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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Review of unblock request and discussion of possible community ban

Unresolved

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI

This conversation concerns the handling of a prolific editor who has been found to have infringed copyright in multiple articles. Discussion is ongoing about the potential handling of this review, which will involved tens of thousands of articles. Participation in brainstorming solutions or joining in clean-up would be much appreciated. Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

WT:BISE and User:Triton Rocker: indef block review request

Unresolved

Entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/BISE to reduce space on the ANI page and to centralize discussion. Please do not add a timestamp until this reaches the top of the ANI page. –MuZemike

Murder of Meredith Kercher, again, uninvolved admins please

Unresolved

Entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Murder of Meredith Kercher to save space on this page and to centralize discussion. Please do not add a timestamp until this reaches the top of the ANI page. –MuZemike

• Update. Since the accused blocked editor is still working on his draft in response please do not add a timestamp until this matter is solved so that uninvolved admins who are not aware of the sub page can still see it and comment. --TMCk (talk)

• Update 2: PhanuelB has finaly submitted his response. Admins and editor are ask to please take a fresh look at it so a decission can be reached. Thanks,--TMCk (talk)

User:Zuggernaut - Canvassing to try and influence debate

Could an admin please take a look at the actions of Zuggernaut. This editor has made several problematic alterations to articles which have been undone and are being debated on the talk pages of the relevant articles. He has now posted on certain wikiprojects which have no relation to the specific debates, in order to try and stack the debate. [1] and [2] and [3], that is on top of posting about it on the Indian related articles noticeboard. This is clearly 1 sided canvassing to further his agenda. Any assistance would be helpful thanks. I will inform the user about this post, and the two articles impacted. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. None of my edits can be classified as problematic as logs, history and diffs show. I have merely followed WP:BOLD and more than 99% of my edits have been accepted. When they haven't I've taken the discussion to the talk pages. Two such discussions are at the articles stated by the complainant. I have posted on relevant project talk pages and simply invited editors to join in forming consensus. I doubt this can be called biased canvassing or anything like that. Both posts are here [4] [5]. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Some of your edits have certainly been problematic, which is why they have been disputed and are now being debated on talk pages. Could you please explain to me what Irish Republicanism has to do with the India article? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, zero posts have been problematic. Different POV perhaps (and that POV happens to be a mainstream POV, per WP:Reliable sources in India, a country of 1.2 billion). So, I need to emphasize, definitely no problematic posts from me as diffs and history will show. Irish people were subjects of the British Empire. Many editors there may have a great deal of interest both articles. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You chose to post on the Irish Republicanism noticeboard because you thought it would help bring in editors closer to your own POV on this matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I chose them because they were Irish. I have invited them per Wikipedia policies. I intend to invite people from all British colonies to participate in the debate . I will do so per Wikipedia policies. Your complaint is frivolous and designed to slow down or stifle a different POV. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain how having more people participate can be problematic.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

KK, see WP:CANVAS for information on when asking people to participate may be problematic. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

OK but I can't see how they are in this case.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I can assure that none of my posts are problematic. Feel free to scrutinize my history log and diffs to the fullest. Britishwatcher is upset because I have a different POV an because I have have been persistent with it (on talk pages). I have invited people on two projects to joint the debate. I have NOT asked them to vote one way or the other.Zuggernaut (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Choosing them "because they were Irish" could seem like votestacking to some. To some... Doc9871 (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really, as Northern Ireland (part of UK) look at one of those boards too. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It is outlined in WP:CANVASSING that your actions are canvassing if you are just alerting editors of a particular field or POV; in this case, alerting only those of a specific nationality is canvassing. If you were to alert the other side as well, it wouldn't be.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I have only tried to open the discussion to a wider audience. You are making assumptions that people of a certain nationality will vote one way. A user from India is opposing my view and another from the UK is supporting it - there are all sorts of permutations and compositions in the discussion. It has nothing to do with ethnicity or national origin. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth; I made no such assumptions, I simply told you what the page said, and compared it with what you did, and you did canvass.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Irish Republicanism ‎ Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland were the 3 boards he chose to raise this on. India-related topics board makes sense, although clearly just advertising there and not also to the UK board is bias canvassing (in the case of the British Empire article). But there is no justification or need for posting to the Irish Republicanism board on a subject related to the India article. I suppose it could be a complete coincidence that Irish Republicanism have rather negative views about the United Kingdom, but such random canvassing surely can not be acceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring Wikipedia:Assume good faith both in Zuggernaut and the edits made by people brought into the debate from those boards.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

How so? WP:CANVAS is a guideline; violating it in good faith is still a violation, and I haven't seen BW suggest anywhere that Zuggernaut knowingly or intentionally violated it, just that it was canvassing and therefore problematic. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The accusation is that he is "canvassing to try and influence debate" rather than trying to notify interested parties. There is also an implicit assumption that anyone attracted will behave in a way that is not NPOV, otherwise there would be no problem with there participation.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I've invited people in a neutral way. I have not asked them to vote one way or the other. I found that the featured article British Empire article had a Eurocentric view. I made some changes over the last few days to fix that [6][7][8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. Some of the contents were offensive - liker terming Indians in India "natives", reversing sequences to emphasize European aspects only. I hope you are not mad because those changes were reversed by me. I also hope that you are not mad because I have a different POV. Let the admins look at diffs/history/logs and decide for themselves. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Kitchen Knife, i would not have raised this here if Zuggernaut had just posted on the India -related articles noticeboard. But the posting on the Irish Republicanism wikiproject is just totally unjustified and seems to be trying to influence the debate. Why the Irish republicanism wikiproject? It had absolutely nothing to do with the debate taking place on India and not really linked to the issue on the British Empire article either. But its the India post on the Irish Republican wikiproject that is the most problematic. Theres just no justification for it BritishWatcher (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Obvious vote-stacking is obvious. It's hard to think of a more obvious example tbh. Asking Wikiproject Louisiana to come and give unbiased input at the George Bush article maybe. MickMacNee (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's a question from a passing observer: If this is about letting relevant WikiProjects know of an issue with the British Empire article, why edits to all of those WikiProjects and no edits to the blazingly obvious Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Empire (or indeed to any of the six WikiProjects listed at the top of Talk:British Empire)? Uncle G (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

And another question. Is there a policy breach here somewhere? What exactly is the "incident"? I hardly think a potential breach of a guideline merits taking up time here. --HighKing (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That is my question as well, Uncle G. Canvassing only the Indian and Irish projects over a series of edits that appear mostly related to India, and edits that take a position that is decidedly less sympathetic to the British Empire? Yeah, that's not neutral at all. Whether or not the edits themselves are valid, British Watcher has a good point here. Resolute 01:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I deny once again the allegations BritishWatcher has made against me. Since a complaint which should not have been here in the first place is already here, I am providing the following from the respective guideline:

“ How to respond to inappropriate canvassing
The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices. If they continue, they may be reported to the administrators' noticeboard, which may result in their being blocked from editing. Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning, if such an action is deemed to be necessary. ”

Had the editor contacted me directly, we could have easily sorted out any possible misunderstanding. I'm asking admins to please close this case so we can get back to editing articles instead of wasting limited Wikipedia time here. I will also ask that BritishWatcher assume good faith in the future, even if we are discussing issues with significant POV differences. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

He's not required to contact you "directly": and you're still saying you did nothing wrong whatsoever. It's his fault, now? Doc9871 (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Given that you still think you did nothing wrong, I fail to see how him talking to you directly could have solved anything.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm stunned by the level of discussion here! This is looking more like a street fight! If Zuggernaut's being Irish is the problem (and I think people who raised the issue should be termed racist!) I own his suggestions! Now! If it really matters, I'm am an Indian. Should I be ashamed of it? I'm not being able to understand what's going on here! If this is the way folks in wikipedia conduct themselves then I need to seriously see if this place is worth it and if I should be wasting my time here! I'm sure this is not the way wikipedia was intended to be! I even mobilized my twitter followers to raise funds for the site at one point. If this debate does not come on track by the very next comment, I'll escalate this matter to the highest forum of wikipedia and I promise you that. And by "on track" I mean discussion over Zuggernaut's suggestions and not what who is! Let's modify his statements and paste if here of on the talk page of the article. work on the article and let's stop quarrellings!

btw, who is the admim looking into this matter?

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 07:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to gain a bit more experience before you start jumping in discussions and calling people racist. You also need to learn to not put words in peoples' mouths, such as saying people are saying 'etc' because this editor is Irish; no, that is not why. Please try reading the discussion, because that is not it at all.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Choosing them "because they were Irish" could seem like votestacking to some. To some... Doc9871 (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really, as Northern Ireland (part of UK) look at one of those boards too. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It is outlined in WP:CANVASSING that your actions are canvassing if you are just alerting editors of a particular field or POV; in this case, alerting only those of a specific nationality is canvassing. If you were to alert the other side as well, it wouldn't be.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

What does these mean? I interpret these as what i said earlier! Like i mentioned earlier, this is a quarrel and not a discussion anymore... and I will therefore appeal to other forums of wikipedia to resolve this issue. For now I don't see how this will reach a conclusion. So far my experience goes, people here knows too little about me to know such things. I would appreciate if they keeps their notions to themselves. And why does everyone seem to put words into your mouth, Daedalus969? This is not the first time you made that remark and last time it was not me!

Anyway, I don't want to stoop lower in this debate. I'm writing emails to the wikipedia management and will request them to look into this matter.

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 07:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool! Make sure that you include that Zuggernaut, just above, made the comment about informing editors because they were Irish[15]. And you are probably no longer "the most neural person in the debate" (see below). Happy shopping :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That isn't how it works. You can't just go around saying that party X said Y when they in reality said Z, nor can you go around calling people racist.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

And really, it -was- you who were the one putting words in peoples' mouths; above, you state 'If Zuggernaut's being Irish is the problem', when in reality, no one had said anything like that. What they have said, however, is he was canvassing in two specific groups, instead of a broader group of people.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This debate is going nowhere!

Alright, let us not take things personally and make this an ego issue. I don't understand this, "what is the problem in stating examples of the British oppression while they colonized India?" specially when it is backed by credible citations? Are we trying to say that we can't write things against the acts of oppression committed by imperialist powers in wikipedia. Are we of the opinion that the concepts of "imperialism" should be protected? I think, these are an intrinsic part of Indian history! I would request an admin to answer these for me in a clear cut manner. No diplomacy please!!!

I seem to be the most neutral person in this entire debate! I believe the following two facts about the British rule in India, -

1) The regime was oppressive and was only interested in exploiting the native population. They did that even in the American continent! And yes, they did not take appropriate measures to arrest famines in India for whatever reasons! More people died of hunger in the subcontinent during the Raj than during any other time.

2) If India is a country today it is because of the British Raj. India as it stands today (Geographically) never existed before the brits came and colonized this place. Therefore, the country owes it's very creation to their rule.

There is a positive and a negative side to every regime. It is our duty to represents facts, without fear or shame to the world at large. This debate is going no where and is increasingly becoming an ego fight between the faction which wants portray some facts and others who want to protect interests! We need to escalate this to the highest levels. Personally, I really don't care if the "featured article" tag is removed as long as "truth" wins.

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 06:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Another point

It is being persistently said that there is no consensus on Zuggernaut's suggestions, which in my observation is untrue. I see the debate here 60:40 in favor of modifying Zuggernaut's suggestions and then publishing it. I can see about 2 editors against it and another taking a neutral view of the situation. With all humility, I'm sorry, but in the civilized world this act is called bullying!

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 06:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. That is not the case for either the India article or the British Empire article. But support for Zuggernauts suggestions is not what is the issue here. The problem is he canvassed the debates to clearly unrelated wikiprojects. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

None of the following from Canvassing#Inappropriate_notification apply to my posts:

• Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner  Not done Invited in a neutral manner per this diff [16]
• Posting messages to groups of users selected on the basis of their known opinions – for example, sending notifications only to those who supported a particular viewpoint in a previous discussion, or who state on their user page (e.g. through a userbox or user category) that they hold a particular opinion ("votestacking")[2][17] Not done (per foot note) None of my invitations have been disruptive. In fact I've not made a single disruptive edit since my first post of July 17, 2010
• Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages) Not done Never sent out an e-mail to anyone
• Posting messages to an excessively large number of individual users, or to users who have asked not to receive such messages[3] Not done I've posted messages to ZERO individual users, only three projects
• Posting messages to users or locations with no particular connection with the topic of discussion ("talk page spamming") Not done No talk page spamming
• Soliciting support other than by posting messages, such as custom signatures that automatically append some promotional message to every signed post Not done No customizations to my signature.

Let's close this and move on to editing articles. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You actually violate point number 2, which you strangely address as 'not disruptive' despite the fact that that word is not even mentioned in that point.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not really consider some of your notifications neutral. In the very link you provided to suggest that your notifications were in a neutral way you said..

"Featured article British Empire has a British_Empire#Legacy section but it does not contain the Indian view point the the empire was generally despised in India. It there are sources stating that the situation was similar in other parts of the world, like Ireland, I would like to add a {{Template:POV|POV}} tag to the article's Legacy section. Please point to sources per WP:Sources if you are aware of any. Thanks. "

That is in no way neutral. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Notifying the Irish board (why?? that has still not been explained) and not the BE wiki-project is clear violation of #2 --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You also say you have not been "Posting messages to users or locations with no particular connection with the topic of discussion ("talk page spamming")". Sorry but that is exactly what you have done. Please explain how Irish republicanism is connected to a debate on the Famine at the India article? BritishWatcher (talk) 09:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You are mis-representing my response. Please check the foot note for point #2 (See here [18]) It talks about disruption. There were two posts I made to the Irish projects - only one of those is relevant to this ANI against me. You are quoting the other one which relates to British Empire not India. This ANI is about India and the inclusion of content about the 37 million deaths. Zuggernaut (talk) 09:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Correction: this ANI is about your possible violation of WP:CANVASS. ANI is never about content, it's about behaviour. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Was there any attempt by BritishWatcher to contact Zuggernaut before coming here, as per the top of this page that clearly states Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. This is clearly as much about BW's behaviour - ANI is not a place to censure other editors, and admins don't silence editors just because you might have a different opinion. Clearly Zuggernaut has a lot to learn, but I believe a relatively new editor should simply have been pointed to the guideline. --HighKing (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Having been pointed to the guideline by users here and had it explained, however, Zuggernaut has maintained that he did not violate it; that is clearly an issue. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The whole reason for raising this here was so neutral and uninvolved editors could explain to him hes not allowed to do it. Considering he still fails to see hes broken any rules despite other editors contributing to this debate, i fail to see how me trying to explain this to him would have had any positive outcome. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The only thing i thought i had to do was to post the fact I had raised this here to the user. " Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page."" is very different to "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion." BritishWatcher (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly the point. Before posting at ANI, you should have discussed this issue with the user in advance. So where did you discuss the issue with them on their user Talk page? I'd venture that the editor now feels put-upon and cornered, and is adopting an "Admit Nothing" approach - especially seeing as how this discussion has progressed to date. Taking into account that this editor is relatively new, and the fact there's no policy breach (except maybe a breach of AGF by filing this in the first place), I'd back off and be happy that the editor now knows about CANVASS (and a whole host of other guidelines and policies no doubt). If the behaviour continues, then we'll see everyone back here again no doubt. --HighKing (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a clear breach of wikipedia policies. His canvassing to the Irish republicanism wikiproject has no justification at all. As he still thinks he has done nothing wrong and you think he has done nothing wrong, clearly there is still a problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Given the amount of Unionists who also monitor that page, not to mention the odd British Nationalist, it not the most sensible way of canvassing. Seems like a storm in a tea cup to me. --Snowded ^TALK 12:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What does Irish Republicanism have to do with the debate about a famine on the India article? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe, BritishWatcher, that some user(s) are suggesting that selective notifciation or inclusion of "Unionist" Wiki users, Irish WP members and the like, is a way of manipulating opinion over topics on the British Empire - like an opinion poll on Stalin sampling only Ukranian farmers. Incidentally, Unionists are not Irish Republicans? --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Some unionists may be republicans, but Irish Republicanism is about support for a united Irish republic (which means Northern Ireland leaving the United Kingdom today, like the rest of Ireland did in the early 20th century), the complete opposite of British unionism. Whilst those of the Irish Republicanism wikiproject of course can act in a neutral way, that specific wikiproject by the very definition of Irish Republicanism would be one of the most hostile wikiprojects to the UK. Which is why i have big concerns that unrelated matters under discussion at British Empire and especially India were advertised at that location. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I have very high regard for Wikipedia polices, not just in the letter but in spirit as well. It appears to me that Britishwatcher, on the other hand, is on the lookout for loop holes to stall my work. I've been around since July 2010 and frankly I've been learning Wikipedia polices as I edit pages. In the first few weeks, I was quickly pointed to a few basic ones like WP:FRINGE, WP:NOR, WP:SYN, etc and the use of talk pages. This is the first time I've taken the unusual route of learning a guideline via ANI. Given my history per Wikipedia:Civility, I cannot see why Britishwatcher and I could not have sorted this out without coming here. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Because I do not believe me raising this matter with you alone would have led to any successful outcome. I thought you would consider it just my opinion of the rules and we would have ended up here anyway, this is proven by the fact your previous posts above were to disagree that there was anything wrong with your actions after being shown by others the relevant policy. All i wanted was recognition that advertising this matter in the way you did on the Irish wikiprojects (especially the Irish republicanism wikiproject) was against the rules, and to ensure it does not happen again. If you did not know the policy before then that is fine and you know not to do such things again (i fully accept that and would make no further comment on this issue), but at the moment you still seem to think this is just me looking for loopholes to stall you and not a breach of the rules. The post to the Irish Republicanism wikiproject was against the rules. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Britishwatcher - Here's how I see the situation:

It is self-evident by the fact that we are here that you clearly and demonstratively violated one of the five foundational pillars of Wikipedia - Wikipedia:Civility by not assuming good faith. On the other hand, I have not violated any of those basic Wikipedia pillars. I have never knowingly done so in the past and never intend to do so in the future. All of my posts will show that I've been polite with everyone I've encountered, that I've kept an open mind and changed my position to accept the truth if someone convinced me that I was wrong. Here's an example: Template_talk:Anglo-Indian_Wars.

