Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:Calton

The other day, I responded to a helpme template issued by User:Turner&associates. Right off the bat, there's an obviously username issue there, and I mentioned that in my reply. What was refreshing to me was that this particular user had written an article in their userspace (restored for ease of reference), but was politely asking if it was worthy of inclusion before putting it into the mainspace. I also mentioned the COI issue that was quite obviously present and told them I wasn't sure if this individual met our notability guidelines for people. In the meantime, the user was blocked (appropriately, but I would've liked more time to discuss the issue since they weren't being disruptive) for their username. The blocking admin was kind enough not to template the user, as I had clearly already mentioned the username issue to them. This user quite politely accepted my determination that the article was likely not worthy, and made a further query about citations, to which I responded thusly, asking for some more reliable sources.

It is at this point that Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) arrives, templating the user and blanking the potential article that was being discussed replacing it with {{indefblock}}. I undid the addition of both of these templates. He put them on again, saying don't be daft: this is SOP and not a special admin task. Again, I undid both, and he again blanked the userpage, which I again reverted. At this point, I began a discussion with Calton, the entirety of which can be viewed here.

Now, this act of users templating other users while admins are in discussion with them is perhaps my greatest annoyance. If an admin is in full control of the situation, there is no need for another user to be throwing templates around. This needs to be written into the guidelines. That being said, the major problem which brings me here today is Calton's attitude towards admins. He seems to feel that he knows best - whereas admins are the ones who have been entrusted by the community to uphold its standards as they see fit refusing to accept any one's judgment of the situation but his own. This user in particular did not deserve templating because they had the common courtesy to actually ASK if their article was worthwhile of inclusion. Whether or not it is - is completely peripheral to the matter. I felt it necessary to show the user the same level of respect that they had shown us.

Ironically, while I was writing to him tonight to tell him not to template users while admins are discussing issues with them, he was simultaneously involved in edit warring to reverse another administrator's actions at WP:UAA. I also see that there was another similar issue some months ago with respect to him adding a now deleted template to userpages as he tagged them that several administrators attempted to address him about. He seems to be unwilling or unable to accept the judgment of administrators.

I apologize for this long explanation, but feel that this type of behaviour needs to stop. –xeno (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a typical type of behaviour shown by Calton, he's extremely quick to tag/warn users with promotional usernames, regardless of what their intent is here. He isn't willing to discuss issues with users, he simply tags and reports, and when concerns arise, he gives flippant replies and carries on regardless. I personally think that his COI and promotional username work is detremental to the project, and I'd certainly support a topic ban the prohibits him from working in these areas. There's a serious case of WP:BITE here, and this has been brought up on AN/I before. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to let this drop (I usually don't let myself get too worked up about things) but since the AN/I is already here I'll come comment. As a fairly regular patroller of UAA, I can only agree that Calton has had something of a history of making borderline reports, and often in large quantities. This isn't too troublesome in and of itself, but going back and repeating declined reports is pretty unhelpful. As an "involved" administrator I will refrain from belaboring this topic further and leave it to 3rd parties to observe and decide what to do. Shereth 01:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The "borderline" judgment, to go by the talk page of WP:UAA, appears to be yours alone. Given that your judgment's been questioned -- by at least one other admin -- it's clear that a third opinion is needed. --Calton | Talk 01:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I've been privy to his behavior at WP:UAA where Calton shotgun reports usernames that match a person, band or company that has created an article, whether blatantly advertising or not. Regardless, it's the not the mass reporting that bothers me (although it does peeve abit), but it's the sheer unwillingness to listen when approached. I have major concerns with users who breach WP:BITE, and we all know that UAA is one of those hot zone areas that need special sensitivity. The above behavior described, coupled with the activity at UAA, lead, me to believe that he is being more detrimental to the project than anything else. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. I tag blatant advertising -- but even if you disagree about the "blatant", perhaps a read of this would be helpful, or perhaps you should take up your concern with the multiple admins who do the actual deleting and the actual blocking. --Calton | Talk 01:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This behavior is one of the worst case of biting I've seen in a while. It must stop. — Coren ^(talk) 01:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? "Worst"? And the ones being bitten are whom? --Calton | Talk 01:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd like to see Calton steer clear of UAA for a while, or at least approach it more gingerly. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This is absurd to the point of ridiculous. The most succinct replies I can give to Xenocidic's long-winded explanation are 1) to point out he seems to forget what admins actually are: they're editors with a few extra buttons. They're not gods, they're not supervisors or managers, and their edits and work have no more authority or judgment than any other user; in fact, given their extra buttons, they need to be more careful about their work. Yours was careless and had not the slightest grounding in policy, practice, or guideline -- or at least none you would reveal, since all you did -- and are doing now -- is throwing your weight around. 2) to point out that you put up not a single rebuttal to the numerous rules, guidelines, policies, and standard practices I pointed you to, relying instead on vague handwaving. 3) that your resorting to thinly veiled personal attacks ("If you had bothered to read", "use common sense") while complaining about civility is more than a touch hypocritical. 4) mistaken about WP:UAA, which a simple reading of the talk page would have shown, and would show that User:Shereth's judgment had already by been questioned, directly by, hey, an another admin 5) that employing obvious hyperbole such as "He seems to be unwilling or unable to accept the judgment of administrators" is not only damaging and false, but assumes facts not in evidence? Certainly the various Barnstars I've received point out how ridiculously inclusive that claim is. And for the record, I am unwilling to accept the judgment of editors who don't know what they're talking about; who provide no actual reasons for their judgments; who make false claims; who resort to insults throwing their weight around in lieu of actual arguments; or who violate actual policies, guidelines, rules, standard practices, or the actual goals of the Project: whether said editors are anon IPs, ordinary-level users, or administrators doesn't and shouldn't make the slightest bit of difference if they are, you know, wrong.

Speaking of absurd, could Ryan Postlethwaite explain exactly how removing blatantly obvious spam and COI --- 'exactly as is done at WP:UAA every single day by multiple users and -- mirabile dictu -- admins? "detremental [sic] to the project", and how, exactly, he divines the intent of said spammers outside of their actions ("regardless of what their intent is here", to quote you)? The rest of your comments, I'll simply say because I'm tired of typing, are outright false (deliberately or not, I don't care) and I'll leave it at that. --Calton | Talk 01:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the point I was trying to make is sometimes you need to forget about rules, guidelines, policies, and standard practices, and just talk to people like they are human beings. –xeno (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You really can't help yourself with the thinly veiled insults, can you? I guess I'll just have to ask you when you stopped beating your wife, then? --Calton | Talk 01:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of absurd, could Ryan Postlethwaite explain exactly how removing blatantly obvious spam and COI --- 'exactly as is done at WP:UAA every single day by multiple users and -- mirabile dictu -- admins? "detremental [sic] to the project", and how, exactly, he divines the intent of said spammers outside of their actions ("regardless of what their intent is here", to quote you)? The rest of your comments, I'll simply say because I'm tired of typing, are outright false (deliberately or not, I don't care) and I'll leave it at that. --Calton | Talk 01:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's cut through the noise: all I do is tag the spam pages and report said spammers. Multiple admins -- might as well do the appeal to authority bit, too -- are the ones who do the actual deleting and actual blocking, not me. If you have a problem, take it up with them, or work to get actual policies, guidelines, rules, and project goals changed to match whatever it is you have a problem with. --Calton | Talk 01:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

After removing some non-blockworthy listings from the odd "relisted" section, I poked around in the WP:UAA history to see what was up with that section, which led me here. Calton, knock it off. Your reports push the borderline. Multiple admins tell you this, and you ignore them. It's one thing if you continue to list new borderline cases, I would never have a big problem with that. But this relisting thing, which is a serious ongoing problem with you, has to stop. Although Calton is a great asset to the project, this admin shopping he does is really really inappropriate and I advocate blocking if it happens again. Enough is enough, I've been seeing this behavior from Calton for over a year. Mangojuice^talk 01:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What the hell ARE you talking about? What "ongoing problem"? What "admin shopping" What "multiple admins"? Your comments don't make the slightest bit of sense and don't seem to have the slightest relationship to what's going on. Did you read the talk page? --Calton | Talk 02:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

And let me repeat: "And for the record, I am unwilling to accept the judgment of editors who don't know what they're talking about; who provide no actual reasons for their judgments; who make false claims; who resort to insults throwing and their weight around in lieu of actual arguments; or who violate actual policies, guidelines, rules, standard practices, or the actual goals of the Project: whether said editors are anon IPs, ordinary-level users, or administrators doesn't and shouldn't make the slightest bit of difference if they are, you know, wrong." --Calton | Talk 02:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Calton, I understand you're indignant and maybe a little frustrated here, but your tone is starting to become incivil and even hostile. Just cool off a bit and discuss the situation. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You're damned right I'm upset: the charges of Xenocidic & Ryan Postlethwaite -- especially the latter -- boil down to nothing but indignant and fact-free cries of "Respect Mah Authoritah!" and the subsequent pile-on, from Mangojuice on down is similarly fact-free.

One more point - I can't speak for anybody else, but I assure you that I am not implying or asserting that administrators are above any other user. Goodness knows that's not true. However, this brings me to another one of your comments: Just because administrators block your username reports does not absolve the continued action that obviously multiple users have a problem with. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Catron is doing the work of God, keeping the spamming scum off WP user pages. This is Catron's "current project", secretly given unto to him by Jimbo himself in the sacred Temple of Wikia. How dare you question? FishNewbieWikiNoob (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Good Lord. Calton doesn't seem to understand the concept of discussion at all. This kind of behavior in response to reasonable requests from multiple concerned editors is like a cliche that people who hate wikipedia bring up in online discussions. Dayewalker (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

And you don't seem to understand what I wrote, so I'll repeat once again: "And for the record, I am unwilling to accept the judgment of editors who don't know what they're talking about; who provide no actual reasons for their judgments; who make false claims; who resort to insults throwing and their weight around in lieu of actual arguments; or who violate actual policies, guidelines, rules, standard practices, or the actual goals of the Project: whether said editors are anon IPs, ordinary-level users, or administrators doesn't and shouldn't make the slightest bit of difference if they are, you know, wrong." I'm still waiting for an actual explanation of what it is I'm doing that's violating any rules or guidelines or is somehow detrimental to Wikipedia -- especially from Ryan Postlethwaite, who had NEVER done anything close. --Calton | Talk 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This admin shopping behavior is far from new for Calton; he's been doing it for years. My first (and maybe only) interaction with Calton was back in July '07 when he tagged User:Losplad as spam. He tagged it with {{spam}} once, and OwenX (talk · contribs) decline the request. He tagged it a second time, and VirtualSteve (talk · contribs) decline it. Calton tagged it a third time, and I declined it. After OwenX, VirtualSteve and I all explained the issue to him (and why were declining the request), the issue seemed resolved. Then, two weeks later, Calton tagged the page a fourth time and came up lucky; Kylu (talk · contribs) deleted it. His behavior is nothing new, and it's just as unacceptable now as it was then. - auburnpilot talk 04:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember that in detail, but I certainly don't remember any detailed explanations: I remember two admins mindlessly backing another -- and the fact that it was eventually deleted should have been a tiny clue that maybe, just maybe, you were, you know, wrong. --Calton | Talk 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I see lots of users sitting around complaining about Calton, but not doing anything about it. Maybe it is time for some kind of topic ban? Tiptoety ^talk 05:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not a new pattern of behavior for Calton. He is incessesantly abusive towards all users who disagree with him and has been for years. No one has ever done anything about it, aside from the occasional RFC: [1] Calton has shown a consitant and unchanging pattern of behavior that includes refusing to work with others or compromise his position on anything, admit fault in any situation, and is unyieldingly rude and dismissive of all other editors. Some established set of sanctions, such as civility parole, needs to be enforced with escalating blocks for this long pattern of behavior. It is only because he always gets away with it that he continues. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

While civility seems to be a concern, it's not the major one. WP:BITE whether intentional or not is the major problem. User should be temporarily banned from UAA and CSD spam. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've worked with Calton before and he can be quite abrupt. Perhaps working with new users that may be influenced to become productive contributors, mindful of role account, SPA, and COI issues, if dealt with politely, but may also be influenced to give up, badmouth Wikipedia, sock, vandalise, etc if dealt with abruptly... perhaps this area may not be the best use of Calton's talents. So yes, perhaps Calton should be encouraged to contribute in other ways for a while. And if he is not willing to take that polite guidance from his peers, perhaps a topic ban would be the next thing to try. Because I think Calton misses the point... the point here is that situations like Xeno described in the opening of this section, if they are valid descriptions of actual events, ought not to happen, and input about that ought to be accepted. Coming in guns blazing with templates slapped down when another volunteer is already in polite and constructive discussion with a new user is almost certainly not the best approach. ++Lar: t/c 05:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

not willing to take that polite guidance from his peers - except, of course, no one has actually offered any. When that starts -- either the adjective or noun, separately or together -- you might have a point. And your mischaracterization as "guns blazing", while colorful, has the slight problem of not actually being true. --Calton | Talk 09:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone did offer some. Actually a lot of someones did. You just don't choose to acknowledge it, which a big part of the issue. To be crystal clear, I'll reiterate it for you... If another user is working with the newcomer, and a productive dialog is underway, don't slap templates down that interfere with that dialog, and especially, don't revert war to keep them in place... instead take the time to look at what is going on and if it's being handled, let it be.... clear enough guidance for you? I see multiple places in this very thread where you have been told not to do that. Politely. ++Lar: t/c 15:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Calton arbitrary break 1

• Yep, I must agree and after dealing with Calton myself in a previous case I see the likely hood of him taking on the advice given here relatively low. I support a topic ban from UAA along with spam related situations (CSD, userpages...ect). Tiptoety ^talk 05:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• If someone were actually offering actual advice instead of vague unsupported claims and abuse, you might have a point. As no one, including you, as actually done so, makes it hard to take the comment seriously. --Calton | Talk 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Tiptoety's suggested ban. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support- Agree, I would like to add to my previous suggestion above, COI concerns and CSD tagging in userspace, not just spam articles and UAA. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support a la Tiptoety. Civility towards established editors aside, this guy seems like a horrible welcoming committee for wikipedia. This topic ban would keep him as an editor, and also protect the newbies. Dayewalker (talk) 05:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, as it's very important to welcome as many spammers and site abusers as possible to Wikipedia, as it gives the page patrolers something to keep them busy. --Calton | Talk 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support. I wish this wasn't necessary, because frankly Calton does a lot of good work, especially finding these spam pages and reporting them for CSD. But yes, this is a problem. I was going to suggest the ban be just for WP:UAA, but it's not the only area. But it's Calton's extreme frequency of incivility combined with his complete disrespect of anyone who disagrees with him or criticizes him, that makes him just really not the person we want dealing with new users. Mangojuice^talk 05:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't deal with new users, I deal with spammers and other abusers of Wikipedia. This is not difficult distinction, no matter how you muddy it. --Calton | Talk 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from UAA, CSD, and spam/COI-related with other users or with articles in general. I've had no prior interaction with Calton, but his tone in the discussion above confirms the concerns raised by Xenocidic and others.  Sandstein  07:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• My "tone" is the product of my complete disgust of the fact-free railroading, the hyperbolic claims, the thoughtless pile-ons, and the overall cumulative insults to my intelligence. --Calton | Talk 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Absurd. Let Calton take a couple of weeks off, but a topic ban? Please. Everyone who deals with abuses of the project on a long-term basis gets a bit jaded over time and can become inclined to see abuse where none exists, and it is absolutely true that bands, companies and other entities arrive at Wikipedia in large numbers to promote themselves. Oh, and the "Turner&associates" page is a biography of the founder of Turner & Associates, a firm of no obvious notability. See WP:COI. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I dealt with Calton around the beginning of his editing career, and I can testify that his attitude has always been terrible and completely uncivil. To present it as though he gradually became jaded after dealing with problems for a long time is completely inaccurate. Everyking (talk) 05:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

...his complete disrespect of anyone who disagrees with him or criticizes him - perhaps if those anyones would include a few actual facts, actual references, or actual charges I can actually answer, they might get some "respect". --Calton | Talk 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support the topic ban. This is hardly an isolated issue. Viridae^Talk 09:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - too broad (particularly, 'spam-related discussions') and somewhat premature to be that broad. On the other hand, I wouldn't oppose the topic ban on UAA and CSD, and a ban on him inserting, modifying or removing block-templates (or block-tags) in his edits, particularly on user talk pages. I think Calton just needs a break, and stepping back would be helpful as a first step to address other concerns. A proposal similar to mentorship would be the second option - ideally, it wouldn't go beyond that. (If it did, the wide topic-ban suggested would be the third, and finally...well everyone knows what that would be....) Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. A topic ban isn't the answer to this; perhaps a wikibreak may be what the doctor has ordered. I'm with JzG on this one, and I have seen some particularly good reports in my dealings with him (all of which have been civil if memory serves). Rudget 11:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. For several reasons. (1) It seems excessive to pull out a host of past grievances in an ANI report and use that to take broad action against a user. At best, Calton should be told to cease and desist in this specific case. If anyone feels that the case should be broadened, an Rfc that seeks community consensus would be more appropriate; (2) According to Xeno: If an admin is in full control of the situation, there is no need for another user to be throwing templates around. This needs to be written into the guidelines. That being said, the major problem which brings me here today is Calton's attitude towards admins. Consensus on actions are determined by the community, not by a cabal of admins. The complainant seems more upset with disrespect shown to admins rather than with the actions of Calton, which, with apologies, is not a constructive attitude since, technically, there is nothing special about an admin except for a few extra buttons. I don't disagree with the 'trust' and 'experience' part but expecting other editors to butt out when a couple of admins are involved is excessive. --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 12:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• How is it excessive, is this not what ANI is for? A user with a long history BITEy behavior and incivility should not be dealt with appropriately and past events should be excluded from the discussion? I mean how do you propose we deal with users with a long history of disruptive behavior? Sweeping it under the rug and telling him to take a break has proven not to work. Tiptoety ^talk 13:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What we have here is an editor who believes that he/she is acting for the betterment of the encyclopedia by identifying COI and advertising accounts. This is not vandalism and the editor should be treated with appropriate respect (civility works both ways). If several editors believe he/she has a civility issue, then it is far better to address that issue directly in an RFC where he/she can respond to all the charges/issues at one time rather than having to deal with serial complaints. (I'm not saying don't address an issue if you think it important, but rather that this is not the right way.) --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 15:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Calton has this phrase on this talkpage - "Adherence to common sense and rational argument trumps ruleslawyering, as far as I'm concerned." - how about he actually adheres to his own advice? Exxolon (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• How about you show where I haven't? Let me make this simple for you: Spam is bad for Wikipedia. I find spam. I tag spam. Spam gets deleted. Spammers get blocked. Easy enough?

• Maybe I should have also put, "Don't make up shit. It insults my intelligence." --Calton | Talk 14:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok - you asked for it. The COMMON SENSE thing to do here would be to admit that certain editors have a problem with the way you're editing and to work with them and the rest of the community to resolve the situation amicably. Instead you seem to be under the impression that working to prevent spam gives you carte blanche to ignore other editors concerns, talk down to them and generally behave in an unpleasant and condescending manner. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, not a battleground - if you can't work constructively with other editors then there's no place for you here. Exxolon (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not exactly sure what the best course of action here is. I don't think anyone should be templating a user while an administrator (or anyone, for that matter) is discussing the situation with them. Plain and simple, it's rude - to both parties. @JzG, as I said, it isn't about whether the T&A account or their proposed article was worthy of inclusion - it was about showing them the same respect that they showed us. This is what I was trying to convey to Calton, and instead he edit warred, dismissed my concerns, and made an appeal to the letter, but not the spirit of our rules. And in this entire thread, the behaviour is repeated - a downright refusal to admit any possibility that perhaps he has made a mistake. Users like this necessarily have problems working in a collaborative environment. I'll admit, my initial approach to him lacked tact, and I tried to de-escalate the situation and extend an olive branch - one that was refused. My request is simple and flows from not any rule, policy, or guideline, but from common sense: don't template a user while the situation is under discussion. –xeno (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• I'm troubled by this one. I think Calton does a great job finding the hidden spam. Most of the userpages I've found tagged by Calton, I've felt were straightforward, reasonable matters for deletion. I don't know that preventing Calton from doing what (a) Calton is very good at doing and (b) other people don't seem to be so keen on doing is all that good for the project. (Note that I don't mean by this to defend disruption in the doing.) OTOH, speedy deletions are meant to be uncontroversial. With the exception of copyright & attack pages, there should be no reason to repeatedly list an article or userpage for speedy deletion. Any editor who disagrees may remove the tag, following which other processes (like MFD) should be followed. With respect to CSD tagging, I wonder if it would suffice if Calton agreed to tag an article or userpage only once? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• First of all, bringing up a history of misconduct is not pulling out a host of past grievances. New users are the lifeblood of Wikipedia and his ongoing newcomer biting needs to cease. These issues have been coming for literally years. Support topic ban (even if temporary). If that doesn't stick, a block is a perfectly reasonable way to prevent his biting new users and ongoing bad judgment in a sensitive part of Wikipedia. Preventing spam is not more important than treating new users with respect. RxS (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose topic ban. I've clicked on xeno's links, and feel somewhat uncomfortable with Calton's salty edit summaries, but very uncomfortable with xeno's responses to them. Xeno being the admin, more is expected of him—that's an important principle here. I will offer a little advice to admins in their interchanges with experienced users. Don't try to squeeze deference out of people like Calton; it's inappropriate, and it's simply doomed. Look to your own demeanour, ignore his. YMMV, but, for example, I'd never go "NPA!" when somebody says "Don't be daft"[2]; xeno, such a response is just going to make you look starchy and fussy, you know. (Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever invoked NPA because of something said to me.) It's much better to respond to the point being made. You're an admin, yes; but the only relevance of your adminship to this issue is that, being an admin, you'd do well to develop a thicker skin. For instance, I can't agree that Calton's responses are "approaching disruption", as you write in this edit summary. Not anywhere close. In the guideline dealing with disruption, that term is defined as "gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree." [3]. The word "disruption" is woefully overused, by no means by xeno alone, whenever admins can't think of any more specific accusation. It should never be used to mean that an admin isn't getting as much deference as they'd like. It's an absurdity here. Is Calton approaching "gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies"..? Is he within shouting distance of such violations, in anything linked to above? Certainly not. Xeno, please try to get over your sense that "admins are the ones who have been entrusted by the community to uphold its standards as they see fit" [sic]. You've been entrusted with a mop and bucket and a little extra responsibility, that's all'; you haven't become Wikipedia nobility.
• (Full disclosure: Calton's no friend of mine. He's been startlingly rude to me, details on request. But we're not all cut with a cookie-cutter. I advise him to make a habit of assuming more good faith from newbies; but in the individual case, I can rarely fault his judgment on this or other issues.) Bishonen | talk 14:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC).

