn't a one-off piece of vandalism, this was a systematic pattern of abuse and harassment. Someone who thinks this is acceptable doesn't deserve a second chance, and the occasional valid contribution doesn't counterbalance the months of trolling. If you want somewhere to treat as your personal chatroom with the occasional article added, I'm sure Livejournal would be glad to have you. – ırıdescent 17:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Support long or indef block I first encountered JL when he gave tried to feed me a tall tale about knowing the creator of an obviously copyrighted image. Despite a handful of useful edits, this user continues to demonstrate a lack of maturity. The comments left on Plutonium27's talk page constitute sexual harassment in my opinion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I first encountered him trolling FAC by repeatedly nominating random articles. The time taken cleaning up behind this user has more than outweighed any positive contributions they've brought. – ırıdescent 18:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I would like to point out that this user's behavior and edits have very distinct similarities to banned users/sockpuppets: User:Mr_Bullockx and User:Adam Pirolo. -WarthogDemon 18:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

An interesting observation... note 18:44, March 28, 2008 Viridae (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Adam Pirolo (Talk | contribs)" and 08:15, April 1, 2008 JeanLatore (Talk | contribs | block) New user account, and their 2nd edit was to welcome themselves. –xenocidic (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And between those two that Xenocidic mentions, User:Bankerboy83 hit my userpage. It looks like JeanLatore was made almost IMMEDIATELY after Bankerboy was blocked. I was going to do a sockpuppet report, but since he did not begin AFDing articles until after a week as Jean, I thought perhaps the evidence was not strong enough. -WarthogDemon 18:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of an Endgame1 (talk · contribs) sock. Picking four of Endgame's socks at random, they all have numerous FA nominations that will clearly fail, as well as spurious contribs to the RefDesks.- auburnpilot talk 18:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Should I introduce my evidence? I have hesitated to do so because the evidence is based around him and indicates he has some kind of bizarre grudge against me, and I have thus far made an effort to avoid him as much as possible. If, however, you think it best I produce my evidence here and now, I shall. -WarthogDemon 18:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

A confirmed CU would solidify this block. –xenocidic (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Part of my evidence is based on User:Adam Pirolo's similarities to User:Mr Bullockx. A CU with Bullockx would be stale but I shall endeavor to include that as I bring up Adam, Bankboy, and Jean together. Further Note Actually I'll have to exclude Bankerboy as it would only be a "throwaway" account. -WarthogDemon 18:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

CU Report made. -WarthogDemon 19:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse indefinite block. I can't recall if I first encountered JeanLatore via edits to autism-related articles or his multiple spurious FAC noms, but I have watched his talk page ever since, and as someone who has a history of successfully mentoring another editor of autism-related articles, I do not see any indication that JeanLatore can or will become a productive contributor or will do anything but continue to disrupt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

  oh, and I want to encourage RedPhoenix not to feel that this will reflect longterm on him/her; I know another very experienced editor and writer of many FAs who almost fell into a similar issue with an RfA nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

  Well, thanks I guess. By the way, it is "him" (should probably put up a userbox about that one). It wrecked my RFA, at least. So I'll just have to wait some time until the dust settles. I just kind of feel dumb falling for a trick like that while assuming good faith. Oh well, thanks for the compassion. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 19:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

  Por nada; by the way, WP:WBFAN is where you find the data about FA noms :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse per Sandy and Iridescent, as well as his sexual harassment of Plutonium. S. Dean Jameson 18:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse per S. Dean Jameson. Durova^Charge! 18:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support indef block - while he has made a few worthwhile contributions, the headache he has casued several people far outweighs this. If a vandal makes 1 good edit, 3 or 4 vandalisms, 1 good edit, then another 3 or 4 vandalisms, then throw on top of that some harassment, would that user not be blocked indef also? - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Reading Special:Contributions/Mr_Bullockx kinda makes me want to vomit, I mean literally, not figuratively. Obvious socking. I feel like an naive idiot for trying to mentor this user. Support indef block, clearly. Darkspots (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • For those who can't see deleted contributions: one of Mr_Bullockx's first contributions was to nominate Fleshlight for FA: This article is succinct yet poetically comprehensive. It expemplifies the best that Wikipedia, nay, the best that humanity has to offer. It is also well-annotated and has been covered extensively in several reputable journals. Compare with one of JeanLatore's FA noms. Do I hear a quack in the room? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
    • God. I know it's not all about me, but this. hurts. my. pride. I've been listening to his shit for months, all the while feeling like I was at least doing something to help out. And the whole time it was just a sick little game. This sucks. Darkspots (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Wow, and here I thought it was some stupid grudge match on me. :P Glad to know it's not. -WarthogDemon 20:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Darkspots: Nothing wrong with assuming good faith and trying to be helpful. I'd been occasionally monitoring his edits after my first JL encounter and hadn't caught any one thing that was grounds for a reblock until I saw this notice posted today. I certainly didn't have any sockpuppet suspicions until WarthogDemon brought them to light. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Thanks. It's probably much more complicated in the poor schmuck's head than it seems right now to me. I think I'll take a break for a while. Darkspots (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse As Nsk92 says, "some kind of administrative or community action regarding this user is overdue". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• NOTE: the user just admitted to being a sock puppet of User:Wiki_brah, if we could also get puppet templates added to the above mentioned usernames for future reference... - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse and not entirely surprised to see them here to be honest - I was curious as to who they were or what they were doing here. Orderinchaos 20:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block review of User:Betacommand (up to 4 blocks now)

As noted at the top of the page, I've moved discussion of Betacommand's most recent blocks to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Block review of User:Betacommand. Just a reminder since I've already had the obligatory complaint about the subpage move. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikidas

This user User:Wikidas is going around posting nonsense into the Muhammad article [see users contribution] further this user is adding content without discussion in talk page [users discussion]. User provides poorly scholared information and seems to be into editing war with bringing sock puppets to revert article. --Veer87 (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Veer87 the edits you object to are not "nonsense" or unsourced as you claim. You are engaged in an edit war despite receiving a final warning for you not to continue to remove sourced material from articles. Could an uninvolved admin take a look at this case? I believe Veer87 should now be blocked for edit warring and vandalism of the Muhammad article. I am recusing myself from taking that action to prevent even the appearance of a mis-use of the admin tools in a content dispute - though I don't believe this is one. Gwernol 17:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Hiram111

User:Hiram111 keeps removing large heavily sourced criticism sections he doesn't like in the articles Walid Jumblatt (here, here, here and here) and Saad Hariri (here, here, here and here), despite being warned twice. He removed the warnings twice, see here and here. I reported him and I asked for both articles to be protected, but his edits don't seem to be disruptive enough. Does it mean that if I were to remove every criticism section I didn't like on Wikipedia, I could get away with it? This isn't content dispute. His edits, removing large sourced sections and calling them unreferenced in his edit summaries, are nothing short than disruptive POV-pushing and I've wasted enough time dealing with this person. He should have been indefinitely blocked long ago. GreenEcho (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It makes me sick that no one has bothered to give this issue the time of day. So people are now allowed to wander around Wikipedia, delete whatever section they didn't like without even being warned? I'm out of here. GreenEcho (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like he's been spoken to about this - sorry for the delays, occasionally these reports get overlooked, as we do have a lot to do around here, as you may have noticed. ;-) Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 01:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

United States Declaration of Independence = Saxonthedog

Here is a repeated attempt to add a paragraph containing a partly made-up quote. The part that's made up is used to support some POV-argument. Would be nice to have someone politely point out that's not working out. Tedickey (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've started a thread on the article's talk page. Has this been discussed previously, that I just missed? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It sounds vaguely familiar. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Akash Arora

I was huggling and I came across this. Assuming this guy is who he says he is, can he legally force us to delete that article? The article is not libelous. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Making legal threats is against policy. He needs to take this up with the Foundation, as detailed here: Wikipedia:BLP#Dealing_with_articles_about_yourself. I'll leave a note on his talk page. L'Aquatique[review] 19:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you see a legal threat, but I do see a BLP that is completely unsourced and contains no assertion of notability. WP:CSD#A7 perhaps? BradV 19:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep putting a prod note on an article is not a legal threat. Agree about the speedy delete. There is no assertion of notability. So I'll go and do it now. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, there's nothing there. I can't even see why the subject would have any problems with it. Shouldn't the deletion tag appear on the talk page, at least as discussion? FWiQW Bzuk (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC).