It is possible, though unlikely that I violated the guideline WP:Canvass.

I would request to you to withdraw this ANI; and rather than conjecturing hypothetically, lets get back to the talk pages and address your allegation about the "inappropriate canvassing". If we determine that the canvassing was inappropriate, I will offer you an apology. In the meantime I hope you accept these from me (look left).

Zuggernaut (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You did violate WP:CANVASS, which has been explained, but apparently you did it unintentionally, so no worries really. WP:CANVASS in relation to this ANI is not about the language or civility used, but by inappropriate and per se biased posting on unrelated wikiprojects. In future its best to try and keep discussion only to relevant wikiprojects, and if you understand that then this ANI could probably be resolved. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

A discussion between you and an editor you disagree with 'to determine if you canvassed' is never going to work, and really, BW has no ability to tell other people to stop talking at this thread; indeed you have had several users, including admins(small mistake, read something wrong), tell you that you violated CANVASS, so instead of continuing to argue that you did not, why don't you just admit your fault and say you won't do it again?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"It is possible, though unlikely that I violated the guideline WP:Canvass." There is no possibility about this. you DID violate that policy, if you did not know about it previously that is fine, just agree to not do it again now you know about it. But I dont see how this can be resolved if you still think you did nothing wrong. All i want is to know that in future you will not be making those sorts of posts on unrelated wikiprojects and with questionable unneutral wording to try and draw certain groups of people into debate which could influence the outcome in a certain way which favours your position. Ive no problem completely moving on once there is recognition this was against the rules and we know it wont happen again, infact ive already spent some time this evening debating about changes to one of the articles you wanted changed to try and reach consensus. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@ChipmunkDavis, you're wrong. The guidelines are clear (unless you've recently removed the instruction to discuss the matter with the editor first, before coming here with a complaint). Also, BTW, no admins have stated he violated CANVASS, although a goodly number of editors have. Even if he did, and even if he was attempting to attract editors that might share his views to join in the discussion, the first port of call is not at ANI. There's a procedure for a reason. We must AGF - the editor wasn't aware of policy, and appears happy to avoid potential misunderstandings in future. I find this attempt to bludgeon him to "confess" as petty and distasteful. My advice in future is to open discussions first. If that fails, then follow up here. --HighKing (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

How on earth was what I said "petty and bludgeoning"? I did assume good faith, saying that they probably did in unintentionally, and also said that if he now knows the policy that this can be all put to rest. Neither did I condone BW's actions bringing it straight here. And no, I've removed no instructions...anywhere. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if he did not know the rules the reasons why he did what he did are clear and they are problematic. All i want to know is he understands that and in future will not canvass like that in future. If he (and you) can not accept what happened was against the rules, how can there be any confidence that it will not happen again? As for discussing the matter first, the top of this page says "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." I take that as recommended but not a strict rule unlike the post that says you Must notify individuals involved. I believe me raising this matter with him would have produced nothing and we would have ended up here anyway, this much is clear from the fact even after other editors have said it was not allowed he believes he did nothing wrong. If this is a strict rule that most be followed before any matter can be raised on this noticeboard, it should say you must discuss this matter on the persons talk page before raising it here. It does not say that but if you say it is against the rules i will be sure to talk about it first on the persons talk page, i am sorry i thought it would be better coming from neutral admins than from myself, it was obvious he would just dismiss my concerns thinking it was an attempt by me to "stall" things (as he has said in this debate here). BritishWatcher (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

There's been no disruption because I posted on Irish projects. We weren't voting on anything and nobody from there has arrived to the India page. It is important to follow the robust Wikipedia policies because clearly a lot of thought has gone in to them. Here's what would have happened if Britishwatcher had not violated WP:Civility

Step 1: Britishwatcher contacts me about canvassing.
Step 2: I read the guideline.
Step 3: I agree with the guideline.

1. I realize I made a mistake.
2. I stop the inappropriate canvassing (in this case it was already static when this ANI was filed)
3. Agree with Britishwatcher any other steps that need to be taken; execute those steps

OR

Step 3: I disagree with the guideline.

1. I realize there's an unintentional problem caused by me
2. I stop the inappropriate canvassing (in this case it was already static when this ANI was filed)
3. Agree with Britishwatcher any other steps that need to be taken; execute those steps
4. I initiate a discussion at the talk page of WP:CANVASS with the goal of improving the guideline
5. Upon the end of the discussion either the policy is changed or I realize I am wrong and my views have changed

Step 4:Move on to editing articles.

There are several advantages to both the scenarios other than the obvious avoidance of this ugly situation.

1. No time lost in either scenario.
2. No uncivility is encountered by either parties.
3. The ambience is polite and constructive.
4. Everybody wins

If Britishwatcher just states that he's withdrawing this, we can get over with this and focus on editing articles. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• How about this: you admit that you made a mistake and that you now understand what the canvassing policy is and stop trying to wikilawyer your way out of your responsibility for this mishegas. Then everybody goes back to editing and this thread can be closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHEM. This thread is about your behavior, Zug, not BW's. You say above that if BW had contacted you, you would have admitted your mistake; what's stopping you from doing so now, then? Or is the above a backhanded way of indeed admitting you made a mistake?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, canvassing by nature is disruptive; you can't just talk your way out of it by claiming your actions weren't disruptive and therefore not canvassing; it doesn't work that way.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

All i want is for you to recognise that you are not meant to canvass in the way you did and say it will not happen again. That is it, then we can all move on. But if you still think you have done nothing wrong in this case i worry it may happen in another debate in future. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Convenience break

I have requested feedback from Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing and I will wait before I make any further comments on this case. Ideally I would have preferred to go to those talk pages after this ANI was withdrawn but it seems the withdrawal will not happen. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Zuggernaut's request for feedback [19] includes a request to allow people to only bring people to support their POV, "Each party involved in a discussion would ideally like to invite the entire pool of users who are likely to support their position." If you ask me that's an admission he knows that he only canvassed to support his position here. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Z's posting on Talk:Canvassing appears to me to be simply another attempt at Wikilawyering. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Zuggernaut has said on Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing:

I invited users from the Irish projects because India and Ireland had both suffered famines with huge death tolls during the same period under the same regime, that of the British. Another point made was that I should have invited people from the British Empire project. I did not do so because I was and am not aware of other countries under British rule at that time in history of having faced similar famines. In short, I thought that inviting people meeting five common factors would help improve the quality of the debate. These factors were:

• The country should have been under British occupation
• People should have been resisting British rule
• There should have been a famine or multiple famines between 1800-1900.
• Policies of the British regime should have caused starvation deaths
• Death tolls should have been in millions."

This was clearly biased canvassing and it is a blatant violation of wikipedia policies. At the time he may not of been aware of this policy but he is aware of the policy now and still fails to recognise he did something wrong. Will a neutral admin please try to explain this to him as all above attempts have failed. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

And explain also that BW is highly unlikely to "withdraw" this thread, as has been repeatedly "requested" (even in his most recent post above): it's beyond BW at this point, Zuggernaut. He cannot be "blamed" for this report, and you've done this enough times now. The clear majority of editors commenting here see this as canvassing, and it's coupled with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and some rather elaborate wikilawyering to avoid the issue... Doc9871 (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

As an editor who has had no knowledge of any of this other than just reading this thread I have formed an opinion that Zuggernaut did violate canvassing rules. S/He may not have been aware of it at the beginning but as the thread continues, it's explained by multiple editors. Yet this editor still says s/he didn't violate anything which as Doc9871 above and others have stated is a big dose of I didn't hear that and a lot of wikilawyering. This needs to be stopped and the editor needs to admit that what s/he has done is against the norm of policies. HTH as this is just what I see when I read and follow the various difs provided. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Assumptions of bad faith and Battlefield mentality

Resolved

Please could an uninvolved admin please speak to Wikifan12345 about this? Thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Spartaz, I agree his comments were completely unacceptable, and I've left him a warning. PhilKnight (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. I do find the deletion of 3 reliably-sourced articles with IMO weak rationales quite troubling. I'll strike my comment if that's all right. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

In her/his "apology", Wikifan12345 attacked Spartaz once again. I don't think the warning got through to Wikifan12345. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

How so? Criticizing Qatar is now an attack on a user who lives there? Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"How so" you ask? So so: Writing ... if that's all right as an apology shows you're not apologizing. You're washing your hands (while smearing an other persons coat: 'with IMO weak rationales'). Then you stroked this (not pointed to by the attacked admin btw; it was even on his talkpage), followed by smearing here by a new writing about 'tacit approval or at least indifference [re Qatar politics]'. Malik Shabazz was all right when referring to your "apology" in quotes. -DePiep (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you are guys are taking this too far. "If that's all right" is an honest statement. I wanted to strike my bad faith comments, is that all right? Does that offend you DePiep? Instead of cherry-picking the apology, maybe you should read on:

It was horribly for me to do this, I'm just not a huge fan of countries where slavery is legal and religious minorities are hunted. Again, apologies

I explained why I dubiously connected the admin's presence in Qatar with his IMO "weak rationale" for deleting the 3 articles. Clearly I'm not the only one who thought this considering there is lengthy discussion here where several editors express similar complaints. It was wrong of me to see the admin's presence in Qatar as affecting his judgement when it comes to Israel/Palestine. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That discussion actually demonstrates the complete opposite of what you're asserting. While a number of people in that discussion disagree with Spartaz's decision, and stated that the application of policies and guidelines was incorrectly done, nobody has agreed with you that Spartaz's nationality had any influence on the decision. Quite the opposite, one editor even stated "Reading this discussion, I see quite a bit of bad faith and personal attacks directed at the closing admin." So even there I see complaints about your behavior. -- Atama頭 21:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

typical wikifan behaviour, if i may say something to that case. he exploits every possibility to provoke other users and then performs the innocent one. in this thread one can find also some examples.--Severino (talk) 08:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

re Wikifan behaviour example #4 above: If I took it too far, I apologize. I was distracted by the red horns and the smell of sulphur in your aura. -DePiep (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Some time ago Wikifan was banned. In the discussion leading to that here, I commented that he be put under a mentoring agreement. I also invoked that he was just 14 years old and he could perhaps learn a lot more than what you would typically expect in similar cases involving older people. Then I was ridiculed for making that proposal. He was banned but apparently later returned without an restrictions or mentoring agreements.

Congratulations! Well done Admins and keep up the criticisms on me like right now in the treads below! Count Iblis (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"He exploits every possibility to provoke other users and then performs the innocent one." What does this mean? Are you saying I'm baiting editors and then playing the victim? If that were the case, I'd be sending editors I disagree with to enforcement noticeboards, not trying to find a compromise over a potentially problematic contribution(s). Like I said before, I think you guys are taking this too far. I apologized numerous times, explained my behavior, and apologized again. The offended admin hasn't disputed the sincerity of my apology. I don't think this incident falls under general sanctions policy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If Wikifan were a non-Zionist behaving like this, he would be blocked immediately. His attack on the Qatari admin was particularly noxious, when the background of many obviously biased Israeli editors suggests they are covering up for crimes to which they themselves are linked. 86.181.226.123 (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I am not Qatari. I live in Qatar but I'm British. Thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, you were kicked in your balls by Wikifan, and you let her go by saying her apology was "perfect" & then you keep excusing to us you are not from Qatar. Please keep your selfrespect. -DePiep (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(out of synch)@me, ay, afterwards: Spartaz was not saying Wikifan's apology was perfect, but the admin's warning was a perfect solve. No one noticed? I apologise for this disturbing mistake. -DePiep (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"covering up for crimes to which they themselves are linked." Is this not a personal attack? Accusing editors of being war criminals? Assuming bad faith is not kicking someone in the balls DePiep. If Spartaz wants to take this further he/she has a right to I guess. But if not, I'd like to see this closed so uninvolved editors will stop attacking my character. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I marked it as resolved. I hope Spartaz does not mind. If he does, he could undo me.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed it back. Wikifan ought to make an unqualified apology, and stop making excuses for her-/himself. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for assuming bad faith towards Spartaz closing of the AFD and inferring his/her presence in Qatar somehow played a negative role in his judgement. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Malik, I believe it is only up to Spartaz now. If they accepted Wikifan's apology, the thread should be closed. If they do not, they could undo my closure. I was not commenting on the thread before, so I believe I may go ahead and close it. Why to create unneeded drama? Of course, if after my clarification you or anybody else undo me again, I will step out, and let it be.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

User:BlueRobe fresh from block... with potential civility issues

BlueRobe (talk · contribs)

For background, note that there has been a recent RfC/USER [here] and a previous ANI [here]. Prior to his block, I also have tried to inform the user about behaviors that may be problematic in less formal venues.

User:BlueRobe's first comment after a block expired was to level incivil characterizations of three editors and to presume bad faith [saying -- among other things -- that one editor is "a pathological liar who cannot be reasoned with on any level"].

He was warned that this behavior is similar to that for which he was blocked: [20]. However, he disregarded the warning as a "petty taunt": [21]

He also seems to have an assumption of bad faith that is directed towards me, personally: see this comment from today.

Civility/AGF issues still seem to exist. If isolated, these edits would be stuff for WQA, however, given the larger context that these edits are consistent with a problematic pattern that does not seem to be improving, more scrutiny than Wikiquette may be merited. [Note, that I'm also discouraged about WQA for these issues, given the previous failure.] BigK HeX (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

As BlueRobe's comments have resulted in a lively discussion, I see no need for admin action and decline to take any. I should note that BlueRobe did not name any editor.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

For the first diff, it's certain that he was referring to User:Jrtayloriv and one could very reasonably presume the other two characterizations were meant for User:Carolmooredc and myself. The last diff is directed at me specifically. These comments are merely a continuation of the excoriation that he leveled against the three editors I've just name before he was blocked. It seems that he is now continuing his presumptions of bad faith unabated. BigK HeX (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK, I supported the block on BlueRobe and even went so far as to suggest indef blocking, if memory serves. But... in this instance, I feel it's far too soon, and this isn't anything new. If Blue takes it off their talk page and into mainspace there is an issue. If it stays in their own userspace it's not really doing anyone harm unless it escalates to blatant personal attacks, threats, canvassing, or other disruptions. Stating an opinion is not an actionable offense. I appreciate you're frustrated, but taking this to ANI so soon doesn't help warm relations between the at-odds user groups in your editing circles.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, as it is, he's not impressed by the referral. I believe an editor should be allowed to blow off steam on his own talk page within limits; clamping down on that means he'll just go to email, where we can't see what's going on. Please remember, AN/I should not be the first resort. Many thanks, --Wehwalt (talk) 03:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

With that said, this [22] isn't a good sign of things to come from BlueRobe. I think someone needs another talking to, without the direct threat of a block, from an uninvolved mediator.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

an admin already gave him a talk, "did you enjoy your break?", this type of question seems less than helpful. bigk has filed an unusually large amount of complaints, i am concerned it has become a personal issue for the editor. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

My notice was of course a gentle prod to the editor because he was indeed slipping back into the same behaviour that led to the block. It does not matter if it's on his talkpage or mainspace, my friendly notification (because I have his talkpage on my watchlist) was trying to preserve the chance that positive behaviour and editing could come, but with comments that were inherently uncivil - and the obviousness of whom the comments were related to - called for a reminder. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

perhaps you would agree your wording was not ideal? Darkstar1st (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. First of all, as indicated by the response here, BlueRobe's comment is far short of what is appropriate for a block. Secondly, and more importantly, did you enjoy your break is snarky and provocative. Finally, cows should be "prodded," not WP editors. Gerardw (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions that User:BlueRobe's incivility and bad faith receive a blind eye because he's just "venting" on his talk page seems like nonsense to me. At the very least, he should be given a clear notification that continuing the behavioral pattern that he seems to have jumped right back into on his first day is unacceptable. BigK HeX (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The simplest solution here is either a topic ban (tricky) or, better, an interaction ban. He seems to have been pretty rude in general about a lot of editors on his talk page, behaviour he was blocked for before. Rather than a block, which seems punitive at this stage, it would be better to ban his interaction with those people he insists on being uncivil to/about (of course, such a ban would go both ways). --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I've revised my view. The comments from BlueRobe are not hugely constructive - but he appears to have kept it off article talk. Which is an improvement. I recommend BigKHex and the others dial it back and particularly avoid Blue's talk page. The various talk pages, such as Talk:Libertarianism and Objectivism, are full of a lot of snappy comments that should be avoided. Can we not have polite disagreements backed up with explicit sourcing? --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Are we saying that AGF should not apply to user talk pages visited by User:BlueRobe? On the first day from the incivility block, he already leveled at least one (likely more) incivil comments about me specifically, which -- given his history -- I do not feel that I should have to tolerate. I've not asked for any sort of block here, as I'm not sure what the solution should be, but it seems doing nothing (or, only asking the editors that he berates to treat him with kid gloves??) is very unlikely to be the correct approach. BigK HeX (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I am saying just drop it and see what happens. Nothing is majorly uncivil so far, and the vague comments on his own talk page are nowhere near enough to warrant more blocking (which, remember is preventative not punative). I am suggesting that you move onto the content, unwatch his talk page and avoid rising to any baiting - perceived or deliberate. Give it some time and see what happens, reporting him so soon is not going to help unless there is a clear repetition of the behaviour he was blocked for (which I would point out was persistent rudeness at the RFC). --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Concur with tmorton166 Mine was a slightly-more-than-gentle warning not to return to previous behaviour. Until future behaviour occurs, there's nothing more to see - in other words, the warning has been confirmed to be read. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Just an FYI, one reason some of us watch BlueRobe and Darkstar1st's talk page is because aggressive socks of User:Karmaisking have come along and given them disruptive editing tips. Seeing insults against various editors certainly is annoying. Not necessarily blockable, but perhaps an attempt to incite. Not that I'm interested in taking the bait. Just something to keep in mind. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Possibility of ArbCom