Edit warring is not disruption? As far as the comment about nobility - I'm not sure what that's all about. Yes, I have the tools. So, I was fully prepared to delete the page once my discussion with the user had come to a satisfactory close. Blanking it with "indefblocked" was unnecessary - it wasn't harming anyone. It's tough to discuss a page with someone when it's been covered by a template. And the user had already been blocked - had they attempted to edit outside their talk space, they would've been presented with the {{usernameblock}} notice. No need to pile it onto their talk page. In other words: it was under control. –xeno (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that's right; edit warring's not disruption. Not unless it's "gross, obvious and repeated". And, uh, was Calton edit warring with himself, or with whom..? With you, am I right? And before you tell me he had the effrontery to edit war with an admin; no, that's not worse than edit warring with somebody else. Not in a month of Sundays. As for your not being sure what the "nobility" crack was about, I'll have to work on expressing myself more clearly. I thought my quoting your assumptions about the powers and privileges of admins would do it. Here they are again: "admins are the ones who have been entrusted by the community to uphold its standards as they see fit" [sic]. No, they're not, you know. I really wish you'd take this to heart, because you're wrong. Admins are merely the ones entrusted with a few extra buttons, which they're absolutely not supposed to use "as they see fit". As Jimbo is fond of pointing out, we were all admins at one time:

In the very early days of Wikipedia, all users functioned as administrators, and in principle they still should. From early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community but should be a part of the community like anyone else. Generally, the maintenance and administration of Wikipedia can be conducted by anyone, without the specific technical functions granted to administrators.

That's policy: Wikipedia:Administrators. Admins should never develop into a class of nobles. Calton is dead bang in policy when he conducts " the maintenance and administration of Wikipedia", and your quest for a guideline that says he's not supposed to is doomed to failure. Bishonen | talk 15:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC).

That's not really what I was trying to get at, so given this unfortunate interpretation, struck and annotated. It's the fact that he seems to believe he is always right - no matter what - no matter who (admin or otherwise) disagrees with him. –xeno (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying, but I'm not convinced in regards to this particular case. The block was placed at the discretion of the blocking admin, as was the choice not to template - according to the initial complaint at the top, there was none due to issues raised by xeno, who was in discussion with the blocked user too. For Calton to then blank the userpage and insist on placing the block tag (3 times without discussing it with either the blocking admin, or the user reverting him) seems to be gross, repeated and obvious. Thoughts anyone? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• not the spirit of our rules - Encouraging spam and spammers is "not the spirit of our rules". Editwarring to restore spam is "not the spirit of our rules". Editwarring yourself is "not the spirit of our rules". Throwing your weight around as an admin without justifying it is "not the spirit of our rules" -- and certainly bears no relation to your gas about "working in a collaborative environment". More to the point, other than vague handwaving, you haven't said word one about what actual damage this {{indefblocked}} is supposed to be doing, given that a) the editor was indefblocked, b) the editor is still indefblocked, c) whatever the result of your talks, that name will always be indefblocked, since it's a role account. --Calton | Talk 14:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily, the account may be temporarily unblocked so the user can request a change at WP:CHU. The intent of my talks were to show the user the same common courtesy and respect that they showed us by asking (politely, might I add) if their "spam" (so-called) could be included in the encyclopedia. –xeno (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban Calton is one of those guys where you occasionally want to ask for his badge number and file a report! Still, topic bans and administrative action are far too likely to drive a user away from the project permanently and bitterly. We shouldn't "criminalize" Calton's actions in the way we're saying he has done to others. I'm aware that his BITEy actions are themselves a threat to drive users from the project, but this has to be dealt with some other way. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 16:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Suggestions - Xeno, you could have just left everything Calton did in place, apologized to the user for the 'drive by', and continued your conversation. A history link could be provided to the blanked proto-article and things gone on with only minor disruption. Had Calton blanked or requested protection of the talk page that would have been a different matter, but short of something which actually prevents progress on more diplomatic lines it's almost always going to be more trouble than it is worth. Likewise with the statements above about reposting of items to UAA... I'd suggest just adding a note saying that they were previously rejected and possibly a link to such to inform the next admin who reviews them. Yes, it would be nice if people always considered all sides of an issue and preceded with due care... but they don't. Just accept it and be the better person.

Calton, nice to see you've mellowed. --CBD 16:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Calton does yeoman's work dealing with COI accounts. Raul654 (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bishonen's well reasoned argument, an admins opinion should carry no more weight than any other editors. RMHED (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support, Calton has been abusing people (myself included) for years, and it's high time something was done to limit his behavior. Everyking (talk) 05:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support until he realises why people are getting sick of it. Then we can lift the ban and see how it goes. —Giggy 05:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose He's doing routine spam fighting. It's much better than the admins that actually do the tagging AND the blocking. At least there is a review. Give him a barnstar and recruit more regular editors to do that kind of work. This isn't 'MyWikiBiz'. --DHeyward (talk) 07:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support, given that Calton's attitude throughout this entire discussion is that he can do no wrong, and refuses to "hear" the kind advice being given him. His past record of being blocked should be a strong indication that (once again) a "time out" is needed. P.S. What is "MyWikiBiz"? -- Shuckers Long Neck (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

— Shuckers Long Neck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. _Gb^T/c 20:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support. Calton is not just the guy whose badge number you want to see. He's the abusive cop you want fired from the force because his behavior is so frequently incivil and lacking any good faith, that he gives the department (Wikipedia) a bad name with the public. Just imagine this guy with a taser. How fast do you think he'd end up on the news? The very nature of HIS User & Talk pages are disturbing. By the third line he is already making open insults and even a personal attack on a person. "(The above obviously includes the various trolls, spammers, quacks, greedheads, and crackpots -- and their enablers -- who hang out at ED and WR. I also seem to have attracted the unwanted attention of a crackpot spamming "psychologist" calling himself "Wyatt Ehrenfels". If you're one of the those various trolls, spammers, quacks, greedheads, crackpots, and/or their enablers, welcome! Now get lost.) Is THIS really what Wikipedia considers being CIVIL or showing GOOD FAITH? Welcome, now get lost??? Calton is the ill-natured cop who joined the force because he was DYING to taser and billy club punk kids, but never had ANY intention of adding anything constructive like helping old ladies cross the street or getting a cat out of a tree. (or creating and editing articles) Bad attitude. Bad intentions. No matter how many smammers he blocks (skaters he tases), he is bad for Wikipedia. For a very clear example of how blatantly insulting and abusive he behaves have a glance at my User talk:BillyTFried#Your e-mail. BillyTFried (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - maybe a short break is required, but a permanent ban is excessive. PhilKnight (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Clearly a short break is not a way to resolve this issue, but instead just push it under the rug until another incident occurs seeing as this issue has been going on for quite some time now, there needs to be a resolution and everyones concerns need to stop being ignored. Also, no one said the ban would be permanent. Tiptoety ^talk 23:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Concerns over specific conduct issues need to be expressed in order for the break to have any chance of being effective of course (RFC on user conduct is a good way of doing so). That, accompanied with a break from the area, is something that can resolve the issue. I think people here would be more willing to support a ban proposal if there's still no change after taking those steps. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Calton performs what is probably the most tedious janitorial task on the project: going over hundreds of useless/promotional userpages and deleting their waste of Wikimedia servers. He shoved his nose into an ongoing discussion and I can see why xeno thought it was rude, but the same thing happens on this very noticeboard every day, so I don't see anything actionable. If he is willing to put in the time to patrol for spam, thank him. When he is willing to pick a fight with anyone who disagrees, seek input from impartial parties (mediate). If editors require appeasement for the resulting irritation, advise them to calm down and not take Calton's comments personally. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Another case of good faith volunteer doing a job noone else wants to and occasionally getting a bit testy in their communication. This is not really an issue for a topic ban in my opinion - that would require multiple instances of bad faith and evidence of trollish or inappropriate behaviour. Orderinchaos 00:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

What I do

Given the vague and entirely fact-free claims above -- especially by Ryan ("I am the law") Postlethwaite, who's never lowered himself to give the slightest explanation of whatever the hell I'm supposed to be doing wrong -- and the obvious kneejerk "support the admins" responses that followed, let me explain EXACTLY what I do. Feel free to tell me where the horrible crimes are.

1) I scan the "New Pages" page, under "Users" (after being busy until recently, I went backwards through the list) or use User:MER-C's "Vanispamcruftisement in the userspace" page.

2) When (not if) I find obvious candidates, like this...

05:46, August 2, 2008 ‎User:Uniproma (hist) ‎[2,262 bytes] ‎Uniproma (talk | contribs) (← Created page with 'Uniproma is a value-creating bridge between China and the rest of the world. Since its founding, Uniproma has been striving to add value to a global supply chain, ...')

a) User name is a company, organization, band, or product: check.

b) Text of created page is advert for said company, organization, band, or product: check.

3) I right-click it to open the page onto a new tab in Edit mode.

4) I continue until I have several tabs at once. This, sadly, almost always takes just a few minutes.

5) I add {{db-spam}} to each and save.

6) I go to each talk page. Some fraction of the time (10 or 15 percent) there's already CSD warnings regarding spam addede in article space. I add the {{Spam-warn-userpage}} template, which I wrote myself and which reads:

A tag has been placed on on your user page, Uniproma, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person, and which is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages: user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for businesses.

If you can indicate why the page is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page in question and leave a note on this page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

7) I go to WP:UAA with the names I've gathered and list them there, where 99% of the time -- at least until User:Shereth's recent peculiar and essentially unilateral rewrite of actual policy and practice -- actual (and multiple) admins delete the pages and indef-block those I list.

Now, begging your pardon and in the interest of eliminating the vague handwaving, kneejerk agreements, and general chest-puffing -- will somebody tell me where the fracking hell in that process are my monstrous crimes against policy, practice, common sense, decorum, and/or Ryan Postlethwaite's delicate sensibilities? --Calton | Talk 14:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

My request is simple: don't template a user while the situation is under discussion. –xeno (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Calton, as I mentioned earlier, you have unfathomably excellent skills at rooting out the spam userpages, promotional usernames/edits/accounts etc., and any other accounts that are relevant and fall under the username policy and thus able to be reported to the UAA noticeboard. I've worked with you on occasions before (at least I think I have) and found your efforts to sift through the newuser log highly admirable, and I've consequently become more involved through the process due to the straight-forwardness of the reports absent few. However, commenting on Xenocidic or Ryan Postlethwaite in a less-than-constructive manner (whether they are right or wrong) is not conducive to finding a resolve to this. Rudget 14:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You just don't get it do you? The issue is not WHAT you are doing but HOW you do it. Enforcing our policies on spam is good. Behaving in an arrogant and condescending manner while doing it is NOT. Exxolon (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Calton, thanks for the link to the spam search list. I think that rather than arguing the toss here we might all be more productively employed clicking some of those links. "Our services" include nuking spam. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to dismiss Calton's contributions to spam-fighting, and in the vast majority of cases, I'm sure a tag, block, tag combo is just what the doctor ordered for some spammers. This particular case was different (because the user was kind enough to ask, I felt I could take the time to explain it to him without templates), and all I really want to hear from him is, "OK, maybe I don't need to template a user while another user is discussing that same situation. I won't do it again." or something along those lines. No topic ban. No RFC. Just a simple head nod and a "I'll take this into consideration for the future". –xeno (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Calton, I don't think anybody here objects to your commendable efforts to fight spam and other disruption; quite on the contrary. What we object to is the way in which you go about it and the way you interact with other editors. This is, after all, a collaborative project; tact and civility are not optional for any of us. I've not examined your contributions in this matter thoroughly, but the uncollegial and heated statements that you have made in this discussion lead me to believe that Xenocidic was justified to bring the matter up here. Whether the appropriate outcome of this discussion is a topic ban, a different sanction or no sanction at all is certainly open to discussion, but that outcome depends on you above all.  Sandstein  15:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Xenocidic's statement is eminently reasonable and the perfect way to end this disagreement. Calton, the ball is in your court. --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 15:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

My fundamental concern is the same as User:Wisdom89. While it can be a little frustrating at times, there isn't really any issue with Calton's occasional reporting of large blocs of users. I also really don't care that he wants to butt heads with administrators, and he is absolutely correct when he says that admins are editors and should not be treated as being special. I do have some problem with what appears to be habitual opinion-shopping by re-adding reports until he gets the desired result. Calton needs to understand that his interpretation of what is and is not a blockable offense is just that - his interpretation. (This is where I expect him to call in to question my eccentric reading of WP:U, but I still challenge anyone to show me where the policy states that a user with a company name as a user name must be blocked on sight.) In any event, it's the WP:BITE issues that I have the biggest concern with. I am not really keen on the notion of imposing a topic ban on Calton, but it needs to be understood that blocking is an extremely sensitive issue and prone to evoking strong emotion and opinion. Making the reports to UAA is one thing, but continuing to push his cases until they get blocked isn't the solution. He accuses myself (and by extension other editors) of making unilateral decisions when removing a case sans discussion, but isn't that how 95% of the blocks proceed - unilaterally and without discussion? If a problem persists then I see no harm in re-adding a report, but doing it just so that a block can be issued comes across as malevolent. All I would really like is for Calton to see that his crusade against spam is not the most important thing possible, be willing to accept that his judgment of what should be blocked is not the end-all, and that sometimes blocking a potentially spammy username is not the most expedient solution to an issue. Shereth 16:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandstein says it well. --John (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Above Calton asked "will somebody tell me where the fracking hell in [the 7-step process outlined] are my monstrous crimes against policy, practice, common sense, decorum, and/or Ryan Postlethwaite's delicate sensibilities?". The answer is that they're not there - the 7-step process is beneficial work which (a) no-one else seems to engage in with anything remotely approaching to the dedication that he does, and (b) keeps this encyclopaedia clear of spam that shouldn't be here.

The problem is in step 8 - it's not included on the list above, but just as formulaic and predictable a part of his actions as the preceding seven steps. Step 8 is what happens as soon as anyone dares disagree with his actions, or question his judgment (or, as he terms it, "insults his intelligence") - whether that be in flagging the page for speedy, listing the name at WP:UAA or whatever - they open themselves up to his, erm, interesting and somewhat relentless style of discussion.

The DRV linked to above is a prime example - the declining admins get a dose of step 8 (here, here and here), and it doesn't take a lot of looking through his talk page and its archives to dig out similar episodes almost beyond number - I've been on the receiving end of it myself a couple of times, in both cases because I've declined or removed a speedy tag. Maybe it's not a "monstrous crime", but it's clear that his way of dealing with all other users, and not just spammers that he deals with, that is against policy, practice, common sense and very definitely against decorum. I can't speak for Ryan's sensibilities, delicate or otherwise.

I would oppose a ban from WP:CSD or WP:UAA - doing so would be to cut off our noses to spite our faces, because I do think that the work that he does is exceedingly valuable, and he rarely gets enough credit for it.

I would support some sort of check on his behaviour, however - even though it's fun to see how long he can resist before wheeling out one of his staple phrases (accusing the other person of "projecting", of making "vague, handwaving assertions" (which he's used three times in this thread alone), "reality check", "period / full stop", "Guy" and "Buckwheat" invariable make an appearance somewhere along the line), no matter how much he may feel his intelligence is being insulted there's not excuse for the manner in which he responds to it.

I'd also support a restriction on resubmitting the same pages repeatedly to CSD or the same username to UAA.

Numerous reports to WP:ANI, blocks and an RFC in the past haven't actually lead to any modification of his behaviour, though, so I wonder how much benefit all the above discussion will actually result in, if any. _Gb^T/c 21:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be losing momentum, but I must say that, IMO, Gb absolutely nails the situation on the head here.--Kubigula (talk) 04:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Related discussion at DRV

I've opened a deletion review for the page User:Losplad, mentioned as an example a few subsections above, as its deletion seem to have been at least somewhat controversial. I hope this somewhat nonstandard DRV nomination may help determine the actual consensus on whether pages like that one should be speedily deleted or not. Everyone involved in this discussion here is welcome to comment. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

kind of a moot point being a year later (though the precedent may be worthwhile), but it does demonstrate his tendency to edit-war/admin shop on these types of things. –xeno (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Calton 0RR restriction

• Support revert and/or re-tag ban The solution here, I think, is not to ban Calton from CSD'ing what he sees as spam completely, because in most cases he is correct in his view, and we shouldn't push someone away from an area where he is doing what is mostly a good job. The main problem here, from what I can see, is his unwillingness to accept when another user (admin or not) declines the speedies or reverts his edits. So I propose that he be banned from re-tagging declined speedies, and also that he be banned from undoing reverts of his edits without first discussing it politely with the reverting editor. I think this finds the right balance.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 01:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  I think this could work. –xeno (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• This sounds like a good idea, lets him do the stuff he's good at, but keeps him from being too attached to an issue and causing harm as a result. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - the discussion does appear to have run out of steam, to a degree, and (if past behaviour is anything to go by) were things to peter out without any firm decision coming out of the discussion he would simply keep a low profile for a few weeks, then return to his usual activities without any modification of his behaviour. This allows him to continue doing what he does best, but hopefully avoids the friction that at present arises somewhat inevitably whenever anyone disagrees with his actions. _Gb^T/c 09:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support Aervanath's proposal. Calton is right 99.9% of the time; it's that 0.1% that causes problems, but we do not want him to stop doing the 99.9%. A simple "do not re-add tags removed by an admin without discussing first" - which does not mean doing it anyway and telling them afterwards - is a perfect solution. It is not right to call this a ban, which is a loaded term; I would call it a 0RR restriction. Neıl ☄ 14:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Tweaked as suggested. –xeno (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support I have declined only one time Calton speedy request on User:Djlanet, although I do not strongly oppose his revert of my decline, I believe that Caldon does a good job here and 0RR would be a nice compromise to address some problems with communication. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 19:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - 0RR in respect to CSD tags. PhilKnight (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Supports A 0RR on CSD tagging would certainly be beneficial. My only question would be whether or not it would also be beneficial to have a similar restriction on reporting names to UAA. The initial report at the top of this discussion indicates there's also been an issue with resubmitting names to UAA after an admin declines to block (I haven't looked into the UAA issue). - auburnpilot talk 21:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support. It's a good idea. I hope Calton will take to heart both the positive and negative feedback. The consensus here seems to be that he does some really good work, but that his occasionally brusque or sarcastic manner undermines a collegial environment.--Kubigula (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Reluctant support. This all goes back to "point 8" above. Calton, 99% (even 99.9%!) of the time, has it right. Once in a while, someone disagrees with his tagging/requests for deletion. Once in a great while. And yet, it is still frustrating to some users/editors/admins. If Calton would please agree to not "go back" to the one's he's "attempted" and try to "re-attempt" a deletion (at least, not without talking to the declining editor), then I see this as a reasonable solution to both Calton and to the community at large. Let me reassert, I strongly believe that Calton's work is invaluable, 99.9% accurate, incredibly necessary, and appreciated. Just need a better approach to "step 8" 'tis all...Keeper ǀ 76 22:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • (allow me to clarify, that by "step 8", I mean the "step" that is expounded upon by User:Gb above). Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 22:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Calton's "I'm right, you're stupid" approach begs for this type of remedy. 0RR seems a bit restrictive though, I'd say 1RR provided that he petitions an impartial third party for a review. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Isn't everyone technically under 0RR by default for CSD tags? Once they're declined, they're not supposed to be re-added. –xeno (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, everyone is already under this restriction. Maybe a "Look, you should already know this, but..." and "...continued misbehaviour will result in sanctions, and you've been warned." would be helpful though. WilyD 02:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I should have been more specific. Challenged CSD tags in articlespace do necessitate a trip to AfD. However when it comes to blocked accounts and spam userpages (as in the above case), 0RR looses its meaning, since {{indef}} tags are basically markers for the userpage deletion queue. Then there's the vague distinction between indefinite blocks and bans, where WP:CSD#G5 deletions have caused controversy on various noticeboards over the right course of action. The vast majority of cases deal with obvious spam, so arguing about deleting those userpages is counterproductive. So, in short, I'm in favor of enforcing the limits on CSD re-tagging for anyone in articlespace, but userspace content is a gray area. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• I'd object to the voting but I know no one would listen... regardless, I'd prefer to hear Calton's response to the above proposal before making any further statements. We're not cops, getting him to talk reasonably about the problem will be better than "enforcing" something. - brenneman 00:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - a formal measure is needed here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• I would also Support a UAA re-submit ban, per AuburnPilot's comment above. I should clarify that when I say "ban", what I mean is that Calton is free to appeal to the editor who declined his speedy or UAA submission, since it is certainly possible that he could convince the editor in question of his view by pointing out something they may have missed.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Well, as Xeno pointed out above, there is already a 0rr on declined speedies. Once declined, an article can be tagged for PROD or sent to AfD, but not re-CSD tagged. Calton should simply follow the rules as any other editor should. So, in lieu of a better choice, I guess that I will reaffirm my support for the existing procedure. —Travis^talk 03:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. - ludicrous. You admit he's rarely if ever wrong, and then you want to limit his ability to act. Raul654 (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  So let me get this straight, Raul. You believe that when an editor tags an article for speedy deletion, and that request is declined, it is perfectly acceptable to retag that article for speedy deletion? That is ludicrous. Speedy deletions are not for controversial deletions; if the request is declined, other methods should be used. - auburnpilot talk 04:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  Follow the logic, Raul654 - Calton is rarely wrong, correct. But on those infrequent occasions when he is wrong, he refuses to admit it and causes (directly or indirectly) a great big fuss. Calton being reminded that speedy tags are not to be reapplied is not ludicrous. Speedy deletion tags aren't like cooking spaghetti - you don't get to keep throwing them until one sticks. Neıl ☄ 08:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support—anything that can be done to place a check on Calton is worthwhile, although I think a strict civility parole would be more appropriate because, in my view, his main problem is his utterly hostile manner of interaction. Everyking (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  Yeah, but I'd say the root cause of most of his outbursts of hostility is when an admin or admins repeatedly disagrees with one of his speedy deletion taggings. Remove that root cause, and the saltier comments should dwindle away. Neıl ☄ 08:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose If Calton is right 99.99% of the time, and does a whole lot of useful work for wikipedia, we should be willing to live with the .01% of the time they are wrong. Why censure or restrict an editor who is almost always right? --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 10:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  Opposing on the grounds that Calton is right 99.99% of the time is missing the point entirely. Under current policy/procedures, nobody is supposed to re-tag a declined speedy. —Travis^talk 12:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Good work, Aervanath, on proposing a corrective action that is appropriate and acceptable. Cla68 (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support per Everyking. Dwain (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose his multiple requests for speedy Delete was ultimately correct. No need to impede progress. IAR and propose spam for Speedy Delete every and all the time. The restriction should be on admins that close speedy delete requests without understanding the policy. --DHeyward (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the community consensus is for the 0RR restriction to be enacted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That does seem to be the case. However, I think some perspective is necessary here. Everyone agrees that he does useful work, lots of useful work, but is testy and occasionally (one time out of every 1000 apparently) disses an admin or two. The consensus seems to be that he should be rapped on the knuckles for this occasional admin-dissing behavior. In an entirely voluntary undertaking, this is dangerous because there is no reason for a useful individual to keep contributing if they are punished (0RR is pretty severe for someone who thinks they are doing the right thing by the encyclopedia). From the perspective of what works best for wikipedia, I think we should do nothing, close this, and move on. Perhaps the initiating admin should consider taking the high road and do that. --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 16:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Moot point

