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

Threats to exterminate me, overdose of lead etc. on my User pages

Hi, I checked my User page and talk page today and found it had some very nasty edits made, threats, wanting me exterminated and given an overdose of lead and so on.

I have now undone the edits but they remain in the history record so I reckon right now it will be easy enough for someone to undo my undones and restore the abusive edits so it is not a satisfactory situation right now to say the least.

This is my user page and my user talk page - Peter Dow (talk)

The abusive and threatening edits have been made both by unsigned IPs interspersed with signed edits by one user called GeorgeFormby1

This is one such edit by IP of my user page to illustrate -

diff [1] IP 82.17.219.182

Helo, my name is peter dow and im a retard, i am a pathetic 47 year old nobody who has committed high treason against the Crown and should be traked down by mi5 and exteminatid.

The abusive threatening edits to my user talk page are

diff [2] IP 86.132.166.95

PETER DOW IS A MENTALLY ILL, DELOUSIONARY FRUITCAKE WHO NEEDS TO BE LOCKED UP FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.166.95 (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

and

diff [3] by IP 82.17.219.182

....Including, of course, the Queen and the entire Royal Family, When a government with some balls gets to power he'll get an overdose of lead-Duce Fox, Defender of the Realm and Crown 22:18, 12 August 3008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.219.182 (talk)

The pattern of edits on my user page done by IP 82.17.219.182 can be seen here [4] and you can see that that IP has been used for the abusive edits of my Peter Dow user page, and to edit, I presume, the culprit GeorgeFormby1's own user page. So if he thinks he is covering his tracks entirely by making unsigned edits he is mistaken.

The edits made by IP 86.132.166.95 [5] are not yet directly associated with anything else that I can see but it looks like the same guy in my opinion based on the timings of the edits - within a few days of each other.

So I need some administrator help to prevent this very malicious, abusive and threatening edits to my user page and to my user talk page.

I am quite new to Wikipedia and as a newcomer, it seems to be with Wikipedia user pages, is that, it is impossible for the user to protect his or her user pages from abusive and threatening changes - is that right? There is no way actually to take username ownership of your user page, to stop such horrible edits, is there?

So I don't know what action one can take - except initially to report the problem to the administrators. Do you ban editing from troublesome IPs? Well perhaps we can get to the solution once an administrator takes a look at the problem.

Thanks for looking at this and for helping as much as you can.

Peter Dow (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the edits have been oversighted (removed) from your talkpage history. Under the circumstances, the persons able to remove the edits are also likely to be looking at limiting such edits in future so I think this matter can be closed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me LessHeard vanU but the history of both my user page and user talk page seemed unchanged when I revisited those pages - no oversight removal of history edits which I could see - are we looking at the same Peter Dow (talk) pages? Peter Dow (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would advise you to request semi-protection of both pages at WP:RFPP to avoid such things from happening again. It is completely allowed to request such protection :-) SoWhy 13:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks SoWhy for the tip about semi-protection. I will now investigate that and take any action I can to protect my user pages. :) Peter Dow (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put level 3 warnings on both IPs talkpages. If you want to complain to the ISP the July vandalism on your talk page was from a BT IP - their complaint address is abuse@btbroadband.com and you need to send them this link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Dow&diff=next&oldid=224544960. The August vandalism to your user page was from an NTL/Virgin IP address and their complaint line is pim@virginmedia.co.uk you'd need to send them this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APeter_Dow&diff=231534955&oldid=216438185 ref. Hope that helps. ϢereSpielChequers 13:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Gosh. lol Thanks WereSpielChequers Peter Dow (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection will block any IP address from making any changes to your pages. Meanwhile, I'm wondering what an "overdose" of lead would be? That is, what would be a "normal" dose of lead? Anyway, if a registered user similarly vandalizes your pages, you could also get swift action by taking it to WP:AIV. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"Overdose of lead" likely refers to shooting him or her with a gun (with lead bullets). It's a common expression. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha, as in "I'll fill ya full o' lead." Not good. And then there's the "exterminate" part, which means the authors probably watch too much Dr. Who. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Of the two the one I find more worrying is Special:Contributions/82.17.219.182. From the other contribs it could well be connected to user:GeorgeFormby1, who in any event has a user page that I would suggest an admin look at. I'm not necessarily saying that fans of Mussolini should be banned from Wikipedia, but threats of violence? ϢereSpielChequers 17:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me like user:GeorgeFormby1 has anything to do with this. He simply removed an offensive sentence, which he may have spotted on RC patrol. Looie496 (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You think? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was these three diffs that made me suspect that user:GeorgeFormby1 might be connected to the vandalising IP. ϢereSpielChequers 18:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/user:GeorgeFormby1 submitted. I hope I only made one mistake in it. ϢereSpielChequers 14:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think that this should be left open until the checkuser case is resolved. —Sunday ^Scribe 23:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat

Resolved

 – IP blocked

_Gb^T/c 10:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There's been a legal threat by an anon here. --Tango (talk) 09:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Disneysuit, eh? SSP says that he had a vendetta against Disney for allegedly infringing on a trademark or something... His accusations of corruption and fraud against us reminds me of that Jack Thompson guy, I think... Blake Gripling (talk) 10:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ho hum. Since the edits are in exactly the same vein as the previous edits for which he received a 48 hour block, and since he has carried straight on once the block expired, I have reblocked for 72 hours. _Gb^T/c 10:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The IP address appears to be static, wouldn't a longer block be in order? Don't we usually block indefinitely (for a static IP that should probably be reduced to a few months) for legal threats, pending them withdrawing the threat? --Tango (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but let's see how it pans out. If he picks up after the block under the same IP then I'd agree that a long block would probably be in order. _Gb^T/c 18:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

For anyone not "in the know" this DisneySuit whacko has been stalking Wikipedia for about a month (?) now on and off. Motivations appear to be they are a lawyer who is trying to get attention for some random trademark suit. Or something. It must be a pretty crappy lawyer if it is one because of their stupid behavior which I think would be admissible in court against them. IANAL.--mboverload@ 19:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, close, but not quite. It's an individual who claims that Disney stole his idea for Pirates of the Carribean. He did bring a lawsuit a few years ago, but I believe it was withdrawn. I have read his site, and all of his postings here...he appears to have evolved into attacking Wikipedia and its editors for blanking his soapboaxing on the relevant articles and talk pages. _Gb^T/c 20:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