Really not a fan of the accusations lobbed at me by BlueRobe here [23]. I stand by the spirit in which I've tried to mediate this, but since it's obvious that neither side wants any kind of constructive resolution. WHERE DO WE GO HERE? First, I try to step between BigK and Darkstar to offer some friendly advice on how to stay off the noticeboards, then they both assured me they don't have any real issues with each other but it's just heated professional discourse... fine. But it's not true! We're right back here today, in the same place we seemed to be before BlueRobe's latest block. I'm leaning toward an interaction ban on these editors or sending this to ArbCom. If they can't keep their article space discussions from spilling over into a myriad of noticeboards on a regular basis then there's a serious problem that is causing an undue amount of time to spent reffing this playground game!--Torchwood Who? (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Diffs, please, not threads! It is almost impossible to go into that wall of text and figure out who said what about who.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Diff added.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. It's strong, but I don't think it's blockable. Frankly, I've seen much stronger comments within bounds. Although BlueRobe needs some writing lessons, I think. --Wehwalt (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think ArbCom is the only WP:DR that's left to the editors seeking an end to the battleground at Libertarianism (we've already initiated WQA's, NPOV noticeboards, talk page RfC's, RfC/USER's, ANI's, and mediation). I have no experience with ArbCom requests, but if people here think this may actually merit their attention, then I would certainly assist wherever possible. BigK HeX (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't want BlueRobe blocked, and I'm not insulted by what they said. I'm frustrated that this dispute, which all parties claim they have worked out internally, continues to clog up noticeboards. I don't think BigK Hex, Darkstar1st, and BlueRobe are able to work constructively together without dragging the dispute to somewhere like ANI. As I stated above, I would suggest an interaction ban for a limited time. This may be difficult because all the involved editors share a content area, but at what point does something give?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: "this dispute, which all parties claim they have worked out internally, continues to clog up noticeboards"

To clarify, I don't think I've ever suggested that this problem has been (or even could be) worked out internally. If editors refuse to even acknowledge the existence of a viewpoint from reliable sources that are posted right there on the talk page (much less acknowledge the repeated outside input received from multiple Community Notices), I don't realistically see any chance for internal resolution. BigK HeX (talk) 07:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it should be overlooked that this is a political debate where one side wants effectively to delete (or disambiguate) all but one form of libertarianism from the main article. It is not just battling personalities. And there is a community sentiment on the non-deletionist side of the debate - as I detailed at this diff opposing yet a second request to move brought by the "deletionist" side, despite two RfC's, and the first request to move, that effectively shot down their desire to delete. As I say at the diff, if this isn’t Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Refusal_to_.get_the_point, I don’t know what is. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Seconding Carol, there is a civility problem related to IDHT and repeated picking at the scab of recently closed consensus. The problem isn't content based. It is about editors who wish to inject political lines into the article and who are engaging in disruptive behaviour to stall editing along consensus lines. I believe Carol and myself have radically different political lines; but, we agree that the purpose of Wikipedia is encyclopaedic recording of topics according to discoverable RS WEIGHTed by significance in RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have a time limit, but we can set arbitrary limits on blocks, bans, etc. What if you try this... What if all the involved editors will consent to attempt one week of editing without personal talk page interaction with each other or bringing rehashed related issues to a noticeboard? If you can't go one week without the off article bickering or bringing a dispute involving the same editors to a noticeboard I think ArbCom would be a good place to go. But I would personally like to see just a few days of attempting to disengage on userspace pages as a final attempt to work this out as a content only dispute. Remember that ArbCom is for behavior, not content disputes.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, it seems that you may misunderstand the dispute, User:Torchwoodwho. The source of the problem has never been user talk page interaction. The problem with the editors involved is SQUARELY and unequivocally about an issue that has long-been resolved by an RfC, but which a very small minority of editors refuses to even acknowledge. There are editors in a thread at Libertarianism right now who refuse to even acknowledge that a viewpoint found throughout numerous reliable sources even exists .... even with the sources posted directly onto the talk page. The level of apparent WP:IDHT is beyond ridiculous. The problems between the involved editors has next-to-nothing to do with user talk pages, as this problem would persist even if there had never been any interpersonal civility issues. It is the singular POV issue being raised in Every Single New Thread on the Libertarianism talk page which is at the root of the problem. BigK HeX (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand that this last round of ANI was the result of talk page chatter. I also understand that during the last RfC on BlueRobe the talk page chatter added fuel to the fire. I'll also reiterate that ArbCom doesn't handle content disputes, so unless the incivility from user talk spills over to article talk ArbCom won't have much to do.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not looking at ArbCom for deciding content. I'd only ask for ArbCom to review the many, many Community Notices and to end any WP:IDHT, should any exist. BigK HeX (talk) 07:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

i pledge to not comment on either users talk page for a week, and permanently should it produce positive results in the 1st week. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar, if the RfC referenced (which I was aware of, but considered the issue distinct from the incivility) is reopened and it's found to be absolutely clear consensus would you agree with that consensus and edit accordingly? --Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Bigk et al, if Darkstar et al agrees to this would you be opposed to reopening the RfC? If you feel you had a strong consensus what harm could be done spending a few more days at RfC to make it definate, you're essentially fighting the same battle every day anyway.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

absolutely and with without any regrets. ii hope the mediator will return soon, as we seemed to be making great progress in a supervised environment, bickering and off-topic had almost ceased. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be opposed to re-opening the RfC without a lot more conditions being met. IMO, having only Darkstar1st's participation is pretty far from being sufficient to end the WP:IDHT. BigK HeX (talk) 08:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

{od}}No dice, I'm sure arbcom would reject it out of hand. It is the last avenue of resort and going there early will work against you big time - especially as you mostly have content issues with which they do not deal.

• At the very least you have a formal mediation step to go through
• The RFC/U, also, never finished.
• Torchwoods discussion is a good one because this specific issue arose out of user talk pages. Stop watching the talk pages - that is the simplest "first" solution to the main problem right now. Everyone, go click unwatch now no matter why you think you need to watch it. Enough admins/other users have an "eye on" :)
• In terms of that RFC it is not clear who closed it? Was it one of you? It is clearly quite contentious so a wider mediation/RFC might be in order, specifically one closed by an uninvolved editor of good standing. Remember there is no time limit on this and if it takes another 3 months to hash out to conclusion that is perfectly ok. Better that than get into roundabouts of discussion over and over --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The RfC was opened and closed by a long-time editor serving as an informal mediator who was not involved in any of the talk page disputes [I checked the history going back as far 2008.] Moreover, it's not just that one RfC ... there have been multiple page move requests and other noticeboards ... all over the same basic topic. In every single one of these, the community input is clear that the vocal minority is unable to make a persuasive case about their preferred POV for the Libertarianism article. BigK HeX (talk) 08:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want an interesting statistic, out of 4 Community Notices (RfC's and Page Move requests) forced in the last 2½ weeks, there were numerous editors who were not previously participating in the talk page discussions. Of the editors whose first appearance was in response to the Community Notices, the following editors have Opposed proposals by the "vocal minority"

User:Jrtayloriv, User:Iota, User:NickCT, User:Zazaban, User:N6n, User:Fubar_Obfusco, User:Snowded, User:Figureofnine, User:Dailycare, User:LtPowers, User:Tmorton166, User:Skomorokh, User:Andrewa, User:Dtobias, User:Cwenger, User:Yworo, User:Gavia_immer

While this is the list of the only outside editors to have Supported the "vocal minority's" proposals:

User:Rapidosity and User:Anatoly-Rex

I really don't think the Community's general opinion can be much clearer. BigK HeX (talk) 09:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've referenced this discussion at the politics wikiproject in hopes of getting additional uninvolved political content editors to participate in this discussion. Should this thread be moved off ANI to somewhere? I don't think there's any admin action required at this moment, especially not on the issue originally raised.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on the RFC closure BKH. There was no signature on the close and the way it was summed up further down the page suggested involved editors had closed it. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar, why do you feel consensus wasn't reached, or that the consensus reached was somehow invalid?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

the rfc was closed rather soon after it opened, would there be any benefit for allowing more editors to comments on the broad or narrow view? better yet, possibly rewording the rfc, as some object to the wording as biased. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

And...would you care to elaborate on how the wording was biased? BigK HeX (talk) 10:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm out. Retired. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There have been over 100 edits to talk page in last 22 hours, which maybe 30% higher than average, which is still too high. And much of it is the same WP:Soapbox arguments that we've heard for 8 months. How about this: ONLY discussion about actual edits made. Then those (who don't get the point, as per above and) who go on for hundreds of words at a time without ever editing or commenting on an actual new edit might possibly control themselves. Just an idea... CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk page moderation

It seems we've got a bit of outside assistance in the talk page difficulties, but I'm certain a few other eyes would be welcomed. Really, this is the sort of assistance that would resolve the stream of noticeboard complaints stemming from this article. BigK HeX (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson and Civility

(With all the different notice and complaint pages, I'm never sure where to place one of these.) User:Pmanderson is displaying an utter lack of civility or the ability to assume good faith at Talk:Aorist. Here are diffs demonstrating his rudeness: [24], [25], [26] (edit summary), [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33] (edit summary), [34] (edit summary), and [35] (edit summary). And that's all within the last 24 hours. This is on top of his edit warring reported here, here, and here; his blatant disruptive vandalism here; and his WP:POINTy overtagging of material. --Taivo (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh... what? "Reported here, here, and here"? One permanent link would have been a good deal more useful than three identical ones which will all soon be identically dead on the fast-moving ANI. Please click on "Permanent link" in the toolbox, then refer to Wikipedia: Simple diff and link guide if needed. (Please, everybody do it this way! ANI linkrot is a disease!) I will comment on the substance of your complaint later, if I can find the time. Bishonen | talk 00:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

I have been extremely critical of Taivo's edits; I have also condemned his practice of revertwarring. Anyone reading Talk:Aorist will see that Taivo - who neglected to inform me of this post until I reminded him to do so - has attacked Wareh Radagast and other more vigorously than I have ever attacked him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as warning you of the AN/I, I was about to post a warning when I saw your edit warring report and responded there first. I didn't see your post "reminding" me until after I had already posted there and then posted a warning on your page. --Taivo (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no comment on this issue, and am officially neutral, but I direct the readers to the recently closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pmanderson. Carry on. --Jayron32 04:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson is clearly a very intelligent person, and he also has a knack for building social networks online. I suspect that his intelligence and he network of supporters has lead him to believe that hi simply can't be wrong. But sometimes he is, and he reacts to constructive discussion by calling those who disagree lying vandals, and accusing them of being sockpuppets, a view that makes sense if you presume that he is faultless.

He has received many blocks both for edit warring and incivility, the last one just a month ago. These seems to have made no impact at all on him, as he carries out as usual with edit wars and uncivil behaviour. If he gets blocked, he usually find some excuse or technicality to get unblocked quickly, or he makes a half-hearted promise to never do it again, which he then breaks a couple of months later. Neither the previous short blocks, nor the multitude of times he gets brought up to AN/I and WQA has helped. Possibly his quick unblocking and the general ignorance of his behaviour from admins has instead served to validate his behaviour. As a result, Pmanderson seems to think that policies doesn't apply to him and this view is not unreasonable as he somehow is able to break them repeatedly with no or little impact.

The current situation with Pmandersons persistent editwarring and uncivil behaviour is detrimental to Wikipedia and to many of the articles he touches. I can't see any solution than a longer block which doesn't get undone when he makes another empty promise to be better in the future. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Another case of civil semi-WP:Civil POV pushing; for a summary of OpenFuture's conduct, I have no better source than Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pmanderson. Please consult. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Pmandersons reaction above is an excellent example of what I mentioned about Pmandersons reaction to constructive criticism. He simply claims anyone that disagrees with him is some sort of vandal with an agenda, or lying. In this case his uncivil behaviour is according to him because he does not "back down". Not backing down is no excuse for incivility. He also claims I'm a POV pusher, which is a direct lie, and yet another insult. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No, not everyone; just the handful of doctrinaire revert-warriors that make life on Wikipedia more difficult for the rest of us. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

It is true that I tend not to back down when faced by revert warriors with an agenda. The revert-warring of this pair is documented below. (I am not asking for sanctions; I have already reported it to AN3 and am content to have the article protected.); their uncivil language is spattered all over the talk page. Taivo is using a trumped-up civility complaint to remove those who disagree with him on substance; he has also done this against Wareh, less than a day ago; then again his first reply to Wareh's learned and intelligent comments was that he failed to understand the fundamental linguistics of the issue. Meanwhile he makes cracks about my needing a-word-a-day rolodex.

Taivo:

• 04:36 September 15
• 21:39 A total reversion to restore part of a text.
• 21:43
• 23:04

Warned Taivo

Kwami:

• 18:15
• 20:52
• 20:53
• 21:01
  • undone 21:03; demonstrating knowledge of 3RR; I would be satisfied if this had ended here.
• 22:04 partial revert.

Warned Kwami

OpenFuture, for example, engaged in the following set of reversions of sourced material - because he didn't like them. I don't know which article he is blessing with his activity now; but these are from when I encountered him:

• 16:43 18 June,
• 17:21,
• 17:43,
• 21 June 04:13,
• 09:14,
• 10:18,
• 23 June 16:23,
• 24 June 07:42,
• 27 June 05:42,
• 28 June 04:23.. and so on.

In the process, another editor contributed to the discussion the following list of comments by OpenFuture (again, somewhat dated): Personal attacks by OpenFuture at Talk:List of wars between democracies

• I'm sorry, you make no sense. 13:21, 14 December 2009
• Please read what I write before you answer it. 03:16, 18 June 2010
• And we are also required to follow policy, which you are consistently breaking. And you are also repeating everything both here and on my talk page, which is unnecessary and annoying. Please cool down. 03:16, 18 June 2010
• Well, I'm sorry to say, you are as usual utterly wrong. 03:04, 18 June 2010
• Your constant attempts of inventing your own Wikipedia policies are getting a bit annoying, to be honest. 13:45, 18 June 2010
• Your arguments are now getting more and more personal, and having less and less contact with reality. That is not a constructive way forward. 07:19, 20 June 2010
• Finally something from you that is at least borderline, and at least meaningful to discuss.... 03:20, 19 June 2010
• ...unless you have some sort of agenda. 04:02, 21 June 2010
• You have no sources that support your assertion, and you know it. You are out of line, refusing to engage in constructive debate, and you do not understand the issues. 10:23, 21 June 2010
• Is this complicated for you to understand? 10:23, 21 June 2010
• You are on a crusade against windmills. 17:54, 21 June 2010
• I'm finding it increasingly hard to WP:AGF in your case, as you say one thing, and then do something else. 6:46, 23 June 2010
• Yet you apparently pretend that there is scientific consensus to claim the Boer wars was wars between democracies, when clearly, there is no such consensus. 24 June 2010
• ...and you know that. So stop claiming such nonsense as above. 17:51, 24 June 2010
• Talking to you is like talking to a wall. 21:37, 24 June 2010
• Then of course, your willingness to misinterpret sources doesn't exactly work to your benefit. 05:58, 29 June 2010

Personal attacks by OpenFuture at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes

• You are, to be blunt, lying to yourself to avoid admitting that you were wrong. 10:24, 3 July 2010
• I think you need to stop throwing stones in glass houses. You are after all the one that insults everyone who does not agree with you.... 20:59, 3 July 2010
• As usual, your "facts" are pure fantasy. 05:45, 4 July 2010
• Calling Campuchea "communist only by name" is a purely pro-communist rationalization. It's an excuse used to defend belief in communism.... 05:38, 4 July 2010
• FYI: TFD has been warned for this personal attack, but he removed that warning from his talk page (which is his right). Just so nobody warns him again. ;) 07:15, 4 July 2010

I have said no worse against Taivo; and I believe Taivo has said no worse against Wareh or any of his other opponents. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I will correct the diff that PMAnderson was referring to in my comment to Wareh: correct diff. I was mistaken about who Wareh was referring to as not being "a proper linguist" and let him know my error here and apologized. And just in case he isn't watching Talk:Aorist anymore, I sent him a private email as well. PMAnderson's characterization of that exchange as an "assault" is quite overblown. And his other diff concerning me and Wareh was written two weeks ago. All my diffs concerning PMAnderson occurred in a space of 24 hours. This complaint would be much, much longer if I went back two weeks for all of PMAnderson's incivility over that time. This AN/I isn't about edit warring or about PMAnderson's relationship with OpenFuture, so most of PMAnderson's response is an attempt to sidetrack the issue. The issue is PMAnderson's incivility at Talk:Aorist. Indeed, even after this AN/I was initiated, PMAnderson has continued to take no responsibility for his own actions at Talk:Aorist as here. --Taivo (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The list of so called "personal attacks" by me above was taken up at WQA by TFD. The conclusion of that WQA was "Editors have found little to suggest a personal attack." Calling them personal attacks is hence not particularly truthful. It's another attempt to blame Pmandersons constant incivility and edit warring on others. It's never his fault, it's always somebody else's fault. Again, and again, and again. There is apparently a constant stream of people who are to blame for Pmandersons behaviour on Wikipedia, but he is never responsible for it himself. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The article has been protected and the beginnings of a productive dialogue begun with other editors involved. But PMAnderson continues to exercise crass incivility in his posts: here, here, here (where Maunus removed a set of uncivil comments from PMAnderson). Here I suggested a 24-hour break for myself, Kwami, and PMAnderson. Here he seemed to accept a break and here I pointed out that Kwami and myself were already "on break". But here he jumps right back in without any intervening comments by either me or Kwami. Here, PMAnderson proceeded to enter a section of the Talk Page that had been specifically designed to elicit remarks from other editors besides Taivo, Kwamikagami, and PMAnderson--he just couldn't keep from jumping into the middle of a discussion. Here PMAnderson violates WP:REFORMAT by placing his own comment in the middle of another editor's short comment. I moved it to its proper place, restoring the previous editors unified comment here, but PMAnderson reverted the move here. This is all from the last 6 hours. During the previous AN/I against PMAnderson, where he was warned to clean up his act, it was noted that he had provided positive material for Wikipedia. But we must ask ourselves, "At what point does the incivility and personal abuse he heaps upon others outweigh any positive contribution he may make?" --Taivo (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The specifics there are worthy of attention. They need more review in context. Will be looking at it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture -

You were previously warned for your conflict with PMA. You were blocked for, after those warnings, making a personal attack on another user. We had an extended discussion on your talk page about your editing problems and the need for you to consider mentorship or some similar assistance to help keep you out of trouble.