I’m left wondering why this “0RR restriction” is even being discussed. To quote existing policy:

Renominations: Either a page fits the speedy deletion criteria or it does not. If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions…

Everyone is essentially already under a 0RR restriction against renominating an article for speedy deletion. —Travis^talk 12:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree and mentioned this above, but I gather this would also apply to such things as UAA reports, tagging userpages, templating talk pages/ etc. –xeno (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

With a formal restriction in place, however, should Calton continue to edit-war over such things, there will be far less kerfuffle when he is blocked for doing so. Neıl ☄ 09:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

First Baptist Church (Hammond, Indiana)

Not sure if this belongs here or in "Arbcom enforcement". The article in question is on Arbcom probation, and "The expectation is that Vivaldi, Arbustoo, and other editors of these articles will in the course of editing remove poorly sourced controversial material." However none of those people have touched the article for months, and it currently contains a "Controversy and Criticism" section that massively violates the rules for biographical material concerning living persons, not to mention other bad things. Looie496 (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If that were only it! First, 80% of the article seems to be a copy of the church's publicity materials, and 20% is backlash. Eeek! The whole of it could go into a pot and get rendered down to 1. It's a church, 2. part of this part of the denomination, 3. has a congregation of X, 4. has made news with good and bad things (vague), 5. it's located at. I mean, at this point it looks more like a matter for AfD than AN/I, but it's really a content question rather than a matter of user misbehavior. Geogre (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't think Arbcom probation would prevent the removal of advertising. Not to mention, it's been 2 years since the arbcom case. --Smashville^BONK! 18:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Probation really means be extra nice and extra careful when editing the article. It should not be either a coatrack to attack its founder nor an advertisement for the wonders of the church. Thatcher 20:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The person who added the 80% of the material taken from the church's website was Looie496[4][5], which is the same person who removed all the cited criticism.[6][7] If you read the talk page there is a long consensus of supporting the inclsuion of these notable controversies. If you view the history of the article, you'll notice a long history of IP whitewash. Lastly, the church is not a BLP as the above person claims. This seems more like vandalism. Feerzeey (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Can an adminstrator step in? Looie496 (the person who white washed the page) again added tons of non-encyclopedic material at removed all the categories.[8] The book reference, "First Baptist Church 120th Anniversary," according to google and amazon brings up nothing- no books or mentions at all. Therefore, its not a WP:RS and a clear attempt to white wash the page. More non-critical material needs added, but not like this. Feerzeey (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A vandal-bot reverted him so he removed all critical WP:RS.[9] Feerzeey (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You are misreading. I never added anything to that article. It was User:Jonsuh who added the spam. Yesterday I removed the spam and the libel, then saw the probation notice, and immediately reverted my own changes. Today I brought the matter up here. Meanwhile you and Jonsuh have been warring over the spam. I have nothing to do with that. I think the spam should be removed, but I haven't touched it today. All I did today was to remove the libel, after which you reverted my change. It looks like you are trying to keep the libel, and Jonsuh is trying to keep the spam. In my opinion both the spam and the libel should be removed, and the article should then be protected. Looie496 (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is User:Jonsuh that is removing the material despite being warned about 3RR twice.[10] I was confused because you and he was misreading WP:BLP. You removed it only once.

All the criticism comes from WP:RS. It is not "libel" when it is reported in the press repeatedly and when it talks about someone who was convicted of child molestation. BLP is about living people. The church is not a living person and neither is Hyles. Even it they were, all criticism is backed with WP:RS and has been for over two years. Feerzeey (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Looie496, All the criticism in the church article is backed by WP:RS. BLP deals with living persons. What claim, and subsequent source, about a living person are you calling not a WP:RS regarding BLP? Please don't wholesale remove cited material. Feerzeey (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've protected the page pending some resolution between the parties on the talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I may be crazy, but is any of it actually notable? I mean, all of the controversy seems to revolve around a person that already has an article. --Smashville^BONK! 03:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like the editing controversy is one of emotions, and that's why the two sides won't find middle ground. I really think a vast stripping down would be in order. There isn't much to this church that sets it apart from other Baptist churches, except that, at least locally, it has achieved some controversy. Well, we avoid localism and newspaper-like coverage, as we're supposed to look for things that have at least some life to them or broader effect. At least that's how I've always edited. If it's your high school's gym teacher boffing a student or your college's new recreation center, we need something more than a local furore and more than a local good, it seems to me. (N.b. I'm far more anti-granular than others lately.) Geogre (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm going to think about it for a few hours and possibly send it to AfD...it looks like it's not as much as either side wants it to be. --Smashville^BONK! 16:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've done the deed. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Sponge417

Resolved

 – Homosexuality and teenage relationships aren't against policy or illegal, and the COPPA cutoff is 13, not 18. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sponge417 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) says that he is:

1) Under age & 2) Has a "boyfriend" in banned user AlwaysUnderTheInfluence (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

For security reasons I do not feel that this is appropiate. This is not a place to "hookup" or for adults to "troll" for underage sex partners.

Thanks,

Ann M. Haralambie, JD

Private Attorney and Author, Tucson, AZ— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.18 (talk) 21:19, 6th August 2008 (UTC)

• The user you mention has no edits of any kind, including to his/her userspace. Where are you getting your information? NawlinWiki (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be a slight error in the {{user}} tag causing that confusion, I think...now fixed. _Gb^T/c 21:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The userpage of Sponge does appear to have been edited by AUTI here to say that the latter is the former's boyfriend, and given the other edits it would be my presumption that they're all socks of the same account, by the look of it - Sponge's former "boyfriend" is a sock of AUTI too..._Gb^T/c 21:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, this is too much information for a child of legal status. Thanks, Ann — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.18 (talk) 21:32, 6th August 2008 (UTC)

Erm, well, what's the age of consent in New York...? _Gb^T/c 21:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

17, but California, where Wikimedia's offices are, it is 18. Don't split hairs. Thanks, Ann —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.18 (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you think that's splitting hairs, you're going to be a bit miffed when I tell you that its servers are hosted in Florida, which would potentially be the relevant state law if any state law had actually been broken. Your "security reasons" aside, and working on the assumption that the person concerned posted the information about themselves, what law do you assert has been broken? And by whom? _Gb^T/c 21:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Do any US states actually prohibit 17 year-olds having boyfriends? DuncanHill (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous and smacks of prejudice. Teenagers have boyfriends and girlfriends. No mention of illegal activity has occurred. Being gay is not a crime. Toddst1 (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As no one else did, I have informed Sponge417 of this thread. DuncanHill (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing what so ever to do with sexuality. This is a child privacy issue. This page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:User_page, states: "What may I not have on my user page?: Personal information of other persons without their consent" Since children cannot "give" consent, that means you must obtain a release from their parents. Since websites do not want to obtain this consent, the just keep personal information, like what high school they attend and what city they live in, off of the site. Please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Meier and don't make this about prejudice or sex, it is about child safety. Also, Florida is 18. I don't have time to keep discussing this with you. Just do the right thing. Please post the name and address of Wikimedia's attorney's in your reply. Thanks, Ann, or and these four tildes: 209.86.226.18 (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

IP address blocked for 1 week for making legal threats in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Legal info provided in block notice. Toddst1 (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

All he says is that he has a boyfriend - there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Now go away and stop being silly. DuncanHill (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Do the right thing? Okay. I'll do nothing about it then, because no administrative action is required. Your frivolous comments is hurting my sides. seicer | talk | contribs 22:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like a second opinion on the length of the block of the IP: Wikipedia:No legal threats says:

Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding.

Is 1 week appropriate? It's an IP address, so I don't think indefinite is the right answer. Toddst1 (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a concern on the IP talk page that it may be used by a blocked editor. Is there any similarity between that blocked editor's behaviour and the behaviour today? DuncanHill (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user is requesting unblocking. Toddst1 (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

All that aside, the user page gives the kid's name, his date of birth, the name of his high school, the names of the middle school and the elementary school he went to and his father's place of employment. Until recently, he even had a note on his page telling all and sundry what summer camp he could be found at. If he were 13, I'm sure we'd delete and oversight all that, but he's 17, so ... how should we handle it? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You might leave him a friendly note advising so many identifying details may not be wise, then let him respond as he chooses. Many people younger than he have even more personal stuff for public view on myspace or whatever. Jonathunder (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

IP editor improperly blocked, this report was not a legal threat per WP:NLT

The IP editor who started this thread appears to have been, in good faith, concerned about a possible violation of law. Whether or not there is actually a violation would properly be a question for an attorney, though we may have, if what is above is correct, sufficient information to dismiss the report as not requiring administrative action, and allowing the IP editor to go ahead and contact the Foundation attorney as WP:NLT advises -- what's the problem with giving contact information for Michael Godwin? -- however, there was no legal threat here, asking for the address of the Foundation attorney is not a legal threat by any stretch of the imagination. Rather, on the face of it, it is one attorney, not representing a client, wanting to discuss the matter with another attorney. "Legal threat" as described in WP:NLT refers to an individual threatening to sue, not to simple information provided about a possible legal problem not accompanied by any threat. From WP:NLT, at the top of the page:

If you do choose to use legal action or threats of legal action to resolve disputes, you will not be allowed to continue editing until it is resolved and your user account or IP address may be blocked. A polite report of a legal problem such as defamation or copyright infringement is not a threat and will be acted on quickly.

This was a "polite report" of a possible problem involving, allegedly, child endangerment. The post is not at all what one would see from someone contemplating legal action against Wikipedia or any Wikipedia users. So it was an error to block this IP, unsupported by WP:NLT which was given as a reason for the block and as a reason for the denial of the unblock request. --Abd (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure she just wanted the attorney's name to have a beer with. Toddst1 (talk) 01:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This was a failure of the ability of Toddst1 to WP:AGF. The writer was, no the face of it, an attorney, and saw that her issues were not going to be addressed here, with users debating over irrelevancies, such as sexual orientation. So, I can easily assume -- it is by far the most likely explanation to me -- she simply wanted to talk to an attorney for Wikipedia. She wasn't threatening a lawsuit, she wanted to provide information and analysis, just like she provided here.

If she had been making legal threats, she'd have written quite differently. Occam's razor, though. She is what she said she was, and simply wanted, as an attorney acting on her own, not on behalf of a client, simply trying to be helpful, to talk to an attorney who would, she thought, better understand what she was saying. And I'm sure Mike Godwin would have been happy to explain the issues to her, I'm pretty sure he's an expert on this. Instead, we may simply have made one more person out there who thinks that this place is crazy and administrators are power-mad. Nice work. Not. There is a reason why we block for legal threats. It did not apply to this case, at all. --Abd (talk) 03:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

We have blocked for "vague" legal threats in the past -- much more so than is alleged in this case. The slightest inclination of legal threat usually prompts administrators to question the motive of the editor, and as it escalated to the point of the OP requesting Wikimedia's attorneys, one must play it safe here. What possible good could come out of requesting an attorney? A possible lawsuit because we are acting within policy or bounds? Or would the OP actually talk to the attorney to see if our policy was actually legit? The OP was hesitant to actually discuss the matter further, only stating that we needed to do this, and needed to do that, and was being very vague in the responses. The OP can still request an unblock, or a comment fur further review -- and I would be happy to unblock if she retracts the statement and actually become involved in the discussion so that we may possibly reform the policy on situations like this. We already have some vagueness in the policy as demonstrated in the postings in this thread, so it is something that needs to be clarified. seicer | talk | contribs 01:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

There was no legal threat whatsoever, and the IP should be unblocked. The block was unfounded in any Wikipdeia policy or guideline. Since when is contact info for Godwin such a deep dark secret that anyone who requests it must immediately be blocked? Unblock the user and point him to Godwin's user page. Edison (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that way, perhaps you could explain what the "the name and address of Wikimedia's attorney's" would be needed for besides legal issues. Toddst1 (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The editor wanted to do what she did here, and there is utterly no reason to suppose otherwise. She wanted to discuss the issue she raised. That is not a legal threat, period. Attorneys talk to each other all the time, about legal issues, with no lawsuit being threatened. If contacting Wikipedia counsel with a comment like she made here -- and there is no reason to think she would do otherwise -- is "legal action," well, we'd better make that far more explicit at WP:NLT and, in fact, some of WP:NLT is dead wrong in that case. Really. Read it! It says that raising legal issues civilly without threats is not a "legal threat." It is really very clear, and I can imagine the frustration of this attorney looking at that and saying "But I didn't do that! I just wanted to talk to someone who'd understand what I was saying. Don't they know that if I wanted to sue, I'd know exactly what to do, I wouldn't go to AN/I and raise the issue and politely ask for the name and address of counsel. Have you ever seen an attorney who was preparing to sue ask someone for the name and address of their attorney? People do that to avoid lawsuits, even if they have some problem, and this person did not allege any personal problem or problem of a client, and would have had no standing to sue based on what she alleged at all. --Abd (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I endorse Toddst1's block of this IP editor per WP:NLT. The "threat" does not need to be an impending lawsuit; simply contacting Wikimedia's legal team would be considered "legal action" and, until we obtain a reasonable explanation of why this editor wants the contact info, all editing should be constrained to his/her talk page. There's a reason we have this policy, and being even the slightest bit lax with it could cause serious problems. I can see blowing off a few other policies once in awhile for common sense reasons or turning a blind eye to a minor civility issue - but this isn't one of those issues to ignore. Tan ǀ 39 02:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The policy is actually very clear, and simply did not apply here, because there was no threat, no reasonable possibility, even, of legal action involving this user who was, on the face of it, simply trying to be helpful by reporting what she saw as a problem. And the plot thickens. As I note below, there is an attorney with the name given in this report, who is a published author in the field,[11] she has over 3,000 ghits. If we were worried about her motives, wouldn't it have been interesting that she was an expert trying here to give expert advice, and then wouldn't this have explained why she wanted to talk to a fellow attorney? In other words, it was possible to figure this out without demanding that she provide the answer. And, in fact, she wasn't asked the question. Seicer did not ask her, "why do you want to talk to WP counsel?" He said, "this could be construed as a legal threat." Weasel words, by the way, taking no responsibility for so construing it.--Abd (talk) 04:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

His name is Mike Godwin. He has a user page User talk:MGodwin. He has a Wikipedia article Mike Godwin. Martindale Hubble at [12] contains the mailing address of most attorneys at [13]. That article provides contact information as well,all of which is public information no one has complained about. Why are you so afraid that the IP MIGHT make a legal threat that you preemptively block to prevent it from happening? Edison (talk)

You can't answer the question, can you? Toddst1 (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That still does not answer the question. seicer | talk | contribs 03:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The contact address for the Wikimedia Foundation is given at [14]. Why are you so afraid for anyone to know it? I do not pretend to be a mindreader, so there is no more basis for me answering the question than there was for you answering it. Edison (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

There are online instructions for me to file a lawsuit, too, but if I come on ANI and specifically ask how to do it - and mentioning Wikimedia - it would probably be construed as a legal threat. The point, Edison, is that we just want to know why. Yes, perhaps we could have sussed that out here without the block, but if you read WP:NLT to the letter, this block was valid. If there's a perfectly reasonable explanation, as there probably is, the block can be lifted and minimal, if any, harm will have been done except maybe a bruised ego or two. Tan ǀ 39 03:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The block was a preemptive one, and invalid, based on mindreading. Edison (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You still have not answered the question, and you seem intent on dancing around it until the cow jumps over the moon. People whine and complain when a block is punitive rather than preventive; in this case, we were too preventive instead of punitive? seicer | talk | contribs 03:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What was being prevented? WP:NLT exists so that legal actions and potential legal actions aren't prejudiced by communications here while they are unresolved. The block would not prevent a legal action. There was no threat or reasonable possibility of a threat from this user over what she reported here. So we block not in response to legal threats but to prevent legal threats based on an administrator's inability to imagine any legitimate motive, other than, what, making legal threats?, for talking to Foundation counsel? But we don't prevent people from "making legal threats to Foundation counsel," and it would be Foundation counsel which would decide, in that case, if a block were necessary. We block for legal threats, much more commonly, simply because they can be uncivil and disruptive, plus we essentially take them seriously. Planning a lawsuit, eh? Okay, but, of course, until this matter is resolved, you can't edit here. But now we block *before* someone indicates they are planning a suit? It's going to be interesting to see what Mr. Godwin has to say about this, if he replies. --Abd (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"WP:NLT exists so that legal actions and potential legal actions aren't prejudiced by communications here while they are unresolved." - no, that's absolutely not the reason. See the rationale section. We forbid legal threats because they can be used for intimidation, hinder free editing, and poison the atmosphere. We are not concerned with the effect for legal cases (that is for the parties to worry about), but with the effect on Wikipedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to see a reply from Mr. Godwin on the situation, to see what the threashhold should be for cases such as this. We have an equal discussion, it seems, on both sides of the camp that both condemn and praise the block, for varying reasons, and since this is not the first time that NLT has been questioned for its usage, it should be clarified.