He is currently harassing a 14 year old female editor, mostly on the basis that she has expressed an admiration for things Disney (ah, the innocence of youth), Pirates of the Caribbean (ah, the appreciation of youth) and Johnny Depp (ah, the perceptiveness of youth) who chose not un-naturally to edit the articles she is devoted to - as only a early/mid teen can be - giving him the delusion that he can promote an argument of conflict of interest. While the soapboxing is fairly contemptible, in attempting to create a case where legal avenues have proven a failure, I find the hounding of a volunteer teenager to be reprehensible. My only other comment is that I note the ip used has remained constant, so any action that may be taken in future may be of a mid term duration. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If you need anyone else to keep an eye on that please drop me a line. --mboverload@ 22:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I like that diff provided. Provides ~8 minutes of entrainment, depending on reading speed.--mboverload@ 23:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned that this 72-hr block is not going to be enough - They're very persistent. It appears that the places they have been contributing are good things to watchlist and monitor going forwards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do (wtchlist the pages). While we're at it, if this guy registers another account and uses it, block it NEM - he has sent legal threats through the email system (I should know; I received one). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit)} 23:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

At what point did the term 'lawyer' become synonymous with the terms 'psychotic' and 'stalker'? HalfShadow 00:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Henry VI, Part 2 has a helpful line about lawyers. DuncanHill (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

How do I sign up for a legal threat? I feel like I'm missing out. Please point me in his direction next time he pops up. --mboverload@ 02:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Simple. Just block his account. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit)} 02:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a legal threat for you: I'm thinking of filing an asbestos suit. That should get me into some hot stuff. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Asbestos? Doesn't anybody tell you coffee is where it's at? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit)} 06:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Good one. A tempest in a coffeepot. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be a teapot, but the censors didn't want to relinquish it. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit)} 05:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Catherineyronwode

Catherineyronwode (talk · contribs) who commonly edits as 64.142.90.33 (talk · contribs) made an accusation of libel and slander impinging on her employment,[6] then asserted that "The legal threat is real" after being reminded that making legal threats is blockable.[7] Far from withdrawing the threat or stopping editing, she began to escalate the dispute by preparing an ANI complaint,[8] and took the dispute to an unrelated article[9] with a talk page statement which resembles WP:Wikistalking.[10] I'll ask her to explicitly withdraw the threat and take it through dispute resolution, but Wikipedia:No legal threats states that "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding." and I'd appreciate it if others could review whether these accounts should be blocked until the threat is withdrawn. . . dave souza, talk 16:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I would also agree that Ms Y should withdraw (or clarify according to Atom' interpretation) the threat of legal action. The other matters are not actionable. I can't see how, for example, preparing an ANI complaint is a red flag. Madman (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

These look like clear legal threats to me. Other users seem to have valid concerns about possibly copyvio. Saying that discussing those will lead to legal action is unacceptable.

JoshuaZ (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the user should be blocked until this is dealt with. The diffs show that the editor has reviewed their threat, and have decided to escalate the dispute improperly. The IP should be blocked too. Verbal chat 17:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I am dense. I looked carefuly at the cited diff[11] "Do not accuse your fellow editors of committing illegal acts. You have now gone past gratuitous personal insult and into libel and slander, impinging on my ability to secure employment as a freelance writer. This is intolerable and will be treated as such. catherine yronwode a.k.a." This sounds like a basic user dispute. She has not threatened any legal action, only mentioned two legal terms. I see no reason to block her. He comment regarding "a legal threat is real" was her concern that she what she perceivces as slander may damage her reputation as a freelance writer. She has not suggested that she plans on, or is threatening to sue anyone, and has only asked the uncivil editor to not do that any longer. Try asking her a direct question "Are you threatening legal action against editor Hrafn or Wikipedia?", and base your action on that? I think I will. Atom (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Saying that expressing concerns about copyvios is "slander" or "libel" clearly runs afoul of WP:LEGAL. The fundamental problem with such statements and the point of LEGAL is that they can be highly intimidating to users. Even if someone doesn't file suit directly the same problem exists. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Atom, for raising the issue more directly. I'm a bit concerned about the question "Do you have any immediate plans to sue Wikipedia, or User:Hrafn?" as it would still be a legal threat if deferred or conditional on some future action. It did seem pretty clear to me that "The legal threat is real" meant what it said in the context of the discussion, but it wasn't clear if she was aware of the policy and further clarification is useful. . . dave souza, talk 19:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

On first blush, I also interpreted her response as a legal threat, but upon careful reading (after Atom's post) I do see that it could be interpreted in various ways. It's best to ask.

BTW, Cat is a long term contributor to Wikipedia who has worked long and hard to add material and to create articles throughout Wikipedia. We certainly owe her the benefit of doubt here. Madman (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Threats of libel are enough. The account should be blocked and the issue dealt with on the talk page. This is, I believe, to stop wikipedia from getting into any legal problems with things being discussed here. Wikipedia is not a forum, the threats should just be removed or the user blocked while they deal with it or not. The user has already been asked and warned per the diffs above. Verbal chat 21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Verbal, I saw (and respect) your opinion stated earlier. No need to reiterate it, I was just offering my own. Should I state mine again too? You said "threats of libel" my point was that she made no such threat, she only used the word. Atom (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't my intent to restate - I added some new thoughts I thought, such as WP not being a forum for discussing libel and slander. Saying a comment is libellous is enough too, just from using the word in that way. Dispute resolution should be used so this doesn't arise. My comment about WP liability was new also. No hard feelings. Verbal chat 22:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought carefully about the "Do you have any immediate plans..." wording. My thinking is that we need her current state of mind, not past or present. We could not hold someone to "I don't plan on legal action in the future" anyway. Our main desire is to determine if by definition, WP:NLT applies or not for this case. Atom (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

One point here. We really shouldn't be accusing fellow editors of committing illegal acts. If you are wrong, then that is a problem. WP:NLT doesn't give people carte blanche to accuse someone of everything and anything, and then yell WP:NLT when they end up provoking a response. Some common sense is required as well, and careful and professional handling of copyvios and other similar issues. Carcharoth (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Good advice, though in this particular case it's wrong to suggest that the original accuser yelled "WP:NLT when they end up provoking a response." The question of it being a legal threat was introduced after Hrafn had struck his accusations and accepted that he was in error, when Aunt Entropy pointed out that legal threats are a blockable offence.[12] It was Catherine's response to that which included "The legal threat is real." [13] Catherine followed that up by stating on Hrafn's user talk page that "The real issue is that i was falsely accused of plagiarism by hrafn", and that she would "continue to carry my concerns to every place that hrafn has made this accusation against me and ask him to delete it or to apologize." Hrafn replied at 04:00 on the next morning, 3 September, then at 04:18 said that since she had made an explicit legal threat, he was "ceasing all communication with her, per WP:NLT".[14] In light of the statements below do you now consider it appropriate for Hrafn to reopen communications, and would you advise him to delete the comments she finds offensive? He's already struck the comments on the Haane talk page, and her assertion of "deliberate copyright violation in the Haanel article on Talk:The Science of Getting Rich"[15] appears to refer to Talk:The Science of Getting Rich#Page restored to existence again which makes no accusation of copyright violation, as it's an argument about which Wikipedia article text was taken from. Your advice will be greatly appreciated. . . dave souza, talk 10:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The claim that i had deliberately committed a copyright violation was false and very harmful, since my *real name* (and therefore my *personal information*) was attached to it. I asked for Oversight to remove it, but they declined. Very shortly, however, hrafn, the editor who had made the charge, admitted he had been wrong, and acknowledged that the charge of copyvio was backwards -- that is, the web page on which he saw the text had actually copied the text from an earlier version of Wikipedia, and i had also pulled up the old Wikipedia text.