Returning from your WikiBreak and launching into yet another attack on PMA, when this dispute didn't already involve you, is an extremely disruptive activity.

Your conflict with him is in the past and has nothing to do with the current report and issue. You and he are not getting along - we get that - but you inserting yourself into every thread about him is not acceptable behavior by you, given your history. It's petty and disruptive.

This edit [36] was under the circumstances very nearly a personal attack on him and within the reach of an admin discretionarily blocking you. Your more recent contributions were slightly less hostile but are certainly not "ok".

It is my sincerest hope that you will drop your participation in this thread. Continuing to seek and engage in conflict with PMA is not acceptable behavior by you here on Wikipedia. If you keep it up, you will be blocked. If necessary I will file for a community sanction to topic ban you from interacting with or commenting on him, but no such sanction is required for blocking you for disruption.

Please stop, take the step back, and find something productive to do on Wikipedia rather than continuing to attempt to pick fights with PMA.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not an attack on Pmanderson. It is an accurate description of the situation and his behaviour, which is bad for Wikipedia. He should not have special rules. He should not be allowed to break Wikipedia policy. What you are attempting to do now is to use what you call a "very near personal attack", which is nothing of the sort, to protect Pmanderson from getting sanctioned for his numerous and repeated *actual* personal attacks. I am not attempting to pick fights with anyone. I'm simply pointing out that Pmanderson behaviour is disruptive and persistent, and that something needs to be done about it. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I am:

A) Somewhat curious about how you get "...to protect Pmanderson from getting sanctioned" from my comment up above responding to Tavio, "The specifics there are worthy of attention. ....". Tavio pointed out specifics that need to be reviewed. They're being reviewed. Nobody is going to get covered or protected from anything.

B) Somewhat curious about why you would chose to attack me by saying I'm trying to protect Pmanderson, after my prior warning above. Pretty much the entire point I was trying to make was that doing things like that is not acceptable and is going to get you in trouble. Your reply to me did that. Doing that to the administrator getting involved is such poor judgement that it calls your entire Wikipedia participation into question.

We have been and continue to give you many chances to reform your behavior. The ice is thin, and if you cannot interact in a constructive manner here with the rest of the community you are going to fall through it, and get blocked.

Again:

PLEASE.

Get a mentor and work with them. Stop poking at people and getting confrontational with them. Leave this thread, where you seem to have worked yourself into getting in more trouble for no good reason.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Your recent RFC on PMA speaks for itself, OpenFuture. On the RFC talkpage, you also displayed the poor judgment of attacking the admin getting involved, in that case me. When I tried to explain the concept of "certifying" an RFC to you, I was surprised to find you coopting me into your idea of "networks of support" of PMA, a user I had barely spoken to before.[37]. In your mind I wasn't telling you about the RFC rules to help you, but because I was "clearly on very friendly terms" and "emotionally involved"(!) with Pmanderson. Now it's Georgewilliamherbert who is, in your mindset, out to "protect" PMA. Do you remember that George not only warned you against personal attacks during the RFC, but actually blocked PMA for similar offenses? Not very protective, is it? Please try to overcome your unreasonable suspicions of a PMA Support Cabal; they're leading you into harassing and embattled behaviour and, as Georgewilliamherbert says, into disruptive activity. Listen to George's good advice; he's been very patient. Bishonen | talk 11:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC).

Despite a voluntary break from Talk:Aorist, PMAnderson continues to speak uncivilly about both Kwami and myself on others' Talk Pages as here, and to marshal only those editors favorable to his POV as here (note also the incivility in the edit summary). With editors who are not favorable to his POV, such as User:Erutuon and User:Marknutley, the incivility he expressed previously to them as here has ended, but he has not invited them to continue discussions as he has his own followers. Despite this stern warning, PMAnderson still refuses to take any responsibility for his actions or his incivility, shows no remorse or contrition, and places all blame on myself and Kwamikagami here, where he virtually asserts that he was the article's savior. Indeed, he even encourages some of his followers to "stand up to admins" as here. And even though Kwamikagami and I have taken a break from the article, PMAnderson has actually only taken a break in name only, he still debates issues and answers questions posed at Talk:Aorist, just on the editors' Talk Pages as here. He has not "stepped back" or "taken a break"--he has simply moved his arguments to the other editors' talk pages. --Taivo (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I can only hope that you are not calling me a follower of PMA :) your last diff is entirely out of context, it was a reply to a comment on his talk page made by another editor who commented that he felt intimidated by some admins [38] Lets keeps things in perspective here and ensure nothing is misrepresented mark nutley (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(I inadvertently removed your comment in an edit conflict, Mark. Sorry) I read his comments on the other page and they were a very thinly veiled attack on Kwamikagami for "abusing" his adminship (by replacing PMAnderson's own "disputed" tag on the protected article) and indirectly on Maunus for protecting the article. --Taivo (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair-use images of the Holocaust

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

The usefulness of this thread vis-a-vis any issue that AN/I should be addressing has passed. There's nothing to do at this point, and the amount of hyperbole is causing one hell of a lot more heat than light. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

---

There's a discussion going on here at files for deletion about the extent to which fair use can reasonably be claimed for images of the Holocaust. J Milburn began it as a discussion about just one image, but the same issues apply to most of the others we use. The discussion has taken a disturbing turn, with Rama claiming that the fair-use polices are somehow similar to Arbeit macht frei, and that some people just loathe working [39] (whatever that means).

Very few have joined in the discussion, so some fresh eyes would be greatly appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Rama's comment seems to be borderline trolling but there are reasonable arguments both for and against keeping this image. Rhetoric in general on that page should probably be taken down a notch. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• @Slim; characterizing the FfD debate as one regarding all Holocaust images is false. It's a discussion about one image, and one image alone. Concur with JoshuaZ; the rhetoric needs to be dropped a bunch of notches. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, using the phrase Arbeit macht frei, which may safely be said to be the harbinger of death of hundreds of thousands, if not millions (see Auschwitz concentration camp) of Jews, in any context outside of the discussion of Nazi atrocities, is at best an example of gross insensitivity or ignorance, and at worst, deliberate trolling of the highest order. -- Avi (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree with Avi regarding the inappropriate use of this phrase. I think Rama should strike his comment. PhilKnight (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Haven't we had problems with Rama's interpretation of Fair Use with images in the past? I recall this coming up over and over on this board. -- Atama頭 16:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rama. –xeno^talk 17:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Ugh, time for rfC #2? Tarc (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
          • I don't think it's necessary, he's only expressing his minority view in an FFD (as opposed to nominating images, or using admin powers to enforce their view). –xeno^talk 17:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
            • My bad, I see now...I thought he was the nom as well. Though I weighed in with a keep !vote as well over there, I question why we're here at AN/I. If it is to discuss and possible censure Rama for an ethnically disparaging comment, then let's get on with that. I don't much like the idea of AN/I being used to bring "fresh eyes" to an XfD one is interested in. Tarc (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I asked for fresh eyes here, Tarc, because I didn't like the tone of the discussion, with the Arbeit macht frei comment from an admin, and wanted to nip it in the bud by getting uninvolved people to comment. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I was going to give Rama a two week block, to be lifted after an admission and apology to the users defending the FU rationale. That diff is a grievous anti-Jewish personal attack deserving of a instant block. The only reason I did not block him is because when I went to his talk page to announce the block, I saw that a discussion is already underway here. I urge the admin closing this discussion to do just that - a two week block. To quote from WP:NPA, "Extreme personal attacks, or personal attacks based on race, religion, nationality or sexual identity of an editor are often grounds for an immediate, indefinite block until the remarks are retracted." And this is exactly what we have here. -- Y not? 20:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Not that I agree with his comments, but blocking isn't going to cool things down. In fact, rather the opposite. The attack also was not directed at any one person. Further, if Rama's comment is an attack, then so is Slim Virgin's first post in the thread immediately attacking because of a perceived belief of anti-holocaust effort [40]. I found such rhetoric to be beyond the pale, and insinuating anti-semitism for nominating an image for deletion. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Rama has stricken their comments (in full) at the AFD. –xeno^talk 20:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)SlimVirgin also started a thread simultaneously here. So I wrote this. Here and there (but not in the primal thread posts), "fair use" is the section title. In general, what did you expect to find at an encyclopedia, SV? I inherited a grand printed encyclopedia from my father. The rule is: no tears on these pages. -DePiep (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think some people here are prone to histrionics and wearing their hearts on their sleeves. There is absolutely nothing anti-Semitic in Rama's remarks. They were admittedly a bit insensitive, but that's hardly a crime deserving of a block, even had he not struck them. Since he has, I think the case is pretty much closed. 03:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• (ec) Don't these comments cross several lines?

• "Some of the arguments presented above are noticeable, compounding the impopularity what the Wikipedia Non-Free doctrine actually says (is essence it says Arbeit macht frei, and many people loath working) with the percieved defence of some Jewish interests," [41] and

• "Arbeit macht frei" means "work makes free". Notwithstanding its use in History, it is a perfectly valid motto for Free software and Free content, which entail work. [42]

There have been concerns about Rama and Holocaust images before (e.g. see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rama). I don't know what his issue is, but I found those posts today disturbing, especially from an admin. I tried to raise them with him on his talk page, but the response was "I am not interested." [43] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No they don't. Actually, the triangular association in that talk "work-free-whatsthewordwithanHthatmakesyoucry" is great -- for a Talkpage. Is where it is. Now stop crying. -DePiep (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I see Rama has struck through the comments, so hopefully that's the end of it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Now wait a second. Why is this on ANI at all? The OP asks for some fresh eyes would be greatly appreciated. It's about fair use -- hey, how ANI is that?. And then, the OP wrote discussion has taken a disturbing turn -- wow. And then it turns into a .. yep. Two weeks ban asked urged (out of sync: this User:Y is an admin?!). In the end the OP feels OK with a stroke, which was not in their first post at all. Why stepping out of the Talkpage, SV? I propose a warning for you for rabble rousing. -DePiep (talk) (no ec seen with Rama, below. Forgot to add a time. this one: -DePiep (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC) eh, adding surprise that user:Y is an admin -DePiep (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

To clarify:

• my comment was never meant as an antisemitic insult, and I deeply resent people insinuating that I would harbour antisemitic feelings of any kind. The form of my comment (the quote) reflects an idea that I had had before seeing the thread in question (roughly: that the quote was in itself rather beautiful before being perverted by its association to the Third Reich; that is examplifies the part of beauty in horror and vice-versa; and that it would have been a good motto for Free software). This idea was too subtle to use in such context and came out in too condensed and convoluted a form for anybody but me to understand. I regret not realising this before submitting my initial comment; I also regret that people would condemn the comment while admitting that they did not understand it, I regret that nobody seems to have read my explanation, and I regret providing SlimVirgin with a pretext to act outraged (which she was already doing before my comment).
• I fully intended not to intervene in this discussion until I realised the situation in which J Milburn found himself. I felt compelled to testify that he is not alone feeling a need to rigour and honesty in the handling of Non-Free material. I expected my comment to be a harmless and fruitless protest, and I regret the nefarious effects of my clumsiness.
• In general, I am astonished to see the violence of the comments brought by questions of Non-Free content (examplified in the thread before my comment). I believe that certain people act as self-appointed guardians of the memory of the Holocaust, chastising any dissent with accusations of antisemitism. There should be a reflection on the notion that the end does not necessarily justify the means.
• I have no interest for any of the subjects at hand here, and I shall therefore not follow any of the relevant threads. I would be grateful if questions were asked on my talk page should the need arise. Rama (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

And I'd like to clarify myself in response. I'll be the "self-appointed" judge of the implication inherent in your comment, thank you very much. And I hereby find that your comment was perfectly invidious - and you know it, your post-hoc "clumsiness" rationalization notwithstanding. -- Y not? 02:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Free supports!

Oh, I thought so. How'd I guess it was here? Well, I'm sure everyone's earnt themselves a few more supports on their next RfA, and I'm sure everyone feels that warm fuzzy glow that they've done something useful. I'm reminded, once again, of why I hate these noticeboards. Go and do something productive, for God's sake. Oh, and if you're all gonna discuss me, fucking tell me about it. Yeah, I'm pissed, and I think I have a right to be. J Milburn (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, a calmer, and more reasoned, comment from me. I don't appreciate the insinuations about my intentions, I think SV has done her best to turn this into a dramafest, and I am completely with Tarc that this should never have been brought here at all. SV's comments were the ones that most approached offensive, in my eyes, by insinuating things about me/my intentions. She also did her best to make myself and Rama look bad- this thread most certainly included, by bringing up anything and everything at any given opportunity. I have no doubt that she's not going to change her ways, and I see absolutely no point to this thread remaining open. I won't be reading this thread again unless someone asks me to. J Milburn (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I saw this as more a call for action about Rama's comment. That would have been worthy of ANI if a discussion with Rama wouldn't lead to a compromise or to Rama striking out the offensive text. But you're right that the part of this message that was about needing "fresh eyes" at the deletion discussion was unwarranted, ANI is not for that. And mentioning you at all in the initial post should mean that you should have been notified. That's at least trout-worthy. -- Atama頭 22:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Whereas I see no great problem with asking for fresh eyes on a very thorny issue. Enough people are contributing that the nastiness has gone away now. I think Rama went way over the line, but perhaps unintentionally. But it's not the first time I've noticed Rama's somewhat idiosyncratic approach to fair-use imge discussions. J Milburn should have been notified, so I'll support the trouting. ;) Franamax (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Recapture. After two days of holocasting godwin, SlimVirgin turned a Talkpage-discussion into a wikiworldwide ANI without being clear. SV also tried to gather people at the village pump (miscellaneous), where we could see their true colors. Along the way SV frustrated two serious editors, who are now even out of reading their own contributions at all. In the process, an admin called User:Y reintroduced the curious graphics of a "bolded, underlined urgence" to claim a two week ban. Two weeks. In the end (so far), SV was happy to see a struck text, but did not notice that the editor struck all of the text (including his own signature): read "I am not interested". In the mean time, the discussion here at ANI continued. But somehow not a single admin came along said: "stop this non-ANI snowball".

I propose & request a week long ban for User:SlimVirgin for disturbing (two days and running) our Wikipedia process. -DePiep (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey - two weeks is a nice discount relative to what WP:NPA says: "indefinite". And you know how much we Jews looove discounts! Plus, I said upfront, to be commuted upon retraction and apology. Two weeks, man. Two. Weeks. -- Y not? 02:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"we Jews"? -DePiep (talk) 02:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You wanted to say that anti-Semites love discount too? Of course they do. Everybody loves discount! :)--Mbz1 (talk) 03:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

There was retraction, there was no apology. Just the opposite.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ Y - Your comment about Jews and discounts would be considered quite different if Rama had said it, now wouldn't it? An indefinite block if he made a statement to a Jewish editor along those lines, right? Let's not get too "cute" with the comments, please. A two week block when he struck his comments? I think it's quite excessive... Doc9871 (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, although he struck the comment, there was no apology. Just the opposite. rama wrote: "my comment was never meant as an antisemitic insult, and I deeply resent people insinuating that I would harbour antisemitic feelings of any kind." But you know what I do not even argue rama should be blocked. He made an anti-Semitic comment, but no block will make him to understand it was an anti-Semitic comment. I hope that this thread will be good enough to keep him far away of anything concerning Jews, and it is already good enough.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Check the timestamps, Doc9871 - I asked for a block before Rama struck the comments. I applaud the striking. -- Y not? 03:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

And I applaud the striking as well. Do you still think he should be blocked for two weeks for the stricken comment? I haven't seen a suggestion from you that he shouldn't, even after his retraction. Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. As to Mbz1's "whitewashing" comment about "everybody love discount"... If someone with a "different" POV made the comment Y made in a "different" context, I'd certainly guess that Mbz1 would be calling for a block and not making light of it. It's in poor taste to make a comment like this when an editor's fate is being discussed at this board: Y's is not "blockable" of course in this case. BTW: I voted to keep the image in question, and I think POV issues are being pushed into the NFCC debate on that image's deletion discussion there. It's a "touchy" subject", I know... Doc9871 (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not I support a block post-strikeout depends on how you want me to interpret the rationale behind NPA blocks. If it's to stop the outbreak, then obviously there is no more issue. If it's to set a zero tolerance attitude to comments of this sort and to extract an admission and apology, then nothing's changed. Rama has never deigned us with an explanation of how the mysterious strikeout should be understood. If an apology, it is a poor one. -- Y not? 13:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

SV was absolutely right to bring the issue here. rama should have been blocked for an anti-Semetic comment.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Is not what SV wrote at all. Even worse: you are the one to bring it up here. You try to übre-godwin SV? -DePiep (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not try anything, but I always call the things with their real names, and honestly I cannot care less about godwin low or whatever it is. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so you endorse SV for what they did not say. -DePiep (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Rama used breathtakingly inappropriate wording. If I'd seen it when it happened, I would likely have struck it myself. Bu they struck their own wording, so whatever. I'm not precise on the timing, but they told SV they weren't going to discuss their edit - so an AN/I reference becomes rather sensible. Franamax (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I endorse SV action in general.I believe she was right to bring the issue about the discussion here. What I said about rama's comment are my own words. So there are two different points. I hope it is clear now. I do not believe striking the comment is good enough. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

{ec)re Franamax: Is not why SV wrote this ANI. -DePiep (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Results not process. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Miacek