Why? I speedied it because there was no assertion of notability. Why should someone have an encylopedia article just because they happen to be a journalist? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

(after multiple edit conflicts) It was deleted. Sorry about the confusion, I guess I read into it a legal threat that wasn't there. I apologize... L'Aquatique[review] 20:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for wording my post like that. I didn't see how the guy was notable either. I was more interested in knowing if that would have been a valid PROD reason assuming that the article had been about a notable person. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If the article were about a notable person then it's a different story. IANAL but I'm pretty sure that we don't need someones permission to simply write about them. How would newspapers be able to operate if that were the case? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Polite third guy needed

Hi,

I have maybe a bit a strange demand here, where I need assistance. Ercdw created the article Ducky Wucky, where I placed an AfD for Non-Notability and advertisement on. Now, instead of improving the article or commenting on the AfD-discussion, the user writes a lengthy, quite insulting comment on the article's talk page. I'm not sure, but I think the user mainly missunderstood some of our principles about notability and verifiabily.

Could someone not involved have a talk to the user and maybe tell him that such language is not to be used? I don't think it would be good if I did it myself. Thanks a lot. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried, we'll see if he catches on... - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

There was a bad WP:BITE violation in the AfD debate, namely "It's horribly written to boot, and the author is a vandal." That would piss off any new contributer. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, such comments are inappropriate at the least. I should have removed that comment, but I'll generally not mess around in others discussion entries, and for sure not in one of a very experienced user. Whereas one would expect that they do know the policies. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I left Blueboy a comment asking him to try to patch things up. I'm assuming (and hoping) it was an over-hasty misunderstanding. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No need to bite, but I've closed the AfD and deleted this. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Disgusteddad

Resolved

 – Seems to have gone quiet. Drive-by protest, apparently --Rodhullandemu 00:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Could a (tactful) administrator do something about the recent edits by User:Disgusteddad? See [154] and [155]. I know that content is not appropriate for Wikipedia, but I'm hesitant to get involved myself, since I don't have much wiki-experience dealing with concerned parents. (His claims are not totally bogus; if you do an image search for Avengers 71, you'll see what he's talking about.) Zagalejo^^^ 21:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, his edits to Joe Quesada have been reverted. Still, it would be great if an administrator could politely tell him what he did wrong. Zagalejo^^^ 21:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have left a {{welcome}} and references to WP:RS and WP:BLP. Also pointed out this is not a forum for complaints. I think he just wanted to blow off some steam. --Rodhullandemu 21:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 21:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Requesting Admin Intervention

For background please see ANI and Talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive442#Is_Chinese_government_website_notable_source.3F

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong#Asdfg12345_Please_put_the_PRC_government_sourcyou_BLANKED_BACK

I really don't know what to do anymore. A consensus has been reached that the Chinese government edit should be there, but cetrain editor still insist on repeating the argument and removing/altering the edit in appearant bad faith.

This edit is just latest in a string of disputes with this page. Please see Talk/archive for history.

What should I do?

Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest starting with a request for comments from the general community, then following the rest of the dispute resolution procedure thereafter. Kylu (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Requesting 48 hour block for User:Blechnic

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

Resolved

 – Blocks are designed to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. Blechnic has seemed to have settled down and the edit warring and incivility has ceased. seicer | talk | contribs 01:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on his abuses of AN/I and his rampant hostility, and the obvious underlying tantrum, I'm requesting a 48 to 72 hour block to allow him time to rethink his current repeated vandlaism/ edit warring path. While 'chill out' blocks are bad, blocks which prevent edit warrign at AN/I are good. He's not listening to reason, support, or anything. Block him before he gets himself community banned next to Carol Spears. ThuranX (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe through my previous run-in with Blechnic, that you're using the wrong gender specific pronouns, but that's neither here nor there.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, double public apology then. One, i no longer think the block is needed, per a reply on my user talk, and two, I don't know gender of most editors, and default to 'he' because i'm anti-PC like that. ThuranX (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I just say they or there if I don't know there gender. Bidgee (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Or "their". :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) chillax, mate. BLechnick's just venting. If he has some problem with Carsolspears, who IS a banned user for a reason, he should be forgiven for lashing out at bit as a communtiy that he believes betrayed him. Just let him vent his frustrations, he'll cool off after a few days or weeks, and he'll contribute very wel. Smith Jones (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I endorse a block, based upon the blatant incivility in this edit summary, and the above drama-mongering and edit-warring. Being pissed off doesn't justify his/her behavior, no matter what SmithJones says. S. Dean Jameson 00:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If so, ThuranX should be blocked along with him for his extreme incivility to administrators and CarolSpears.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That's extreme incivility? Hahahha. I laugh at you. Go back and read all the lead-up to this. Some admins DID call him a stalker, and support Carol Spears, and they are flat out wrong. You want to stir up trouble and get an internet flame war going, you can go have fun with that, but you'll be doing it alone. ThuranX (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, I guess many people already laugh at this closed show. Keep up the good works.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You may want to read above about the gender. ;) Also I don't think a ban would cool her down. I think it would fire her up more which would lead to a Community ban. Bidgee (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

With no comment to Smith Jones's post, I believe that a block is unneeded, at least at the current time. Things seemed to be calmed down now, and the flames need not be stoked again. —Kurykh 00:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The whole Carol Spears thing needs to die down, and blocking yet another editor won't help that.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose There's a class of victim who seem to enjoy self-immolation, in sometimes Wagnerian style. My opinion is that a block would merely stoke the fires under the pyre in this case. --Rodhullandemu 00:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I d have to agree again with this users. The idea that we should bully and toy iwth a user who appears to have withdrawn from the project (retired, as per his rtalkpage and userpage) seems punitive, which is furthermore against the policy of the adminsitrative block as humanly possible. Besides, if we blocked her we might have to block a good user like User:ThuranX who has expressed simialr views in the past as per: Caspian blue and that would be an and of itself a travesty and a defiance of the policy of WP:aGF

IF he comes back and does the same nonsense, then blocking her might be appropriate. Now, it wuld be inordinately punitive. Smith Jones (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: In all fairness, he's been goaded quite badly, by CarolSpears (who claimed that fixing her copyvio, etc, was harassment and stalking, and kept reverting attempts to fix the copyvio) and a few of her defenders. A block will only aggravate the situation and serve to drive him off. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is still going on. When I made the request, Blechnic had just run a little edit war falling on her? sword here on AN/I, and removing all comments of support with quite hostile commentary. When I Posted that I no longer saw a need for it, it was because after reverting MY note of support, she? Then visited my user talk, and left a note that had the tone of someone who was moving into the quiet cooling off period after a tantrum; as such, I then felt such a block would ONLY piss her off and stoke the fires unnecessarily, pushing her back into trouble. That everyone here is now commenting, without regard to my follow-up seems like a tinge of the dogpile, or 'me too' thing. As for Smith Jones' comment, well, that's sour grapes for my comments supporting a block on his AN/I thread of a couple days ago. ThuranX (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, dont snap at it Me, Thuran. I feel that blocking anyone in this case is ainppropriate at this time and that your comments on her talkpage were immeterial to this discussion. I only mentioend it above because I was baffled as why to his was mentioned at all? Smith Jones (talk)

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

User:Dab121, Edline and general disruption.