I'd also like to extend the discussion to what should be appropriate for the userpage that deals with those under the age of 18. We seem to have a murky policy, based on this discussion and prior discussions regarding different cases, about what is acceptable. Name? Age? Should we exclude information that may be personal in nature? As long as it is not MySpace-y? There are some clear boundaries already penned, but I think we should be more specific in the future to prevent the run-around. seicer | talk | contribs 03:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(Shrug) Take action, then. I've said my piece; do as you will. Tan ǀ 39 03:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) This is a tough one. On the one hand, it might've just been to clarify the jurisdiction/age-thing. But on the other hand, I can see why alarm bells went off - my first reaction was to think it was a legal threat. I think a block was valid. But, I do think the IP should answer the question, and then that'd make it much clearer. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Folks, I've made over 2,000 blocks an a couple of them have been bad (right Ned? 8-). This was not one of them. However, I had unblocked several minutes ago in good faith. Again, I feel it was a solid block. Here's to good faith and de-escalating drama. Toddst1 (talk) 03:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's hoping the IP edits in good faith and in compliance with WP:NLT as well as other policies and guidelines. Thanks to Toddst1 for his great energy in admin work. Edison (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• FYI, Some time ago I dropped a note at User talk:Mike Godwin, and sent him an email, because I suspect he might want to know that someone was blocked simply for asking for his address without threatening anything.[15]. I'm glad to see that Toddst1 unblocked, good move. --Abd (talk) 03:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Gee, maybe he'll give you a cookie, Abd. Drop a note on Jimbo's page while you're at it, see if you can be made a hall monitor. Tan ǀ 39 04:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not really necessary or constructive. --jonny-mt 04:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The above is uncivil and uncalled-for. —David Levy 04:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• And I finally did what I wanted to do quite a while ago, and I don't see that anyone else did it. The IP editor, if it isn't impersonation, is an expert in the field.[16] That doesn't mean she is right, because she may not be familiar with rules as they apply to the specific situation of Wikipedia, but, nevertheless, I'd be far happier with her discussing this with Godwin rather than on AN/I, and I think she came to the same conclusion, hence her request. Because she can email Godwin -- his address is visible on his user page User:Mike Godwin -- the block isn't really harmful, just a bit of an insult. Hair-trigger block, maybe not a bad idea, but, of course, it can do social damage, so, really, the unblock shouldn't have been grudging but apologetic. I.e., I'm sorry, it looked like a legal threat to me, and we'd rather be safe than sorry, so please accept my apologies for any inconvenience. But, for the future, someone asks, without creating a context of legal threat, for who the Foundation attorney is, don't block them! Give them the address politely. If they say, I'll sue your ass, what's the name of your attorney, well, that's another story! (And you know what you should do there? Block them *and* give them the name of the attorney *and* politely explain to them that until the matter is resolved, our policy requires that they don't edit, and that Wikipedia counsel will inform us of when there is no longer a problem, and we apologize for any inconvenience.) --Abd (talk) 04:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm late to this discussion, but I'd just like to note my strong disagreement with the (thankfully lifted) block. The above request for contact information doesn't remotely resemble a legal threat. There is absolutely no indication that the user in question wanted anything other than to contact a Wikimedia attorney to discuss her concerns. That's exactly what someone is supposed to do when he/she believes that a legal issue should be brought to the Foundation's attention. This block, while issued in good faith, was completely and utterly inappropriate. —David Levy 04:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)My thoughts exactly, David, thanks. There was another error here, a technical one. The blocking administrator was engaged in a dispute with the blocked editor, arguing against what she had stated, denying the validity of her report. I've been seeing that one a few times recently, which is the only reason I mention it. I still assume good faith on his part, he really did read it as a legal threat, because he couldn't imagine anything else. That worries me, though. It's circumstantial evidence, only worse. Editor does A. Admin can't imagine that A could mean anything other than B. And B would require a block. Okay, so far, maybe the admin should block. But then other editors start saying, no, that wasn't a threat. At that point, the administrator should have done an abrupt about-face. Instead, it was repeatedly demanded, well, then, what did it mean, huh? huh? The existence of a mystery does not prove something bad is happening, and, if someone was, in fact, on the verge of considering legal action, but hadn't decided, and hadn't threatened it, blocking them could precipitate the action. WP:NLT should be followed as written. Legal threat equals practically automatic block until threat disappears. No legal threat, no block. Vague threat? Well, "vague threat" means, in this context, a statement which is vaguely threatening to someone or to Wikipedia, specifically, like, "You might regret that. Lawyers are expensive." On the other hand, suppose this was someone attempting to give you advice about a criminal offense that the person thinks you might be committing. Or about the possibility of someone else suing you. They are not threatening you, they are pointing out a "legal threat." It is not their threat. You don't block them, they are not engaged in a legal dispute with you or Wikipedia, they are, on the face of it, attempting to protect you or Wikipedia. --Abd (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) As a fellow latecomer (hooray for timezones!) who's spent the last twenty minutes or so reading through everything that happened, I'm definitely with David here. I'm glad to see that the block was lifted, and while I don't agree 100% with everything Abd said about the future application of WP:NLT, I just wanted to note that he did a great job helping to sort this out. --jonny-mt 04:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but none of you nay-sayers has been able to answer my question about what possible activity other than legal issues might involve the need for a lawyer. Given that and all you smart folks, I feel pretty justified. Thanks for those who had the courage to support me. To those that opposed (all of you) without being able answering my question, I bid you a good night. Toddst1 (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I must say that this last comment makes me worried about the competence of Toddst1 to handle his admin bit. I've given, several times, an explanation, on my Talk page in response to his comment there, here above, on Mike Godwin's Talk page, as to why the editor would ask that question. He now responds as if nobody was able to answer his question. Has he noticed that the user he blocked was apparently an expert in the field? Numerous editors have stated, again and again, that the comment wasn't a threat. Yet he persists in defending the block. The block is understandable given that he perceived the comment as a threat, we could say that WP:IAR actually required him to make the block first and ask questions later. However, as is common with IAR, questions of competence can arise. Let's hope that a night's sleep allows him to think a little more clearly about this, because if it doesn't, I'm truly worried.--Abd (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind my reordering the comments to make it easier to respond. Wikipedia:No legal threats is named that for a reason--someone who threatens legal action on-wiki is to be blocked. Someone who wants to speak to our legal council about a concern they have is not threatening any legal action; last I checked, it's entirely possible to speak with an attorney without suing anyone. Yes, of course that means legal issues will be involved, but your arguments make it sound like we should apply WP:NLT to everyone with a question about copyright. --jonny-mt 04:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a straw man argument; you're demanding that people justify the nonexistent claim that the desired contact doesn't pertain to a legal issue. Of course it does, but as has been repeatedly noted, discussing legal issues ≠ making legal threats! People who believe that legal issues regarding the Wikimedia Foundation should be brought its attention are supposed to contact Mike Godwin. That's why he freely distributes his official contact information.

And really, let's not divide people into the categories of "courageous" and "non-courageous" based on their opinions. Everyone discussing this matter (irrespective of his/her viewpoint) has done so in good faith. —David Levy 04:42/04:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - How inappropriate. Other than biased opinions toward homosexuals, I support the block. Anywho, it was most inappropriate and "gangbanging"(jumping on?) an admin's block decision was uncalled for too. Hopefully, he stays blocked. Just my thought. Thanks --eric (mailbox) 04:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Gangbanging? Really? —David Levy 04:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

....... LOL. --eric (mailbox) 05:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree that someone simply expressing a desire to speak to wikipedia's lawyer should not be blocked, although I recognise that the block was done with the best intentions. There is a simple explanation as to why someone would wish to make that contact without necessarily having it in mind to take legal action: they may be contacting wiki's lawyer, so that he can be alerted to an issue, which he may want to take action over. Ty 04:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Any manager would know that if your employee wishes to talk to the companies legal team or HR department about something the business is currently allowing that (s)he fears might be illegal they would give her/him the number. They would have a tough time defending themselves in court if they suspended that employee for that question. (S)He could sue the company for retaliation. If criminals have the right to talk to an attorney cant wikipedia allow those with legitimate concerns to contact wikipedias legal experts with those possible concerns? -- Phoenix (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Comparing anonymous editors to employees of a corporation is a little naive. Tan ǀ 39 05:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention, it would make no sense. (^_^) --eric (mailbox) 05:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the main point of the analogy that someone can consult a legal department not to take action against the company, but to take action to safeguard the company. Ty 05:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding and for backing up my example! -- Phoenix (talk) 05:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

IP editor improperly blocked,section break 2

I don't like confrontations, so I'd just thought I would comment and go. Thanks :) --eric (mailbox) 05:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, this seems to be turning into a big thing. Hopefully a consesus can be reach in the appropriate time. What'cha think? --eric (mailbox)

Would everybody agree that WP:NLT should be updated to say those with reasonable/legitimate concerns that wish to consult wikipedias legal team should be allowed to do so without fear of blocking? -- Phoenix (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment -- Mmmm, I'm not too sure. It really all depends on the tone of the person. Irate people may seem more or less inapproachable, ya know? --eric (mailbox) 06:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

From a quick google search for Ann M. Haralambie, I find it a little odd that someone with such qualifications and expertise [17] would be acting like the IP was. There really shouldn't be an issue with the seventeen year old, right? -- Ned Scott 06:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't see any issue with the user. So no, I believe. Yup. I take everything I said totally back. Per Wildartlivie on the paragraph regarding the James Garner edit on my talk page, per this edit and a related edit to the same article with this edit which leads me to this edit by the suspected HarveyCarter sock puppet IP, it would seem that Sponge is a sock puppet of User:HarveyCarter -- does it not? Just take a look at Sponge's contributions to the Paul Newman article and that of this IP, Sponge puts back the exact same information the blocked IP did. Hmmm.. --eric (mailbox) 06:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't mean about the sock stuff, but about the concerns of the IP. -- Ned Scott 06:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL, sorry. --eric (mailbox) 07:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

My two cents on the IP blocking: I think one of the problems here is that we don't normally expect a situation like this. Most people who are asking these kinds of questions are doing so via OTRS or directly to someone else using the contact information on the site. We seem to assume that people who want to take legal action against Wikipedia are doing so because they don't understand how Wikipedia and/or the law works (and this is probably right, but maybe that's just my bias). It also seems somewhat rare for someone find ANI and be able to follow our discussion system (which is out of the ordinary for most of the internet). Here we have someone who was able to understand enough of Wikipedia to get here, and understands the law. I'm not saying the block was good or bad, but this doesn't seem like our average situation. -- Ned Scott 06:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. You go to bed for a few hours and look what happens. I have to say, there are a few things that strike me as slightly odd about how :

1. the person making the original post claims to be Ann Haralambie, a sole practitioner from Tuscon Arizona, yet their IP resolves to Georgia. My US geography isn't particularly hot, but I reckon they're what, 1,500 miles apart?
2. an attorney, a sole practitioner, in the middle of the afternoon on a working day, decides to do a bit of tinkering with some articles on World War II related topics (although later declares that she hasn't got the time to keep discussing her "security concerns" with us) before chancing across (how, exactly?) the userpage of a 17 year old boyfriend of a banned sockpuppeteer and deciding to raise a stink about it.
3. the attorney signs her name, giving her status, etc., in quite a full-on manner ("Ann M. Haralambie, JD Private Attorney and Author, Tucson, AZ). Exactly the same, in fact, down to the punctuation, as one would get if you copied and pasted her information over from this page.
4. I'm not a great believer in coincidences, so would someone mind explaining why Sponge417's only recent edit was to Paul Newman, and why the history of that article shows, 24 hours previously, it being edited by IP 209.86.226.15 which is in precisely the same range as the current one?
5. The format of Sponge's userpage follows exactly the format of all of the sockpuppets of a prolific sockpuppeteer, even down to the presence of an IMDB account....

Anyone else get the slight feeling that there's a possibility someone's jerking our communal chain(s)? _Gb^T/c 08:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm being dense, but...

1 + 2 + 3 <> blockable offenses

4 + 5 <> anything about blocked user

There is a massive gap between "This person's story is a bit odd" and "Block."

brenneman 08:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, per above. --eric (mailbox) 13:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand - I wasn't putting forward 1 - 5 as reasons for a block (and don't really think they should have been blocked in the first place). I was looking at the wider issue by saying, in effect, that it's not entirely impossible we're just being trolled by the same sockpuppeteer here... _Gb^T/c 08:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

In many of my comments on this issue, I've noted that it is possible that the IP editor was impersonating the attorney. However, As Gb implies, that is actually irrelevant to the block issue. Besides, suppose the attorney is travelling, visiting Atlanta. Maybe this person has an account, but didn't want to log in from a public computer. Etc. Really. Single issue here: was a legal threat made? Nobody has presented a cogent argument that it was a legal threat, the defense of the block has mostly been on the order of "Well, it might have been a legal threat, and better safe than sorry." However, that's a seriously bad argument. We block for legal threats for reasons that don't apply, indeed might militate directly against, blocking for possible legal threats. "Veiled threats" are another matter. If a reasonable person would feel personally threatened by a comment, that can be taken as a legal threat until safety is verified. Did anyone here feel that they were being personally threatened? It looks like the editor was asking for the information to be removed because (1) it endangered a minor and (2) it thus endangered Wikipedia. People here focused on mostly irrelevant arguments, and the editor obviously thought, "Well, I should talk with someone where we can cut through this and directly address the problem."

The blocking admin dropped a note on my Talk page saying I shouldn't make it personal. I haven't. When an admin uses their bit in a way that can be alleged to be incompetent (very different from "bad faith," which nobody has alleged), it is not "personal" to express concern about it. Competence is, indeed, a personal trait, but one which must be addressed in considering fitness for admin privileges. My concern isn't that the admin made a mistake, it is practically impossible to be an active admin, serving the project diligently, without making mistakes. It's that he defended the error long past any reasonable position, thus raising the competence issue. If he can't recognize that it was a mistake, he could make it again, and, we might wonder, if he's made 2000 blocks, how many problems might we not have noticed? ArbComm desysops admins who make block errors and don't recognize them. Most blocks take place under the radar. I'm raising the issue, my style is not to go after editors and admins unless there is an immediate and serious risk, so I'm not pursuing it. Besides, I'm travelling for a couple of days -- and AN/I would not be the place to seriously address this, if that is to happen. --Abd (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have posted an apology on behalf of Wikipedia to the IP Talk page. Please be careful with it. My goal there is to limit damage to Wikipedia's reputation for fairness. I can imagine someone who supports the block going there and arguing, NO! Which would cause further damage. --Abd (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not your place to apologize on behalf of Wikipedia. Please retract that. You may make your own opinion clear, but you don't speak for Wikipedia. I would also like to ask why an attorney from Tucson, Arizona is editing from an IP address in Atlanta, Georgia. Corvus cornix_talk 21:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It's none of our bloody business why! Have we completely abandoned the concept of assuming good faith in favor of an instant block followed by interrogation?

The editor, even if (s)he impersonated the attorney in question (which we don't know to be the case), made no legal threats. None. At all. The block was issued when the user expressed a desire to follow the correct procedure.

Did you read Adb's apology? It opens with "On behalf of the Wikipedia community (though on my own initiative)", which makes it entirely clear that he isn't communicating in an official capacity.

Frankly, this apology should have come from Toddst1 (whose insistence that he was right and dismissal of contrary opinions as cowardly "nonsense" is quite troubling). —David Levy 01:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Really civil. Has anyone bothered to send an email to the real lawyer to let someone know that somebody is using her name here? Corvus cornix_talk 01:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Really civil.

Are you implying that I'm being uncivil? If so, how so?

Has anyone bothered to send an email to the real lawyer to let someone know that somebody is using her name here?

That's a good question. Someone probably should. —David Levy 03:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

In point of fact, I have spoken to attorneys literally tens of thousands of times, and have even requested addresses of attorneys many times, and have never once sued anyone or filed a criminal complaint against anyone. I object to mind-reading based blocks, or to demands that I prove what some IP was thinking before an unjustified block is lifted. Blocks should be based on actions which violate policies, not the suspicion that someone might be contemplating such an action. Even if someone blocked for a thought-crime turns out to be blockable for some other reason, that does not justify the mind-reading based block. Edison (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

SPA account that is concerned with announcing that a person is Jewish in the lede in violation of WP:MOSBIO

24.147.246.76 (talk · contribs) is a single purpose whose only edits are adding that a person is Jewish in the in lede. According to WP:MOSBIO, ethnicity and religion should not be in the lede. I have told him that in his talkpage and in the edit summaries where I reverted him. He has not commented on this and just reverted my reversion. For those of you that will respond "well this is a content dispute that should be solved on the articles talkpages" I ask you to use common sense. Historically, these these types of editors only mean trouble. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• ...unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Though looking at the contribs briefly, that's not the case. RBI. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've advised this IP editor of this discussion and invited him to take part here. Agree with Sceptre that it should only be mentioned if relevant to notability, but if he continues on this course without discussion, there's only one place it's going. --Rodhullandemu 01:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Kudos to Dayewalker (talk · contribs) for helping out with this situation. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I undid his edit twice at Ralph Lauren. He keeps doing it. Recommend a block. Enigma ^message 01:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, definitely time for a block now. Just did it again. Enigma ^message 01:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Anyone that refuses to interact with other editors regarding their content additions should be blocked. A fortiori, where an editor's good faith is dubious. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

After his final warning here, he made 25 more edits violating the same precept he was warned against. Enigma ^message 01:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked for 55 hours. Absolutely unacceptable. --Rodhullandemu 01:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - it says in Phil Donahue he is Irish-American, so do we go around eliminating all ethnic roots?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ethnic roots should be included in the article, but - per wp:mosbio - not in the lede. If he was born in Ireland, its another thing, the "Irish" refers to his nationality, not his ethnicity. Indeed, the custom is to include nationality in the lede. But ethnicity should be mentioned in the bio/family section of the article. I will now proceed to fix Phil Donahue as well. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, good Lord, let's not get sidetracked into "is Judaism an ethnicity, religion, culture, or race" thing, please. That's not an appropriate discussion. If a person's ethnicity is part of the person's function in culture, then it's fair. So, Donohue's Irish-Americanism is actually something he has relied upon in interviews. Jon Stewart refers to his Judaism as part of his comedy. On the other hand, Paul Volcker's Jewishness or lack of it is so brazenly unrelated to his work as an economist or advisor that it's simply not worth discussing it in the same terms. Common sense ought to be part of our editing at least a wee bit, and whether this IP is trying to build a Hall of Jewish Champions or trying to show a Jewish Conspiracy is irrelevant. We ask for relevance before we go into a person's background. Geogre (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a slipper slope. Consider Sammy Davis, Jr., who was black and Jewish. Where does that ethnicity fit in? Especially since he wasn't born black, but he converted. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

semen2.jpg

Climaxed. Image deleted on Commons, Deletion Review filed there. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

A long time image on the semen article has suddenly dissapeared, and now gives a red link. I've been unable to find it listed in any of the deletion requests queues, and there was nothing posted on the semen article regarding it being up for deletion, or anything like that. I also did a look on the commons site, in case it had been there, but could not locate anything about it there, either. It seems to have just vanished.

I found where it had been discussed for deletion in November of 2006, and then kept, but nothing recent. [[18]]

If someone knowledgable about these things can find out what happened to it, and possibly return the image, that would be great. I'd hate to think that it was removed outside of the normal process. Atom (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted on Commons.Geni 03:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I just found it there too. What is the deal with that? HOw can they delete an image that has had a delete request in the past with a Keep, and is currently used in one of our articles? With no notice? Atom (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons can delete pretty much whatever it likes (generaly due to copyright issues). In this case there was a better image and well someone may have been applying a version of Commons:Commons:Nudity#New_uploads but the deletion does seem somewhat odd.Geni 03:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I put in for a deltion review on commons. It is odd as the image has been in the semen article for two years, and survived a deletion request in November of 2006. Also, although a few opinions were that some other image was better, the content of the en.wikipedia article isn't their area, commons:nudity does not seem to apply. What I object to most, I guess is that there was no notification of the deltion request on the semen article. If there had been a number of people would have responded, and ironed out any confusion about it being a new or old image. Anyway, thanks for looking into this. I will try to iron it out over at commons. Atom (talk) 04:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there would be no shortage of volunteers to provide a replacement photo. In fact, I'll be glad to do so. I just need to go get some eggwhite, like they do in prestigious exotic websites, since nobody can tell the difference from a couple of feet away. That's what I've heard tell, anyway. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And on that note, I think we've shot our wad on this one. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

In related stories, see: [19] and [20]. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 01:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think we've milked about all the humor we can from these three articles. They could probably stand to be archived. Ironically, every time we add a remark, that delays their archival. Oops, I did it again. Where's Ncmvocalist when we need him? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

User:63.87.6.102 Continuing nuisance and personal attacks

Resolved

User:63.87.6.102 Is the fixed IP of a well known nuisance editor aka: User:Yamchaken User: 6 synth pop

Previous misconduct includes Vandalism, POV pushing, Removal of content, Inappropriate remarks on talk pages and edit warring. User has had numerous warnings from editors about their conduct:

User talk:63.87.6.102

Recently the IP was banned for vandalism for one week. Concurrently two accounts by the same individual were blocked indefinitely for proven Sock puppetry:

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yamchaken

Now IP ban has expired User has returned to edit warring. I gave individual a WP:3RR warning on their talk page to warn of consequences of continuing this course of conduct. This has resulted in personal homophobic abuse on the talk article which I referred to, this is clearly unacceptable:

"andi064 is very gay. he is cop so he can frisk other men touching there butts and doing other nasty stuff. stay away from this guy at all cost."[21]

Talk:The_Human_League/Archive_1

I have not responded to the abuse, as this will just evolve into a personal dispute. This IP is nothing but a nuisance to Wikipeda and user is obviously is not getting the message from warnings and short blocks. Please consider a longer block and Admin warning for the personal attack. Thanks andi064 ^{T . C} 17:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months. I have templated the account, but don't feel it necessary to warn after the fact; they know why they are blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank You for your prompt attention. andi064 ^{T . C} 10:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:OUTING or not WP:OUTING

Sigh. Ok. Time once again to ask for review of my actions. As a bit of background, I have had a couple of clashes with User:DreamGuy in the past, such that I long ago declared myself ineligible to act in an admin capacity towards him. Even moreso, I have generally stayed away from the articles he edits, as I just do not need to be involved in the level of drama that tends to swirl around him. I do however still have a number of things watchlisted that he gets involved with, particulatly the Jack the Ripper page and it's talk page. And it is from these that I saw something last night that I felt I needed to act upon. Not an action by DG, but rather one against him.

User:Berean Hunter, on the JtR talk page, made a couple of edits declaring that DG is actually a specific person within the Ripper author/theorist/etc community. Upon seeing these edits, WP:OUTING alert sirens went off in my brain. I then proceeded to delete the two edits in question from the talk page and gave BH a "one and only" warning on the subject. As I have never that I can remember interacted with BH previously, and while the actions I took were related to DG, but not against DG, I beleive I am OK as far as my situation of avoiding admin actions about DG. But while I wanted to state that reasoning, that's really not the reason I'm asking for review.