According to his userpage User:Miacek is inactive since August 2010. Nethertheless he made a number of edits recently [44]. On 11 September he made errenous changes to the article on Erika Steinbach, a German politician, which I corrected [45]. On 14 September he tagged information in the Template:Infobox Kosovo War [46]. Obviously confusing belligerents with combatants, he questioned Montenegro's part in the war but not Serbia's, which is also listed as a federal entity of Yugoslavia. As such differences about content have triggered edit-wars in the past, I refrain from getting involved in this issue. Alas, I do not like to be accussed being a "stalker" [47] by a user who easily takes offense [48] and has a history of harassing other users [49]. Since I am not familiar with procedures in cases like this, I hope an admin can help solving this issue. --红卫兵 (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This 'report' by an ostensible newbie is yet another undertaking in his long campaign of harassing me that has been going on for months. That's why I added the explanation on my user page that I'm inactive. 红卫兵 is clearly a reincarnation of the troll that was harassing me in August, eventually forcing me to cease editing.
His first edits with his new account were directed against me. Now, I made a few minor edits, only to be reverted by the troll (of course he had never edited that page before, he has been following my edits and doing his best to disrupt all of my contributions, no matter how small). The prelude can be seen here. Two admins agreed back then that I was being harassed, but as the impotent or incompetent sysops failed to take any action, the troll feels he can continue like that in impunity. In this very (malicious) report, he reveals what he's really up to: According to his userpage User:Miacek is inactive since August 2010. Nethertheless he made a number of edits recently That's exactly the real goal of this single purpose account with his bunch of IPs: to scare me off the project. Obviously, as an experienced editor I feel sick and tired, as the administration has done absolutely nothing to stop this kind of behaviour. That's all I have to say right now. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 14:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You can try WP:SPI. I admit that the editing behavior is suspicious. If this is indeed the same person as before then they are violating WP:SOCK and can be blocked. -- Atama頭 17:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Now what are you getting at? I edit as IP and I get told to register. I register and I am suspected to be a sockpuppet. Who is getting abused here? If Miacek would use a bit of common sense and show some good will, he would have less of a hard time editing. --红卫兵 (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see anything actionable in your initial complaint. Can you explain this edit? You hadn't even interacted with Miacek with this account at that point. Obviously you've had conflict while editing as an IP, or as another account, and therefore the sockpuppet suspicion is warranted. -- Atama頭 18:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't come here for action but for advice, instead you advice Miacek on WP:SPI. Obviously you two go way back. I have made that edit because Miacek has a pattern of disruptive editing including accusing other users of bogus warnings, while he himself issues warnings right and left. I used to edit as an IP, since I didn't bother registering until Miacek started his crusade against alleged "left-wing" conspirators defacing right-wing activists. Hence the username. He feels stalked, I can't help it. I merely changed a number of substandard edits by this "experienced" user, who BTW makes a habit of reverting other user's edits for dubious reasons and has engaged in numerous edit wars. And now I am being called not only a "stalker" but also a "troll" and diagnosed with "mental disorder". If there would be a WP:NPA policy, I would say, this would be the time to implement it. Obviously you are mistaking the victim for the perpetrator here. --红卫兵 (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Good grief, I asked a question to clarify some suspicious behavior. I haven't made any accusations, I only explained why there was suspicion. I'll look into this a bit more. -- Atama頭 19:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Atama, I once sent you an e-mail, explaining there why 红卫兵 was definitely identical with the IP troll and expressed my belief, that the 'retired' Dodo19 was actually behind all of this. Just check the more recent contributions of 红卫兵: he is clearly here to provoke or bait me. It's the same person with apparent signs of mental disorder - for how else can one explain that a person is 24/7 following all my edits (and since the late August, there's very few of 'em of course). The present thread - IMNSHO itself warranting a block for noticeboard abuse - is also indicative of the 'encyclopedic contributions' that are to be expected from that user. I've made the record clear, but am not going to file any further requests. Why should I? It's actually a common practice to block obvious socks and purely disruptive accounts after they have crossed certain line. And this person has crossed the line long time ago. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 18:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I am looking into this, but please do not label this person or any other editor as having a "mental disorder". That is an unambiguous personal attack. -- Atama頭 20:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you notice the with apparent signs of part? Seems I learn doublespeak from that very user. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 19:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• This [50] indicates to me that an SPI is warranted. I suggest that this be closed and an SPI request opened. --Martin (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've been gathering evidence (one of the things I was doing while I said I was "looking into this") and will open an investigation very soon. I gave 红卫兵 a chance to come clean to avoid one but that didn't happen. -- Atama頭 15:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• The SPI report can be seen here. -- Atama頭 16:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem is not yet finished, even 5 months now. Clear this problem as soon as possible

Resolved

 – Take the advice given back in April. No administrator intervention required.

This is the sequel of the old AnI topic from April 2010: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive608#Disruptive_editing_of_Channel_3_.28Thailand.29_and_Myanmar_Radio_and_Television_by_IP_range

I'm American editor that edited Magyar Televízió, Vietnam Television, Channel 3 (Thailand) and some other TV stations from many countries, and I claimed Burma got television in 1969 (now proved false). This is where I got these information to claim on Wikipedia:

• Magyar Televízió: I can't remember.
• Vietnam Television: As above.
• Channel 3 as NBN3: From my experiance from TV. But TV3 is no longer a part of NBN since March 2010, it's now an independence television station since NBN is bought by a Vietnamese company. But we don't need to create NBN article if we don't have references even it exists.
• Myanmar: I have not added the schedules from 1969, I have added 2 schedules from 1980 and 1984. But I said Burma got TV in 1969. All of these informations are from the old Burmese newspapers (in Burmese) I have 2 issues, 1980 and 1984. (My friend's company hires Burmese workers, I brought some wasted old newspaper to home). I don't really know the schedule, but I just guess it from time - there are not so much programs. In 1984 issue have an advertisement, with numbers "15", and the MTV's old logo (as TVB - Television of Burma), and the birthday cake! What can it be other than 15th birthday of MTV? I will search for that newspaper. I read that many years ago. And I will upload the advertisement to the file upload website.

In 2010 (this year) but in later months, I will go back to the United States so you will see the different IP.--125.25.251.159 (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you clarify what the actual problem is here that requires admin intervention? All I'm seeing is a list of vaguely related information. ~ mazca ^talk 16:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not April 2008, sorry, but I am having an old problem from April 2010.--125.25.251.159 (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

So:

• What advice did you get in April?
• What have you done in response to that advice?
• As asked above by Mazca, what more do you want an administrator to do now?

David Biddulph (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, i heard this problem long time ago, I`m from Vietnam maybe I can help you (if you live in Thailand)--113.53.212.249 (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't understand what's up. The IP has gone on a big posting spree, adding notices to the talkpages of a number of editors and IPs as well [51]. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I have seen various cases of stupid pranks in project space recently. [52][53] This could be one of them. I guess someone popularised the idea in popular place such as 4chan. Hans Adler 21:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It does seem like that, doesn't it? It's either a dumb joke or a content dispute so I'm resolving this as no intervention required. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It was an IP editor from Bangkok, Thailand, who is part of a small group of similar editors (not sure how many there are, but it is between 1 and 4) who edit articles about TV without apparently understanding WP:N or WP:RS, despite it having been explained to them many times. They have been causing long-term disruption by adding all sorts of unsourced and unsourceable material (often blatant nonsense), and engaging in edit-warring. This one is still banging on about some stuff that has been removed several times before. I'm watching the relevant articles (as is GedUK), and I'll revert any further additions of unsourced or improperly sourced material. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I did some IP rangeblocks against this lot sometime last year, in the dark mists of the archives. If this is still continuing as an active problem, we may need to apply larger hammer... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - it might be tricky, as they're using a wide range allocated to TOT in Bangkok, one of Thailand's biggest ISPs. But I'll keep my eye on things, and come back here if necessary. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it justified to remove a deletions nomination when the nominator doesn't know what a page is about?

Recently an editor User talk:Donald Schroeder JWH018 has nominated a bunch of Transformers articles (again). This guy doesn't even seem to be reading the articles or know what they are about, as he says in every nomination that he wants to get rid of "Gobots crap" Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Razorclaw, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groundshaker (Transformers) and there about nearly a dozen other times. I've asked directly if he's joking about thinking they are Gobots, he isn't. He does point to a link about some character who did a "gobot" rant from some movie. ("And you know what Randall Graves said about the Go-bots.") Can a deletion nomination be closed early based on clear proof that the nominator either doesn't know what the article is about or that he's making a joke out of the nominations process? Mathewignash (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You can argue that the AfD be speedily closed as keep, and if the reason for listing is blatantly unfounded I believe an admin can close it as such. I'm not 100% on that though; it may be necessary to allow the 7 days to expire to gain consensus on closing it for such a reason (or per WP:SNOW). Someone else should be able to confirm or deny that. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I know what the articles are about. They are "about" failing the WP:GNG standards and having no reliable sources. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I note that both of the AfDs linked to here have at least one additional, justified, delete !votes; such AfDs certainly can't be closed in such a way. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Donald Schroeder JWH018 judging from his edit history and his talkpage appears to have some civility and ranting issues. Off2riorob (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you might be on to something there. Mathewignash (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

These nominations for deletion are all perfectly acceptable AfD nominations that should be discussed on their own individual merits. There is no ill faith on the part of the nominator, and as far as I can see there is no "speedy close" reason applicable. Let the discussions run their own course; the closing admins will be perfectly able to gauge the consensus. Filing this AN/I report is an example of frivolous forum shopping. And oh, by the way, if you are keen on Transformers, the Transformers Wiki is that-a-way -- I am sure they would be extremely appreciative of your efforts to enlarge their database. But Wikipedia is not a fanboy's magazine. 80.135.18.50 (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What has that to do with anything? Concentrate on the issue at hand, the continued failure for the majority of our Transformers coverage to have significant secondary sourcing, rather than constantly running to ANI to get people un-personed for raising that as an issue. Saying "gobots" instead of "transformers" is not in itself a flagrant example of bad faith nomination. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec x3)Donald Schroeder's civility issues are not a reason to declare an AFD invalid, and even if he is mistaken about the cartoon series involved he is actually right about the lack of reliable, independent sources. And since there are good-faith delete votes at both AFDs now, an early close is ruled out. This recent spate of Transformers-related deletion discussions is the inevitable consequence of nearly two years of legitimate concerns about these articles. You should have made an effort to fix the problems when they were brought up, but you didn't. Ignoring people for two years and then whining loudly everywhere when the community finally gets fed up and gets on with things without you is not very constructive. Reyk _YO! 22:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where all that came from. You seem to have a personal problem with me. I had a legitimate question about nominations from someone who seemingly was just ranting about gobots in the nominations rather than addressing the articles. Mathewignash (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It was intended as an honest criticism of your attitude towards this issue, not a personal attack. I do not have a problem with you personally; I just want you to understand everyone else's point of view on this, and that your unwillingness to discuss and compromise with people like Sarujo is part of the reason all this Transformers stuff has come crashing down all at once. Reyk _YO! 08:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) The deletion nominator ought to be perma-banned for confusing Transformers with GoBots. Back in the 80s, them was fightin words! - Burpelson AFB ✈ 22:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I see your Cy-Kill and raise you Megatron. I find it disturbing that it seems that the recent response to Transformer AfDs is to attack the nominator. Sure, one nominator was abusing multiple accounts but that doesn't mean that anyone that nominates the articles for deletion is doing so in bad faith. -- Atama頭 23:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In all seriousness, some of these nominations are absurd. Nominating Cliffjumper for deletion? I realize only nerds like Transformers, but that character was central to the first 2 seasons of the TV show. I can see nominating some of the less-known characters (some of them even I've never heard of), but Cliffjumper is absolutely notable as a central character in the TV show, in the comic books, and for being voiced by Kasey Casem (who left the show with some controversy). I would advise people nominating these articles to 1) make a more thorough and legitimate rationale for deletion other than "contested prod, gobots crap", 2) Please be civil, and 3) don't nominate things for deletion when sources can be found. AfD is not for cleanup, it's for nominating things that truly are not notable. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 23:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Cliffjumper notable? Never heard of it. Still Wikipedia's 'notability' inclusion criterion demands the use of reliable sources and the ones in that article don't hack for me. Jon.

Cliffjumper was Bumblebee, basically, but colored red. (I was really into those toys as a kid.) He was one of the main characters from the original show. My biggest complaint about this nomination is the lack of edit summaries, when an article is nominated for deletion it makes it really handy to be able to see later in the history (if it's kept). Many admins don't bother putting an oldafdfull tag on the article's talk page after closing an AfD. -- Atama頭 00:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Cliffjumper was one of an, errr, ensemble cast who were given rotation in the stories so as to ensure kids bought the toys. If you were billing the G1 "cast" in order of plot importance he'd be well behind Prime, Wheeljack, Ironhide, Bumblebee, Ratchet and half the bad guys. The most notable thing anyone's ever found a secondary source saying about his is that his toy is a recolour of Bumblebee's. That's not exactly standalone article material. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed as a sock puppet of Torkmann (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 00:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Indefblocked. Someone else may want to consider whether the AFDs should be closed as initiated disruptively by a sock of an indeffed user. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the SECOND banned sock puppeteer making mass deletion nominations of Transformers Wiki Project articles in the course of 2 weeks. Both of which came from me asking about incidents of weird mass deletion nominations. Both of which had many accounts and seemed to love to nominate for deletion and vote to delete articles. Yeesh. Does this happen often? I've never seen it before, then TWO in 2 weeks? Mathewignash (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No, this does not happen often. Usually when people use sockpuppets at AFDs they use them to stack the vote but it doesn't look as though these people have double voted. Reyk _YO! 08:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting this from all the TF articles. Everybody is crying notability for everything with ponying up the proof when asked for it. It seem that everybody has no real clue as to what notability is or they wouldn't be so quick to deem the articles as such. Ignash and I will not see eye-to-eye on what these articles need. Ignash just claimed here, "we are not establishing article notability". When what are they trying to establish??? To me Ignash seen to be exploiting editor faults to save unnotable articles. To me that practically game. Sarujo (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Another sock: please also block the original account name DeepAgentBorrasco (talk · contribs). After his account was renamed he went and recreated the old one [54]. Kindzmarauli (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out, that the previous statement was written before the news of socking. Now I feel sick. Sarujo (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• I know the feeling. You agree with Person A about something. Person A turns out to be a ratbag. You feel dirty by association. Still, we had no way of knowing Donald was a sockpuppet and voted on those AFDs in good faith.

Although it is not allegedly important, steady 4000 views a month for Cliffjumper. Off2riorob (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• These nominations are tainted and cannot reasonably result in a clean outcome for deletion. As such, all of them ought to be speedily closed as keep for procedural reasons, whether or not there is any legitimate commentary. That doesn't take an administrator to do, although some sense of the community's consensus would be helpful. Sock-gaming of deletion nominations seems to be a persistent problem, and the best response in some cases is to simply undo the damage, get rid of the socks, and if warranted start the deletion process again. Continuing a tainted process to a tainted conclusion is a big waste of time. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I'd probably revert a non-admin that tried to pull that sort of stunt. We had this discussion last week, where consensus was that even if an AfD was initiated in bad faith, there's no legit reason to abort it if good-faith !votes have already been entered. Same logic for article creation by socks; if they ar the primary/sole contributor then toss it, but if others have made significant edits in the meantime, then it's no longer appropriate. Tarc (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Agree : good-faith editors' contributions shouldn't be rejected simply because the nominator opened an AfD in bad faith. A single user's argument made against policy doesn't "taint" the AfD: it's simply ignored. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Edit warring in support of socks is not a cool thing. The wording of the AfD policy page is misleading on the point and doesn't reflect actual practice - there is no blanket consensus for keeping bad faith AfDs open after the first good faith comment. I've been in these situations before and they all end up with the article kept, the socks blocked (eventually), and lots of heat. Flawed nominations need to get shut down. Anyone who gets suckered into supporting someone else's process games ought to reserve their indignation for the socks, not the editors trying to clean up the mess. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I thought we'd heard the last of this old "AfDs started by socks are tainted" chestnut after Le Grand Roi left the building. These AfDs have been a long time coming, and it is a waste of the community's time to procedurally close them when editors have already engaged on them in good faith. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a case by case matter. If the nomination is viable and there's a manageable amount of misbehavior, then an AfD can reach a viable conclusion. At the opposite extreme, when an editor banned or blocked for making a string of bad faith deletion nominations starts creating socks to re-nominate the same articles, those are best reverted on sight. That goes for other process gaming too, not just AfD. Sock-filed reports on the help desk and 3RR notice board occasionally get deleted too, or bad faith soapboxing on article talk pages, whether or not a passerby unaware of the problem has innocently offered their opinion. When socking gets particularly disruptive, WP:DENY and WP:IAR are much more fundamental and important than unwavering adherence to procedure. I'm thinking of a case from a couple years ago where a very strange editor was creating socks to nominate a series of articles about primarily African-American urban neighborhoods and nearby geographic features for deletion. These wasted a heck of a lot of time. I don't know about the exact circumstances here, but in general it is best not to humor sockpuppets, or waste much time hand-wringing over undoing their process games. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Here it is, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Qrc2006, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dogtown, Oakland, California, one of their many nominations that were deleted or more commonly speedily closed by non-administrators. Speedy closure is in fact the correct result there, not posturing over deletion theory. After the socking itself, the worst disruption and biggest time sink arises out of the tangential administrative complaints. If the articles truly need to be deleted it won't kill anybody to wait a week in order to go about it the right way. The encyclopedia won't sink in the meanwhile. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Community ban

This level of abusive sockpuppetry and gamesmanship is repugnant. I propose a community ban for the puppetmaster Torkmann (talk · contribs). This will allow us to automatically revert all of his sock edits without violating 3RR. Kindzmarauli (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support- Socking is not on. It's dishonest and disrespectful to everyone. However, the freedom to instarevert should not apply to the currently open AfD discussions, because a lot of good faith editors have already expressed opinions on them. Reyk _YO! 03:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• This is obviously due. That said, let's not prejudice these (rather overdue) AfDs on that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Reyk; clearly there are a lot of socks entering play now, and the user has already proven themselves disruptive. The currently open AfDs have good-faith !votes in them though, and this should have no bearing on them. The nomination reason in each case was not based on policy anyway (mainly WP:IDON'TLIKEIT), and will be disregarded by the closing admin anyway. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Almost seems like a campaign to remove this wikis transformer articles.Off2riorob (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Which is not a bad thing at all, just that this is the wrong person to be doing it. Tarc (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • No. This is just preying upon a revealed weakness, in this case Mathewignash's ill-considered and poor responses to anything dealing in Transformers articles, as revealed by the previous AN/I discussion. At one point it was Richard Arthur Norton who was the target. Uncle G (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • And while it's deeply unfortunate that people resort to hounding people's contribs through socks, the community still hasn't come up with a proper solution for that. Shutting the gate after the horse has bolted is not likely to work. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Need to move forward with the AfDs without the taint of socks. Tarc (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Socks suck mark nutley (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support The socking is not good. Purely disruptive behavior. ~NerdyScienceDude 13:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I am in favor of this, but I am involved with the "user" as I have put an article up for nomination and the user was the first and only keep on the AfD. Hasteur (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - And don't I feel like a dimwit after arguing to assume good faith about these nominations. Sigh. -- Atama頭 17:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Quite ironic that the OP can complain about people not knowing what AfD nominations are about when he appears to not be able to read the nominations himself. Call me insulted *stomps off in a huff* Black Kite (t) (c) 17:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Inexcusable behavior. Dream Focus 18:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