This user clearly has some kind of POV to push, as demonstrated by their talk page comments. This was dealt with previously, but the user has now moved on to other kinds of disruption, namely editing the article Edline, and then nominating it for deletion here, citing "Advert, no refs, no notabilty, spam links", after their edits (albeit under the IP - which added the afd tag...) were the ones which made it spam. I am not sure of the policy in this case, it being so complex... -Toon⁰⁵ 00:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Need Help Dealing with Hostile Admin on Wiktionary

Resolved

 – "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia..."—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I checked all the relevant policy pages on dispute resolution, but there's nothing specifically for dealing with problem Administrators and I couldn't decide if I should file this under Wikipedia:Editor assistance, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or who to ask on the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee or Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, so I put it in both of the first. Firstly to increase the likelihood that someone will see this soon enough to take action. And so that in case someone else is going through the same problem perhaps a precedent protocol can be set so that a policy can be made on how to deal with this issue (or if there already is one, perhaps someone can link the dispute resolution pages to it!)

My problem is with admin EncycloPetey. As I explain, I'll do my best to take responsibility for what I did incorrectly as per Wikipedia:CIVILITY and common sense. He's been giving a hard time since last night when I made in error and created a second adjective section on wikt:base, I fixed it before I even got the message from him to "Please include only a single Adjective section per entry, unless the two Adjectives are under separate etymology sections." Today he made an unnecessary threat to have me banned after I put a template in superscript (which I explained in the section edit). He later posted on my User space not to make changes without discussing them first for obvious reasons.

The problem arose when I replied, conceded though still said that intellectually my idea was a good one and he replied with a rant and threat to have me banned! I've been on Wiki for going on three years and have never had a problem with anyone, I think I deserve an apology for what he said. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Such behavior is endemic at Wiktionary and over the past years nothing seems to be able to be done to mitigate this "rough" manner of the editors that consider themselves to "hold the reins" there. It seems simply to be part of that project's "culture." Sorry not to have been able to give a more hopeful answer. Badagnani (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be short but this isn't Wiktionary. Don't they have their own system over there? —Wknight94 (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Wiktionary is far stricter than Wikipedia

2. Wikipedia administrators hold no authority over Wiktionary, it's editors, or it's admins, so this isn't the place to complain.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 00:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding accountability, they allow problems to be addressed via email, which they then don't return. If an editor is blocked, s/he is not permitted to post on any page, including his/her own talk page. So the accountability and attention to comments is minimal to none. Badagnani (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have no jurisdiction on Wiktionary. The best you (or we) can do here is get hold of an editor here who is also a Wiktionary editor or admin. I don't know any such editors, however. —Kurykh 00:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If witionary is paralel to this project then there should be a conterpart to our WP:ANI on their page. I reocmmend that you take your concerns there to that website, although of course since it IS wiktionary you wont get any help unless you run into an admin. Wiktionary's editors and aminds are as hardworking and dedicated as WIkipedias editors and admins, but there is a certain coolness about the proejct that I noticed when I tried to contribute there once. They dont seem to have any policy again to WP:BITE. Dont get discouraged though; Wiktionary is a worthy project and there are lots of decent people who work hard on it. You can joint hem someday if you have a thick enough skin Smith Jones (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Might want to instead direct this to wikt:Wiktionary:Beer parlour. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I left a courtesy notice over at the admin's page on Wikipedia. (intentionally adding as IP to avoid cross-project privacy conflict) 70.7.76.14 (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and understanding everybody! I'll take the next issue to the Beer Parlour then since you guys helped out so much, I presumed that all Wikimedia projects were under the same regulations, interesting that they aren't. --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There are regulations somewhere, however this page is on the English Wikipedia and incidents reported here for administrative intervention should be on the English Wikipedia. Administrators here rarely have jurisdiction over other projects like the English Wiktionary. There are a few, but problems there should be reported there.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Addendum (for the record): Here is the conversation in question. No threat of a ban was made and no rant appears there. I first pointed a mistake made in editing (noting that it was a new user), but then User:IdLoveOne did not seem to understand the severity of the problem with altering a project-wide template, so I provided an explanation. I noted that a repeat of changing such a template again without prior discussion would result in a block; I pointed this out so that this would not happen. I made no threat of a ban, but merely informed of the likely consequences should an admin find this happening again. This was given as information to a new user on Wiktionary, who likely did not know that this was a problem. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Template vandalism on Today's Featured Article

I just looked at the TFA and there is vandalism via a template that needs to be fixed right away - picture of an aborted fetus Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Now it is gone Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

IP that performed the edit was blocked and the offending image has been added to the black list for images.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil and NPA remarks by User:Beamathan

Beamathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left quite a nasty remark on my talk page after I asked him three times to place comments about a particular project on the project page. I am really confused and do not understand why this editor thinks I am insulting him, thinks I am a jerk, etc. Perhaps an admin can remind him of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and other appropriate policies? I see he has been blocked several times for incivility and other similar infractions, so perhaps this is more epidemic? Confusingly yours, Bstone (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Storm in a teacup, isn't it? Beam thinks that some comments are better off not on Wikipedia talk:Ombudsmen Committee and you think that they do. When these opinions collide, lots of nasty things happen. I'll go and leave a message. x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, x42bn6. Can probably mark this resolved. Bstone (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No. This is not resolved at all. Bstone, you still have not read my comments apparently. The comments were not about the project, they were about you. Hence, I put them on your talk page. You posted a problem on an Admin Noticeboard regarding someone reverting your addition of a policy tag. You claimed you had consensus, they reverted because you don't. As i say on your talk page, I just wanted to make sure you saw that you didn't have consensus, at least that pump. I didn't want you to keep making false statements, looking foolish. It had nothing to do with the actual project itself. Instead of reading my comments, you belittled me by ignoring them and saying I should post them somwehre else. I tried again to explain the purpose of the comments. Yet AGAIN you said post them somewhere else...again i explain the purpose and then you mock me, using italicized "please" and telling me that was "the sum" of your dealings with me on a talk page. You completely acted like a jerk.

Instead of actually reading my comments, or admitting you understood them you mocked me. I pointed this out and what do you do? You come and try to blacken my reputation within the community. I'm sorry your project does not have consensus. I thought it was out of ignorance that you claimed it did. I was trying to help you, so you don't look foolish in the future. You acted like I didn't understand what a talk page is for. Those comments were about you, not the project.