BH has returned this morning and, again on the JtR talk page, is questioning my application of WP:OUTING at all. See this edit for his response, but his general argument is that DG himself released his identity elsewhere on the net, and thus WP:OUTING does not apply. As I am not intimitely familiar with the ins and outs of WP:OUTING, I felt I should get some other admin input on whether I correctly applied the policy or whether I was off-base. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, unless DG has himself revealed his name on wikipedia, it's not ok to post it here. But BH can claim not to have thought of that, so a warning is the way to go. If he posts it again though, further sanctions are needed. However, if DG is trying to push a theory he holds as an author (if he really is that person) then that's a possible WP:COI and might be relevant, but not to the extent perhaps of going down to names. Sticky Parkin 13:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support: TA, "elsewhere on the net" is a ridiculous and absolutely inapplicable argument. In fact, the very meaning of the "outing" policy was to prevent people from taking something "elsewhere" and disrupting Wikipedians' ability to edit here in the conditions that Wikipedia promises. No one is going to draw up a list of "acceptable" other venues for a revelation of identity, and no one is going to argue how much of a confession is a revelation; it's all verboten. You were right. Geogre (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Wait, WHAT? When did that become the "meaning" of the outing policy? There's a very big difference between someone _else_ revealing someone's identity offsite (which is what the policy is supposed to prevent or at least prevent using that here) and someone revealing their _own_ identity. --Random832 (contribs) 14:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, the outside sites being referred to by BH are not me revealing my own identity, it's him assuming someone with a similar username must be me and then adding links to personal attacks made by people on the web against the name found there to try to support his own personal attacks on me here. That's several major policy violations right there. Plus, if anyone with any sense looked at the results of the search he pointed at (which should also be deleted per OUT rules, they'd see that the accusations made there are pretty obviously over the top bizarre. One of the main people involved, if you do a search on that name, is mentioned as having been locked up on psychiatric charges for stalking all sorts of people, and another was User:Sollog (read his article for whether his claims against someone should be proof of someone being a troll -- err, looks like that article got deleted somewhere along the way. switched to user page, others can Google if they care, he still exists on Simple English Wikipedia), and so forth. The existence of libelous personal attacks on the web by people, the most important of which actually got locked up for them, is not proof of anything wrong being done here. DreamGuy (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That's very different tune than what you said here this morning, where you didn't mind that they stayed. ..and you seem to know an awful lot about those users and other folk on the web for having just looked at it and not being familiar with the other identity..who just happens to be a published author in the field of Jack the Ripper (as you claim you are) and using your same handle for the last 6+ years..what a coincidence.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

How in your head does my comment on my talk page at all contradict what I said above? You're just making accusations and hoping something sticks. You are well past needing a block, since you are unrepentant in your attacks and reliance on character assassination to try to get your way. DreamGuy (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment : I posted specific information to prove that he is intentionally trolling. (How-to Redacted) and look at the mountain of info (greater than 5 years) of specific info about him trolling. As I am trying to establish this as a pattern that precedes him and should be admissible...especially since it has been consistent with his Wikipedia activities. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

So you assumed bad faith, and try to use wild accusations you dug up on the net of some name you think you found as proof of this? Standard troll behavior is to call other people trolls. 100 million people could call someone a troll or other names and all it would prove is that people love to make wild accusations instead of dealing with real issues. You also need to consider the motives and reliability of the people making the accusation. Certainly the accusations of trolling on the JTR talk page are simply attempts at character assassination. I think a little looking into the accusations you find on the talk page will discover that the people making the claims cannnot be taken seriously. By your own admission you have violated several policies, and even if you think you are doing it for a good cause it's not an excuse. You need to understand the seriousness of what you've done and stop trying to rationalize it all away in an effort to make more personal attacks. I haven't even seen the accusations this time around about who they think I am, but certainly a similar username being used out there by someone isn't any sort of evidence. "DreamGuy" isn't exactly a rare nickname. DreamGuy (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this conclusion, though I can readily understand both the frustration level that BH has encountered as well as the outrage at discovering the CoI aparent. I went through these same feelings when I discovered the same thing (another CoI point exist aside from the one revealed by BH) last year, and think it is partly what leads him to be as disruptive an influence as he has been for years. However, outing is simply uncool.

This begs the question of how we address the Conflict of Interest without divulging personal information about the person? I would think it has to be addressed by admins, as it cannot really be addressed in open article discussion space, and you folks are the only ones with the private discussion boards. As I think that DG is going to insert those points he feels are important - because he has expressed such emphasis in other media - I think this oversight might be necessary.

Of course, the alternative would be to ask that DG be prohibited from editing JTR-related articles. That way, we avoid much of the WP:DRAMA that seems to tornado around him, and we also avoid the need for the additional CoI oversight (he's already under behavioral restriction from ArbCom). Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne has been wikilawyering for years, and so alleging a COI is just the latest strategy of his. DreamGuy (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, had to switch browsers, for some reason typing text was delayed by about 30 seconds per character, so long posts weren't getting through, especially with page being editing while I typed. The above was supposed to include: It is especially bizarre considering that he has alleged that Colin4c, another editor on the page, is supposedly a published author in the field, and Arcayne has tried to use that as an excuse for why any conflict between me and Colin should result on Colin having his say. He didn't raise any COI concerns about Colin, but pretends to be worried about me. As far as alleged COI concerns go, I've told several admins watching the page over the years my name and background, and even a longtime bitter foe of mine, Elonka, knows it. If there were any real COI problems with my edits, which I bend over backwards to not make (perhaps even underrepresnting the views of people I am personally acquanited with), certainly Elonka or one of the other admins would have raised them eons ago. DreamGuy (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, good we're all here! There's a specific conflict of interest noticeboard for such issues, but to be fair to DG, I don't think he's ever made any bones about his 'expertise'. Kbthompson (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he has; the insistence of the Goulston Street Graffito as being used by first "most" and then "many" is but one instance of that dismissal of other opinions that do not dovetail with his own. The difference between Colin and DG is that Colin doesn't push his published pov as being better than anyone else's - a point to his credit, I think. I hesitate to continue, due to outing concerns. I will take a look at the CoI noticeboard, and have emailed one of the admins here my specific concerns, sidestepping outing worries. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Your particularly bizarre interpretation of a personal conflict over a minor point in the article certainly isn't a COI issue, or else you could declare ANYTHING I ever say a COI by equally flimsy logic. And the fact of the matter is, Colin certainly has and does push view as better than everyone else's... or at least those who disagree with him anyway. DreamGuy (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support: There's specific policy to support your actions, even when there are clues elsewhere on the net, or in real life. BH became incensed at the continuing drama and brouhaha at Jack the Ripper, and went a little OTT. As I keep tying to explain, the talk page is not the place to punt accusations back and forward. In addition, I should explain, I specifically recused myself from admin actions at JtR because I had an editing history there before I became an admin. It's a bit of a storm in a teacup, but if there are any admins left who haven't had experience of the participants, then independent eyes on that article are more than welcome. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support TexasAndroid's decision, especially considering BH's clearly misplaced rationale behind the attempted outing. DreamGuy (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, I think the user was looking for confirmation from other administrators, DG. Your opinion as the affected user is pretty clear aleady. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support not only was the outing unnecessary, but BH's comments were little more than a blatant personal attack. Shell ^babelfish 14:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• Question shouldn't the edits in question be oversighted? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I emailed oversight to request removal of the edits. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I would ask they remain at least long enough for this ANI to close. In the event, it comes into question and/or what I wrote needs explanation and those who are making judgments may be properly informed, please. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment about what looks like BH defying the warning -- If we agree that it was right to warn BH and remove the edits naming who he thinks I am, how is him naming the exact steps he used to try to identify me any different, functionally, as the intent and end result is exactly the same. He has done so at least twice since he was warned. Once above in his own response here, and one on the talk page of someone he hopes will join him in his conflict. If he's not supposed to be able to do this, he needs more than just a warning of one and one time only and then let him go ahead and do it multiple times later, he needs all such edits removed and maybe a block for defying the order (plus, as others have pointed out above, he other recent comments have included way over the top personal attacks, the kind that usually lead to immediately behavior blocks). DreamGuy (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment No, I'm not trying to defy any orders..I'm explaining my actions. The policy is meant to protect innocent people but not people who intentionally troll. This isn't about a simple revelation of identity but that the identity has a notable history of doing this. I don't imagine too many regular folk have such things printed on the web..but then there are also the things you wrote yourself which are revealing about your intentions...and No, I'm not wanting Jack to join into this (I like him too much for that). Since you went at him so often and drove him off I thought he might be interested in seeing it..that's all. I believe he is a self-proclaimed wikiGnome and doesn't usually butt heads with people. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

History of being accused is not proof, and it's disturbing that you not only can't tell the difference but that you purposefully don't want to and instead try to find some bizarre character assassination rationalization to justify your bad behavior. DreamGuy (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with DG's point about the How-to, though I give you the benefit of the doubt about you not doing it in defiance of my warning. I have removed the How-to from Jack1956's talk page history, though I left the bulk of your comment. Above, I have redacted the how-to from your comment, though I am unable to actually do anything about the history of it, as 1) there have been many edits here since, all of which include it, and 2) ANI's history is far too large for admins to actually delete specific edits. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Where do we draw the line when it comes to "How-tos", tho? Are we allowed to say "Use Google", or is that a how-to, too? --Conti|✉ 19:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Suppose, on a blog that I run, I admit that I'm actually Ted Turner. Now, that blog uses the same user name as this: Utgard Loki (who knew Ted read Old Norse?). The fact that I might, there, reveal, to that audience, my name would not license anyone to come to Wikipedia, to this audience, and reveal that I own land in Montana and used to be married to Jane Fonda. The person doing so is actively going out and looking for my information. To say that it's ok then asks administrators at Wikipedia to decide, "Well, it's ok if it's a blog, but not if you dig three years back through Usenet" or "It's ok if it's five years ago on Usenet, but not if you go to high school newspapers" or, guess what, "It's ok in the online version of the high school newspaper, but getting information from the estranged best friend from high school who says she's sure that Utgard Loki is really Ashley Alexandra Dupre." That seems pretty messed up, if you ask me. Whether this user meant to release confidential information or not, bringing it in is just kind of... irrelevant or speculative or bad. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As I noted before, this begs the question of how we address the Conflict of Interest without divulging personal information about the person. While I agree that BH was wrong to give any personal info or 'how-to', DG does indeed surrender their ID in normal netspace, though the simplest of methods (read: nothing sneaky or especially complex).

I still think the issue has to be addressed by admins, as it cannot really be addressed in open article discussion space, and you folks are the only ones with the private discussion boards. As I think that DG is going to insert those points he feels are important - because he has expressed such emphasis in other media - I think this oversight might be necessary. That DG has acknowledged the existence of CoI, and that he actively takes steps to avoid it are to be commended. Unfortunately, he has also claimed to be aware of the finer points of civility, and continues to fail in that respect. I think maybe he might need some assistance in ensuring that his edits to JTR-related articles remain free of CoI.

Again, a viable alternative would be to ask that DG be prohibited from editing JTR-related articles. That way, we avoid much of the WP:DRAMA that he seems to engender with his manner of editing; we also avoid the need for the additional CoI oversight (he's already under behavioral restriction from ArbCom). Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if you will get a good answer in your question of the conflicts between WP:COI and WP:OUTING. Those two issues have been in conflict for quite a while now, with a number of debates right here on ANI on the issue. I've seen strong opinions on both sides, and I don't remember any specific resolution to the conflict between the two. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If there are administrators who already know the details of DG's identity and background, they should be able to evaluate claims of WP:COI without revealing any personal information. Not that I've seen a credible allegation of COI in this thread yet... --Akhilleus (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a side issue that just muddies the primary purpose of the thread. It's not about DG's self confessed involvement with ripperean matters off-wikipedia; DG's behaviour, nor indeed other's behaviour - merely whether TexasAndroid was correct in removing the outing information. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a conflict of interest would only come close to anonymity in importance if the person so accused were an administrator using some version of extraordinary powers. Therefore, if Jimbo is with some ladyfriend and then hard protects her article, people can say, "Ooooh, this is a conflict of interest that's worth knowing," because the extraordinary power of his position were being used to immunize him from regular reversion or oversight by other users. If you don't have some use of position then normal oversight and peer editing takes care of conflict of interest, and there is therefore no way that identity should be revealed. At least that's how it seems to me, but I'm gender confused. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(@Utgard Loki) "etc etc, to that audience, etc etc, to this audience," How are the audiences of two public websites relevantly different? "The person doing so is actively going out and looking for my information." What if it's someone who's read your blog for years and happens to recognize your name when they see it on Wikipedia? --Random832 (contribs) 19:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Then they still shouldn't mention it here. Some people might know my real name but that wouldn't make it ok for them to mention it here without my consent. It's unpleasant and a breach of netiquette nowadays, as well as exposing people to possible hastle if more wrong'uns happen to see it than otherwise would have done. Sticky Parkin 19:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia perhaps overdoes anonymity. If you really need anonymity because of what you're editing, you probably have a conflict-of-interest problem. I'd argue that COI issues, which actually affect the quality of the encyclopedia, should trump anonymity. Personally, I edit under my own name, and my user page says who I am. Once in a while someone e-mails me. Big deal. --John Nagle (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You and I may be an exception - in that we edit under our own names, but there are perfectly reasonable reasons why people who edit here would not want their RL identities to be known. There are many wiki-editors in countries that don't provide the kind of freedoms we appear to enjoy; or young wiki-editors who don't yet know where their futures lie. That principle of anonmity should be respected, even if it goes down to the level of someone who seems to have rescinded their right to privacy elsewhere. Kbthompson (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I grew up in a household that was under mild public scrutiny and we were always taught "if you don't want it in the paper tomorrow, don't do it". After a childhood like that I can sympathize with someone wanting to keep their head down. I'm sorry KB, but this is a big nitpick I have "young wiki-editors who don't yet know where their futures lay". Very few young people want a future that deceives them. (Pedantic, I know but I can't help it.) padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

In my case, I just prefer not to give out my real identity to the whole of Wikipedia because the people who like to harassing when they don't get their way have in the past harassed me off-site as well. Back when I had my main email as my Wikipedia email and didn't realize the return address showed when you send an email through the Wikipedia emailer, I communicated privately with someone who had had a personal conflict with me and acted like they were trying to resolve it, but they saw the email address, Googled around, and started contacting people in my private life and making bizarre and false accusations. So I changed that email. He periodically still years later emails people I know, or people I have conflict with on Wikipedia. That person and some other people may know, but I prefer not to have it be a public announcement, and that right has been guaranteed to me by Wkipedia policy.

The assumption that anyone who wouldn't give out their real name publicly probably has a COI conflict is just wrong. I have given out my real name to a limited set of people and they can and do check (some obsessively) to make sure I don't do anything that could be a COI. If other admins who watchlist that article want to know it and do not, they can ask me. Besides, this section isn't about me, it's about TexasAndroid and BH and who was right, which appears to have been quite thoroughly settled. DreamGuy (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support: There are dispute resolution steps for a reason. If you think an editor has gone too far you are more than welcome to take it up with an admin or go to ArbCom or what have you. OUTing is not the accepted way of handling this. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Disruption by User:ROH Historian

ROH Historian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There seems to be some disruption going on with this user. He has been adding material that violates WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTABILITY, [22][23][24] despite being warned on his talkpage see here. See also this discussion at WP:PW. In response to the comments left by Tromboneguy0186 (talk · contribs) and Nikki311 (talk · contribs), ROH Historian accuses them of going on angry outbursts, which isn't the case. He also left a troubling statement on his userpage, which has since been blanked, with accusations directing towards other users. I think admin intervention might be needed here. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be a troll. I'm gonna' go leave him a civil message on his talk page, see if I can get him to stop. Will block if these things continue, as they're highly disruptive. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(e.c.) Also note [25] and [26] - D.M.N. (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Back and doing the same. Blocked for 24 hours. lifebaka++ 18:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Signsolid:ownership, personal attacks, & failure to assume good faith

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

This user is getting very emotional in his/her attempts to delete longstanding material from the circumcision article. See discussion here. Seems to have limited understanding of some of our basic content policies. Articles (and See also links) deal with all aspects of a subject, not just from one point of view or the majority POV, but also tangential and related subject matter, including historical. -- Fyslee / talk 14:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have responded on the article talkpage, and issued Signgold a 3RR warning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Signsolid has made a WP:POINTy edit with a petulant summary, which has been reverted by a third party. As I have been involved in the immediately prior matter I do not feel I can deal with this. Is there anyone else willing to risk being referred to as a "weirdo" and advising the editor of the consequences of releasing content under the GDFL as well as violating point? I would comment that since they already have a 3RR warning that disrupting the encyclopedia in such a manner may be considered blockable, but I would be inclined to issue a further warning with explanation in this instance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

2 pro-circumcision editors removed my edits which changed the article from over emphasising the link between Jesus and circumcision, which would mislead readers into believing circumcision was related to Christianity or a Christian ritual as the image was posted right next to an image of Jews circumcising a baby. Yet there's no mention of Islam, who by far most circumcised men are Muslims. Signsolid (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am uncircumcised, and do not consider myself religious (while acknowledging I am the product of a predominantly Christian culture). I find the appellation "weirdo" quite cute, however. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Holy Prepuce, Batman! We've got one section about semen, and two sections about circumcision, in this otherwise-dignified discussion page. Things must be a little slow at the old corral today. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Have some patience, and we can work the ejaculation article in here, and bring it all to a head. Atom (talk) 03:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

WOWWWWWW! LOL! --eric (mailbox) 03:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not as though Signsolid's edits would have made a vas deferens anyway... HalfShadow 04:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not only laughing hysterically (how's that for irony?), I'm prostate on the floor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

BLP problems on Joji Obara?

On Talk:Joji Obara, a user claiming to be Mr. Obara's attorney has requested that the article be deleted because it contains false and libellous claims: [27]. I suppose the user should be advised to contact OTRS or the Foundation or something, right? Should anything be done to the article in the meantime? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the user has also placed a (very detailed) prod template on the article: [28]. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, contacting OTRS would be best. WP:NLT isn't applied there, thank goodness :) Plus we can confirm the email address the email is sent from is that of an attorney, etc. etc. Daniel (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually asked about it to a user who has edited criminology a lot.[29] Anyway, the alleged lawyer sepecialzing in such field seems to really exist in Japan according to googling.[[30]--Caspian blue (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it would be a good idea if some of the BLP experienced editors examined the article closely, including checking for newer sources. GRBerry 15:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The IP user will complain about the article, even if the article is rewritten. He seems to strongly support Mr. Obara.--ACSE (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The article has many good sources. I don't see a case for deleting it. Obara was convicted of nine rapes, even though he was acquitted in the Blackman case where the woman died. The lawyer seems to object to the inclusion of sentences about Obara's Korean origin and early life. This material seems normal and I don't know why it shouldn't be included. The lawyer mentions the claim that Obara may have raped as many as 400 women. A range of 150-400 rapes is cited as the opinion of the police in a newspaper report. Published sources have speculated that Obara was guilty of Blackman's murder, and ask why the prosecutor couldn't get a conviction. There is no reason why we shouldn't link to those newspaper opinions that I can see. The lengthy PROD nomination does not identify any specific statement as libellous. I don't see the alleged BLP problems with this article. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I see the {{prod}} template remains on the article. If it stays there, the article might be deleted, but would be undeleted if any editor made a good faith request for restoration. Would it be better for someone to convert to an AFD nomination? Or should that wait until the lawyer has had more time to contact OTRS? GRBerry 16:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Review of block

Resolved

 – Unblocked Bearian (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Folks, I blocked an editor as noted on her talk page here: [31] for using "the F-bomb" in this [32], edit summary. Please review it and tell me if I over-reacted. Bearian (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Needed a warning. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see a prior warning, so a block may have been a bit much. I'd suggest a storng warning, and seeing if the user calmed down from there. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the block seemed a bit harsh. I didn't look this over thoroughly, but generally a block isn't warranted for something like foul language unless there is a prior pattern of incivility going on. Shereth 15:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not quite certain that the statement "We don't use the f-bomb on Wiki" is accurate. The oft-cited WP:FUCK is a prime example to the contrary :) Shereth 15:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll revert and post a warning. Bearian (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Not an admin, but a dirty word by itself is just a collection of letters. If you want to block someone, please look for the substance below, above, and around the word. I.e. I don't want to see us censored for George Carlin language, even in edit summaries. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocking for saying "fuck" is just fucked. "Fuck you" is one thing; "I fucked up" is quite different. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Admin. Jfdwolff has repetitively deleted my addition to Diabetes

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here

I cannot leave a warning, because the User talk:Jfdwolff page is semi-protected. He systematically deletes from the lead of Diabetes my sentence adding monogenic diabetes (with a NIH reference) and its example MODY (wiki-linked), but he does NOT offer alternatives and just says I do not like it to be there. Monogenic diabetes constitutes 1-5% of all diabetes ([[33]]) 18 M cases in US; see [[34]] (230 M worldwide; see [[35]]), so - 180,000-900,000 cases in US (2.3-11.5 M worldwide), and he claims that it does not deserve a mention in the lead. So, how people will find its existence otherwise, please? Just one little sentence reading "Less common is a monogenic diabetes, e.g. MODY.".