He then admitted to having based his belief that i was committing copyvio on the fact that my text had been dropped into Wikipedia as "short lines." The lines were short because i use a 65-character-width text editor when i work offline to help compensate for my low vision. (I have nystagmus and cannot read long lines.) That excuse was just silly enough to seem real. In my experience, hyper-vigilant people read all kinds of meanings into typography. :-)

Hrafn withdrew the charge against me and then, at my request, he also deleted the sub-head text in which my real name was connected with the charge of illegality. He did not apologize, but the matter ended there. That's all there is to it.

Building a controversy about this kerfluffle days after it all ended is a bit strange, 'cause anyone could have asked me what was up.

Meanwhile, it is true that i am preparing an AN/I report against hrafn in my user-space. He knows about it; it's no secret. It is based on a long pattern of editing by him and not on any specific incident involving me. The hoped-for result is not to block or ban hrafn from Wikipedia, but to restore, for review by other editors, the several pages he deleted without discussion, and, if possible, to restrict him from editing in that category unless he agrees to work cooperatively with, rather than against, other editors. I am taking my time to develop the AN/I statement, and have asked other editors to contribute to it and edit it, if they find it of value. There's no rush on it, and it is proceeding as i have spare time; hrafn's been making these undiscussed deletions for months, and it takes many hours to find out what's gone missing.

It is conceivable that the prospect of hrafn facing an AN/I report may have provoked this attempt to get me blocked or banned from Wikipedia, but of course, that may just be coincidence. None of the editors speaking against me here are ones i know through editing the pages concerned with the proposed AN/I report; perhaps they are friends of hrafn's.

In sum, the copyvio charge was retracted by hrafn, the connection between the charge and my *real name* was deleted by hrafn, and that's a closed book. Meanwhile, i am still working on the AN/I proposal in my user space -- but that's an entirely different matter.

So, onward and upward, as they say.

Cordially, cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The above statement lays out the detailed situation pretty well though the statement "the matter ended there" is rather misleading, the important point is covered in a similar statement on her talk page,[16] with her statement that "I asked for the charge of ciminality to be withdrawn and hrafn did admit his error and deleted the sub-head, which contained the worst part of the accusation; the rest of the text he merely struck through rather than deleting, which i considered vile on his part, but that is typical of his personality. He did not apologize. That was that. I have no plans to sue Wikipedia or hrafn; rather, i felt that hrafn was using Wikipedia to publish his accusation that *i* was a criminal."

The article talk page is a bit confusing due to interspersed comments,[17][18][19] but in essence the matter continued with an exchange about whether there was evidence suggesting copying, and was then left unresolved with Catherine's assertion that "The legal threat is real". In my country copyright violation is a civil matter, not a criminal offence, but your situation may vary.

I accept that the ANI complaint and the dispute on an unrelated article relate to her general dispute with Hrafn over removal of unverified or disputably verified material from articles, and should have made it clearer that these are not directly concerned with the legal threat. My involvement began when I was asked by Hrafn to take a look at the situation on that unrelated article, and while investigating I came across the legal threat and on consideration felt it should be raised here. In my opinion the threat appears to have been withdrawn, but I leave it to others to review that aspect. . . dave souza, talk 10:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sensing a bit of bad faith on the conjurer's part. Perhaps if we repeat these bad faith allegations re hrafn long enough, the spirit world will assist in his condemnation. Or maybe not. Bottom line is that Cat's allegations re hrafn's "evil" plan ring quite hollow. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You aren't helping matters, User:Jim62sch, by name calling ("conjurer") and rehashing the dispute here. This matter concerns the perceived legal threat and that should be the only matter under discussion here. Madman (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, User:Jim62sch, don't call me names or lie about what i have written. I never wrote that hrafn or his intentions are "evil," so placing that word in quotes in a provocative and false statement on your part. Try to rmeain civil. My sandboxed notes for the AN/I proposal here have now been uploaded to the request for mediation against you, hrafn, and Dave Souza. Apparently some folks think that you folks operate as a tag-team or cabal.

As stated on my talk page, my research on hrafn grew out of requests from other users for my help in getting pages restored that hrafn had deleted or redirected without prior discussion, in all cases eliminating the entirety of the texts. In most cases i don't even know what the texts consisted of, as they are gone now, but i do note that they all fall into the broad ssubject-category of late 19th and early 20th secular self-help and religious New Thought and self-help authors and books. In researching those complaints, i found what i believe to be a pattern of elimination of text from many religion pages, falling short of deletion or redirection without consent. A pattern is evident. That's about all i know right now, but i worked a long time on establishing the dimensions of the deletiions and complaints, with a plan of trying to get the matter out in the open.

I reserve the word "evil" for serious matters; hrafn may be a one-purpose editor with a hegemonic philosophical viewpoint he wishes to enforce by elimination of historical material dealing with viewpoints counter to his own. That's not "evil"; that's just really, really POV-driven editing. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Updated Catherineyronwode (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to make a brief response to Catherineyronwode's accusations. They are based upon confirmation bias, inaccurate hearsay repeated as fact, and misinterpretation of core policy (specifically WP:V). Her claims of "a hegemonic philosophical viewpoint" would appear to be directly related to her husband's (User:Self-ref) and her POV-pushing on Category:Pseudoskeptic Target and its CfD. I could provide lengthy difs correcting and clarifying many of her claims on User talk:Catherineyronwode/ANI-proposal, but (i) this would take a great deal of time & (ii) they involve mainly content (and to a lesser extent WP:CIVIL) disputes that would appear to be off-topic for this page. I will however note that I apply my "hegemonic philosophical viewpoint" of attempting to see that WP:V is rigorously enforced, not to the "one-purpose" of New Thought articles, but to a wide range of topics, including my own editing speciality (articles relating to Creationism -- in which area an article of my creation, Academic Freedom bills‎, was recently favourably mentioned in the August issue [p11] of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology newsletter), as well as articles relating to the Unification Church, the woollier reaches of speculative Cosmology and other topics. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