And, regarding my block history, since you cared enough to bring it up, perhaps you'd care enough to check out the history between me and that particular Admin, as well as the conclusion and resolution of all those blocks through mediation. Hint: it's not as it appears.

I will consider this resolved when you apologize, or remove this attempt at making me look bad within my community. This is the "sum" of my comments towards you Bstone. Beam 03:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've requested both parties apologise to each other. To me, Bstone gave the impression unwittingly that he didn't take Beam's comments into account while Beam persisted with posting on Bstone's talk page despite being told to take it elsewhere. Whether either one is correct is immaterial since there's little point in dragging such a small issue through the mud. Bstone has enough drama on his hands with his OmbCom proposal, so <<shake hands here>>. x42bn6 Talk Mess 03:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As a note, after reviewing the comments at his proposal for the project Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Ombudsmen_Committee_formal_proposal I think he may have acted like he did towards me out of frustration regarding his latest attempt at this project failing. Bstone, I have nothing against you personally and I'm sorry your project isn't going too well. There was still no need to act like that towards me. Beam 03:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam, please, sir, please assume good faith. You made some comments regarding a project which I had to ask you three times to refer to the project talk page. You believe I was mocking you, acting like a jerk and another nasties. You're clearly not assuming good faith as I never desired, intended nor actually did mock you, act like a jerk, etc. So, without further ado, I will move on and hopefully you'll stop referring to me as a jerk. Agreed? Bstone (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No. You haven't read my comments yet! They weren't about the project. They were about you. I didn't call you a jerk, you acted like one towards me and I pointed it out. And you did mock me. Faith has nothing to do with it, just the facts. And if you call that an apology, you may want to head over to the Wiktionary. Beam 05:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin please intervene here? We're getting nowhere and I grow weary of this drama. Thank you. Bstone (talk) 05:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If you grow weary of the drama, I would suggest from personal experience that you unwatch this page, at least temporarily. Short of that, I don't think an administrator acting in the capacity of an administrator—i.e. blocking, protecting, etc.—could help resolve the issue of "getting nowhere" or drama/conflict: surely neither issue merits a block? --Iamunknown 06:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I support Iamunknown's suggestions. I don't want you blocked Bstone, :) Beam 13:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wal-Mart needs to be moved back and protected from moves

Sometime on July 4, Sponge1987 moved Wal-Mart to Walmart* [156]. This was reverted by CoolCaesar [157]; and then on July 5, ZippyGoogle moved the page to Walmart Stores [158]. No discussion was taken on the talk page, and no consensus for the move was reached. I cannot move the page back to correct the situation because "a page exists at the old location" (the redirect from the Wal-Mart), so presumably, I need an administrator to do this. I would request that the page is moved back and protected from moves since there is no consensus for moving. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I should also add that apparently, ZippyGoogle has been blocked, based on his talk page. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Done and done. Moves like that need to be done via WP:RM. BTW, I also un-semiprotected the article since it had been sprotected for almost a year! —Wknight94 (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

To really do it right, it should say Wal-asterisk-Mart. I've got a hunch that would cause practical problems. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they've changed their logo to Walmart(asterisk) [159] Yeah, that's just a blog, but that *is* the new logo. So it wasn't random vandalism. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 14:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Awright! They' switched from a good old American five-pointed star to a six-pointed star. I'm waiting for the conspiracists to claim that Walmart-asterisk is part of the Zionist conspiracy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Consist and I: one of us here needs some advice

About a week and a half ago, I noticed this report on ANI, and because I operate in articles that are often concerned with phylogeny, I took interest in the activities of User:Consist, the user in question. For those coming late to the party, Consist is the handle of Mats Envall, who had a paper in the May 2008 issue of the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society and is now going through classification articles such as Cladistics, Clade, Phylo Code, and Linnean taxonomy and inserting his position that he has falsified cladistics as the be-all and end-all. When questioned about his edits, he responds with lengthy rambling posts to talk pages, or discusses his personal enmity toward cladists (see previous diff), who he explains have attempted to suppress him for 14 years. His main point is that he claims to have "falsified cladistics' denial of paraphyletic groups," and he apparently regards cladistics as some sort of great negative that needs to be overturned.

I and others (EdJohnston, Sjö, and C.Fred) have attempted to communicate to him several times and explain to him how Wikipedia works. He appears to simply not care that what he is doing is not how things are done here, displays the classic disruptive editor sign of blaming problems on the actions of other editors, and generally behaves as if he is on a mission of great importance that is not to be disrupted, above the rules, and will not be stopped. He occasionally issues borderline insults regarding the competence of those who question his actions (see for example the fifth and seventh sentences in this reply to Sjö, and the ninth and tenth on this reply to me). From where I sit, he is acting as a disruptive editor with little chance of becoming productive. I would like someone else who is not as close to take a look, though. It may be that none of us who have tried are communicating properly. What gets me is that he obviously has communicated with others in the past, in order to get his paper published, yet he so far is not taking advice from others here. J. Spencer (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Not terribly cool that he's declared his intention to continue editwarring, despite your referring him to lots of very relevant policies. I'm keeping an eye on this.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry by banned user

Referred from CheckUser:

• Pgsylv (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 132.208.44.25 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 132.208.114.15 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• F:

• Supporting evidence:

Pgsylv has been banned from editing on Quebec page as a single user account. He appears to have used the IP adresses above to vandalise, edit war, and post uncivil comments on the discussion page 3 times in the last 3 months, most recently on July 3. The diffs linked here are samples, but a quick check of the user contributions shows that "contributions" are all on the Quebec page and all of the same nature, indicating the same single user pattern. [160][161]

Request that above IP adresses be blocked 3 months, as the activity patterns seems to be once a month. They are individual workstations at a large Montreal university, and will likely not block any other editors. I know this vandalism is low grade, but it has distracted a number of editors. --soulscanner (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33 part 2

Please leave this thread open for a while so people can discuss their concerns, and please be respectful toward the banned user. Thanks. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

See #Giovanni33 above

Some of us are very uneasy about Giovanni33 (talk · contribs) getting banned indefinitely based on a very short discussion, and when he's already been banned by arbcom for a year. It certainly wasn't a decision that the community came to. To avoid another edit war on Wikipedia:List of banned users I'm asking that this be discussed without premature archiving. -- Ned Scott 05:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick clarification: the disputed community ban preceded the ArbCom ban (the community ban occurred while ArbCom was voting on its ban). Ned's account unintentionally implies the opposite. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. -- Ned Scott 05:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that nine arbitrators have unanimously declared him guilty of having "repeatedly engaged in prohibited sockpuppetry and/or some form of proxy editing", is there anyone who feels the community ban was in error? If the positive CU results presented in the ban thread were available before the ArbCom case, there probably wouldn't have been any need for the case at all. (Also note the various legal threats on his pre-blanked talk page.) Since he's hard-banned by ArbCom for a year anyway, the only practical effect of the community ban is that we must agree to him being unbanned after that point in time. Sounds like a reasonable precaution to me. - Merzbow (talk) 05:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are we even discussing this now? It's not even an issue for another year. Let a year pass and G33 can appeal to be reinstated. The flames will have died down and the uneasiness will be put in perspective. But discussing now will only create more drama with the onl youtcome beign that Giovanni33 is banned for at least a year. Close this down and move on. Ignoring this now as there is no resolution that changes the status quo. Stop the drama. --DHeyward (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"...nine arbitrators have unanimously declared him guilty of having "repeatedly engaged in prohibited sockpuppetry and/or some form of proxy editing", is there anyone who feels the community ban was in error?" Yes, those who don't trust this ArbCom on sockpuppetry, for excellent reasons. --User:Relata refero 06:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose, considering my comments elsewhere, that I should be counted as one of those uneasy regarding the indefinite ban. Indeed, I am concerned. But, at the same time, I find myself in agreement with DHeyward: waiting a while (perhaps not a full year, or perhaps a full year as DH suggests) before revisiting this particular issue seems like an acceptable plan. --Iamunknown 06:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