I explained at User talk:162.84.184.38 that "your point of view on the INTRO is not supported by WP:LEAD; deletion with a frivolous explanation (e.g. yours "I really think...") qualifies as Blanking of WP:VANDALISM, because it was based on a private opinion, and additionally it contradicted the guidelines provided by WP:LEAD, because MODY is a distinctive type and monogenic diabetes is a distinctive group, without which diabetes is not presented completely" and repeated it on the Diabetes talk page. Why from 180,000 people with monogenic diabetes in US to 11.5 M worldwide have to be discriminated against in easy access to a basic info at Wikipedia, because sir Admin. Jfdwolff selected such fate for them (not popular enough), please? Is he God or eugenics is back or worse?(162.84.184.38 (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC))

This is a content dispute, work it out on the article's talk page. There are no actions taken by anyone involved that seem to need admin attention. lifebaka++ 15:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, the IP may want to check out WP:DR for some other ideas regarding dispute resolution if s/he feels the discussion on the talk page is not going anywhere. Shereth 15:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both of the above but wanted to add that I placed a notice for the admin, whose talkpage seems to have been recently infinitely semi-protected. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

JFW has provided more than reasonable explanation of his reverts here. Please be kind enough to review them before reinstating the information. It is not him reverting your edits which is the problem, it is you readding the information before consensus from other editors has been sought after. —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 16:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

After reading the page history, I'm inclined to side with Jfdwolff here. However, this should be discussed on the article talk page. Please don't expect such a major addition to be accepted at face value; consensus for this should be gathered on the article talk page first. Stop forum shopping. Tan ǀ 39 16:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This is indeed a content dispute and I have already involved WP:MED, which is the WikiProject most closely associated with the topic. My talkpage is temporarily semiprotected after recent harrassment. I have encouraged 162.84.184.38 to get an account, which would have avoided this situation. JFW | T@lk 18:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Continued baiting and harassment by User:GoRight

Backstory: Over the past few days, User:GoRight and myself have found ourselves on the opposite sides of a scuffle over on The Great Global Warming Swindle. GoRight is part of a small but ferocious contingent of somewhat-tendentious editors who came to the article after some conservative commentators wrote bitchy Op-Eds about how unfair the article was to noble global warming "skeptics" who falsify data. For backstory, check the history of that article.

To get to the point of this post: Yesterday, I received the following post on my talk page: [36]. While under most circumstances this would be a friendly reminder (and a great alternative to a uw-template!), under these particular circumstances I take it as nothing more than baiting from Stock Character #593: "The Civil POV-Pusher". He and his cohorts have behaved the exact same way on the talk page of TGGWS, demanding sources that say the sky is blue, opening a RfC using perhaps the most inflammatory "civil" language possible, and so on.

I responded [37], asking him to kindly refrain from posting on my talk page. There are other editors and admins on the Global Warming Swindle page whose judgement I actually trust who would no doubt be happy to warn anyone who was crossing the line in this regard.

This morning, I received this message: [38].

I would appreciate the voice of a third party, since he was clearly unable to comprehend my request, and seemingly unable to stop himself. I am not adverse to a "mutual agreement" that would keep both of us off the other's talk page, if that's the only "comfortable" solution. Thanks in advance, and sorry for the tl;dr --Badger Drink (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I would appreciate a third-party being the one to inform him of this thread - I know it's customary for the complaint-issuer to do the informing, but in this case I believe that a warning from myself would be taken poorly. --Badger Drink (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As clearly documented in my second reply, I am merely following the recommended dispute resolution processes. Where they direct me to leave a message on the user's talk page I don't know that I have any choice. Under these circumstances should I instead move directly to WP:ANI as Badger Drink has done here? It seems that there are a number of dispute resolution steps to be applied before this, but I will defer to the judgment of the administrators here on this point.

Regarding the notices I have placed on Badger Drink's user page I have no specific quarrel with him other than he treat me in a WP:CIV manner and refrain from making personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA. I am not contacting Badger Drink for any purpose other than to stop his aggressive behavior against me. I think that the record will show that I have been nothing but civil in this discourse. --GoRight (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

GoRight has a substantial history of disrupting these pages. Looking at his RFC, a plurality of editors endorsed Stephan Schulz's comment that everything I said in my initial discussion (summarizing GoRight's misbehavior, including his BLP violations) there was accurate, and further that he contribute virtually nothing to the encyclopedia and has a history of disruption to make a point and inserting "laughably wrong" material into the encyclopedia. Furthermore, the second most supported comment said (essentially) that GoRight has misbehaved, but so have other people. I think administrative action is necessary. Raul654 (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I will point out the following in response:

1. As one of the certifiers in the above mentioned RfC, Raul is not a neutral party.
2. Raul's comment does not actually address the topic raised in this incident, but is instead an attempt on his part to WP:FORUMSHOP for action against me when he has failed in his last two such attempts.
3. I have taken the RfC process to heart and have been voluntarily adopting a WP:1RR policy (although there may be rare exceptions) and I have been consistently WP:CIV in my edit summaries and talk page comments.
4. I draw everyone's attention to the last two paragraphs of Wikipedia:NPA#Personal_attacks.
5. Accordingly, my past behavior is not at issue here. What is at issue, or should be at least, is the fact that I am receiving uncivil comments and personal attacks from Badger Drink and I merely want them to stop.

--GoRight (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone reading GoRight's claims that he's taken the RFC to heart should bear in mind R. Baley's observation that "GoRight can be exceptionally polite when at a noticeboard". R Baley had previously had no interaction with GoRight until he blocked GoRight for harassing WMC. GoRight feigned a change of heart and claimed to have self-reformed and convinced R. Baley to unblock him early. However, the fact that we are now here clearly unmasks this deception. And GoRight's absurd claims aside, both his past behavior and the fact that he has never stopped are very much at issue. Raul654 (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Given that just a few days ago GoRight was restoring a character-assassinating screed ([39]) to the BLP on William Connolley using an astonishly disingenuous two-wrongs-make-a-right policy-wonkery justification, I don't see that he has taken the RfC results 'to heart'. In that instance, he chose to justify his violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:WEIGHT purely on the basis of another editor's error in citing WP:VAND. From the ensuing discussion, he still doesn't seem to get why there was a problem with his actions there (GoRight's final comment) and I see no reason not to expect this type of problem to continue.

For the record, I had never interacted with GoRight before encountering him at William Connolley (which I think I got to from an AN/I discussion), and didn't know that he had been the subject of an RfC until after trying to reason with him on the William Connolley talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And as I clearly stated on the talk page, once it became obvious that the consensus on that addition would be against me I accepted it, and I have not attempted to restore it ... even throughout the course of our discussion there. In our discussion I was merely defending my initial actions based on what I viewed as a violation of wikpedia policy. --GoRight (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Your initial actions were indefensible under Wikipedia policy. Re-adding text that talks about a biographical subject's "ruthless subversion of the rules" and includes a section header that says "Connolley's Censorship Over Global Warming Articles Brings Wikipedia into Disrepute" is far beyond what's acceptable under WP:BLP, and any experienced editor should be aware of that without requiring a discussion to establish a consensus on the point. You chose to disregard WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:WEIGHT because you thought (correctly) that Kim had erred in citing WP:VAND for the removal of the text (which happened to be sympathetic to your own point of view). You can't claim 'I was sticking up for policy' if you're going to enforce some policies while ignoring others—and thereby harm the encyclopedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As the record clearly demonstrates the material was properly sourced and attributed in accordance with WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:V and did not constitute WP:VANDAL as you admit above. Therefore it should not have been deleted as such. Regardless I have accepted the consensus of my fellow editors.

And yet again I will remind everyone, this is not the topic of this WP:ANI discussion. The topic of this discussion is my attempt to get User:Badger Drink to remain WP:CIV in his interactions with me and to refrain from making personal attacks against me in violation of WP:NPA. --GoRight (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, on the RFC I argued for a 0RR restriction on the Global Warming related pages fo GoRight precisely for this reason. Count Iblis (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

True, but others including WMC himself argued that WP:1RR was sufficient. In any event, my actions are purely voluntary. No official action resulted from the RfC itself. Have I not stopped the edit warring subsequent to the bulk of the discussion on the RfC as I claimed here? Can you point to areas of wide-spread edit warring on my part after I indicated I was intending to adopt the WP:1RR restriction?

But again, this is not even the topic of this WP:ANI discussion. The topic is my attempts to get User:Badger Drink to stop violating WP:CIV and WP:NPA in his comments to me by placing appropriate (per wikipedia dispute resolution process) notices on his talk page. --GoRight (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No, if we're going to be children about "topics", the topic is your continued baiting and, to bring said baiting in context, your tendentious editing pattern, which I now see seems to be a rather established part of your history. Frankly, though, I see no reason to refrain from letting conversation evolve naturally from the original topic as it seems to already have - but then again, considering the way you treat the current "RfC" (term used very loosely) on TGGWS (see here and, of course, the "vote section" (like I said, "RfC" only in the loosest sense) here), it would seem, in all good faith, that the concept of conversation eludes you at times - willfully or accidentally. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a third, fairly neutral, opinion. Based on the opening statement here, it looks like Badger is being more uncivil. When someone asks you to refrain from jabs, you shouldn't raise a fit. And certainly a brief notification that personal attacks are not appreciated is not harassment; I'm sorry, that just looks like immature drama-whoring, and it reflects very poorly. II | (t - c) 23:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And when someone (who, for the sake of argument, is "raising a fit" in your own words) tells you to stop posting on his talk page, you tickle the dragon's tail (or talk page, in this case)? Please. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh. One thing I've noticed is that you don't deny making personal attacks on GoRight, and GoRight hasn't provided diffs on it. So -- would you say you've made jabs, or not? I noticed you describe GoRight as "somewhat tendentious" in your intro. Perhaps accurate, but at this point it would not be remiss to call you tendentious either, especially after your repeated ignoring/misreading of CAT. Is calling him tendentious necessary? Perhaps it is better to show, rather than tell. Rather than "GoRight is tendentious", you can more neutrally state "GoRight edits only global warming articles and only inserts the skeptical POV", or "Although I've explained [argument], GoRight ignores the argument (IDIDNTHEARTHAT)". If you have personal attacks, by the way, then reacting to the request to stop with a "don't edit on my talk page" is probably irritating for GoRight, to say the least. If you haven't made personal attacks, maybe it's a different situation. I just don't understand why you would get so worked up over such a relatively small matter, except as a weapon to use against GoRight. II | (t - c) 09:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Diffs were provided in my entries on his talk page, here and here. --GoRight (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Jabs? Sure, I'll cop to that if it makes you happy. Personal attacks? Get real. If we're going to take it to that level, GoRight's sanctimonious behavior was just as bad, if not worse - just because he's masking his intent in goofy pompousese doesn't make it acceptable. While South Park isn't the comic masterpiece that some regard it as, one thing it does do incredibly well is illustrate exactly what editors like this are doing, through the character of Eric Cartman - witness his "yes ma'am, no ma'am" approach to getting Family Guy taken off the air in Cartoon_Wars_Part_II. Surely there are other, more "high-brow" shows, movies, books and songs that illustrate this basic principle, but let's keep the example moderately accessible. As far as your reading of WP:CAT is concerned, it's completely incorrect. Straight from that page: Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option. Bolding mine. No reliable sources were shown that anyone, anywhere (outside of three or four tendentious POV-pushers on a Wikipedia talk page and the two or three editors they suckered in) took issue with this being a denialist work - for all the bitching on the talk page, the "anti-denialism category" contingent was pretty short on actual hard evidence to support their endless kvetching, and this is exactly why the "civil POV-pusher" sort is the most malignant presence on Wikipedia today. I already stated this several times on the talk page, and while I expect an editor of GoRight's type to pull an IDIDN'THEARTHAT, it's rather dismaying that other editors such as yourself seem to be taking a "hit and run" approach to talk page participation. --Badger Drink (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"If we're going to take it to that level, GoRight's sanctimonious behavior was just as bad, if not worse - just because he's masking his intent in goofy pompousese doesn't make it acceptable." - Ironically, this is likewise a personal attack, IMHO. I am not being pompous or sanctimonious, I am being WP:CIV. Even more ironically, my first complaint of a personal attack was for having been referred to as a pig, making the claim that I am the one being pompous even more laughable. --GoRight (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent)

Is there a point to continuing this? This seems to be dissolving into a standard garden variety finger pointing exercise which seems like a major waste of WP:ANI space. As long as Badger Drink agrees to treat me in a WP:CIV manner and refrain from making personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA I will, as I have already indicated multiple times, be more than happy to agree not to post anything on his talk page.

If the administrators here tell me that I should bring any future complaints in this regard directly to WP:ANI rather than following the recommended dispute resolution process, then I will be happy to follow those instructions as well. --GoRight (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Community Ban proposal

Hi all, I didn't see the addition GoRight made to William Connolley's article pointed out by Raul earlier (diff). My bad, this is unacceptable and it has been pointed out to GoRight many times. . .going back to June 22 of this year (diff).
We either protect our good faith editors from slanderous accusations by fringe POV-pushing accounts, or we don't. But we need to decide that one way or the other. Allowing this to continue will mean that there is no good reason for anybody with any *actual* knowledge or contributions to any field -or with any demonstrable expertise- to contribute here. The end result is that we provide the platform for personal attacks that can sometimes make it into the mainstream (and not-so-mainstream) media. We are losing good editors who contribute to a variety of scientific (and general!) topics due to these fringe campaigns and single purpose accounts. I propose a community ban for GoRight, this user is actively working against the editors trying to produce a reliable and neutral encyclopedia. What say you? R. Baley (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

All of my personal edits and the restoration of another editor's work referred to above were properly sourced to reliable news media. Opinions were attributed to the authors in question. As such they met the standards set forth in WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:V. The criticism of WMC has now been published in not one, but three, reliable news sources: National Post, National Review, and CBS News. Censoring this criticism creates a WP:WEIGHT issue in the article. --GoRight (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can't believe that I am going to voluntarily offer up a suggestion here as I still believe that I have not violated the wikipedia policies of WP:BLP, WP:RS, or WP:V (at least as they are currently written). As a sign of good faith and a thanks to all those independent editors who have commented both here and on my RfC in my defense (even though they may agree that the criticism I wish to include in WMC's BLP is "inappropriate") I would propose that in addition to my current voluntary adoption of WP:1RR as normal practice to also agree to voluntarily adhere to WP:0RR specifically for and limited to additions of criticism to WMC's BLP. This would seem to address the specific area of most concern w.r.t. this call for a community ban, correct? Would this satisfactorily address the concerns of the uninvolved editors expressed below? --GoRight (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I want to make it perfectly clear that I admit to no wrongdoing nor to any violations of wikipedia policy in the making of this proposal. --GoRight (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's too to claim you haven't admitted wrongdoing when you did just that on your RFC - "editors on both sides have made accusations of bad faith, been uncivil, directed statements at editors in the summaries, etc." Raul654 (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I think this is premature to the extreme - a gross overreaction. My view was made on 3 August in the RFC (1 day after that edit was made), and this proposal comes quite some time later. In response, as a first step, the user has said he's voluntarily taken on 1RR to help address edit-warring concerns (i.e. the so-called civil-pov pushing). He's aware of my concerns over BLP editing - if he edits inappropriately, then there are other remedies to deal with that. As I stated in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive438#Disruption_by_GoRight, I'm pretty sure that a topic ban is where to start - and even that would need some more thought. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

His agenda is clear and unproductive and sends the message that if you are a recognized professional contributing here -you can be defamed, no problem. And if your stature is such that you get an article as well, even easier. Good message that. R. Baley (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Opposed to community ban. I haven't really gone through this case in full detail - having mostly read the above as well as looked over the RFC and a few diffs - and I'm not convinced a community ban is warranted at this point. I could get behind some form of restrictive measure - such as a topic ban, or, better still, some kind of 0RR prohibition in certain topics, would be more called for. A community ban would be more suitable following a failure to obey a less harsh editing restriction, imho. Shereth 16:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

He had already been informed that to add that defamatory info it would need to have -at the very least- a consensus behind it. That was not respected. R. Baley (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That may well be the case, and as such some administrative action does need to take place - I am just unconvinced that a community ban is required. User:S. Dean Jameson says it best below, in that community bans are a last resort after other methods of controlling the situation have failed. Shereth 16:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, though I agree in principle with everything R. Baley says. I just think, in this particular case, that we're getting ahead of ourselves just a little. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I strongly oppose this, as a community ban should be a last resort, when all other methods have been shown to have failed. While R. Baley is not wrong in his assessment of the underlying facts, a topic ban would accomplish all that needs be done here, without restricting GoRight's access to editing of other portions of the project. We need to go a bit easier here, in my view. ^S._D.Jameson 16:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't edit on any other portion of the project. He's a self-admitted single purpose account. Raul654 (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Support. I fully agree that "there is no good reason for anybody with any *actual* knowledge or contributions to any field -or with any demonstrable expertise- to contribute here." In fact, we make it policy. As such, I fully support a community ban on William M. COnnelly. Given that he's managed to star in multiple major MSM publications discrediting the project, it's time for him to go. ThuranX (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

'Support - well deserved. Raul654 (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

189.192.xxx.xxx

IP range block needed here again - two prior blocks but more and more and more vandalism on a daily basis. I have been doing temp blocks on the IPs as I find them but obviously this really doesn't help much. Can a larger range be blocked this time? This person is a real nuisance and nothing s/he has ever modified has been a legitimate or constructive edit. IP addresses so far found here: [40] Thanks...... eo (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you narrow it down any? Thatcher 18:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I checked and there is almost no one else on that range, so blocked one month anon/ACB. Thatcher 18:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Disruption by User:Captain_Obvious_and_his_crime-fighting_dog

Unresolved

 – Please take to RfC or Wikiquette alerts

- Papa November (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Captain_Obvious_and_his_crime-fighting_dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor, when asked in a civil way to explain an edit, is generally rude or insulting. Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here. I could go on. This user has been warned, banned, warned again, etc etc. I have also seen many instances where this user remains calm and helpful but I think he should be warned overall for getting too heated and becoming rude. --FilmFan69 (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Banned? No, more like blocked once for 3RR.

It's funny that you bring this up. Because it appears that Aheadnovel55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been throwing about unjust accusations and comments regarding COAHCFD, such as,

• "you sympathize with the naizs and their goals then we have no nothing more to talk about"
• "So am I to assume that you are deleting these gigantic massive chunks of information that specifically talks about nazi crimes, because you sympathize with them?"
• "So you are a neo nazi you admit it? I will not stop restoring the facts which are sourced about crimes committed by the nazis, it is very simple you try to cover up the nazi crimes and I will restore them"

The responses were met with sarcasm, which apparently went over Aheadnovel55's head. seicer | talk | contribs 19:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

My bad, I should have said blocked, not banned. Sorry. Regardless of whether or not sarcasm goes over a user's head, it has no place here in Wikipedia, this is clear in the wiki guidelines. There are many many other examples of Captain's rudeness available and I have provided them above. IS your implication that I am "throwing about unjust accusations and comments"? --FilmFan69 (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your comments are inappropriate here. Remember, this is not wikipedia complaint department. COAHCFD does not create disruption right now. Hence no administrative intervention required (if you wish you can file an RfC). Your complaint looks very strange. You edit in WP only around a month. You made less than 200 edits. Now you complain about COAHCFD with whom you do not have an editorial conflict. You also conduct an extensive forum shopping to bring other people here. I should remind that Aheadnovel55 (see above) was an obvious SPA with only one purpose: to wikistalk and revert all edits by COAHCFD. Hence his sarcastic reaction.Biophys (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No my comments are not inappropriate. If a user is engaging in inappropriate conduct is it not up to every wikipedian to report that conduct, regardless of whether or not I am in a current editorial conflict. What I have seen is a pattern of rudeness that ought to be curtailed. My complaint was lodged because of COAHCFD's most recent comments. But wiki guidelines allow for reporting of inappropriate conduct, even if it is conducted over a span of time. You would do well to review the various guidelines yourself. --FilmFan69 (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition I provided several examples. The above user was nowhere near the only example. So please take the time to review the other examples before discounting the complaint. As to the accusation of forum shopping, I only notified other users that there was a discussion ongoing. I did not ask anyone to support any position in any way, only to contribute if they saw fit. Do not try to paint this as any kind of marshaling of forces against a user. When a user is displaying a pattern of incivlility, you have to have input from people who have been invoived in conflict from that user from the entire span of activity. That requires notifying those users of a discussion. If any of you take the time to look at the notifications, you will see no bias, either explicit or implicit. --FilmFan69 (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

COAHCFD writes very good content and I don't have any problems with him. He's a bit sarcastic sometimes, but reasonable. Half the links you provide of him supposedly being uncivil just aren't an example of that. I find it weird how you've gone through all of his many edits to find mistakes or supposed inappropriate comments of him and post them here to pretend he's always like that. - Pieter_v (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh fer crying out loud, I made a point of saying, "I have also seen many instances where this user remains calm and helpful" above. Doesn't anyone read? Fine. I give up. --FilmFan69 (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see what is written at the top of this page: "To report impolite, uncivil, or difficult communications with other editors, see wikiquette alerts.".Biophys (talk) 01:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you have a point there, but I was talking about how you call him "generally rude or insulting". - Pieter_v (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this guy has made a lot of unpleasant comments towards other users, but it would be inappropriate for an individual admin to take action here so I'll mark this as unresolved. A better course of action is for you to go to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts (mild-medium disputes) or Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct (if you can show that at least two edits have tried and failed to resolve the same incivility issues with him) Papa November (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ward Churchill talk page

I have been in a dispute with another editor concerning a substantive addition to the Ward Churchill article. The other editor is threatening have me blocked etc. if I don't back down from calling his derogatory comments of the Creek Nation "ignorant" "prejudiced" etc. I will not back down. He is threatened to have an admin block me. So I'm here for the blocking. I know that his threat violate Wikipedia policy but I know that it never gets enforced also. The dispute is outlined below.--InaMaka (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not want InaMaka blocked, and have never indicated that I did. However, I would like him/her to remove the extremely abusive comments (mostly about me) that s/he has recently added to the mentioned talk page. WP:CIVIL matters. LotLE×talk 19:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith

In particular, I've seen disruptions in some other articles recently that have heightened my appreciation of the important of Wikipedia:CIVIL#Removal_of_uncivil_comments. If InaMaka wishes to participate in this article discussion, I very strongly request that s/he read the WP policy, and thereby remove those comments s/he makes above in violation of policy.