NYScholar issues revisited

I hate to bring this one up, as it was decided fairly readily by the community on the last occasion after a great deal of debate, but it has come to my attention that the community sanction agreed to in the previous discussion against User:NYScholar in or around 12 July, which effectively required NYScholar to be mentored in order to avoid being blocked, has been railroaded and undermined by a recent failed RfA candidate, User:Ecoleetage. Ecoleetage volunteered to mentor NYScholar (see e.g. User talk:NYScholar/Archive_21#Good_beginnings.21) then proceeded to recruit the latter to support Ecoleetage on a number of AfDs (see e.g. User talk:NYScholar/Archive 22#Hey_there). Somewhere in the interim, Ecoleetage "released" NYScholar from the mentorship on 5 August. They then continued to tag-team together on XfDs, with some more evidence thereafter (for example, on 27 August). NYScholar then voted on Ecoleetage's RfA days later. As it was a community enforced mentorship in lieu of a community ban, it seems to me that this was an entirely inappropriate handling of the situation.

This interpretation of actual events in "They then continued to tag-team together on XfDs," is entirely false: see below. This is an absurd claim! --NYScholar (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

NYScholar has taken this in stride, noting at the RfA that "He mentored me for a short time earlier in the summer when I was (briefly) required to have a mentor." Yet the problems with NYScholar's editing persist - we have repeated examples of hyperediting on the user talk page, mostly of the nature of removing negative commentary. Also some unusual editing at Talk:Czesława_Kwoka and Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka.jpg.

Offensive allegations. Totally out of context and totally misleading. I am an editor trying to maintain the integrity of all the hard work that I did in editing the article; the images, in my view, damage its integrity as they could lead to its deletion due to potential copyright violations in the uploading of these images to Wikipedia. Nothing to do with Ecoleetage or anyone else. Nothing personal. Just Wikipedia policy re: media. --NYScholar (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It may well be that NYScholar no longer requires mentoring, but I think there is a principle here that the community needs to decide the fate of actions it sets rather than these informal sorts of agreements between two users without any kind of scrutiny (nothing, for instance, was posted here to note the end of the process). The canvassing of a mentoree for XfDs raises alarm bells with me, and raises deep concerns as to whether any mentoring did in fact take place, or what benefit could be derived from it. Orderinchaos 17:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• These are inventions of OrderinChaos above (and Wikideman below); it is entirely acceptable to make edits and corrections to improve an article. I work very quickly to save changes so as to avoid losing them through "(ed)" server issues, which happen frequently. There is no rule in Wikipedia saying that one cannot work quickly to save edits. I make a lot of changes and a lot of corrections; I want to get things right; and I do use preview. Detailed citation sources and details about citation sources take a lot of work, and preview does not show the mistakes up easily when working online, as I am doing. I can't do the work offline and import it, because, given the reversions that occur in Wikipedia, all that work would be lost and a total waste of time. It's the nature of Wikipedia. The editing history summaries indicate what I'm doing; if people have trouble following the editing history, I can't help that. Everyone has trouble following editing histories, especially given the enormous amount of vanadalism going on. You would all be better attacking the vandals and leaving the editors who contribute hard work and reliable sources (like me) alone to do our work, and just appreciate the improvements being made to the articles. No one is paying me to do all this work. It is voluntary. It results in improving articles. Instead of complaining about it, you all need to be more appreciative, or we hard-working editors (not lurkers in incident noticeboards) will just stop doing this work, and you can work on these articles yourselves. --NYScholar (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not talking about "improving an article". I'm talking about improving (?) an image talk page or a debate at Wikipedia:Non-free content review, neither of which are helped by users obfuscating the process with hundreds of edits in a row, which reduces accountability for users reading the history and trying to figure out what the hell is going on. There is also a potential chilling effect on users who wish to get involved in the debate. If you want to edit something and think you're going to need to make hundreds of edits, do it in Notepad or something first. I recently wrote an entire series of list-class articles which required some research, sometimes needed to be updated as research required or new facts (or errors) discovered, and I think the most number of edits I amassed on any one of them was 18. I use Excel and Notepad offline quite heavily when editing, especially as the Wiki editor has no capacity for search and replace which is sometimes useful. Orderinchaos 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed some hyperediting at WP:Non-free content review,[20] a page on my watch list, and a number of image pages, but due to the huge number of diffs the situation is utterly impenetrable, and daunting.Wikidemon (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Orderinchaos 18:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • See above. If I can follow the editing history, so can you. It depends on why you are looking at an editing history. Are you doing it to improve the article, or doing it to pin some purported Wikipedia "violation" or "crime" on someone? Motives here do matter. I edit in good faith; see WP:AGF. These comments are not in the spirit of WP:AGF. --NYScholar (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record: there is no such "informal agreement" or "canvassing" of me involving Ecoleetage. In fact, as I understood the initial demand that I be adopted, it was later changed by the administrator's ruling to the possibility of an "informal" adoption; however, I stayed with the formal adoption and the featured adoption template.

The claims made in the above comments are entirely wrong. There is no such purported collusion (as suggested) between Ecoleetage and me. He was my mentor for a very short time, and later, he thought I was okay "on my own" and unadopted me. There was no ongoing "informal" arrangement. He was just continuing to be courteous, from time to time, asking how I was doing. I saw no pattern of "collusion" going on and no "canvassing".

A couple or a few times fairly recently, he asked me if I would take a look at some discussions of articles that were facing difficulties. I looked at the discussions.

My editing of two articles that he pointed me to look at and my creation of two other articles are totally independent of him. I perceived no "canvassing" of me. I just responded naturally to a request for another eye.

Last week or so, Ecoleetage posted a message on my talk page requesting if I might allow him to recount the circumstances of my being "adopted" by him as part of his request to become an administrator (which I then learned is called an "RfA" [I had to search for that].

I responded, on my talk page, declining to have it "dredged up"; as it had been so painful, so time-consuming, and so upsetting to me. I did not want to re-experience the misery.

As I do not use e-mail at all in or with Wikipedia or Wikipedians, he posted the request publicly on my talk page. I replied briefly (believe it or not) and asked if I could delete that exchange (given the previous concerns about so-called "premature archiving" of my talk page, etc., which now uses a bot (not a requirement I learned of the last "incident"; the adoption was required; the archiving just a recommendation, which I have been following. However, as long as Ecoleetage didn't mind, I didn't want to engage in discussion of this RfA of his further and archive it; I just wanted to respond, which I did (basically no thanks) and delete that. As I said then, I did not want to get involved.