To DHeyward, the reason I bring this up is because we should not take "community banned" lightly, regardless of the situation. I could easily see this as working against Giovanni when a year is up, and he asks for his ban to be reviewed. There are a lot of admins that will blindly support a ban without looking into the matter, seeing that it was listed as a "community ban" and trusting that it really was. This is a calm and rationale discussion, demanding that it be closed and saying things like "stop the drama" is exactly what creates the drama in the first place.

In general: Arbcom went with a one year ban, not an indef. Their decision is not an endorsement of the indef ban in any way. -- Ned Scott 07:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The Committee 1 year ban is a standard remedy. Even if an administrator is willing to unblock (god help us all), this will not change the fact he will remain blocked as part of the ArbCom remedy. It's futile and tendentious (and some might suggest it's trollish) to insist a ban be reviewed when an overwhelming number here continue to say "We are not willing to unblock. We will reconsider after sometime, whether it's before or after the Committee year-long ban is up, but not now." Take note. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

For about the 20th time, in the 30th place, an admin being willing to unblock, only invalidates an undiscussed community ban that exists when NO admin is willing to unblock. However if the ban has had community discussion the willingness of a single admin to unblock, will not overturn the ban. That requires more community discussion. The first is an effective community ban, it exists when an indef blocked user cannot find someone willing to unblock them. The second one is an actual community ban - a ban in effect after community discussion. (Ncmvocalist this is not specifically aimed at you, more at everyone who perpetuates that myth) Viridae^Talk 11:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. To clarify: I was making a massive assumption that after discussion, the community agreed for the 'willing' admin to handle it (even if it meant that the community-ban was overturned). Essentially, my point was that even with that assumption, the Committee ban isn't going to move, so those jumping up and down for review of this ban should go worry about that first. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you maybe clarify the wording of WP:BAN? If the discussion end changes the situation so much, there should also be a stated minimum length of time to discuss to help prevent gaming the system (like we have on RFA and other processes). Jehochman ^Talk 11:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• There is a reason the arbitration committee only does blocks/bans for a year - it trusts the committee in a year's time to get a review right. The community is more fickle and changeable, so it does indefinite bans because that both allows more and less flexibility (early unblocking and ignoring the matter forever). I said at the time that there was no need to have a community ban discussion, and that ArbCom had matters well in hand. Leave it as a year-long block and trust the committee in a year's time to handle the matter. Carcharoth (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any uninvolved admin willing to unblock Giovanni33 AND the ban will be in place after the discussion. Can we endorse and close this ? --DHeyward (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that this discussion is kind of pointless. If, in a year's time, there is a good reason to unblock Giovanni33, we can do so then. Nothing we decide now will bind us anyway. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:SacKingFans

User SacKingFans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps adding a low res (137 × 103 pixels) image (Image:Smoke at sunset.jpg which also has no information on the images page) on Wildfire and keeps reverting my removal. I've ask in the edit summary for them to upload a higher res image and add source info to the image. Bidgee (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't ask people to do things in edit summaries, go to their talk page instead. I've left a quick note. Lets see if he responds. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Recreation of article that just finished AFD Malik Abongo Obama

A couple of hours ago the AFD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abongo Obama was finished with a delete, and the article was redirected (and remains so). However the identical material has been recreated at Malik Abongo Obama (a variation on the name of the person). Someone tried to speedy it as A4G4 (recreation of deleted material) but someone else removed the template (why that's even allowed for an A4G4 I don't know). Oddly the creator immediately nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malik Abongo Obama. Seems to me it should be speedied asap, and the parties involved advised to proceed to WP:DRV. Nfitz (talk) 06:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm spread thinly here, so I'll be brief: By self-nominating the article after adding sources, the creator made a de facto deletion review. He should be applauded for doing so, saince he was actually doing the right thing in a slightly unusual way. - brenneman 07:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any admin attention is needed (other than what we already have). This is in fact an unusual case, and the creator might not of know of drv? Regardless, the AfD should go on as it is, for the true fate of the article. — _Maggot^Syn 07:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

To anyone contemplating this I removed the speedy as being out of process. It clearly doesn't fit the G4 criterion because the article as recreated overcame the reason for which the article was deleted in the first place, namely notability. The new article includes a number of sources that were not previously in the article and were not considered in the deletion discussion. One need not go through deletion review to recreate an article in this way, though the person should have either done that or actually integrated the new sources and revised the article prior to recreating it. However, now that the article is here it would be pointless to speedy it because that would leave the notability question unanswered. Wikidemo (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you have it wrong. The closing admin has stated that the article was near indentical to the original (save a few external links) and is in fact subject to speedy. But a speedy is not subject to G4. — _Maggot^Syn 07:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I meant to show this diff instead, taken directly from the AfD, and not his talk page (although he says it there too). But to expand for a second: No, this is why we have DRV. To bring up things such as notability that in which were overlooked or were not discussed in a prior afd, and allow for recreation. Relisting at AfD could have been a likely conclusion, and since there is an AfD open, it should stand. This should summarize whats going on at this moment. — _Maggot^Syn 07:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe Wikidemo has simply mistyped in mentioning G4. I nominated the article under A4, and he removed the Speedy. While I disagree with the judgment, Wikidemo is, I believe, claiming that the article is not "substantially identical" because of the addition of some references. I'd still prefer Speedy and DRV, but the closing admin has stated a desire to let this be "DRV by other means". LotLE×talk 07:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, G4 really is the one that (perhaps) applies... it was me who mistyped in the original speedy nomination. LotLE×talk 08:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, A4 doesn't fit either, so I doubt it. Unless I'm just completely confused. — _Maggot^Syn 07:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

G4 not A4 - ooops. Nfitz (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize to the community that I didn't know how to do a review of an AfD decision. Incidentally, where it only had two sources, the article now's got more than eight and contributors (well, primarily User:Wikidemo) have doubled the bio's length through additions of new material.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 14:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletions in contested cases accomplish nothing, they just leave the issue open. AfDs have the sometimes annoying tendency to require interested passers by to clean up articles so as to overcome the objections of those who wish to delete. DRv doesn't do that so well so it's perfectly appropriate to recreate an article in different form if that addresses the reason for earlier deletion. Just, as a matter of decorum, it's best to wait a bit and introduce it in already-rewritten form. In theory notability should be based on the sources available, whether cited or not and whether or not integrated into the article - notability being an attribute of the article subject, not the article. But that's not always how things work in practice. Perhaps this is best addressed on the talk page of the AfD. Certainly nothing here that requires administrators to step in and police things. At this point it's a routine, if slightly unruly, AfD discussion. Wikidemo (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

TinucherianBot and Issues with WP:FOOD Tagging

A bot which I operate TinucherianBot was employed by the WP:FOOD project members for WikiProject Banner Tagging of {{WPFOOD}} on talkpage of articles on Category:Food and its subcategories. I didn't run the Bot blindly and recursively on the Category:Food , but created a list of categories from main list, removed the possible wrong categories from them ( with my limited knowledge on the subject matter ) ,gave the list to the project members and got it further cleaned . It was then I created the article list by manually supplying only the 'approved' categories....and finally running the bot over the talk page of the articles ...Altough this was done in good faith , there were issues due to some misassumptions with the categorization and the bot was blocked and I had stopped the bot from running further. As the bot owner, me and the Project members are actively sorting and cleaning some of prossibly wrong tags added.