What is his newest incarnation? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Donald Schroeder JWH018 probably, look to the thread above. -- Atama頭 23:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually I guess User:DeepAgentBorrasco was created more recently although that account doesn't seem to have any contributions (deleted or otherwise). -- Atama頭 23:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A bureaucrat renamed "DeepAgentBorrasco" to "Donald Schroeder JWH018". –MuZemike 05:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support I encountered this user about a month ago and my experience with him was less than pleasant. His attitude and socking is only disruptive and detrimental, and a ban is necessary. —fetch·comms 02:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Clearly not here for the right reasons.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 02:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible evasion of ban by User:NYScholar

Edits by IP User:66.66.47.209, Special:Contributions/66.66.47.209, appear to show a similar pattern of interests and behaviour to those shown by User:NYScholar who received a community ban on 3 July 2009.[55]. Could this be checked out? Jezhotwells (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

She may also be editing as User:24.213.147.7. (See: Special:Contributions/24.213.147.7). -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

While banned users are not meant to be welcome to edit here at all, a series of entirely benign minor copyedits is not quite time to ready battle stations. If indeed this is NYScholar, it's worth monitoring to see if the edits get more involved: if so, it might be worth contacting him to see if he fancies appealing his ban through the proper channels. It's been a year, after all, and until now he's behaved himself in absence. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 21:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is more than "a series of entirely benign minor copyedits". The size of Harold Pinter has increased by 20kb since 13 September as a result of edits by the two IPs cited above. The necessary pruning agreed by consensus after NYScholar's ban, and in fact discussed repeatedly before it, is being steadily reverted with the re-introduction of repetitive material, unnecessary detail and minutiae. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jezhotwells - the streamlining and pruning that we so painfully accomplished a year ago is being reversed, and this editor's obsessive editing is following the same unfortunate patterns as before. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

So, what next? Should a sockpuppet investigation be launched? Should we revert the edits? I am looking for guidance here. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism at Jewish Internet Defense Force

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

---

he has proven he is a nazi at JIDF —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jews 4 Wiki Justice (talk • contribs) 03:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Next time, use WP:AIV for this. In other news, I think User:Weaponbb7's account has been compromised... Grandmasterka 04:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else think its odd that that accts only edit is this report? Anyone else smell a User:DavidAppletree sock here? Heiro 04:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of who made the edits, regardless of where it was reported, and regardless of who reported it, the edits in question are absolutely horrific and I hope they can be oversighted or otherwise removed from the edit history. Neutron (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's either Appletree or Einsteindonut (assuming, of course, that Appletree and Einsteindonut aren't one and the same as well). Stonemason89 (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

They've been REVDELed, so nobody but administrators can see them. If you want them completely expunged from the edit history, e-mail User:Oversight. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No Malik, that seems fine. As far as I am concerned the edits are now invisible. What administrators can or cannot see does not really concern me. (I hope nobody takes that the wrong way.) Neutron (talk) 04:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Aha! Weaponbb7 and David Appletree have a recent history together. I'm guessing Appletree compromised the account and then made this report. Grandmasterka 04:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a very wild guess, and I believe it is rather easy to check. The only thing that should be done is to compare IP of User:Weaponbb7 before the vandalism and during vandalism and then compare IP used to vandalize the article to IP used by Appletree. I agree it looks like User:Weaponbb7 account was compromised, but to claim that Appletree has done it, there's no reasons for this whatsoever. Let's AGF and check all IPs.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

EC. I totally agree, it should be revdeleted. I just think its suspicious. Considering our own article has this nugget : "the JIDF "prefers the terms 'seize control,' 'take over' or 'infiltrate' to 'hack."[56] concerning their methods on Facebook and the fact that User:Weaponbb7 was one of the editors involved here with the David Appletree mess several weeks ago, it just seems suspicious that User:Jews 4 Wiki Justices only edit is this report.Heiro 04:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops, by the time I found that cite, wrote that, and ec'ed a bit, its been handled. Heiro 04:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This might be in response to JIDF's call in Twitter and Facebook to create accounts and send login info to them. Bejinhan talks 05:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that, considering some of the things that went on between Weaponbb7 and Appletree, as referenced by another user above.Heiro 05:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Confirmed The IP that made the horrific edits was that of User:KatWomanUSA and User:Jews 4 Wiki Justice, who may not be Appletree, but is/are (a) known JIDF supporter. Unfortunately, as the account is compromised, and User:Weaponbb7 has neither a cryptographic commitment nor GPG key, I'm not sure if we can restore access to the account. -- Avi (talk) 08:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

  It is strange " who may not be Appletree". I believed CU is capable to provide a positive answer for such a question. If those edits were made by Appletree, the article about the site he runs, should be deleted once and for all. On the other hand, if it was somebody else, who made the edits, those accounts should not be marked as socks of Appletree.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

  Having been a wikipedia checkuser for about 2 years now, I can tell you that it does not always give clear answers. -- Avi (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Weapnbb7 has a userbox that says has has multiple accounts, so he can either edit from one of them or they may also be compromised, if his account has been compromised. Off2riorob (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps under the circumstances you should full-protect the page in question. One account has been hacked already to get access to it... HalfShadow 18:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Or, perhaps delete and SALT the page in question, since it's turning into such a magnet for hackers and trolls. As I always say, if the heffalumps are trying to steal your hunny, it's best to get rid of the hunny pot. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose community ban of ALL editors connected with JIDF

They're hijacking people's accounts now (as well as using them to make horribly offensive comments)? That's disgusting. I'm not sure if we've ever community banned an entire organization before (rather than a single editor), but I'd like to propose a community ban (or some sort of sanction, at least) for any and all editors who can be shown to be members of, or have links to, the JIDF. That way, it won't matter whether Kat WomanUSA, Einsteindonut, etc., is David Appletree or not; they will all be banned and we will be able to revert and revdel their edits. The group has shown themselves to be nothing more than a bunch of hackers who have no respect for Wikipedia; they've essentially declared war on us and have been causing nothing but disruption. I don't think any of their contributions have any redeeming value. We shouldn't have to put up with their antics. Stonemason89 (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: Apart from the obvious fact that we have no way of proving that a user is associated with the JIDF, what level of involvement would be required? And how can we justify not only blocking, but banning all members of an organisation on the actions of a small group of individuals? This proposal wasn't very well thought out. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not "the actions of a small group of individuals"; the organization itself has encouraged its members (on Twitter and Facebook, as mentioned above) to create accounts for the sole purpose of sending information to them. That's basically espionage, and it runs counter to the spirit of Wikipedia. Like I said before, I don't think we'd be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, since this group is all bathwater to begin with (has no redeeming value). Also, the JIDF accounts we've encountered so far are quite DUCKY; they're single-purpose accounts that are quite obviously pushing the group's agenda. It shouldn't be too hard for us to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is a JIDF editor. Stonemason89 (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose No evidence. Much hysteria. No ban.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Users who edit controversial articles with obvious issues should take care not to have identifiable details available that allow themselves to be compromised, that should be obvious. Off2riorob (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • You might want to read the article on blaming the victim. While Weaponbb7 might have been able to protect his account from being compromised, that does not mean that David Appletree/JIDF/Einsteindonut (whoever was responsible) aren't to blame. It's still 100% their fault, not Weaponbb7's, and they should face the consequences, regardless of whether or not Weaponbb7 secured his account or not. Hacking is never acceptable or justifiable, regardless of whether the victim failed to protect their account or not. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

See, there you go again, there is no evidence at all that the account is under anyone elses control, it could just as easy be an 11 year old editor that is venting off. Off2riorob (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

See the checkuser results above. The account has been compromised, and is being used from an IP address associated with 2 other sockpuppets of David Appletree. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it? I am confused as to what is guack results and actual checkuser results. I don't think that is as clear cut as that to allege this action is absolutely an identifiable person. Off2riorob (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, User:Avraham said that it is  Confirmed that the IP on Weapon's account making those accounts matched that of two other accounts which are suspected sockpuppets of David Appletree. Avraham is a checkuser. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Rob, AGF and prior behaviour suggests strongly this is an account compromise. Lets assume it is that until better evidence appears (if it ever does) - casting aspersions like you just did is a personal attack! As it is I have had a hacking attempt from someone associated with the JIDF (earlier last week) sadly for them they musn't have realised I work in computer security/forensics :) so it is reasonable to assume this is a similar result. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - completely unworkable, much better to block/ban disruptive editors as they appear. I am certain most of this is born from a single person anyway (and the JIDF is almost certainly just him) plus a few die hard Twitter followers. It's untenable to ban all of them, and the results would be no different --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. It's not necessary to save the 'pedia, but it would save us the disruption. It has become very quiet around the "JIDF" recently, and their recent activities here seem to be an effort to get a greater mindshare again. In other words: We are being abused for advertising. Even these ANI threads are advertising for them. The best way to stop that nonsense is if we can revert obvious JIDF edits on sight. – Anyway, technically banning the whole bunch is not necessary because it has long been established that if a user is indistinguishable from an earlier user who was banned for the same behaviour, then we simply treat them as the same user. The reason this isn't sufficient in this case is that the ultimate aim of the banned user seems to be not so much to change article space but rather to get the JIDF mentioned before the worldwide audience of ANI. Hans Adler 13:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The worldwide audience of ANI that is the exaggeration of the day. This is a totally ridiculous unworkable attack on a legitimate group of people. Off2riorob (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not a "legitimate group of people"; though. See below; it doesn't even have dues, bank account, headquarters, officers or elections, etc. I don't know how you could possibly call a group like the JIDF "legitimate", considering what they have been doing. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

They can not all be tarred with a evil people brush either, they are a loose Knit bunch of people with a similar aim, a very small number of them have caused some disruption here, those that have caused the disruption also claim their group was being negatively portrayed and biased against here at wikipedia. Lumping them together is clearly imo another attack on the group and will likely attract more attacks like this which we can do absolutely nothing to defend. Portraying them all as evil and asserting they just walked up and started attacking wikipidia without any cause is imo false portrayal of the situation. Off2riorob (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Off2riorob.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Many FRINGE and extremist groups claim to be "negatively portrayed and biased against here at Wikipedia". That doesn't mean they deserve our sympathy, or that we shouldn't ban or block them when they are flagrantly violating the rules and acting like huge dicks. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary; we don't go against our own WP:NPOV policy to prove a WP:POINT. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Desirable, but not feasible unfortunately. I'd like to send the article to AfD though and see if it can survive a liberal application of WP:EVENT (all they're known for is hacking or shutting down facebook groups), though I fear we'll just see the partisans come out to play as they did at DRV recently. Tarc (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Long rambling comment. The proposal itself seems a little overdramatic, but if the group is indeed organized around the common purpose of bad faith editing on Wikipedia and other community-generated content sites, then declaring oneself a member is more or less an admission of bad faith. It doesn't seem to be a real organization - no dues, no officers or elections, no bank account, no membership criteria, no headquarters. Rather, it's just a self-declaration on the part of people who want to identify with its apparent aims and tactics. If it is a legitimate group, then members who edit articles about the organization and its activites would have a COI, and organizations do indeed get banned from editing their own articles when they persistently misbehave. Adding racist garbage to the encyclopedia in order to blame it on someone else is about as bad as it gets. If it is simply a declaration that one is not here to improve the encyclopedia, then it is reasonable to show people the door if they say it like they mean it. In practice that would probably require some underlying misbehavior, not a casual comment. No prior consensus or discussion is really needed. Any administrator observing clear misbehavior has the mandate to take reasonable, appropriate action. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• I'd love to support this, but don't see how it could be applied within policy or gain the consensus needed to be passed. The editors associated with this group seem to be especially nasty pieces of work, what with the User:Davidappletree fake User talk:Scott MacDonald post a few weeks ago and now hacking anothers account to post Anti-Semitic rants. By policy, I think the only thing that can be done is play whack a mole when they show their heads. Heiro 13:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I just blocked three socks that showed up on my talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 14:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)As it is I have had a
    • Unless you are absolutely sure you know what you are doing (or have done it already) you should contact a checkuser. The IP you blocked is from a university, and the account you blocked was Weaponbb7's legitimate second account. Hans Adler 14:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes i noticed that the Weaponb7-2 (or whatever) account had only made one previous edit, in April, to its user page declaring itself as an alternate account of Weaponbb7. Seems unlikely that Appletree was planning this for that long. However, I don't really understand how the password was hacked by Appletree (virus installed on a computer to visitors of his site?) If that was how it was done, then it's possible he has the password to all of weapon's accounts and we could presume them all compromised. But I don't know if that's how it was done (or if that's even feasible), and it puts the actual editor in a terrible bind; all efforts at communication are presumed to be the troll appletree; what avenue does the actual editor have to communicate? Presumably CU can confirm previous IPs of weapon from before this happened, and determine if posts are coming from those IPs. I propose restoing talk page access on the alternate weapon account (if it was taken away in the first place) and seeing if this can be worked out on that talk page (given long enough conversations, i think we'll get a good read on whether it's actually weapon or not).Bali ultimate (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Talk page access is available. We have no idea what happened, but when somebody comes to my talk page and posts with at least three different accounts or IPs in rapid succession and claims to be the same user as an IP that made a trolling post on WP:ANI about purchasing of sex toys,[57] I am pretty sure that blocking all the accounts until somebody sorts out the matter is a very good thing to do. Jehochman ^Talk 14:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) @Bali: Unfortunately we can't really be sure which method was used: if Weapon uses one password for several sites, he could have registered on a dodgey website and had his password stolen (or simply a site with very poor security which allowed the password to be cracked by brute force or a dictionary attack), or any number of other ways, especially if the password was low-strength. I wonder if Weapon frequents IRC and has a wikimedia IRC cloak? Either way I think the combination of checking IP addresses and conversing with the user should start making it clear when it's actually Weapon doing the talking. The recent IP pretending to be Weapon had a very different manner of writing (especially grammar). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
          •  Confirmed Wbb7-2 geolocated to WBb7 and not KatWomanUSA. I have unblocked accordingly. -- Avi (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Unenforceable. What we have is banned User:DavidAppletree who in turn appears to be a return of banned User:Einsteindonut (cu found this connection "likely.") either by himself or with a few confedorates (the pseudonymous appletree has vowed to vandalize wikipedia and sought to recruit others to do this) driving editors in good standing away from the project. We have the weapon account hijacked, for the purpose of making antisemitic edits in order to falsely smear that user. Appletree earlier spoofed a post of an admin to try to make him look antisemetic (so we now have at least two JIDF postings of antisemitic material here, notwithstanding that the group says it's interested in stopping antisemitism) which speaks to Appletree's low tactics and interest in fighting a propoganda war, not improving articles. What to do? Block the socks of the banner user(s), revert all their edits, and block the meatpuppets/sockpuppets as they come along. As for banning "all members of the JIDF," well, who are the members anyways? It's just some internet yahoo and people he occasionally convinces to follow along. Much larger and better organized groups have been a problem in the past (the scientologists come to mind). This one is a minor nuisance.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Unnecessary and redundant - The user is banned. If they appear, or convince a friend to appear on their behalf, the new account(s) can be blocked. No additional authority is needed. I am not sure JIDF is a group at all. It could just be one lone person on a bizarre mission. Jehochman ^Talk 14:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose absofuckinglutely not. Unwritten rule #1 of Wikipedia is that we don't care where you come from, you're welcome here as long as you behave yourself. All disciplinary actions are taken against the individual for the behavior of the individual. Period. --Jayron32 14:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Opposed to ever blocking anyone by a racial litmus test, which is precisely what this boils down to; it prejudicially assumes this group is not here to contribute constructively. I'm appalled this would even be proposed. No witch hunts. No assumption of bad faith. No prejudice. We always start by assuming someone is here to be constructive, until proven otherwise by measurable action. I seriously question the neutrality of the person proposing this...   Thorncrag  18:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Racial? The problem with the group isn't the "Jewish" part of its mission, it's the next three words, "Internet defense force", coded language for hacking Wikipedia and other sites. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"It prejudicially assumes this group is not here to contribute constructively" ? In the last few weeks editors associated with this group have faked anothers post with antisemitic remarks( the User:Davidappletree fake User talk:Scott MacDonald post a few weeks ago), outed and threatened users(User:Jewdefence remarks to Weaponb77 back on the 30 or 31st of August[58] revdel between these 2 edits), offwiki attack pages and lists of editors they disagree with, twitter posts calling for people to vandalize wikipedia, calls on twitter for people to set up accts and forward them the passwords so they can vandalize wikipedia, and now hacking anothers account to post Anti-Semitic rants. Exactly how constructive do you think they will become in the future? AGF isnt a suicide pact. Heiro 18:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Racial litmus test? Puh-leeze. First of all, Jews are not a race. Second of all, I harbor absolutely no ethnic, religious, or racial double standards whatsoever. If there were a group calling itself the Palestinian Internet Defense Force and it were to act in exactly the same manner that the JIDF has done, I'd have proposed blocking the "PIDF" too. No "litmus test" whatsoever. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh "Jews are not a race"? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The United States Census Bureau only recognizes white, black, Asian, and Native American/Pacific Islander as races. Hispanics are not considered a race (most list their race as white); the same is true of Jews. I believe the situation is the same in most other countries, too. Ethnicity, yes. Race, no. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