I also had recalled (apparently wrongly) that he did not want to be an administrator and said so, but realized that I must have been wrong, and struck that from my comment, prior to deleting that whole exchange from my then current talk page, with his permission (which I had requested first).

Later, I noticed that he was the subject of the RfA (a procedure that I was totally unfamiliar with), purely accidentally. (Automatic watch list item by another user who had posted a barnstar on my talkpage and also commented in Ecoleetage's RfA, making the link show up on my watchlist.)

On my own and entirely without any further comment of any kind from Ecoleetage, and purely out of courtesy that I felt to my past mentor, I took the time to post my "support" in the RfA, which as a Wikipedia editor I am fully entitled to do. He had not come back to me at all about it prior to that. (He just accepted that I declined to have the previous incident leading to my being adopted by him posted about in the RfA.

This whole manner of OrderinChaos now making a new "incident" report baofsed on so many misstatements and false accusations only illustrates further why I did want to be drawn into any such administrative process as an RfA.

I had initially declined his [Ecoleetage's] request to allow him to dredge up the details of that unpleasant matter, and he respected that. But I posted my support out of courtesy a few days ago, just to be considerate.

Only last night or so, Ecoleetage came to my talk page to thank me for my independently-supportive comment (as he had done others in his own talk page). (I knew it must have surprised him, because I had decline the initial request to have the adoption brought up so publicly, etc.

On my own initiative, following the courteous example of many others posting comments in support to Ecoleetage, I had posted a "cookies" template wishing him luck on it earlier and giving him the heads up that I had actually posted something in the RfA, despite my initially telling him that I did not wish to comment, etc.

It appears to me that there may be some vindictiveness going on in OrderinChaos's post above, despite the "I hate to bring this up again" lead in.

OrderinChaos was one of the main forces in the past dreadful experience I encountered that led (very briefly) to Ecoleetage's adopting me. It was Ecoleetage who ended the adoption, after he felt, on the basis of compliments from Keeper and others, that I did not need the adoption. [He removed the adoption template from my talk page after canceling the adoption. He is no longer my "mentor" and I am no longer his "mentee" or "adoptee".]

I have worked enormously hard to improve an article that Ecoleetage had alerted me was in danger of being delet[ed]. But there was and is no "collusion." There is no working going on in concert with each other; he calls the work a "collaboration"; but it was not done together (in concert); it was just done at about the same time period. [I actually did far more work on the article than he did.] Our work on the articles was independent, and in some cases I changed what he wrote and vice versa. We were simply 2 editors working on trying to improve the same article.

I have not had any communication with Ecoleetage directly in my talk page or in any other way about my own editing of specific articles, other than gracious thank yous for the work that I have done, which he appears to have noticed after I did it.

The work I do has nothing to do with Ecoleetage. Our interests are most often different. But I took the time to spend enormous hours contributing to improving two weak articles in Wikipedia that he brought to my attention because I was concerned about them after seeing how weak they were. A lot of what I do is provide citations to reliable and verifiable sources; and it takes a lot of time to do that.

Speaking personally, I perceived no "canvassing" etc. going on of me. I do not engage in such activities in Wikipedia.

Clearly, the kinds of responses one gets for such hard work from other users like OrderinChaos make one wonder, "Why bother?" (As I have wondered before when abused and maligned).

If it weren't for praise for such work from other editors like Keeper and Ecoleetage for the work, and others who give one barnstars or words of praise over the years, I would have felt worse, I suppose; the words of encouragement are nice; but I don't see them as "canvassing".

I have done the work that I have done in creating and editing articles to benefit the readers of Wikipedia (and hence Wikipedia); not to benefit myself, Ecoleetage, or any other user.

I simply do work in Wikipedia to improve articles when I think they need improvement. As a Wikipedia editor for several years, that has been my contribution to Wikipedia.

The current dispute going on (not in edit warring but in properly-placed templates and discussions of the problems) appears to me to be a difference of perception about the images by various editors. I have provided sources and points of information about the subject of the articles because I know from being the main contributor to one of them and the creator of two of them what these sources are. I did that work too in an attempt to improve the articles. That has nothing to do with Ecoleetage. I have had no communication with him about the content of the articles at all [at least to my recollection; there is no reason for "diffs." here, and in his manner, OIC has simply ignored my talk page and user box notices not to take my talk page comments out of context; he seems inevitably to take things out of context and to skew them to support false interpretations (misinterpretations) of the contexts.]

All my communications with him [Ecoleetage], except for the request about whether or not he could bring up adopting me and the circumstances for his RfA and my declining that request, are archived. I will be happy to find the deleted exchange and put it in an archive (it's from last week; it's in the editing history), if necessary; though I don't think it's necessary.

The image dispute going on over what appears to me to be a highly-dubious image or [series of images--2 in one article, 1 in another] is simply part of my own concern about the integrity of an article that Ecoleetage first drew my attention around August 28. I've had no communication with Ecoleetage since then about the article(s). (That initial exchange is now archived in page 22 of my archived talk pages.)

I would not have spent the time working on [the current one(s) I've been working on], if I did not think the particular subject both notable and even highly significant, which I learned from doing research to help develop the article's source citations and content. I spent more time than I would have liked on that article and doing that work led me to create two additional articles on notable subjects: Wilhelm Brasse and The Portraitist, instead of leaving them red-linked. The idea of creating the two additional articles came to me after I realized that they could use articles for linkage in the article on Kwoka (one that Ecoleetage suggested I take a look at the deletion proposal in late August).

I was taking time off from my own non-Wikipedia work because I had worked far too hard all summer on it and sent it off to press, was watching the Olympics and the political conventions, and got involved in working on the articles while watching them on my computer Media Center tv. Again: nothing to do with Ecoleetage. Just worked on them while not working on other things.

Given this level of lack of appreciation and lack of compassionate understanding of such work by people like OrderinChaos and the continued false allegations without documentation (same pattern in the last "incident"--no "diffs."--just false allegations based on misreadings and invented false assumptions of other people's alleged "motives"; total violations of WP:AGF: as Yogi Berra has said: it's déjà vu all over again.

It's taken me a long time to post this response to the outrageous claims by OrderinChaos, which I consider both offensive and violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. They are unwarranted false claims, as I have now pointed out, for the record. They are dangerous false claims as they create a negative environment in Wikipedia that discourages contributors to articles from contributing work to them and that discourages reporting of potential copyright violations for fear of reprisal (which has already occurred) and which encourages anonymous IP users and others to rachet up the personal attacks. (See my user page; fortunately, I was busy working and didn't notice all the vandalism being done to it until administrators reverted the vandalism to my [user] page and blocked the offending anon. IP user.)