I'm not removing the comments that I made. I still believe that your comments about how the Creek Nation makes membership decisions arbitrarily is an effort to the sovereignty of the Creek Nation. I find that comment to be ignorant. I find that comment to be paternalistic. I find that comment to be elitist. I find that comment to be prejudiced. I find that comment to be unfair and it is not something that I want to hear. I stand by my comments. I'm sure that you will find an admin that will block me, etc. But I'm willing to take the block because I did and I still do find your comments to be disrespectful to all Indian Nations and the people that work in them. Also, you stated that I called you a "racist" and that is not true. It is a lie. Let's get the admin so we can get this over with. I also realize that you are going to get an admin to punish me so that you can continue to dominate the debate on this article. It is easier to vanquish people that disagree with your opinions than it is argue substantively. It is easier to simply dismiss their opinions with the comment that their statements are "silly" than it is to provide solid evidence for claims, such as your claim that the Creek Nation banned Churchill from the tribal rolls because they were mad at them, etc. I can live with your aggressive behavior toward others that don't agree with you. I can live with the blocks and the Requests for Comment and the other forms of punishment that the bullies of Wikipedia are willing to throw at me. It ain't no big thing. Let's get an admin so you can feel that taught me a lesson not to even dare to disagree with you. Just keep in mind, just so you know, even after the punishment is over I'm going to continue to monitor the article and make changes where I see fit.--InaMaka (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That said, trying to read past the abuse, I think Kanguole makes a reasonable observation about the Dawes Roll. Reading through that lens, the Creek statement can be seen as having some relevance to ancestry, which would give a plausible ground for inclusion of the footnote. I'm not convinced is genuinely needed or relevant, but I'm happy to live with in the article (as a footnote). LotLE×talk 18:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note to other admins - I am personally dealing with this. I have left gentle civility reminders on all the users involved. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 19:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Block review for User:UKPhoenix79

Hope you dont mind if I ask for some comments on my Block. I was monitoring the situation at Historical powers where an edit war was going on between two editors. I made one edit and reminded them to talk and asked them to stop. I had no personal interest in the specific subject argued so I went with the original version and reverted it as such. They continued and I reported them to the 3RR noticeboard By the end they had about 8 edits in 24 hours. Then a new user Offerpoint poped up with the same comments as one of the ip users and started to continue where he left off. I made 2 edits in 24 hours just asking for the user to use the talk page and then after the 4th reversion I reported the user for edit warring. The user got blocked for 24 hours and then I got blocked for 48 hours!!!! Like I said before I made 2 edits 21:26, 6 August 2008 and 08:02, 7 August 2008. Also the editor in question seams to be the ip editor 89.168.248.33 who made about 8 edits in 24 hours. I only wished for the page to be stable and I was making sure that I wasn't going to get involved with the edit war. Since when has 2 edits been seen as an edit war? Especially since I have been very careful to follow wikipedias policies rules and procedures! Not only that but why was I given a longer block then the person that actually broke the 3RR rule? All I was trying to do was reinforce the idea of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I really am honestly confused, really I am. Please let me know what I did to get labeled an edit warrior in this case! -- Phoenix (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:52, August 7, 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, if you wanted a 3rd opinion on your block you really ought to have used another unblock template rather than evading it. –xeno (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know I could do that. I thought it would look like I was trying to game the system and just annoy people. I don't plan to be in this situation again since I have always thought of myself as a good editor but now I know. -- Phoenix (talk)

I saw 3 reverts from you in the past couple of days so I blocked your for edit warring, not 3RR. Also, your block was for 48 hours as you've been blocked (I think by me) for 3RR/edit warring in the past. How did this comment make it to ANI? :-S Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

the previous block I believed that I was reverting vandalism [and my edits were] exempt from that because it was considered unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material and was Simple and obvious vandalism but I did understood that why I was blocked. Here I was not actually edit warring and actually trying really hard not to get involved and only get the new user to try the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle hence my involvement. I had absolute no entrust in how the discussion evolved I only wanted the editors involved to discuss this. My previous notification of the 2 ip's violation of the 3RR went unnoticed for about 3 days and it took my personal calls for an admin to step in for the page to be protected. So when I noticed that 2 editors were continuing where the ip's left off I found it suspicious esp when one had identical comments. So I reverted and asked them to talk. I was not trying to dispute content nor was I really interested in the fight. I must admit, being a Brit, I did find it funny that I was reverting stuff that made Britain look better. -- Phoenix (talk)

Further to Phoenix's request for a block review, I have looked into the circumstances surrounding his block by Scarian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and would like to concur with the block. It is evident that Phoenix's general approach to contributing to Historical powers is not in line with that which we expect: build consensus for changes that are disputed through civil, reasonable discussions on the talk page (graduating to available mediums of dispute resolution, if necessary). Rather than contribute constructively, it seems to me that he has opted for the "blank revert" option, in an attempt to force through the 'correct version' of the article (⁂ history of Historical powers).

For similar reasons, I also concur with Scarian's block of Offerpoint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was heartily returning the ping pong ball in the edit warring at the article. The parties are invited to read related material on this matter during the duration of their respective blocks, including:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/International Churches of Christ#Edit-warring considered harmful
• Ditto, #Editorial process
• Wikipedia:Edit war, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution

Edit warring is simply not the way we do things on here! I hope both parties can take useful lessons from these blocks. As a summary response, however: endorse block, and decline to unblock at this time.

AGK ^{(talk ◊ contact) 22:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)}

How was I uncivil? I was being very respectful and ironically I was advocating against edit warring something that I am now accused of. I had no interest in the content being argued I only didn't want another disruptive edit war to occour on this page. So I tried to get them to stop by reverting to the previous version before it was changed and asked them to talk. I had no idea what the correct version of the page was nor did it matter which one prevailed I only tried to get the users to talk. People are assuming that I was actually interested in the content being disputed when that is father from the truth. I was actually trying to get the page to stop being the ground for an edit war. I do find the accusation of edit warring quite amusing after I was saying similar things to the others involved. -- Phoenix (talk)

You may want to stop editing with your IP address, it is block evasion. Useight (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I never suggested you were being uncivil, Phoenix. I also understand that you were only trying to reverse what the other party was doing; however, our policy on the matter is very clear: do not meet a revert with more reverts -- it simply doesn't work, and is disruptive for the article. If an editor is edit warring, report it. AGK (talk ◊ contact) 11:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough I don't want to be seen as taking advantage of my computer knowledge to circumvent this situation. I have been waiting for the last few hours for any replies on my talk page but no one has commented, so I will post here. Consider this my last comment during my block as an ip user unless I am requested to reply. First Useight I'd like to reiterate the what I said on my talk page and I would like to say thanks for backing me up. It is nice that admins have actually discussed this, but I am surprised that I was not completely unblocked. I have read the official policies on wikipedia and they don't seam to agree with this block. I really was just trying to get in between two individuals and stop an edit war. I arbitrarily decided to revert to the original version that started the edit war per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and asked the editors... never mind I've explained that before. But from what I can tell 2 edits in 24 hours is not considered an edit war nor is 4 edits in 108 hours and 46 min (19:16, 2 August 2008 till 08:02, 7 August 2008) an edit war either. I really honestly do not understand the block. I was trying to do the responsible thing trying to stop a content war and got punished for it... why? -- Phoenix (talk)

User:Emilfaro abusing many policies

Resolved

 – For the love of God, no more corny puns...please...I'm begging you. _Gb^T/c 07:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This user was recently banned for 3RR. After returning has continued same behavior and is ignoring consensus. He is also refusing to assume good faith while attacking other editors on Talk:Circumcision. Please help. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've given him a warning for this particular gem. If he persists in that vein then he'll be blocked accordingly. _Gb^T/c 19:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

We appear to be having issues with that article today... lifebaka++ 20:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice job fellow admins! Way to nip this one! (I couldn't resist...) Keeper ǀ 76 20:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say something to the effect of that but got a little...cut short here at work. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries, wildthing, it's no skin off my nose. I just hope you recover from your disappointment before you get too upset... Keeper ǀ 76 20:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing like a good circumcision joke (head slap) ;) Garycompugeek (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, sports fans, who can tell me the difference between a rabbi and a mohel? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody? OK - the rabbi gets the salary and the mohel gets the tips. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Given his interest in circumcision, the guy must be a real dick. Nyuck nyuck nyuck. HalfShadow 23:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

He's able to withstand a lot of criticism - he's got 4 skins. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope we don't get in trouble for this; nobody likes a cock-tease. HalfShadow 01:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia article

Resolved

 – semi protection is not being lifted at this time, for obvious reasons explained below

Should semi-protection be removed from that article, because by policy it should not be used to settle content disputes.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.4.106 (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Which article do you mean, do you mean Russia? Keeper ǀ 76 20:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Because if you do, that was only protected today, and only for a week. I'd be very hardpressed to undo another admin's actions. What edit do you want to make? Keeper ǀ 76 20:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This is part of a long list of rotating IP socks that I was made aware of at the still pending case at RfM. There were multiple reverts conducted by multiple IP addresses, and the above IP address is just a part of that. seicer | talk | contribs 20:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

But there is no vandalism or anything like that. Its just a content dispute. And by this block you encourage other parties to stay away from RfM and continue brute force reverting. By the way, other party did not try even one of the ways of normal dispute resolution process, only did forum shopping and edit warring. 91.122.95.180 (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And there is a several meatpuppets from other side doing constant reverting: Miyokan, Krawndawg and couple less active others. 91.122.95.180 (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikilawyering, or failure to see the bigger picture. The article has been subject to much edit warring recently (see the history and count the "undid edit by..." entries). The edit warriors have all been IP addresses. Since we always protect to the lowest level we can in order to keep the largest number of people editing, semi-protection here was both proper and smart. ➨ REDVERS in a car - no brakes? I don't mind 21:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The edit warriors have not all been IP addresses. There at least Miyokan, Krawndawg. Those users just changing the comments from default "undid edit by..." to "corrections" or something like that. Please, take a look at that more carefully.91.122.95.180 (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The protection was entirely proper. There's only so many ways to say this. So, from an administrative point of view, the subject is closed. You can, of course, discuss your proposed edits on the article talk page and try to gain a consensus. Until then, there's nothing more to be said. ➜ REDVƎЯS has nothing to declare except his jeans 21:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Protection will not be lifted, and if this nonsense continues, it will be lengthened. Take it to the talk page and gain consensus on your proposed changes. Until then, nothing can or will be done. seicer | talk | contribs 21:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You are not answering me at your talk page. Neither do Miyokan at the article talk page. And he refuses to participate in mediation. I'm going through dispute resolution process WP:NPOV/N, RfM. And those users only edit warring. 91.122.95.180 (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

User:UndersonJack

Resolved. User indef blocked, pages moved back where they belong. caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 06:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This user is likely another sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked User:Randy Jaiyan, though the results of the checkuser case haven't come through. His hallmark is moving pages of General Hospital characters to different pages with the surnames he arbitrarily chooses. I've reverted his latest moves, but he's made a series of bizarre edits/moves in regards to his user account that I'm not quite able to unravel. He's managed to move his user/user talk page to User:Jackson7days and edited his original pages so that they cannot be moved back. Could an admin possibly fix this situation and block this user? AniMate 22:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Reporting vandalism on 'Checkin' it out' article page

Hi there, don't know name responsible or IP Address but vandalism on Page: "Checkin' it out". Single line of text suggests artist "lil chris" is a 'convicted rapist' and 'dirty chav'. Just sweeping through and thought you would be interested, many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donahew (talk • contribs) 23:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Change it! Tan ǀ 39 23:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there's even an article on that, to tell you the truth. Enigma ^message 02:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Question about XfD enforcement

A UCFD closed in April 2007, resulting in depopulating individual users from a number of categories due to the fact that they were parent categories. This UCFD was never overturned. If after the categories were depopulated one of the users re-adds themself to one of the categories several times and refuses to remove it after being asked, what action should be taken? Should adding it back be considered disruption? Can this be considered much different than someone recreating content from their userspace that was deleted at MfD? Several admins removed the category in question after it was re-added, but it was added back every time and remains there to this day, over a year later. I most recently asked the user in question to remove the category from their page in March, which was once again refused under the (IMO unfounded) assertion that WP:UCFD decisions are not binding. I've asked him several times to bring the UCFD to DRV if he thinks it is invalid, which has been refused. Must a user conduct RfC be filed for this basic XfD enforcement case, or can we simply do the common sense thing and remove the category, with a penalty of warnings and if necessary blocks (or perhaps page protection) if it continues to be re-added? The user in question is User:SchmuckyTheCat and the category in question is Category:Wikipedians by religion. As I obviously have a history with trying to get the UCFD enforced with this user, I won't be taking any action myself if the consensus is indeed to remove it. Individual users in parent categories hinders navigation, which was why the UCFD was brought up in the first place, so some decision needs to be made about this. VegaDark (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

He's also got himself in the non-existent category Category:Wikipedians that poop, which, by the common rules of grammar, should be Category:Wikipedians who poop. Just sayin. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, WP:CSD#G4 does rather make one think they are binding, at least in terms of re-creation. But then, WP:USER doesn't exactly mention anything about it. I guess if it's really getting disruptive, then one could always revert and protect the userpage in question until they got the point, but that seems little excessive. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to keep bringing this up every six months until someone gives you an answer that you like? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I'm going to keep bringing it up until it is dealt with rather than ignored. VegaDark (talk) 03:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This is just my recollection, but I believe it was dealt with previously, and the link removed from the user page. (If this becomes contentious, I suppose I can go find the links.)

So really, the question is: Are you going to continue to act contrary to repeated consensus and convention by continually restoring the link to your usepage? - jc37 05:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm! CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 08:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering what harm is done by SchmuckyTheCat being in this category. Neıl ☄ 13:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be the first to admit that a single user in a single parent category by itself isn't all that harmful. Then again, a single vandalism, a single speedyable page not being deleted, a single user in a mainspace category, etc. isn't all that harmful either. It's when we set a precedent to allow others to do so is when it becomes harmful. If the consensus of this UCFD can be ingored, why not others? What makes this UCFD so special that that SchmuckyTheCat gets a free pass to ignore the consensus reached? Nothing, and he should be held to follow it like everyone else. VegaDark (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No more harm than is done by the several members of Category:Rouge_admins. DuncanHill (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The difference is, that category is nonexistant. Category:Wikipedians by religion isn't. I'm not complaining about users in redlinked categories, I'm complaining about users in categories designated as parent categories. VegaDark (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ask that question the other way: what harm is done to the project when self-proclaimed user-space cops threaten contributors with "enforcement" for having a little fun and humor on their user page -- which is supposedly the one place on Wikipedia where we relax our rules and don't take ourselves seriously. Chasing aways users does more harm to the project than users in misplaced categories and redlinks. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

That same argument could be made for someone repeatedly re-adding a fair use image to their userpage, or a mainspace category, or material meant to circumvent a deletion. None of those would be tolerated, and this shoudn't be either. VegaDark (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Help with DRV close

Resolved

 – Back at DRV

Per User:Nick's suggestion here, I'm requesting that other admins look at the close of the DRV for wikijob.

Briefly, there was an AfD for wikijob. After 25 hours, the !votes were 2 weak keeps, 1 keep, and 1 delete (the nom). At that time, an admin closed it as a speedy for WP:CSD#G4 and WP:CSD#G11 (among other reasons). This then went to DRV, where at 24 hours there were 6 overturns, and no endorse !votes. At that time another admin closed the DRV, upholding the closure of the AfD. (The closing admin has a different interpretation of the situation, see here).

I was involved in the DRV, but not the AfD. I feel both closes were out of process and ignored clear (and nearly unanimous) consensus of subjective issues (if the article is spammy and if deletion is the right next step). I'd ask uninvolved other admins look at this and consider restoring the article (and perhaps reopen the AfD or DRV). Hobit (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(and yes, I really like parenthesis, why do you ask?)

Hobit (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

2 admins reviewed this in the proper venues and handled it under the procedures of the venue, this forum shopping is not a productive use of time. MBisanz ^talk 01:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that one of the two admins suggested this as a reasonable place to bring the issue. If there is a 'more correct' place to bring this, please point me to it. Hobit (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(ecX2)The speedy deletion is clearly wrong in both substance and process, but rather than go through yet more process, why not just rewrite the article in an improved state? A speedy deletion establishes no precedent, so the article can simply be recreated per deletion policy. Statements by the administrators involved confirm this. However, the demand that those involved in the deletion discussion or article editing should not recreate it is out of policy. It would be simplest if an administrator simply emailed a version to you (any takers?) but for the moment there's a cache version available at http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:M5jVtBDonHQJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Redsuperted/sandbox+"WikiJob+is+a+website+designed+for+and+used+by+those+involved+in"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us. Wikidemo (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Forum shopping, anybody? Corvus cornix_talk 01:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless a version is written that can pass DRV, it stays deleted, end of story, ANI is not AFD_3. MBisanz ^talk 01:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a major reason to see it recreated, either, unless a version can be penned (on your sandbox) and reviewed. seicer | talk | contribs 02:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You're tempting me to recreate it myself. If it's a notable company then an encyclopedic article can be written about it. I fail to see any plausible way in which the article was "blatant advertising". Speedy is for uncontroversial cases. That article was fine, just a little weak. Obviously it can be created in a better fashion. I don't see what anyone is trying to prove here. If someone wants to write an encyclopedic article about a notable subject let them. If the subject isn't notable the only way to determine that is a full AfD. We're past that point and the simplest thing to do is to write the article in improved form. Wikidemo (talk) 02:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of the same thing - I've looked around, and I've found enough references that suggest that it is sufficiently notable. Not a lot, but I won't be arguing that it is eminently notable, so that should be fine. In looking at the cached version from the sandbox, it was perhaps not worded that well, but I'm surprised to see it being deleted via G11, given the presence of enough to make a case for notability and it doesn't seem like blatant advertising in spite of the COI. Not having seen the earlier version I can't speak to the use of G4, which may be appropriate. Still, recreating may be the best way to go, and would be easy enough. - Bilby (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• My opinion in this is that both the AfD and the DRV were closed too early. The DRV was closed after only 1 day, and after 2 admins (DGG and johnny-mt) had described the AfD closure as inappropriate. Now the option for discussion is closed off - if he brings it back to DRV, it will be speedily closed. If he brings it here, its forum shopping. Whats the harm in letting the discussion proceed at DRV until a consensus is clear? That's how it is supposed to work, and how it should have worked in this case. Out of process closes should only be done in obvious cases - since everyone who "voted" in the DRV voted in the opposite direction of the close, I'm not sure how this one could be classed as obvious. Avruch ^T 02:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• (ec times 2) Just to be clear: #1 the AfD was speedy closed with 3 keeps and no one other than the nom suggesting delete. #2 the DRV was closed as "endorse" even though the !votes were 6 to overturn and none to endorse. #3 This (ANI) is where the admin closing the DRV suggested I bring this. #4 Frankly I'm more concerned about the process than the article. While we aren't a bureaucracy, process does matter. Was it really acceptable for an admin to speedy an article after it claim to AFD when all three !votes were to keep? Was it acceptable to uphold that deletion when the !votes were 6 to 0 to overturn? Please note that the arguments made in the AfD and DRV were both solid and not addressed by either closer. I'm not planning on making further arguments here, but I do feel this is something other admins should be looking at carefully. Maybe the close of the AfD and DRV were both reasonable. I'm fairly comfortable with the way things generally work (as well as the actual policies associated with AfD closures), and these look scary-wrong to me. But I've been wrong before. If everyone else is good with it, then I'm clearly overreacting. That's been known to happen :-) Hobit (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well then, since "Frankly I'm more concerned about the process than the article.", I'd say these admins acted within their discretion to prevent WP from being used as an advertising platform. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"We don't do process for the sake of process." Personally, I'm concerned that a useful article could have been created by some folks but that both discussions set aside for the subject of deleting it were short circuited. I don't know much about the subject, but what is the point of taking supposedly 10 days of open discussion and condensing it into 2? Especially when the discussion was shaping up against the close both times, and in the second instance two admins had already voted the other way. Discussion hurts no one, especially when the article was already deleted during the DRV. Avruch ^T 02:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• If the closing admin has a differing idea from that of the community, he should have voted in the debate, rather than close it and impose his own view on the community. No matter how brilliant his opinion may be, that close is incorrect because it went blatantly against consensus. Bad close. I'm inclined to revert it so the DRV can run its course, but I'll wait for further opinions. --PeaceNT (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• The closing admin did !vote delete in the AfD. He then blanked his !vote and closed as a speedy. DuncanHill (talk) 10:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

  The diff is [41]. DuncanHill (talk) 10:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the process is, it's a lot more productive if we have a live version of the article somewhere in the meanwhile. That way it can be improved. It would take me all of about five minutes to edit the article so as to make the question of blatant advertising moot. A lot less work than this discussion or any process for the sake of process. Notability is a different question but that discussion hasn't occurred.Wikidemo (talk) 02:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• I cannot see this as forum shopping, if a deletion review is closed incorrectly, bringing it to the noticeboard, after discussing with the person involved does not work, is the only thing to do (it was what the closer recommended as well). I would not want it to happen very often though. But in this case the DRV was closed after one day when reviewing an AFD that was closed after only one day, the clear consensus of the participants at that time (it could change over a full discussion but I doubt it) was to overturn the deletion, however the closer, in effect, has closed it as Endorse but allow recreation but keep the articles protected from recreation until someone asks the closer to unprotect (which has a bit of a chilling effect on anyone wanting to create a new article). Thus I think the DRV should be reopened. Davewild (talk) 07:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
• Bringing a contentious close to the noticeboard when it is closed early in oposition to the currently unanimous call for an overturn is not forum shopping. Viridae^Talk 07:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: DRV reopened I've reverted the early close of Wikijob DRV, due to consensus here and at the DRV itself. This thread can be marked as resolved. --PeaceNT (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Marked as such. I would have done the same thing, PeaceNT, so it must have been the right decision :) Neıl ☄ 09:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note JzG added the site's URL to the local blacklist ([42]); if the article is restored, this will need to be removed. Neıl ☄ 09:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Actually I added it to the blacklist ages ago when the site owner, Redsuperted (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) admitted that he was apsmming it all over the place. He then started using alternate domain names pointing to the same site; adding such is not usually a problem since it was done in order to evade the blacklist. Note that the deletion was G11 and G4, since the same text had already been reviewed and deletion endorsed back in April. The sole contributor to that article, and contributor to nothing else other than trying to add links to the site on articles on major accounting firms, is Redsuperted, who admits a COI. I am not, as a rule, very big on rewarding spammers for going away for a couple of months and then coming back and reposting in the hopes that nobody is looking. Redsuperted is a spammer, plain and simple, If anyone else wants to write an article then fine, but Redsuperted has spent the thick end of a year actively promoting his site on Wikipedia, with no balancing productive edits as if that mad ea difference, and that is an absolute no-no. Deletion of articles that have been previously deleted as spam five times by five different admins at three different titles, all apparently the work of the same user, the site owner, is rarely considered as controversial as it appears to be in this case, especially when the site owner has reposted a version whose deletion has already been endorsed in almost identical form. He must be laughing at us. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• You're right - the original addition was earlier this year, with two alternate domains added the other day. While I don't disagree Redsuperted is a spammer (he clearly is), comment on the content, not the contributor - there was enough "weak keeps" in the AFD to warrant a full review. Ditto the DRV. Neıl ☄ 12:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

See, there's always more to the story! I think if that history had been more clear from reading the closure and/or it remained open a little longer people wouldn't have been so perplexed. Wikidemo (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

User:AlexLevyOne

I posted concerning this matter earlier today at WP:Wikiquette alerts (see here), but it’s become clear that that forum is not really a suitable place for addressing this particular problem and so I am re-posting a revised version here. I feel a bit of urgency because while this editor’s edits are not malicious or extraordinarily destructive, he is very prolific and threatens to degrade a lot of articles in a fairly short time.