For purposes of this discussion, it doesn't really matter how you define Judaism. The point being made was that banning members of this group was banning them based on their identity as Jews. I disagreed, saying it would be based on their declaration that they intended to edit in bad faith. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It was already established above that this is not an "official" group; therefore, how can you categorically lump anyone who happens to slap what amounts to a "JIDF" user box on their userpage as automatically here to behave unconstructively? Further, it is basic common sense and logic that this would be completely unenforceable, not to mention the fact that it would be completely unprecedented for Wikipedia. Your efforts seem disingenuous at best and call your motives seriously into question. I'm going to go make up a JIDF badge and slap it on my userpage, should I be summarily banned too?   Thorncrag  21:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that you would even consider putting a JIDF badge on your user page calls your motives into question, not mine. Why would you defend a group that hacks into people's accounts and has caused nothing but trouble for Wikipedia? Stonemason89 (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

...I rest my case.   Thorncrag  22:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose If the JIDF's proponents have something constructive to add to the article, that's fine. This is more about creating drama to get publicity. Perhaps more like a little kid screaming for attention. WP:TROLL and WP:DENY apply. Revert, block, ignore. Don't take it too seriously. --John Nagle (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose As "unfeasible". However, deleting and salting the JIDF article is not a terrible idea, IMO. Any group who deliberately targets WP editors for purposes of outing (and then "smearing" them) based on alleged biases doesn't need a platform here by having this page, and they are using this page to do it. It's abundantly clear what their goal is. It shouldn't matter what their particular POV or rationale is: I think it's wrong and potentially dangerous (as cases of compromised accounts have shown). The fact that any editor not connected to the JIDF should have to change their passwords as a result of editing there is quite disturbing. Are they notable enough to cause the growing damage? Maybe, but this "cyberterrorism" can't be tolerated. And I agree that it is cyberterrorism... Doc9871 (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I somehow get the impression that deleting and salting the article would, in some way, just be giving them what they want. HalfShadow 00:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Of course, it would not be for alleged anti-Semitic reasons (which is preposterous): but for extreme disruption. They can "tweet" about it all day long, but deleting the page would be denying them on this site the recognition they seem to crave so much... Doc9871 (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

A note to JIDF related editors

As I mentioned above, last week someone made a reasonably sophisticated (but, note, unsuccessful) attempt to compromise my Facebook and Gmail accounts, the target appearing to be my WP account. This week we tracked it to an individual in the UK who appears to have JIDF connections (in that he follows the JIDF twitter feed etc). This appears to be another example of the same thing; the inference here is that it may not (even probably) be "David" doing the attacking, but others reading his material. Obviously I can't provide any more details about the person who attacked me until it gets sorted the poor sucker obviously had no idea I was a digital forensics analyst :P but if anyone is worried about being compromised drop me an email for general advice. I recommend anyone involved with the JIDF article consider changing all their passwords (or at least the most insecure ones) as a safety measure. this account is not compromised and was not close to be, I have safeguards in place for these instances due to the fact that my job makes me something of a high profile target and these stopped the attempt fairly quickly --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Really these are measures which should be recommended to all users, especially having seen the potential results of using a non-secure password. The internet as a whole tends to drum basic security into users these days; another recommendation (albeit from an esteemed digital forensics analyst ;)) is unlikely to get the attention of anyone who doesn't already listen to the advice. There's not much more to say on the matter of account security. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Heh, well at the very least it makes me feel better if it happens to someone else now :P We get an awful lot of work from companies who lost XYZ website/profile or even have their networks compromised due to a lack of simple common sense security (like, uh, not using your company name as a password.... :P). --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• I got a refreshingly high number of mails related to this (usually people don't care! so that is great). Just a note to say replies will come but it may take some time, I have work shock horror to get done before my boss fires me :D --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• I was under the impression that administrators had to have a strong pass? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 18:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think it's an explicit requirement, but as I recall, in the past, the developers have gone through and invalidated passwords of administrators that would be considered weak, and require them to change them. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 19:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, I didnt change mine after my RfA. I only changed it a month or so ago. —Soap— 19:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• I changed mine to "tiger". Seriously, though, the advice above was to change all passwords, or at least weak passwords, not just Wikipedia passwords. If the IP who posted earlier is to be believed, Weaponbb7's account was compromised because they used the same password on Facebook and Wikipedia, and their Facebook account was compromised. Whether or not that's true, tmorton166's advice is sound. Passwords should be strong, they should be changed periodically, and different passwords should be used on different sites. TFOWR 20:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Boy, and I thought all info on Facebook was totally safe! /sarcasm. I wonder what kind of script was used to dig out the password? Or if it was truly via facebook or some kind of spoofed e-mail or even a browser hack? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• The best advice is be vigilant: that means keeping a strong password, but also watching out for obviously suspicious stuff, because bruteforcing the password isn't the only way to be compromised. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Also, for a site that's "against terrorism", they don't seem to get that hacking someone is itself now technically considered a form of terrorism. Irony, yes? Or does it only count if they're brown and blowing up airplanes? HalfShadow 22:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Yep, I definitely think they'd qualify as a cyberterrorist group. Which is why I think we ought to do whatever we can to stop them from attacking Wikipedia. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Anyone want to take a look at the user contributions[59] for the editor that just closed this thread? Maybe I'm wrong, here, but... Doc9871 (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That's Weaponbb7's new account. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha :> Doc9871 (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Edit summary of the week/month/year

Please share a healthy moment of maniac laughter on that one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Viviane_Reding&action=historysubmit&diff=385289523&oldid=385223200. Cheers to all, --Insert coins (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Some things are just too weird for words. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that friggin' Space Knight. Who does he think he is, anyway? HalfShadow 02:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The editor in question seems to have a rom chip on its shoulder. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That's because you're giving him grief. Don't Byte the Newbies. HalfShadow 04:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

New mineral articles

Resolved: Looks like just a group project; given them the welcoming bumf Gonzonoir (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This is probably a sockpuppet issue, but thought I'd bring it here in case there's anything else going on too. I see some copyright concerns have been raised about some of the articles too and wonder if they might mean this needs immediate attention. This morning a bunch of brand new users have been creating articles about minerals, largely from the Mindat database. I can see the following:

• Kanoite, by User:Noahk90
• Dyscrasite, by User:Gabinho27
• Rameauite, by User:Ramutexas5
• Annite, by User:Sncervantes
• Gananite, by User:Sheik777
• Marialite, by User:Mav967
• Minyulite, by User:Smenouar

This is just from a first glance down Special:Newpages; there are quite possibly more. Should I just take this to SPI (I know it's sometimes hours or days before cases there can be addressed), or does anyone think it merits more immediate attention? Gonzonoir (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, most of them are simple stubs, and if there is any specific copyright issue it can be handled as such. Beyond that, I think we can have an article for each mineral (they are real aren't they?) and if a bunch of new users creates them, I'd rather be inclined to think of a class project or the like. I short I don't see anything abusive so far.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

All looks fine to me! --Jolyonralph (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I hadn't considered the class project possibility. I will go and recharge my AGF batteries ... Gonzonoir (talk) 08:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

There are some edit overlaps as well: Sncervantes and Gabinho27 at 2:53, and Noahk90 and Smenouar at 1:51. Doc9871 (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, I see it. Thanks. So I've gone back to the users and left them welcome notes, including pointers to the classroom coordination project In case that applies. Thanks for advice all. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've used Mindat to create mineral stubs, it's a fantastic resource. Jolyon Ralph, the owner of Mindat,has previously told me that he's very happy to see it used as a source for educational projects. He's got an account on WP, I'll drop him a note mentioning this discussion. DuncanHill (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it's good to see a resource being used to create new legit material. It was just the sudden emergence of so many brand new accounts all engaged in very similar behaviour that leapt out at me while on NPP. It honestly didn't cross my mind that it could be a group project. I Learned A Valuable Lesson :) Gonzonoir (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's an educational project, so learning is good :) DuncanHill (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

COI and legal threats

• Xchanging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Am watching User talk:Cirt, so I've noticed Rowing101 (talk · contribs) asking Cirt why David Andrews (CEO Xchanging) was deleted (see AFD). From there I followed the links to Xchanging, and, aside from what appears to be a clear COI, the user (and apparently associated IP addresses) have been involved in a long-standing COI content dispute (see page history, and note Talk:Xchanging where the user has threatened to continue to edit war) which has now progressed to legal threats (see edit summary). Am an uninvolved editor in this who's happened to come across it. Maybe an admin should have a look. Strange Passerby (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• This isn't a simple one. It appears that Wikipedia has been abused by a one-person campaign, since May 2010, to attack a company. Yes, it's fairly obvious from reading the recent news coverage datelined 2010-08-25 who Rowing101 (talk · contribs) is; and 193.195.181.230 (talk · contribs) is an IP address directly assigned to the company. Yes, editors have knee-jerk reactions to conflicts of interest and legal threats. But a look at what those accounts are actually doing reveals that they're trying to combat this single-person campaign. Ironically, whilst other editors have been helping in this on the article, they've been doing exactly the reverse on the article's talk page.

  Blocking the one-person campaign is tricky, as can be seen from the variety of dynamically-assigned IP addresses used. I considered semi-protection, but that's been done four times before, and the daily one-person campaign simply took up again each time that the protection expired. Since accountless and new-account editors are reverting the campaigning edits, I decided to opt for pending changes for 1 year, instead. Let's see how that works. Uncle G (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Well the first revisitation by the campaigner after I enabled pending changes was reverted by accountless editor 195.200.128.58 (talk · contribs) … Uncle G (talk) 13:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for having a look, Uncle G; Rowing101 left a message on my talk page seemingly explaining the situation. Hopefully this gets sorted out. Strange Passerby (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Defer to judgment of above admins, looks like appropriate actions have already been taken here. -- Cirt (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from Oclupak

Resolved

 – User notified of the existence of discretionary sanctions. Report may be reopened if issues persist. NW (Talk) 03:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Oclupak has been warned multiple times not to use article talk pages as places to make comments better suited for forum. This editing goes far back in his history, such as [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67]. The editor also ignores calls that his sources be reliable, and continues to push youtube links: [68], [69], [70], [71]. His personal attacks on editors he claims 'owns' the pages he edits is also a problem: [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77]. Lastly, he has latched onto MONGO as someone to harass about his previous employment, even though the discussion was resolved. [78].

This user has a long history of pushing POV, writing rants and forum like posts, pushing youtube links where they clearly don't belong and are not welcome, and refusing to work with the project, instead of against it. I request action to remedy this problem. I am aware I can take this up on the 9/11 admin board, but since this editor dabbles in fields outside of 9/11 with the same furor, I felt this would be the better place to debate it. The links I have posted only go back to last year. There are FAR more examples of blatant disregard for the pillars of Wikipedia, but I don't have the time to research them all. --Tarage (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the "9/11 admin board" (I can't find it), since the major issues with this editor appear to revolve around that subject and it would be pertinent to see what remit that board may have? I think there is a case for bringing the matter here, providing ANI will not be stepping on anyone elses' toes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

[79] This is the general board for arbitration. --Tarage (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Meantime, throwing unsubstantiated allegations around is probably best avoided. --John (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I back up everything I say. However it was marked resolved before I could get back to it. But that is neither here nor there. --Tarage (talk) 05:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• There is no 9/11 admin board I can see...so the place to ask for admin intervention is here...any admin can apply discretionary sanctions to those that aren't following the ruling set forth by arbcom two years ago...as shown at the 9/11 arbcom case regarding 9/11 articles. I have restored this section from archive 638 since it wasn't addressed....and this appears to be the only forum to notify uninvolved admins about an ongoing problem.--MONGO 10:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Has the user been informed of the existence of the 9/11 discretionary sanctions, or otherwise indicated that he is aware of them? The sanctions cannot be applied if he has not been so informed. I could not find any evidence that he had been so informed, so I have notified him now. NW (Talk) 13:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes he was. I notified him myself. He ignored it. --Tarage (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. I could have sword I warned him. I guess I'm still in a haze. --Tarage (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel like digging into ANI's history, but can someone explain the timestamps in the comments before MONGO's? They range from the 14th to the 15th of September, but this thread would be out of place if they were really posted then. Was this thread resurrected or moved from before? I'd like a clarification so that we don't have edits that are misplaced and/or represented, and that the parties who appear to be participating in this discussion prior to the 17th know that it's even happening here. -- Atama頭 20:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The thread was resurected because it was archived with no form of closure. I have been sick the last few days, or I would have protested. --Tarage (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd missed that MONGO had already declared that in the first post, never mind. -- Atama頭 22:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Admitted sock

Resolved

 – Block-evading sock IP blocked. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

User:161.53.35.105 admits to being a sock of User:Orijentolog in this edit. Does this count a block evasion? Ishdarian|lol^wut 10:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:EVADE. Although the block on Orijentolog is already indefinite, there isn't a need to reset the block. Minimac (talk) 10:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Help required undoing redirect of talk page

Resolved

 – Fixed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Ohconfucius very boldly redirected List of books portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors to WP:CHILDPROTECT, which I have reverted. Before redirecting the talk page, Ohconfucius archived the active topic and renamed the page to be Talk:List of books portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors/Archive 4. Can an admin please restore the page to the state it was before this and delete the unnecessary archive page? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. No opinion on the AfD at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Ohconfucious should probably have just started with the AfD. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

User-requested review of block for edit-warring

Resolved

 – user indeffed for NPA and continuing edit warring on same article after release of block Toddst1 (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

See User_talk:TruckCard#September_2010 and find five admins blocking me or failing to lift the blocks.

• User:Magog the Ogre
• User:Courcelles
• User:JamesBWatson
• User:Beeblebrox
• User:Hersfold

NOWHERE WERE THE TWO BLOCKS JUSTIFIED BY THE WRITTEN WP POLICIES. TruckCard (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong here. WP:3RR is a "written WP policy" and according to your talk page, you were blocked for violating that. Strange Passerby (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Please do not shout. I have just informed all of the involved users of this discussion, which you should have done yourself. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The policy is Wikipedia:EW#Sanctions for edit warring, which you would have seen if you'd read it after the many suggestions to do so on your talk page rather than just deleted the warnings and insulting those who gave them to you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The block and extension look fine to me...as do the unblock declines. I have to say that posting this here and then jumping right back into the edit warring may not have been the best idea. --Onorem♠Dil 17:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? 5 minutes out of a block and this guy is starting the edit warring again? Someone needs to block him. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Relevant AN3 thread: [80]. TruckCard, you would do well to watch out for the boomerang you've thrown coming back at you. –xeno^talk 17:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree with all of the above. You were edit warring and move warring, initial block was completely justified, and unblock requests were correctly refused. Beware the WP:BOOMERANG. TFOWR 17:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Rarely have I seen anyone throw such a hissy fit over a 24 hour block for edit warring, which he still does not even admit to. Personally I would have slapped a week onto the original block when the block evasion was detected. Note that he also posted to my talk page calling me an "abusive criminal" as his first edit after the block expired [81]. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• @TruckCard: Do I have this right? You're blocked for edit warring by one admin, and four other admins all review your unblock request and determine the block was properly applied. Then after an unblock, you immediately return to edit warring again and get blocked again? And all these administrators are wrong, and you are right? It's time you started looking in the mirror for the source of your block. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• The editor has been indefinitely blocked for edit-warring, sockpuppetry (via IPs) and personal attacks. Not much point in further discussion. -- Atama頭 17:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• He's continuing to post frivolous unblock requests. Is it time to lock his talkpage? (I'm not the only one who's thinking it; Hammersoft also warned him about it just now...) rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Nvm, Beeblebrox revoked his talkpage access. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Bus stop engaging in disruptive / tendentious editing in Judaism and violence

User:Bus stop is engaging in WP: tendentious editing at Talk:Judaism and violence. I warned them at [82]. The specific problem is that BusStop refuses to engage in constructive dialog, and keeps repeating the same question over and over: "What is the source that justifies the existence of the article?". Their question has been answered repeatedly. Examples of Busstop repeating the question are: [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88]. More importantly, Busstop refuses to respond to reasonable questions I pose to them ... so the dialog/dialect is stalled. Im not requesting a topic ban, but if some other editor could chime in on BusStops Talk page, or the article Talk page and help move them in the right direction, it would be appreciated. --Noleander (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is the notability or purpose this article?! Bus stop has a point. Why are some editors user contributions completely full of only edits and creation of/working on articles that are negative about a religion or race and never the adding of any positive or truly neutral information? POV forks and only contributing negative things is going to get someone alot of attention from those they are offending and no one is going to want to talk to them. And while I'm not calling anyone anti-semitic or racist, I say someone who has shown through their contributions that they are only interested in adding negative information about races or religions is a racist and a bigot. I have found discussing things with these editors is futile and I know Bus Stop has in the past tried to, but after all this time of having to repeat himself what is the point? Others dont want to listen. Perhaps admins should start looking into the user contributions of these same editors who keep working on those articles and see if perhaps they should be warned, topic banned, or blocked for the continued negative material. As Jimbo recently said editors who are racist can in fact be blocked for that.Camelbinky (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's the logical consequence of wikipedia's inclusion polices. See Islam and violence, Christianity and violence etc... There's a host of "Religion X and Y" content forks. Some are of course appropriate (i.e. Christianity and Biblical prophecy), some are just odd (i.e. Islam and vegetarianism) and others are pretty much part of the ideological spillover into this website (the X and slavery articles, for instance). The logic of including most of this stuff opens the door to including all of it. (By the way I do think these topics can be done -- all three religions' attitudes toward violence are the subject of extensive theological and academic discussion -- but in the open edit environment, it's just a disaster.)Bali ultimate (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is difficult to keep the "someReligion and violence" articles in good shape. Ensuring neutrality and balance is hard work, but it can be done. The alternative (deleting that entire set of articles) would not be helpful to readers. For one thing, there is a huge volume of sources that do discuss the relationship between specific religions and violence: How would readers find that material? Over time, the articles will gradually become higher quality and less aggravating. --Noleander (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

In regards to Bus stop, the editor overall seems like a real asset to Wikipedia (since their previous ban which was overturned), with multiple barnstars and no blocks. Having said that, this most recent interaction is a bit troubling. Bus stop made contributions to the new thread on the talk page of the article, then removed them, replacing them with the long statement in the previous section. I'm not sure what that was about but it bothers me that it seems like they are wanting to "make a statement" rather than engage in dialog. It's almost getting close to WP:POINT. -- Atama頭 20:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Please sanity check my behaviour

There is an ongoing dispute on Talk:Libertarianism that has tended to be a little uncivil and get massively derailed into comments about editors and OR discussion. In an attempt to reign this in I have quite heavy-handidly closed down off-topic discussion and tried to force the use of sources in discussions. However two editors have notified me they are unhappy with this approach (one here and another here). My thinking here is that the talk page needs a serious hammer brought down on it to help keep things civil and avoid blocks/sanctions; I'm aiming for a sort of neutral, hardline mediator role. I'd really like some uninvolved admins to take a look at this and tell me if this is an appropriate approach or not. Also, ideally a couple of other uninvolved editors to help out would be great :)

It's worth pointing out that BlueRobe also warned me for vandalism both with a template and here, I think for my talk page actions today. And has accused me of threatening and harrassing him (here). Could someone please check my messages to BlueRobe now and let me know if I am harrassing or threatening him - I believe this is not the case but wish to be assured one way or the other :) (here are my messages to him: [89], [90], [91], [92]).