Too tired to deal with any of this any further. Shame, shame, shame on the filer of this so-called incident report. In my view, he or she invents an incident where none exists. Working hard to improve articles is not a violation of Wikipedia editing guidelines or policies; providing sources and objecting to potential copyright violations in uploaded media is not any such violation; it is requested by Wikipedia editing guidelines and policies. Engaging in discussion of highly-complex and disputed fair use rationales and licenses of these images is not "hyperediting." I have provided those who make decisions about whether to keep or to delete an image with the sources that I know of relating to them. It's up to the administrators to make a wise decision in keeping with all of WP:POL. Whatever it is, I will live with, and I hope that the decision does not lead down the road to administrative deletion of an article on which I have devoted a lot of time to improve. If it does, c'est la vie. I'll know better not to waste my time again in the future (I hope). --NYScholar (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

[I missed some typographical errors in previewing and am now too tired to hunt for and correct them further; there are some important ones; I hope that the mistyping will not be too confusing. I'm exhausted by all this. --NYScholar (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)]

¡Ay, caramba! - could we have an executive summary of that? I think it's cleary that NYScholar wants to contribute a lot to this project, and has done so. Also that efforts by some to change how he does so have not succeeded. Hmm.... Wikidemon (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll put it on the record that I have no problem with NYScholar editing at all, I think they improve a lot of content areas by participating in them, but their dealings with the community and in debates leave a lot to be desired and have been the focus of repeated attention. Orderinchaos 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If you guys or gals are going to make false statements about me (and Ecoleetage) etc., you are going to have to read the reply. This is outrageous. If you want to "change" how I (and please stop applying the male gender pronoun to a user whose gender you do not know) edit, on the basis of your own personal preferences, you are not acting in good faith. Don't go around casting aspersions on people and then complaining when they take the time to set the record straight. I am entitled to respond. Both Wikidemon and OrderinChaos tried to ban me from Wikipedia in the past, and failed in the attempt; they were overruled by administrative review. Apparently, they are still at it. Why don't you just let us do the work and stop this nonsense?

I'm leaving this page. What you are engaging in is, in my view, despicable. You want to talk about people behind their backs by frightening them out of responding because if they do, you will claim that they are not "changing" if they respond; well, you're not changing in continuing to make and renew the same old attacks. Don't instigate responses through baiting with false accusations. Having set the record straight, I am leaving this page. In my absence, please desist. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have personally had nothing but positive experiences with both NYScholar (mostly at the Heath Ledger article) and Ecoleetage. They are not out to destroy Wikipedia. They collaborate on many things, most importantly, they collaborate on making Wikipedia better. This is a travesty in my opinion that some would use collaboration as evidence of some sort of collusion. Bogus claims, as far as I can read. NYScholar, and Ecoleetage both have the interests of a fair and balanced Wikipedia in mind, to accuse otherwise is an astounding assumption of bad faith. Keeper ǀ 76 20:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As you can tell I've suffered some bizarre and unpleasant encounters with this editor before. As judged through the filter of reading the text he types out on the pages here his behavior is simply not normal. This isn't really a thing we need to debate or establish - it is so over the top, it is an elephant in the room so large that even those people who normally ignore elephants in the room see it. "Hyper-editing" is a useful and neutral term for it. And what is in those edits are obsessive corrections, perceived slights, boasts, put-downs, complaints, announcements of trivial personal details, digs at other editors, threats, insults, talk about process. There are some issues going on with the editing that are just not the usual things we deal with through our various content and behavior standards. I get the sense that using normal Wikipedia process to deal with it is about as useful as trying to catch a cloud with a fishhook. Wikidemon (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I think you should refrain from writing such comments without giving precise diffs, at least at illustrative purpose. Writing this is, from an external point of view, against the spirit of wp:civil vs this editor. Ceedjee (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Keeper, can I suggest you might look into the various archives because there have been pretty serious longterm issues with NYScholar that go back a long time, such that he was very nearly community banned. I can assure you that nothing written by Orderinchaos is "bogus" and I would ask you to do research this issue before condemning fellow admins acting in good faith. If the community now wishes to release NYScholar from his community imposed mentorship then so be it but I think you would agree that the community needs to do that, not two users on their own without even notifying the community of their intentions. Sarah 02:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I second this. Before accusing me of having some agenda, just *think* that I might be trying to improve the encyclopaedia by bringing this back-room defeat of a community decision to their attention. I thought this was resolved in July and was stunned to find out what I did yesterday, had to double-check several times to figure out what had actually taken place. Orderinchaos 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody should be accused of having an agenda.

Neverhteless, searching in archives is maybe not the question.

At each case, precise diffs refering to precise problematic behaviour should be given.