User:AlexLevyOne created his account just a couple of weeks ago but has already made several hundred edits. They are of highly variable quality. His intentions appear by and large to be good, and many of his edits appear to be well-informed, but he frequently displays very bad judgment, to the detriment of the subject article – e.g., removing uncontroversial and, to all appearances true, factual material simply because it bears a {fact} tag – then, often not bothering to edit the text left behind, creating non sequiturs and awkward transitions. He collapses short paragraphs into unreadable blocks of text and removes uncontroversial material without explanation (or with a cryptic edit summary); and so forth. Despite the efforts of several concerned editors to engage him on his talk page, has responded simply by blanking their comments. Example here.

This post to the user’s Talk page by User:Deor (blanked shortly thereafter) illustrates several of his problem edits: diff.

To sum up, AlexLevyOne makes some good edits, but many (many) irresponsible ones as well. I’ve posted several template warnings to his Talk page today, along with narrative requests and suggestions that he reflect a bit more carefully on his edits, but he has neither acknowledged them nor slowed his pace. He needs to be reined in a bit; focused a bit better – but given his unwillingness even to acknowledge Talk page requests, I’m not sure how to go about it short of seeking administrative help, which I am now doing here.

Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess my contribution ws a bit compulsive and fasting as much as I could wich happens to be destructive more than prolific sometimes. I'll try to stop the non sense exercice trying to correct as much as I find informations inappropriate and focus on a few articles in a more accurate methodology. User: AlexLevyOne —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If your writing style in articles reads the same as it does here, you might want to consider taking up a different hobby. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, folks around here spend an awful lot of time and energy dealing with civility and other behavioral issues, process issues, sock puppetry, meat puppetry, BLP problems, conflicts of interest, etc. etc. etc., but very little on competency as an issue, and I think perhaps that is a mistake. A well-meaning but incompetent editor can do as much damage to the project as a vandal can, and yet many times this activity flies below the radar, and even when it's spotted, there doesn't really seem to be a process in place to deal with it effectively. Perhaps this stems from the egalitarian "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" ethos, but isn't it about time to realize that although everyone can edit it, not everyone should edit it? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 05:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

hold on their chap. The original post ser of this thread acknowledges that MOST of Alexs edits are good and beenficial to the project, and the issue at hand is a very specific patern of mistakes that can easily be corrected. Smith Jones (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Ed. I wonder if we couldn't set up a 'How to edit constructively' page. One that reinforces that English grammatical rules count, and spelling matters, that added material should be cited, or citable, that we don't deal in rumors and nonsense, that it's not myspace or a public internet forum, that if you don't know, don't touch... all that stuff. ThuranX (talk) 05:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones: I think perhaps that JohninDC might have been being polite, because I've just sampled ALO's edits, and the majority of those I looked at were not "good and beneficial". Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

maybeso. I dont disagre eiwth you on the larger issue, althought there are a few processes like WP:MENTOR stil extant to help editors become better with their contributions. I took JohninDC at his word when he said that ALO's edits were mostly good. Personally, my comp is way too bad to open all those links to pore through someone elses edits, so I think Ill take you at your word. There are lots of page sup on how to edit constructively, but they assume good fiath, so if a user is just here to prove a WP:POINT it wont be of much happenstance. one example is the welcome template which has a lot of info that I pesonally made use of when I first got here, and it helped get more on the right track afte ra rocky start with my first few edits. Smith Jones (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I said that "many" of his edits were good, certainly not most; but yeah, I still might have been too charitable. "Not obviously problematic" might've been better. Certainly in the course of reviewing most of them for a day I found some that made me think, well, he seems to know something about *that*. I agree that WP might do a better job of helping neophyte editors edit well - but that still wouldn't fix a case such as this one, in which the new and misguided editor simply ignores all entreaties and continues to edit haphazardly and destructively -- yet at the same time not quite running afoul of the various editing guidelines and prohibitions. Perhaps this one will sort out okay - AlexLevyOne has finally commented - but if he hadn't, it seems that the only recourse would have been an edit restriction of some kind. JohnInDC (talk) 11:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I remain concerned about this one. It took bringing the case here to finally get the editor in question to "engage", and I feel that "engage" is overstating the response. Bringing the issue here got no more than a single sentence acknowledgement from the user. The user really needs to understand that when a message is placed on his page, it means that there is an issue that needs to be resolved, and that he must resolve that issue. Mayalld (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. And further, while indifference or inattentiveness can be cured by a sincere promise, bad judgment cannot. I suppose the thing to do is to await some new edits and see if they're sound. JohnInDC (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Would someone with a better understanding of the biological process like to evaluate this morning's edits to Orgasm? Diff here. They are one of many new edits today and these in particular seem rather haphazard to me. JohnInDC (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted some fact tagged stuff, which was potentially OK to do, particularly for the stuff that was long term tagged since last year, but also deleted a whole load of well referenced stuff without explanation. Reverted and {{uw-delete3}} Mayalld (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that matters have not improved much. In addition to the foregoing, here he removes properly sourced material in favor of what appears to be his (unsourced) personal point of view - diff. JohnInDC (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and his edit summaries are becoming less descriptive and more potentially deceptive. Whether that's deliberate or not is hard to say. This editor rather personifies the kind of editing that's so borderline, it's difficult to tell whether it stems from rank incompetence or a brilliant campaign of vandalism. In this case, I lean towards the former, but still, the damage is the same whichever is the cause. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"Deceptive"? to my part, I couldnt understand what that edit sumary was talking about. It didnt seem to have anything do to re: the actual edit that was made. Is there a page here that contains an edit smamary tutorial of some sort? I think that a few people dont understand that edit sumaries are supposed to describe the edit . Smith Jones (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: I suspect that this is the same person as Elsass3 (talk · contribs), an account whose editing patterns (removal of sourced information, distinctive spelling errors, repeated blanking of his talk page, etc.) were very similar to AlexLevyOne's, who showed an interest in (and in some cases created) a number of the articles that ALO has edited, and who hasn't edited since two days after the ALO account was created. I haven't seen any evidence of disruptive socking, but I thought I'd point this out to carry ALO's history on Wikipedia a bit farther back in time. Deor (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, goodness. Fascinating. And I certainly share your suspicion. Indeed I'd up the ante and say that it is extremely likely they are one and the same -- the two accounts simply exhibit too many peculiar idiosyncracies in common. And, of course, both also reflect the same stout unwillingness to entertain any change in behavior. I think the next question is, then, what's to be done? I don't think it's in the interest of the encyclopedia to let it go on, and I also don't think we're going to see any meaningful voluntary correction here either. JohnInDC (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Users page

Resolved

 – 4im issued for WP:NPA and WP:Civil. Toddst1 (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

User: Arthur Smart has been using his page to make personal attacks towards other editors with his commentary about his "userbox of the month". He then prohibits anyone from responding to those attacks. I believe this to be a violation of WP:NPA. He pretends that by not using a users name (instead calling them wingnuts) that he is not making a personal attack. He is, of course, gaming the rules. I request administrative intervention. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could leave a diff to the edits concerned, as I can't see the occurence of the word "wingnut" anywhere on his userpage, nor does anything on there at the moment particularly resemble a violation of WP:NPA. _Gb^T/c 07:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That's because I removed it for violation. [43]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshift36 (talk • contribs)

I've warned the user concerned. I'm not sure that removing it yourself (without explicitly asking the user concerned to do so first, which I don't think you've done) was entirely the right idea, but I'm not going to be pointy and reinstate it and ask Arthur to remove it. _Gb^T/c 08:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that I made any form of personal attack. As someone else recently told him, "Until your comment above I would have had no way of knowing the userbox referred to you." I made no personal attack. The complainant took it personally, thereby inflicting the attack on him/herself. If there was a personal attack, it was self-inflicted by the complainant. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 10:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

So you don't think that "One wingnut WN presumed that the userbox applied specifically to him/her, in effect synthesizing a direct connection where none exists. (I guess the shoe fit, even if the condom didn't.)" constitutes a personal attack? _Gb^T/c 10:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I never identified the complainant or anyone else, so if there was any attack at all, it certainly was not personal. The complainant is the one who took my user page contents personally, and through his/her own voluntary self-disclosure created a personal link where none existed previously, as others have pointed out. But I, on the other hand, committed no personal attack whatsoever. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 11:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that there is no personal attack there, although there is a lack of civility. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but I read the condom bit as being an attack. The fact that it is address at or about the "wingnut" who thought that the original userbox was aimed at them makes it, in my view, personal. In essence, I can insult someone. That no-one else can work out who it is I'm insulting doesn't make my original personal attack any less (a) personal or (b) of an attack. _Gb^T/c 12:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Arthur, the person who said that hadn't bothered to go back and look at all the things you'd posted on my page as well as your own. There was nothing tricky, it just takes reading to see who you were talking about. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Smart has repeatedly, on Niteshifts's talk page, altered Niteshift's username to make a personal attack. DuncanHill (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This and this are clearly personal attacks on Niteshift36 (talk · contribs). Arthur Smart (talk · contribs) clearly not acting in good faith. Issuing 4im for personal attack and incivility. Toddst1 (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

NLT, User:Thetruthwilldofine

Just came across this apparent legal threat on Talk:John W. Dickenson, indef blocked, but another set of eyes would be appreciated. The user appears to have some affiliation to the article subject. – Zedla (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Is "if defamation continues ... then we will resort to legal action" an actual legal threat? Presumably, if defamation were not continued, then no legal action would take place. See Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats. Do we know why the user is upset? Is it not better to ensure no defamation happens in the first place? Neıl ☄ 10:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be some significant history between the subject of this article and Francis Rogallo. Something about who invented what. Certainly nothing that cannot be fixed in the articles. Kevin (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a dispute over who invented the modern hang glider. At the moment, the hang glider article states Francis Rogallo invented the Rogallo wing in 1951 (correct), which was a flexible ring, not a hang glider, and then states "Some designers" adapted Rogallo's design to create the modern hang glider. The designer was Dickenson, according to the FAI (they would know, so, therefore, correct). That probably needs to be in the hang glider article. However, Dickenson also claims he invented the wing in the first place, calling it the Lavezzari Conical Wing (not true, according to History of hang gliding). We must have an expert somewhere who can help with this. Neıl ☄ 11:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

User:BatteryIncluded has stepped in and cleared things up. Yay! Neıl ☄ 13:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a legal threat. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Bleiburg massacre vandalism #2

Hi all. The IP that has been removing the Background section of the Bleiburg massacre article is now reverting it frequently and is actually making fun of editors who are trying to reason with him. Other editors and myself have tried to warn him, reason with him, and discuss with him on his various IP talkpages for months now. He did not respond, he merely explained that the numerous sources in the section are "lies" and that he knows we are Serb propagandists trying to hide The Truth. Now he has made his first edit on the talkpage, apparently to mock other editors ("I drop in from time to time, just to se are you on guard."). In short, I'd like to ask if his IP can be blocked or the article semi-protected for a while. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The article was semi-protected yesterday. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, thanks, didn't notice :) But can we end with the guy's provocations, he obviously refuses to stop... Is it possible to block his IP? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, the IP is now being incivil to the point of WP:NPA on the talk page. And from looking at it, you'd have to block a /16 (89.164.0.0/16) range at minimum to stop him. And even then, he's on a /8 range (89.0.0.0/8) which is too large to block, so that may not help. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he's also been indulging in a few (stupidly disguised) threats, saying he'll "see me in college" ("vidimo se na referadi") [44]... Is there nothing that can be done about this guy!? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the blocking complications the best course of action is probably denying recognition. Simply revert anything that isn't acceptable. Usually they get bored and move on rather quickly. If you genuinely take concern with the threat you can always alert some relevant authority to investigate it but unless you're in belief that his threats are genuine it seems like that might be overdoing it a little.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 16:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

One idea for blocks: If an admin wants to get involved, then you have to be fast with the button and block for 1 hr at a time. If this is a rolling IP a la AOL, then that won't do more than possibly inconvenience the user, but if he gets his IP at log-in, a one hour block will actually be a block. With 1 hr increments, the chances of collateral damage are low. It's a PITA, but it would work. <shrug> Utgard Loki (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

64.231.13.13

Resolved

 – blocked for an extended period. Toddst1 (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This user has repeatedly vandalised the Michael Phelps article and has made abusive changes to my, Gwernol's and Digitalme's user pages, as well as responding abusively to polite warnings on their talk page that they will be blocked. Katharineamy (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This really belongs on AIV Toddst1 (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Todd got to them already]. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Fasach Nua

This editor generally refuses to use edit summary comments, despite repeated requests and discussion from a number of other editors (which he deleted from his talk page without ever defending his behavior). [45], [46], [47]. Many of his edits are contentious (his favorite pastime seems to be removing images from articles), and he's an experienced editor who should know better. Perhaps an "officious" message from an admin will help him to reconsider this behavior. RedSpruce (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've left a friendly note. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a policy, he has done nothing wrong, just leave him alone! Chafford (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You're mistaken, straying wholly from a guideline can be very disruptive, please see WP:Edit summary. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Using edit summaries is definitely not required. Misleading summaries can be disruptive, but none cannot. WilyD 15:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Editors who edit contentiously while not using summaries so edit after edit must be manually investigated is disruptive editing. If that's so hard to understand, perhaps it's time to adjust policy. ThuranX (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the meta guideline is very clear: Always fill in the summary field. Straying too far from this, as ThuranX says, means individual edits may need to be looked into and moreover, a lack of edit summaries makes trust very hard to come by since there is not a hint of what an editor has done without taking the time to look at diffs. Hence, the disruption. Moreover, editors will find things go much more smoothly if they use meaningful edit summaries. Trust will tend to grow because it often takes only a glance at an edit summary by a known editor to get a quick take on what's been done. Maybe it's time to strengthen the policy, if only to make all this more clear to those who haven't thought about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yah, it's nice if editors remember to collaborate and communicate and save boldness for actions that don't cause alarm. Dlohcierekim 14:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

About the underlying conflict here – removal of unnecessary non-free images – Fasach Nua is correct, as usual. Explained to RedSpruce on Fasach's talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

user i blocked requests unblock

I blocked Americansteamers (talk · contribs) for 72 after he added 2 dozen spam links for his company by the same name. I think the length of time on the block is appropriate as it gives him time to reflect and guide his actions according to that reflection. He now requests an unblock, pleading ignorance and promising to do better. I left him a note suggesting he spend the remainder of his block reading our policies and thinking about whether his goals are compatible with Wikipedia's. I also have a problem with an account named for a business that has shown such a strong interest in self promotion, but that's another matter. If anyone else feels inclined to unblock or shorten the block, it's OK with me. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer that user to request a username change before unblocking. D.M.N. (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Username soft blocked by Gwen gale. Dlohcierekim 14:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

User declaring war on lists - possible sockpuppet?

A user appears to declared a war on lists[48], and has started to remove a lot of lists from video games articles. [49][50][51]. See also his recent contributions. All appear to be disruptive and it seems like he's disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Finally, at the top of his talkpage he says: "I. Am. Back. HELL YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" - which suggests to be he is a sockpuppet of somebody. D.M.N. (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If anyone were to guess, one might say this banned user. But you never know. -- iMatthew _T.C. 15:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, if connection can be made it may be worthwhile to take it up at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 16:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The guys had an account since May 2006, so I'm not sure. D.M.N. (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't a person just hate lists? I mean, seeing an article written in 2003 that makes perfect sense, and then this "examples of ____" with the most inane and weird things on it could rile anyone. Seems like one thing would be to go try to reason with the user and try to urge her or him to argue that the lists should be nuked on an individual basis. Just wondering what else, besides disliking lists, makes someone so suspicious. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Disliking lists is ok (I think some are helpful and some aren't). However, "declaring war" on them will tend to be disruptive, since lots of good faith editors like lists more than others. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Open proxy 84.243.224.24

Resolved

 – Blocked

Hello, 84.243.224.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an open proxy (see http://84.243.224.24), probably used by Radioinfoguy (talk · contribs · block log). Akeron (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I confirmed and blocked it. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Akeron (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was very likely Radioinfoguy (talk · contribs · block log). Gwen Gale (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats

On my talk page here after a dispute with User:Corfiot relating to a link he inserted in the Corfu article here he threatened me on my talk page in Greek with this comment: "Μετά από αυτό είμαι υποχρεωμένος να ενημερώσω τους καθ' ύλην αρμοδίους τόσο για το σύνολο των στοιχείων που περιέχονται στις υπό την επιτροπεία σας σελίδες, όσο και για τις πράξεις σας, διότι φαίνεται ότι τα πράγματα είναι πολύ πιο σπουδαία από όσα μπορεί να διαχειριστεί ένας φτωχός, απλός webmaster." Translation: "After this I am obliged to inform the people responsible about all the details which are included in the pages under your watch as well as [to inform them about] your actions because it looks as if the matters are much more important from what a simple webmaster can handle." He then goes to add "P.S. Το επώνυμο παραπέμπει σε Κερκυραϊκή καταγωγή. Μήπως είστε Κερκυραίος;" Translation: P.S. Your last name reminds one of Corfiot ancestry. Are you a Corfiot perhaps ?" This goes beyond legal threats into real life threats. Your action would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. (For translation purposes please ask a Greek user to verify my translation). Dr.K. (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Corfiot does seem to have muddled his (asserted) role as a webmaster for a Corfu website with his contributions here. However, Corfiot is writing with a casual Greek idiom that I find very hard to understand, hence while I do think his comments are meant to stifle discussion, I can't tell how truly threatening they are. Meanwhile, I don't understand why the link can't be included in the article's EL section, so this looks like a content dispute, too. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I had blocked, now unblocked User:Corfiot after gwen's clarification. I have invited the editor to participate in this discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Reply to Gwen Gale: Someone more versed with the idiom he is using can clearly discern the mention of reporting to the "people responsible" and that the matter is "so great that a simple webmaster cannot handle by himself" as a threat, legal or not legal; it is a direct threat. His subsequent query about my ancestry is also suspect. He should be informed that such tactics are not acceptable in Wikipedia and he should retract his comments. As far as the link I have opened discussion on the talk page of the Corfu article. If other users agree to keep it I wouldn't care either way. As far as being the webmaster of the site he is trying to edit into the article this clearly falls under WP:COI. Thank you for your attention to this so far. Dr.K. (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Toddst1: Thank you for your decisive action on my ANI report. I understand your subsequent retraction, based on a doubt of classifying the block as a WP:TOV violation, but I still stand by my comments on ANI that it was a legal threat. Gwen admits she does not understand the nuances of the idiom. I would suggest asking someone more fluent in Greek to render an opinion. I have a few people in mind including admins but I prefer not to disturb them at this time. Dr.K. (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, if you guys need a Greek-speaking admin, gimme a shout. Not sure if Yannismarou is online now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile I've left a friendly note asking for more input, along with light warnings about legal threats and PI. If the PS is a TOV it's all in the idiom (spin) and maybe someone fluent in Greek can speak to that. If it was, I would support an indef block straight off. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough Gayle. Thank you for your efforts. I also asked Future Perfect at Sunrise to translate and render an opinion. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, you can call me Gwen :) So long as you understand you're being taken seriously, a block for WP:TOV is a very big deal and we need to know what we're doing, rather than guessing. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)