The whole issue is being discussed here at Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#TinucherianBot. Upon my explaination here at Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#Explanation_by_the_Bot_Operator , an admin, MaxSem unblocked the bot. But another admin, User:Davidgothberg blocked the bot again TWICE ( The bot had stopped 24hours ago before he blocked it) after this unblock and persistently unwilling to unblock the bot inspite of recommendations by most people. Those interested may comment at Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#TinucherianBot to avoid scattering of the discussion at different places . This is just FYI -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 07:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have notified Davidgothberg also regarding this here -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 07:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, Tinucherian was feeding his bot a list of about 1100 categories which means he was tagging somewhere around 10-100 thousand pages. He only announced that list at 1-2 WikiProjects and only for some hours before he started the bot run. That is hardly enough time for people to have a chance to check such a huge list.

Then when people protested against the massive mistagging of pages he did not bother to respond to the questions and suggestions. It wasn't until some hours ago after his bot had been blocked for several days that he bothered to give any kind of comprehensive answer to the questions and suggestions. (Instead of just complaining about the block.) Those answers now have to be discussed.

And regarding "blocking twice": I reblocked his bot to correct my block comment, since I had done a mistake in my first block comment. Thus it really is one block.

It is unfortunate that the only way to get Tinucherian to communicate properly is to block his bot for several days.

--David Göthberg (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

David, As you know, this is just bad faith accuse. It is evident from my talk page and this discussion Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#TinucherianBot that I have been trying to explain and convince you. Apparently everyone except you have understood it. I summarised again everything at Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#Explanation_by_the_Bot_Operator . It has been asked by almost everyone ( including lots of admins ) to unblock the bot like this , 2, 3 , 4 5 6 , 7 8 , 9 10, but you are still holding on to your bad faith and personal judgement. With all respect to you, you are abusing the admin powers and trust upon you -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 13:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • This must be the one that tagged Wrigley Field. Since when is Wrigley Field a food? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • Great, another crappy project-claim-o-bot spamming a hundred thousand talk pages and getting about half of them wrong (but it is vital that projects claim these articles!). I blame the stupid GA/A-class/B-class system for this. Bad targets instil bad behaviour. Um, the consensus there seems to be to unblock the stupid bot. Neıl 龱 13:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Ironically, here's where Betacommandbot might come in handy. Luckily, all this idiot bot is doing is tagging talk pages. So whoever is on that project will have 100,000 pages to look at. That should keep them busy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Before calling the bots and project members idiots, I request you to kindly read this to know what had happened here at Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#Explanation_by_the_Bot_Operator. WP:FOOD project members had requested by the Bot Operator ( see User:TinucherianBot/Autotagg/WPFOOD ) to tagg articles in Category:Food and its subcatergoies. I didn't run the Bot blindly and recursively on the Category:Food , but created a list of categories from main list, removed the possible wrong categories from them ( with my limited knowledge on the subject matter ) ,gave the list to the project members and got it further cleaned . It was then I created the article list by manually supplying only the 'approved' categories....and finally running the bot over the talk page of the articles ...It was agreed that project members and the bot operator should have paid further careful attention in selecting and eliminating the possibly wrong categories. Wrigley Field came from Category:Food companies of the United States > Category:Wrigley Company. The project member s and the bot operator is actively working on cleaning the wrongly tagged articles. Having said this, It is too be noted that more than 95% of the tagging was related to WP:FOOD only. All these have been discussed and agreed upon for future course of action by the bot or the project.

The issue now is that an admin David Göthberg is still unwilling to go by the community consensus to unblock the bot and still holding it on his personal judgement and bias.

We would appreciate further discussion on this at Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#TinucherianBot to avoid fragmentation of discussion. This note at ANI was placed for the information of a larger audience -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 14:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the alleged "consensus", tagging 100,000 articles is idiotic and the bot should be kept blocked until some common sense is brought to bear. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs , Wow ! I still cannot understand from where did you get the figure of 100,000 ? It tagged only around 6,000 articles. Are you aware of WikiProject Biography having already 523534 articles and WikiProject Military history has 68567 articles etc. If you are not aware of why and what for are Wikiprojects, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide should be a good starting point -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 15:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I got it from the earlier comment "he was tagging somewhere around 10-100 thousand pages". And don't lecture me. Just realize that the more items you tag, the more fragmented your project will be, and will likely run out of steam. Unless that's OK. Personally, I don't care about the tagging. But it seemed silly to me for Wrigley Field to be tagged as a food. And why it was in the food category is equally baffling. They sell hot dogs there. So what? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In23065

In23065 has repeatedly violated WP:3RR when dealing with a issues on Big Brother 2004 (UK). His conduct to the way he interacts with editors over votes from the housemates that were apart of a twist concerns me. He has tried to get all articles relating to Big Brother (UK) semi-protected when the only article that needed protection was Big Brother 2008 (UK) due to high IP vandalism. This request only resulted in Big Brother 2004 (UK) being semi-protected.

His conduct when dealing with both registered and anonymous users is at question as it seems he as WP:OWN issues with the Big Brother articles mainly Big Brother 2004 (UK). In a reply on his talk page he replies "No there not, who told you that. I am not going to change my mind but I will let you contribute if you promise not to add these nominations" to 92.8.110.17.[162] Sounds like WP:OWN to me.

His conduct on both Talk:Big Brother 2004 (UK) and User talk:In23065 to 92.8.110.17 is not acceptable and discourages new potential editors from editing Wikipedia. Also by having Big Brother 2004 (UK) semi-protected when there was no real vandalism prevents 92.8.110.17 from making contributions.

He also has a habit of uploading high resolution logos for mainly Big Brother UK articles instead of lower resolution logs as per Wikipedia fair use. He also edits high usage templates like Template:Big Brother housemates and Template:Big Brother endgame to suit his own style which has also affects other Big Brother articles indirectly.

His conduct though about the suitcase twist in Big Brother 2004 (UK) is what I am most considered about as he won't listen to anyone else and replies in ways that makes other editors feel beneath him to or stupid in some cases. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 08:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Alucard 16

Alucard 16 has repeatedly violated WP:3RR when dealing with a issues on Big Brother 2004 (UK). His conduct to the way he interacts with editors over votes from the housemates that were apart of a twist concerns me.

On this page he has said "He has tried to get all articles relating to Big Brother (UK) semi-protected when the only article that needed protection was Big Brother 2008 (UK) due to high IP vandalism. This request only resulted in Big Brother 2004 (UK) being semi-protected", however me and him discussed this and he agreed that it was an OK thing to do. Sounds like a bit of a bitch to me.