Ceedjee (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There are diffs in the opening post. If you follow the very first diff cited in the opening post you will find the archived discussion of the last ANI and there you will find more diffs to other discussions. The relevant diffs are all in the opening post, no one is asking you to go searching the archives. Sarah 23:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Now that I came back to find and correct a mistyped work and am momentarily here again:, I will just say thank you, Keeper. In the positive general meaning of the term, Wikipedia is a "collaborative" enterprise; that is the effect of editing in a "cooperative" manner, not in collusion; the collaborative nature of Wikipedia results from the open editing procedure. To change Wikipedia from a "collaboration" to "collusion" via false claims of "canvassing" (against Ecoleetage) is the opposite of this spirit of collaborative and cooperative self-less (un-self-interested) editing in Wikipedia. Some of the very same people who claimed in the last incident I was not "collaborative" are now claiming that I am too collaborative and colluding with another editor with whom I do not collude. (It's just plain nonesense to claim so: Ecoleetage and I developed a courteous relationship as a result of his volunteering to mentor/adopt me, which I thought was very generous on his part. You can't have it both ways, folks. Collaboration is not collusion; bringing an article in danger of deletion due to false claims of lack of notability to the attention of other hard-working editors who might help work on it is not "canvassing"; it is trying to improve the article so that other readers can perceive the notability of the subject, by dint of developing sources that illustrate its notability, which I what I did in part in developing some articles that were almost deleted. The work resulted in "keep" decision (by others), and in two new articles relating to the first one. That is an improvement to Wikipedia, not evidence of "collusion" or "canvassing": Again, the false arguments otherwise really violate Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Civility and WP:AGF. Again: shame on those making them. --NYScholar (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, this should not be perceived as a call for everyone who wants to to jump on me or Ecoleetage again or on anyone else to try to heap on more offensive and more unsupported allegations; or to dig up links to out-of-context comments (as OrderinChaos et al do), wrenching them out of context further to make them appear to say what they do not say. If this misdirected notice is not stopped and removed quickly, this so-called incident report could easily escalate and degenerate into such a further travesty, bringing who knows who out of the woodwork, including anon. IP users: all those who have nothing better to do than to play enforcer (of nothing) in false incident report noticeboards. I would suggest that the user who posted this thing (OrderinChaos), whose errors have been brought to his attention with complete clarity, strike out the whole thing: withdraw it. This pack of false allegations (lies) does not belong here. End it now, please. Withdraw it. OrderinChaos and Wikidemo: You are simply wrong. Wikidemo's allegations had no diffs. to support them in the past, and again they don't now. I regarded his/her perceptions as very odd. So what? --NYScholar (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: hyperediting: learn to live with other people's editing styles. My editing is directed toward improving an article. This "notice" is, however, "hyperincident-report-posting." What are you people doing here all the time? Don't you have anything better and more important and useful to do? I can't even remember how I noticed this notice was here (something came up in a watch list) but I do not routinely check this page, and it is not on my watch list. I cannot wait to delete it now. Bye. --NYScholar (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I found this, and supported Ecoleetage in their RfA, I wanted to make some points. (NYScholar might have said these already, but I couldn't even begin to navigate that essay.) 1) NY's support at the RfA is pretty far down the list- a lot of people had already commented. Think of it this way- if you discovered a user you knew was up for RfA, and you believed them to be qualified, wouldn't you support them? 2) Per NY's talk page, it's acceptable for users to remove posts from their own talk page. Look at that IP user's first post- I'd have deleted their posts, too. Also, if you look at that IP's talk, you'll see that NY was warning them, and they wound up blocked. They were deleting speedy tags and vandalizing his user page, for crying out loud! 3) I don't see why we're accusing this user of "hyperediting". Some people don't make all of their changes in one fell swoop. I've been known to rack up half a dozen consecutive edits on a page by fixing sections at a time. These issues aren't major problems in need of administrator attention. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeremy, I'm not sure that you understand. NYScholar was placed under community sanctions (community imposed mentorship) in large put due to his hyperediting and the disruption he was causing on talk pages. This is why Orderinchaos outlined several issues that ordinarily wouldn't be a problem but are in this case. We all agree that NYScholar is a good content contributor but unfortunately the area there has been serious problems is in collaborating with other users, something that is unavoidable on Wikipedia. However, the issue here is the community imposed mentorship which Ecoleetage and NYScholar apparently decided amongst themselves to cancel without discussing it with the community or even informing the community. Two users can't just overturn a community imposed sanction. Sarah 02:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Trust is the basis on which we proceed. If trust is undermined, then a lot more of these kind of issues end up out of the community's hands and being dealt with by ArbCom. For the record, if the issues had been dealt with in a mentorship which followed acceptable standards and demonstrated progress, we wouldn't be here at all. Orderinchaos 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is you were put under a community imposed mentorship in order to be unblocked and avoid being community banned. If you want the mentorship to be revoked then you need to come back and ask the community, you and Ecoleetage can't just overturn a community sanction on your own. Also, AGF works both ways, you know. Sarah 02:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Point of information: Sarah: you are addressing me as if I were here to see what you wrote; I wasn't here; I've been working on something else for several hours, and just noticed you all still talking here and this address to me as if you were answering me and I would see it: I just saw your post, and I haven't had time to read anything between my previous post and yours just above this. See below. --NYScholar (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah: I was not "sanctioned"; I was asked to be adopted by a mentor and that is all. That is what I did. Sarah: Really, by now, you should know better. No one "overturned" anything. Ecoleetage told me that he asked permission to end the adoption by the ruling administrator in that matter, and did so and notified him. See my talk page archive 22, where he informed me and there may be replies re: that on his talk page (in its history if not still there). There was absolutely no time limit imposed re: the adoption (the term) and the administrator gave me an option to have only an "informal" adoption--read the archived discussion--to avoid there being a template, but I said I didn't mind the formal adoption and posting of the formal template. I really do not know what Sarah is getting at here, but I know that I accepted being adopted and that I had nothing to do with Ecoleetage telling me that he had decided to end it. He notified me of that. The only contact that I have had with Ecoleetage is archived on my own talk page, on my current talk page, or on his user and talk pages and in the editing history of his talk page, if he deleted my comments from time to time. Having to comment here and on other talk pages when asked to or provoked (as in this case) to reply to outlandish and false allegations, unreliable and false memories backed up by nothing but false memory, and so on undoes the advice that I got from Ecoleetage: not to comment so much on talk pages. As you see, such notices posted behind my back as this one make that hard advice to follow.

I was not notified on my talk page of this incident report in this noticeboard; I can't remember now how I learned of it; OrderinChaos has posted a notification of courtesy to Ecoleetage (see his talk page) but not to me.  ?????

I will read the comments above Sarah's perhaps later. But you (Sarah) and others are just waving about false allegations that aren't even backed up by the evidence of the adoption requirement on my own talk page; if you go to my "block log" you will see what the administrator posted as a "requirement" or condition for me to remain editing Wikipedia (if I wanted or want to) and that he states that I accepted it; if you go to my archive talk page, you will see my interaction about this adoption with him, and then with Ecoleetage. Everything we discussed is there. I have also archived my exchange with Ecoleetage about the RfA "request" that he made to me, taking it from the editing history of my current talk page. I am still using the bot to archive my talk page, though sometimes it seemed not to be functioning as set up and intended. I've asked for assistance with fixing it if something is wrong. The closing administrator in the last incident explicitly told me, however, that the archiving bot was a suggestion and recommendation, not a requirement. There was only one requirement and that was adoption, I accepted that, I was adopted, and it was left up to the adopter to decide how long it would be. There was no specified time. I don't mind being adopted; but I do mind your casting aspersions on both me and the adopter as if we've done something in "collusion" or wrong, when we have not. Everything is above board. The violations of Wikipedia user policies and guidelines going on here boggle the mind; as administrators you all know what they are, and yet you continually make false accusations, misstate actual situations, invent things that didn't happen, and attack my being an editor who edits in good faith: again: see WP:AGF. What is going on here? --NYScholar (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "sanctioned": I have reviewed my archived 21 and see that "sanctioned" as used there refers to a "block"; I am not an administrator, and I do not always remember the lingo used by administrators; I was required to be adopted by the conditions of a "block" placed by User:John Carter (see my talk page archive 21), and, as soon as an adopter came forward to adopt me, I accepted the offer to be adopted by him (User:Ecoleetage); I've provided links to the exchanges between John Carter and me below, in reply to comments by ThuranX, which distort what actually occurred and claim the opposite of what occurred, claiming that I was "reluctant" to accept the adoption; that is entirely untrue and unsubstantiated and proved false by the archive exchange in archive page 21. --NYScholar (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Message from Eco Lee Tage I was hoping not to come back, as I am trying to take an extended Wikibreak due to personal problems that I need to address offline -- and the very last thing I need at this point in time is melodramatic distraction. Based on what I am reading here, however, I need to step back and answer some matters.