I raise this myself because I have told both editors that if they disagree with how I propose to handle the talk page discussions they are welcome to take it to the community - and if I am advised not to, then fair enough :) However, neither have come here and I wanted to raise the issue and get it cleared up now... --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly nothing but good faith efforts at neutral moderation of the talk page, and all justified actions as informal mediator, per WP:NOT#FORUM / WP:NOR / WP:TPG. Efforts such as Errant's can only defuse the continual stream of noticeboard complaints stemming from the Libertarianism article -- my only wish is that we could get one or two more editors to volunteer outside eyes on that page. Sadly, I don't think Errant's efforts alone will be respected (and, in fact, there's evidence that even the overwhelming voice of the community will be rejected by some of the involved editors), but, all the same, I'm glad as hell that he's willing to try. I commend him. Also unfortunate is the certainty that this commendation of Errant's policy-justified actions will be seen as evidence that he's a card-carrying member of "the Cabal" that is supposedly arrayed against the vocal minority on the Libertarianism page, instead of more evidence that their arguments are flimsy and their talk page posts disruptive. BigK HeX (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Their arguments are flimsy and their talk page posts are disruptive. Errant is taking precisely the right approach. TINC. Yworo (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I likely shouldn't say this as an involved editor, but ... as for the complaints of incivility, User:BlueRobe seems to think that relaying one's opinion on violations of policy -- no matter how politely worded -- amounts to incivility. Incivility and informing a user of potential policy issues are not the same thing. BigK HeX (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, as I have already noted to Errant here, I have zero confidence in Errant's ability to be a neutral mediator. And, without meaning to provoke any tangential disputes, I view the eager endorsement of Errant by BigK HeX - Talk:Libertarian's resident serial Wikilawyer - with deep suspicion. Indeed, the greatest irony of Errant's sudden attack against a productive, intelligent and civil editor like Toa Nidhiki05, who has remained relatively calm in the face of some pretty antagonistic discussions, is the way Errant has completely overlooked the constant WP:HARASSMENT of other editors by BigK HeX, a user who virtually embodies WP:BATTLE with his constant Wikilawyering.

Further more, as I have noted here, Errant's attempt to control and moderate Talk:Libertarianism have ground all discussion on that page to a standstill (during its busiest time of the day).

I noted Errant's threats against me here. There are one or two others, but I don't have a clue how to find the diffs of another User (Seriously, how can Wikilawyers be bothered with all that crap?).

I apologise in advance if my formatting of this post has some errors - I'm not as experienced with diffs and Wiki-litigation as some. BlueRobe (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI, you can find my contribution list here. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see Errant's posts as attacks. I've been reading that page for about two days or so. I was tempted to share my opinion once or twice, but the veritable battlefield that it has become always turns me away. I can't imagine what mediating that talk page must be like, but I believe Errant is doing quite a reasonable job. Hazardous Matt (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A lot of discussion is about the meaning of the topic and there is a lot of original research presented without reference to sources or policy. It would be helpful to have an administrator who could threaten to block editors who stray into OR. TFD (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No way am I getting involved at the talkpage, but I looked at it yesterday and it did seem that Errant's collapsing of the off-topic, WP:OR, WP:FORUM cruft was extremely useful for keeping things focussed. My experience of doing similar things elsewhere is that it immediately attracts shrill cries of "censorship", so Errant seems to have escaped relatively unscathed, all considering ;-)

In the absence of any diffs demonstrating "threats" or "attacks" by Errant I'm going to have to assume that this is just part of the usual baggage mediators have to carry. What I have seen done by Errant is useful and valuable mediation.

I did see things that concerned me, but it was from other participants - editors basically saying "no, I'll continue to post original research here", some casual homophobia, some bizarre synthesis (a Right-Libertarian website in New Zealand being used to claim that "libertarian" in New Zealand meant something quite different to the usual, wider meaning), etc. This did seem to be from a small but vocal minority, so I'm hopeful that these are not insurmountable problems.

I agree with TFD that refs and policies are key. More admin eyes would be useful, too. Just not mine. I see attempts to redefine "libertarian" as purely a right-wing current as a US-centric, recentist development, and it annoys me too much. This is just one of those areas that I don't believe I could be useful in: I'd cause more problems than I'd solve ;-) TFOWR 12:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Pesf and non-free images

Pesf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is largely a SPA on Boyzone related articles, has had many warnings over their editing, including inappropriate use of non-free images. Today right after a two-week block, they are back to the same disruption. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Also this. O Fenian (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

this is not helpful either. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

this is stale but I am increasingly concerned about this editor's behaviour --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the account indefinitely. I considered just blocking for a month or two but those edits very blatantly vandalism, a couple of them involved BLPs (and were nasty ones to boot) and it seems like whatever this editor used to do they are only interested in vandalism. -- Atama頭 23:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

User Talk:Josh Rumage

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

This editor has uploaded multiple images of dubious provenance, yet has failed to heed many warnings about providing copyright information, and recently has taken to blanking his Talk page on a daily basis. Whereas he is entitled to do this, I've sufficient experience to think that this is an attempt to "make it go away". I'd block, but I prefer to give an opportunity for this editor to explain himself. Comment welcome. and I am about to notify of this thread. Rodhullandemu 22:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Josh has replied on my own Talk page, and I have responded. If outside eyes think this is adequate, please feel free to mark this thread as closed. Otherwise.... Rodhullandemu 23:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Battle of the bots: Reflinks vs. SmackBot

So it appears that SmackBot (talk · contribs) and WP:REFLINKS are fighting each other. SmackBot changes cite to Cite and Reflinks changes Cite to cite. It seems to me Cite is correct being the actual name of the template, but we need to pick one and make sure that all of the automated tools are doing the same thing. --Selket ^Talk 23:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a rule that any edit that only changes the capitalization of templates is an edit not worth making. The bots are only allowed to do that if they are changing other things in addition (which they are). It might be nice if they could agree on which spelling to use so that they arent constantly changing each other's edits, but I'm not sure it actually slows anything down when it happens. I think actually if I had a choice I'd prefer the lowercase version since it's one less keystroke when you're typing it manually, and it looks better, esthetically speaking. —Soap— 23:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Barring that, we could just watch until one of their heads goes "BOING!" HalfShadow 23:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If they are making another entry they are allowed to fix capitalization though. It's fine to have them fixed once, but every time SmackBot touches an article after someone Reflinked it the changelog is going to be a mess. -Selket ^Talk 23:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Consistent lowercase (at least as far as bots are concerned) is far less likely to lead to long-term problems, especially when interacting with new, case-sensitive bots. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"I'm not sure it actually slows anything down when it happens" An edit with more diffs is going to take slightly more storage and thus time, but I doubt its anywhere nearly enough to worry about. Fell Gleaming^talk 23:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't recall which bot it is that changes "wpbs" to "WPBS", which always seemed like a waste of time to me. Perhaps the bots are infected with editcountitis and are driving up their numbers? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Eh, if the bots run for adminship they'll get rejected for having too many automated edits. -- Atama頭 00:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Support Reflinks' RfA. While I note the concerns of the opposers (too many automated edits) I've always found Reflinks to be an extremely helpful editor, and I think they'd make a great admin. I am concerned about apparent edit warring with another editor (SmackBot (talk · contribs)) but I believe the positives outweigh the negatives, and I note that Reflinks has a clean block-log, unlike the other editor. TFOWR 09:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with thumperward - consistent lower case is best. Also, capitalizing Cite or Dead or whatever follows a double bracket is small but pointless complexity when filling in cites by hand. KeptSouth (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Core war! Oh, wait. Oops. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, keep them lowercase. I like it both personally and because of the benefits Chris mentioned. —fetch·comms 03:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I happened to notice the notice on Dispenser's talk page, but didn't have time to chime in. I'll drop a note. Rich Farmbrough, 04:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC).

• SmackBot is my wikistalker. It has been stalking my contributions for years. Others may edit with impunity. I make an edit to an article, however, and, sure as sausage, along comes SmackBot. Optional question from Uncle G: What is the candidate's view on wikistalking?

  On a more serious note: I agree with thumperward, too. I've noticed the change from "cite" to "Cite". When SmackBot stalked my contributions to hake, I noticed that it was changing "for" to "For" as well. So this seems to be an across the board change. I agree with Selket as well. The 'bots should all be on the same page, because on a wiki without $wgCapitalLinks=false, such as the English Wikipedia, this is just senseless to-and-fro. Uncle G (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfounded sockpuppet accusation from suspicious account

Resolved

 – User indef blocked as sock of User:Wikipedian05.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

A seemingly suspicious account, User:Brownspite, has falsely accused me of sockpuppetry. The user has tagged my user page, as well as created and tagged a user page for the alleged sockpuppet at User:64.131.34.149. I believe this user has ignored proper Wikipedia policies and guidelines with these actions. My response to Brownspite is on his talk page is here, in which I illustrate that I am not operating from this anonymous IP. Upon consultation with a former Wikipedia administrator, I was advised this could be considered harassment, and due to the suspicious nature of user account, that I should post this incident immediately to ANI (see here for that dialogue). Please take what ever actions are necessary to rectify this situation, or give further advice on action that I should take. Thank you. CrazyPaco (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The recommendation of said former Wikipedia administrator is to remove Brownspite templates and to warn him that his action can be seen as violations of WP:HARASS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought that editing pattern looked familiar. Checkuser has  Confirmed that Brownspite is actually User:Wikipedian05, along with a slew of other accounts I will now be blocking. I haven't CU'd you, Crazy (I've no reason to), but I'm quite more than willing to take your word that the accusation of your socking is false, given the witness's history. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no problem being CU'd. I do not believe in hiding my edits. In fact, by logging out of my account, I had purposely displayed my current dynamic IP located in the San Francisco Bay area in my response to Brownspite on his/her talk page. I will be away from Wikipedia over the next couple of days so I will not be able to reply further until then. Thanks for everyones' help. CrazyPaco (talk) 09:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Administrator Hoary

Background: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive281#Legal threats: User:Opinoso & User:João Felipe C.S, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive538#More article ownership by Opinoso' Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive578#Personal threats from User:Lecen, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive585#White Brazilian, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive623#Latin American demographics again, revisited (son of), and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive627#Removing informations and edit-warring

I do not know if this is the correct place to talk about an administrator's behaviour. I'm here to talk about Hoary.

This administrator has some personal problem with me. He already claimed that he "deslikes me" and accuses me of being a "child" and being a "false" person.

This administrator is always protecting another user, named Ninguém. Ninguém is always asking this administrator's help in his talk page, and Hoary is always helping him, and always against me. Since Hoary already said that he "deslikes me", of course he is not able to be neutral when it comes about conflicts between me and Ninguém. He abuses of his administrator condition. The newest case is going on in article Afro-Brazilian. This article was full of "fact tags" added by user Ninguém. I added sources to those tags, and user Ninguém reverted me (he asked for sources, but doesn't want people to add them). Hoary, as usual, is now helping his friend to keep that article with all those fact tags, after I spent several minutes looking for sources.

Hoary doesn't respect my work of Wikipedia and protects his friend Ninguém. I ask an intervention, and that Hoary from now start to be away from conflicts where his friend Ninguém is involved. Opinoso (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Please notify the editors mentioned here regarding this thread. Also, some diffs to back up your statements would be useful for admins looking this over. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute, not a dispute involving administrative tools. This board is just about the worst place to resolve a content dispute, because the administrators who respond here are going to look at conduct. I have no particular expertise on the subject under dispute; I'm just offering you some friendly advice. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are required to notify other editors you discuss here, but I've taken the liberty of notifying Hoary for you. —DoRD (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No redundancy there, DoRD! Thank you for the notification.

I strongly dislike various aspects of Opinoso's approach to editing articles, yes. I'd be interested to know how I have abused my position as administrator.

To me, Opinoso is no more or less than the sum of his edits. He has of course made some good ones in his time. But as for his recent ones, please see this for the specific and this for the sweeping. -- Hoary (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

A cursory read through the thread on that talk page should be enough to dispose of this section. While content is at issue down the chain, it's also about adherence to WP's sourcing policies and guidelines, which I have advised Opinoso to read carefully; and it concerns Opinoso's tendency to launch personal attacks, although at the lower end of the intensity spectrum. (Disclosure: I am a wikifriend of Hoary's.) Tony (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Help

User:Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden seems to be having difficulty grasping the main points of WP:BLP. I lack the necessary tact and patience to deal with the situation at Ines Sainz (reporter), a biography they created in response to a minor incident a few days ago. I believe that the editor has been convinced that that particular incident should not be included in the article per WP:UNDUE, but they seem to be insistent on introducing poorly sourced or unsourced material (mainly relating to the subject's physical appearance) into the article. Note that the Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden is not a new user, but someone who has "retired" with another account, so they really ought to know better. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is Delicious carbuncle who is unconstructive through being overly heavy handed and uncommunicative about editing issues.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If this is purely a content issue, why don't we just leave it out for now and have a nice discussion on the article's talk page about whether to add it in or keep it out? —fetch·comms 03:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

User:212.156.67.30

Cross-wiki harassment and personal attacks. For details, see: User_talk:JamesBWatson#Personal_attack. If you need further information, please feel free to ask me. Your assistance will be much appreciated. Pinar (talk) 05:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that either you or Yabanci did anything here to provoke the IP, so it looks like they're just dragging whatever issue you're having on tr.wiki here. Which isn't cool. I'm going to block the IP for a week for disruptive editing, attacks, harassment, and pulling too much dirty laundry around. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

And just in case, I translated the block message into Turkish using Google. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Bot archiving to wrong place

User:MiszaBot II appears to be archiving form Wikipedia:New_articles_(Australia) to the wrong spot, Wikipedia:New articles (Australia)/Archive 2008 (2008 instead of 2010) eg [93]. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That's because the counter is set to 2008, whereas really, to get the year, you should be using the %(year)d variable, in the archive parameter, rather than the %(counter)d variable. So get rid of the counter parameter and change the archive parameter to Wikipedia:New articles (Australia)/Archive %(year)d. I think, I'll try this in a second :/. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Threat to conduct to massive attack by IP???

Per this statement, the IP editor (71.178.55.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), now blocked for 24 hours, which IMO should be 31 hours instead) is threatening to conduct such an attack. Can any other Admin please take a look into the matter? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Admins and CUs please take note, the IP has started to make his move per this latest edit. Help? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

This vandal/troll has used at least the following 9 IPs: 68.171.233.199, 68.171.235.155, 68.171.233.214, 68.171.234.204, 71.178.53.60, 71.178.55.113, 71.178.64.210, 71.178.146.183, 71.191.119.34 and the registered account User:Skruphie. At least 36 user talk pages have been affected. I have placed a couple of range blocks which cover most, but not all, of the vandal's IPs, but I am reluctant to make range blocks either too extensive in range covered or too prolonged in time because of collateral damage. It may be worth making sure that all the IPs are blocked at the time of the threatened attack ("noon eastern time tomorrow"). I wonder about semi-protecting the relevant user talk pages briefly around that time, but I am not sure about doing so without consulting all the users affected, and I am certainly not in favour of doing that, as comments about this on all of the pages attacked would be feeding the troll. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed per WP:RBI. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me that there is a little ambiguity in the threat. If my understanding is correct, the threat linked above was made at 4:10 18 September Eastern Standard Time. At such an early time of day "tomorrow" could actually mean "during the daytime of 18 September", or it could meant "19 September". Or it could, of course, mean nothing at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

User:FellGleaming

FellGleaming (talk · contribs) is disruptively editing Challenger Deep and Mariana Trench in the middle of a discussion about his poor use of sources over at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Hijinks_at_Challenger_Deep. Slatersteven (talk · contribs) has now showed up and started tag teaming for him and making blanket reverts.[94] After a discussion about Fell's edits began at Talk:Challenger_Deep#Removed_possible_nuclear_waste_disposal_site_section, I helped Fell find reliable sources for his claims because he was having trouble understanding how we use sources. No offense to Fell, but the user has a long history of misusing sources and not understanding basic policies and guidelines governing their use. It is not quite clear why this problem has continued for so long, but his poor use of sources resulted in an enforcement request warning in April.[95] In any case, Fell didn't like the discussion on Talk:Challenger Deep and took this dispute to WP:NOR/N. Not liking the responses he received there, he began engaging in extremely WP:POINTy behavior, and duplicated the same disputed content[96] that was removed from Challenger Deep into Mariana Trench.[97][98] The result, is that FellGleaming is ignoring the concerns raised about his misuse of sources on Talk:Challenger Deep, and disregarding the problems raised with his use of sources on Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard, and has now managed to copy the same disputed content into two different articles for no reason other than because he can. This is extremely childish and disruptive and with the addition of Slatersteven demanding that I prove a negative, and supporting FellGleaming's efforts, I think it's time for administrative action. Viriditas (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)