His conduct when dealing with both registered and anonymous users is at question as it seems he as WP:OWN issues with all Big Brother relating articles.

His conduct on Talk:Big Brother 2004 (UK) and other page relating to Big Brother to [[[User:In23065|In23065]] is not acceptable and discourages new potential editors from editing Wikipedia.

His conduct though about the suitcase twist in Big Brother 2004 (UK) is what I am most concerned about as he won't listen to anyone else and replies in ways that makes other editors feel beneath him to or stupid in some cases. In23065 (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Two near-identical, equally lame threads merged. This is an incredibly lame thing to edit war over. The difference between your two versions is virtually nil, yet neither of you will concede any ground because you both believe "you are right". Alucard 16, it is lame that you thought the best place to resolve a minor, minor content dispute was to report it to admins to try and get your opponent blocked. In23065, your copying of Alucard 16's message here was equally bad.

I suggest you both drop this, and go and find something better to do; at this point, anything would count as something better to do than this lameness. Counting blades of grass, or idle whimsy on just how orange is an orange. Neıl 龱 12:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Red or tangerine? All lameness aside though, looking at the various pages In23065 does seem to have some ownership and civility issues, and both users have edit-warred. BTW, I notice the page protection on Big Brother 2004 (UK) should have expired yesterday, but the page is still showing as semi-protected... am I reading this wrong? Anyway, I've left notes on their talk pages. EyeSerene^talk 13:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Complicated legal threat situation

I'm an involved user in this situation, so I will take absolutely no admin action here, but I'm not sure if any admin action is needed or not. User:Guido den Broeder posted on the 3rd July on the talk page of User:Oscar, an admin on the Dutch Wikipedia and the mentor of Guido den Broeder over there (it's an arbcom appointed mentorship, but is not recognized or accepted as such by Guido den Broeder). Guido was blocked by Oscar on the Dutch Wikipedia, and posted here[163]: "Oscar, ik raad je aan om per onmiddellijk mijn blokkade op nl:Wikipedia ongedaan te maken. Beschouw dit als je laatste kans." (Translation: "Oscar, I advise you to lift my block on the Dutch Wikipedia immediately. Consider this your final chance.") Another user interpreted this as a physical threat, which seems unrealistic to me. However, some four hours after this message, Guido den Broeder has been indefinitely blocked on the Dutch Wikipedia by decision of the Dutch Arbcom for making serious legal threats[164]. Quote: "Na het indienen van deze zaak heeft Guido den Broeder in een email van 3 juli aan gebruiker:Oscar en een afschrift daarvan aan de arbcom aangekondigd strafrechtelijke stappen te zullen ondernemen tegen Oscar." (Translation: "After starting this case, Guido den Broeder has in a mail of July 3rd to user:Oscar and a carbon copy to the arbcom announced to take legal action against Oscar.) The Dutch arbcom has also contacted Mike Godwin[165].

I know that normally actions and blocks on other Wikipedias are not transferred to this one, but since the user has brought this problem to the English Wikipedia as well (and to meta[[166]]), and has made a post which, in light of what followed, can hardly be interpreted aas anything but a veiled legal threat, should he be warned and/or blocked here as well until this is resolved? Fram (talk) 08:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course. Good analysis of the case. The threat was made here, and in any case, even if it wasn't, these two users, with recognisably the same user identities as on nl-wiki, would pose the same problem if they had to interact here on en-wiki while at the same time engaged in real-life legal issues, so yes, the spirit of NLT would demand that we block him even if he hadn't spoken about it here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've always found WP:NLT' reasoning rather tenuous. I do wish we'd treat it simply as an extension of being civil and polite, and that we'd ask that users make no threats at all, rather than giving tenuous legal reasoning. — Werdna • talk 09:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• In addition to using English Wikipedia to further conflict on another wiki and make legal threats, Guido was blocked several times for different kinds of misconduct here, so I don't think that unblocking him will make any sense, even if he retracts the legal threat. As such, I propose to impose community ban on Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs). MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 09:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • From what I saw, Dutch wikipedia editors followed him here. Possibly both sides are "using English Wikipedia to further conflict on another wiki". I said this last time, and will say it again. In the era of SUL (single-user login) we need to think more about cross-wiki issues. Traditionally, sanctions and remedies on other wikis were not applied here, and I think that should continue. I also think the tradition of giving people a second chance on other wikis is sometimes good, but also shouldn't be abused. The language issues are a problem as well. I am always uncomfortable relying on people to translate what has been said on other wikis - it is simpler to look at behaviour on just one wiki. Carcharoth (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban, leave blocked until legal issues sorted. I haven't looked recently, but I don't think his problematic editing conduct warrants a ban. Legal threats are not allowed, though, and those issues need to be resolved before any unblocking. Unfortunately, we can't judge the legal threats aspect of things properly here, as there is off-wiki stuff (Godwin and Dutch Wikipedia). If Guido withdraws the legal threats he can be unblocked - but we need a way of making certain that the legal threats have genuinely been withdrawn, I don't think just a post to his talk page would be enough. On the other hand, (for example) a lack of response from Mike Godwin (has he responded to confirm anything, or has someone just sent him an e-mail hoping for a reply?) or a lack of response from the Dutch Wikipedia, might leave Guido in a particularly nasty kind of limbo, even if he has withdrawn his legal threats. Anyway, as I was saying, if the legal stuff gets sorted, I'd be happy to mentor Guido on chess articles. From what I can see, the most problematic of his editing is on medical articles. Carcharoth (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with Carcharoth, who basically said what I was going to say, but better. Having dealt with a few disputes that have spilled over from other wikimedia projects, I find the best thign to do is to deal with each in isolation. Neıl 龱 12:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Block him indefinitely, tell him to convey his legal requests to info-en@wikimedia.org, he's welcome to be unblocked when he removes his threat. Simple. As well, the lack of response from Mike is not a big deal, he does not deal with every single legal threat we get, the majority of them are dealt with on OTRS before they ever get serious enough to go to him. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 13:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The point I was making was that the comment "The Dutch arbcom has also contacted Mike Godwin" is pointless and shouldn't be taken to mean anything unless someone hears from Mike Godwin. We shouldn't take the word of others that a particular situation is urgent or serious enough to require Mike Godwin's attention. The only person who can decide that is Mike Godwin himself. We should be wary of people using the phrase "we've contacted Mike Godwin" as a way to bolster their argument. We should also avoid getting into a situation where people say "we haven't heard back from Mike Godwin yet, don't do anything". Carcharoth (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Abusive IP user calling me a liar and slanderer

User:75.73.71.194 has called me a liar on several user and article talk pages. I was going to wait for an apology until I looked at the time difference. He has done this on all his contributions to talk pages today [167]. I've responded a bit on his talk page User talk:75.73.71.194. Can his edits be deleted? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 11:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Alex191

I protest the treatment at WP:AIV regarding Special:Contributions/Alex191 [168]. The user contribs is 100% vandalism. This is not an IP, but a registered editor who was final-warned two weeks ago, and now decides to vandalize again. Do we reset the vandalism counter for registered editors who's contribs would fall into vandalism only account? Yngvarr (c) 11:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• The user has been indefblocked by User:Ryulong as a vandalism-only account. Just to note, per WP:BLOCK, such accounts can be blocked on sight (there's no requirement to follow the warning escalator). Thanks for your report. EyeSerene^talk 11:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you cite the rule to that effect? Seems to me I've seen entries on WP:AIV where admins claimed that insufficient warning was given to a reg. user. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
    • It's a bit relative - if an account has both good-faith edits as well as the odd bit of vandalism, it would rightly not be indef-blocked as a vandal-only account. Similarly, a users first edit or two( ("oh my god I can actually change this!" or "Hello") may look like vandalism, but would get the benefit of a doubt, and warnings may then also be given rather than an indef block. Probably about five or six edits are enough to realise an account is vandal-only (unless the first edit is something obviously bad faith). I bet I haven't cleared it up at all, have I? Neıl 龱 13:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Yep, thanks Neil ;) Warnings are a courtesy to editors who will then hopefully read the linked policies and change their behaviour. If an editor has had warnings in the past (and this one did, up to and including a final warning), and has only used their account for vandalism, there's no need to reset the warning escalator or give the benefit of the doubt just because we're in a new month. As Neil says, the same wouldn't necessarily apply to new editors or those with a more mixed edit history. EyeSerene^talk 13:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
        • It sounds like there is no rule, a such - it's a judgement call. Well, it's usually pretty obvious when a user is vandalism-only, although the first edit by itself may not be so obvious. Typically I don't issue a warning at all unless they do it a second time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Fasach Nua

Yes, this is another thread. He's now gone on from IFDs to disrupting the featured article process. Of the five discussions he's joined, he has opposed all of them - four for fair use issues. Two of note include opposing the television episode FACs: "The Stolen Earth" and "The Shape of Things to Come". Of note, in each FAC:

• The Stolen Earth - he brings up his (far stricter than the policy prescribes) interpretation to say two images fail NFCC#8. He also brings up Image:TARDIS-trans.png, claiming its trademark status means it should not be used, despite recent consensus that it may;
• The Shape of Things to Come: opposes solely because "neither of the two non-free images have valid FU rationales". I checked their pages - they do have rationales. This is obvious bad faith against a helpful content-contributing user who passed her request for adminship yesterday.

If this was the first transgression Fasach has incurred, I'd ask for a warning. But no. I filed a requests for comment seven months ago, and he's still continuing the disputed behaviour. When are we going to stop giving him rope? If he wasn't dealing with fair-use images, he would've been banned long ago. I think he's become a net negative on the project: he's already created a chilling effect with uploading images. But disrupting FAC is crossing the line. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this something the ANI page needs to deal with do you think? Each nominator will encounter spurious opposes. I know I have in the articles I've nominated. SandyGeorgia will judge how serious the opposes are and make a decision to promote or archive. There are some nutty opposes that can't be addressed, and there are opposes that appear nutty then start to make sense. They have to be taken into account for each FAC. --Moni3 (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If it was his first action, I'd note it on the FAC and not bring it here. But this user has been disruptive for eight months (and ANI archives will show) and I've exhausted all other options except for ArbCom. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Are these your FACs? I suggest addressing the issue directly in the FAC. If so, be honest and say that you don't think the opposes are actionable, and for what reasons. If opposition gets more heated, or even nuttier things come up, leave a note on Sandy's talk page explaining your issue. But she reads all the FACs anyway. --Moni3 (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

One of them is mine. The other FAC is thedemonhog's. The FAC issue is only supplementary: he's still disrupting Wikipedia process. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you've answered your own question on what to do next. Neıl 龱 13:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

RFAr is crumbling to bits at the moment (Giovanni33, Orangemarlin, Giano). Any request for arbitration will stay stagnant for a month or two while that gets sorted out. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this user's conduct since the RFC, but if it's becoming a problem, then take it to arbitration - it shouldn't be too complex. More straightforward like...Yorkshirian, for instance. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If your immediate concern is getting your FAC promoted, address Fasach Nua's comments the same you would any other editor's. If you disagree with it, say so and say why, being respectful, of course. That's a record for SandyGeorgia to see when she reviews each FAC. If, say, Fasach Nua gets blocked for being a pain (I have no idea what this story is, by the way), and another editor makes the same oppose, you'll have to address it eventually. --Moni3 (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise opposed the same way, but as he is highly partisan in this matter, I don't think he should've voted. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The only disruption here is Sceptre's. He's engaging in blockable harassment by repeatedly throwing about spurious accusations just because he doesn't like F.N.'s opinions. What has F.N. done this time? He has expressed a well-founded, serious opinion that is well based in policy. The image use in that article is questionable. There is an image in an infobox that is not in any straightforward way related to analytical commentary in the text that it would be necessary to support. Questioning that image use is absolutely legitimate and necessary, and I would personally say F.N. is right with respect to at least one (possibly two) images. If there's poorly integrated and poorly justified non-free content, the article can't be featured, it's as simple as that. Shouting "disruption" just because you don't like to hear people reminding you of policy? If you think you can get F.N. sanctioned that easily, think twice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. About the Tardis image issue: There certainly was no "recent consensus" that the image is okay; the discussion stalled with opinions divided, and F.N. is certainly not alone in his opinion. And as for the images in The Shape of Things to Come, yes, they have rationales, but are they valid ones? Like in so many other images, they are meaningless boilerplate text with little or no individual explanation of what makes the image necessary. F.N.'s objetion here is, again, legitimate and deserves to be taken seriously. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it legitimate just because he's got the same viewpoints as you on fair use? Sceptre ^(talk) 15:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It is legitimate because it is a seriously considered viewpoint on fair use, based in policy consensus. You may disagree, politely. You see, I am not calling for you to be blocked or sanctioned because I disagree with you. You are doing these things. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not the viewpoint. It's the behaviour. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What behaviour do you mean, apart from the fact that he expresses that viewpoint? That's all he's been doing. And, last warning: Stop the personal attacks. Call him a "disruptive user" one more time and you're blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect AfD closure

Resolved

 – Notified user that close was inappropriate.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Could an admin please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Z (4th nomination)? It was closed as keep by a non-admin who had already voted in the discussion. BradV 14:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Struck his signature, signed it myself, and warned him about issues with close.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks muchly. BradV 14:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive talk page removals by User:Otterathome

See #Rollback BLP issues. Despite having no support, he insists on removing talk page sections. The Talk:David Icke section actually seems quite relevant; the others probably aren't worth fighting over, but there's no real reason to remove the comments, per WP:TALK. The WP:BLP "violations" are completely bogus, even though the fact there is no reply on the BLP notice board other than our argument suggests a systemic problem there. There's still no relevant WP:BLP claim, but it's possible that the two latter ones should be removed for irrelevance; however, WP:TALK suggests that only disruptive irrelevant comments should be removed, and the only reason these are disruptive is User:Otterathome. David Icke's seems relevant. Wikipedia is very slow for me at the moment, but the total number of removals by the Otter since July 4 is 6, and the total number of my restorations is 5.

Talk:David Icke

Talk:Paul Barry

Talk:John Reid (politician)

Any comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've just commented above, but since you've posted a competing thread... I don't think you ought to be aggressively revert-warring with this editor over these comments. I agree that there really is no BLP violation inherent in linking to Uncyclopedia (although, given its history, I imagine others will disagree vehemently). Having said that, edit warring over it is a bit ridiculous. Is the person who made the edits upset at having them removed? I've requested the talkpage be protected at RPP - I expect that once it is, in whichever version, you'll leave it. Avruch 15:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)