First, when I received permission from John Carter to "adopt" NYScholar, I received no parameters, rules or time limits on mentorship. Nor did I receive any instructions that I had to report to any person or entity that the mentorship was concluded. The statement "if you want the mentorship to be revoked then you need to come back and ask the community" is specifically not Wikipedia policy in regard to WP:BLOCK (as the adoption was linked to NYScholar's unblocking), nor was it part of my communications with the blocking admin in this case. Without specific instructions, I chose to exercise my rights as the adoptive editor and state that I did all I could for NYScholar.

The decision to conclude the mentorship was solely my decision, based on what I saw as NYScholar's positive contributions to the project and the appreciation of other editors to his work, most notably Keeper76's unusually strong praise. Keeper is not one to give out praise lightly, so his endorsement convinced me that there was no reason to keep the "adoption" going. Based on this editor's writing and referencing skills, and the manner in which he was interacting with other editors, it was my editorial judgment that NYScholar no longer required mentoring. Perhaps he requires muzzling, given his propensity to use 5,000 words when five would be sufficient. (That is a joke, by the way.)

Since nobody gave me directions on the mentorship, I find it odd that we are getting after-the-fact attempts to re-open a closed and resolved case and bring new punishment on someone who has already been held up to ridicule by his peers and blocked.

Furthermore, the mentorship concluded a month ago -- you people just noticed it now?

I also want to take a moment to address a comment made by one of the editors who felt NYScholar's "behavior is simply not normal." Not normal? This man has not brought physical, emotional or professional injury to any member of this project. He talks too much? Yeah, tell me something I don't know. His editing is overly exuberant? Uh, yeah, I know that, too. And do you know what the cited article, Czesława_Kwoka, is about? I originally rallied to save that article from deletion -- it is the story of a young girl who perished in the Holocaust. The main reason that article has been preserved and went on to win DYK honours is because NYScholar took his time and energy to expand the article's sourcing and provide it with content that ensured that poor child's life story wouldn't be erased from our pages. I don't recall any of NYScholar's accusers lifting a finger to help save that article. Thank you, NYScholar -- because of you, and solely because of you, that poor child did not have to die a second time by having her memory erased.

If there is any shred of decency out there, drop this matter immediately. This does not contribute to the betterment of the project in any way, shape or form. And if anyone here who finds fault with NYScholar want to make him a better editor, I happily invite them to step up to the proverbial plate, "adopt" him and find success where you feel that I failed.

I am now returning to my Wikibreak. If you need to reach me, please contact me by e-mail since I will not be returning to these pages for some time. Thank you, and please be nice to each other. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ecoleetage. I see that Ecoleetage (who I know to be male from his self-description on his website and only from that) also assumes that I am a man. [I meant to type user page in last sent.; I don't know if he has a website; my only interaction w/ him is via our Wikipedia talk pages. --Ed. (NYS)] Even Ecoleetage does not know my gender. I can't believe how all of you regard this attack on both Ecoleetage and me to be reasonable or even "normal" (using a word he quotes from a comment that I haven't seen yet). May I just remind everyone again that scholars may be male or female. Re: the Holocaust-related article: I have done some specialized literary-related research pertaining to the Holocaust and given a paper at a major scholarly conference on the Holocaust, so the closely-interrelated subjects of Kwoka and then Wilhelm Brasse and The Portraitist became very interesting to work on and, because of (in my view) enormous importance as human rights issues (another subject of my work outside of Wikipedia), it became very important to me to make these articles well-documented and reliable and in keeping with Wikipedia's core policies and editing guidelines. The problems with the images are of concern to me because I fear that if they are not properly uploaded with all the proper licenses and proper fair-use rationales or whatever they need, down the road some administrator will come along and delete the whole article on Kwoka; I have taken it as a challenge to improve the Kwoka article and to create and develop the other two, but it is not a "personal" matter; it is an editorial matter. I am a very conscientious responsible editor (in actual life) and take such work very seriously. Perhaps that does not seem "normal" to others; but I also have devoted many, many hours to getting these articles where they are and I would not like that work to be lost to Wikipedia and other Wikipedia readers (as is the case w/ all the articles that I work on). My professional work is described in general terms in an archived talk page answer to someone who said I didn't have the degrees that I do have and so on. That too was highly offensive. Re: the anon IP user recently blocked: I rarely delete things from my current talk page; but that just seemed unnecessary to bear, and look what that anon IP user did to my user and talk pages afterward. I was unaware until administrators had reverted the changes bec. there is no orange bar for changes to a user page it seems. I was happy to have missed all that aggravation. --NYScholar (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What "waving"? I am so tired of your false accusations and AGF violations. I've hardly said anything and, in fact, am barely even on Wikipedia these days. I'm sorry but you were sanctioned. You were indefinitely blocked and required to undergo mentorship. If the community feels you no longer need mentorship, fine, I don't really care either way (although I think the screeds you've been posting here and elsewhere as linked by Orderinchaos indicate otherwise) but you can't just revoke a community imposed mentorship on your own. You have to come back here and tell the community and be willing to discuss it. It's most unfortunate that you insist on posting these incredibly long rants because all you're doing is making it incredibly unlikely that uninvolved admins will bother to step in and review it. And that's unfortunate for all parties. I would suggest, if you think you no longer need to be mentored, that you start a new SHORT section stating so so that it can be reviewed by uninvolved users. Sarah 22:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Follow up SHORT(er) section [Well, it was....]

• From the top of this project page noticeboard:
  

Welcome to the incident noticeboard. This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators. Any user of Wikipedia may post here.

Please keep your comments civil and please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting. As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting (you may use the There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. template to do so). Please make your comments concise, as administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes. Please use neutral section titles that identify the user(s) or article(s) involved, as appropriate.
This noticeboard is a busy and vital part of Wikipedia's administration. Complaints that are not serious and substantiated requests for administrator intervention do not belong here. Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion.

Before posting a grievance about a user here, it is advised that you take it up with them on their user talk page.

1. I apologize for not being concise. I did not see the request for being "concise" until after I posted my long replies. The replies are long because of the unfounded and unsupported claims being made initially by Orderinchaos (at top of this long section).
2. OrderinChaos did not take his "grievance" up with me prior to posting this "notice".
3. OrderinChaos did not post any link to this notice to me to let me know that it was here. I came upon it by accident.
4. None of those posting their current (in some cases not concise either) comments making claims about a past incident (not this one) are posting any "diffs." links. The links in Orderinchao's first post here go to pages, not "diffs." If he examined the actual diffs., he would see that in one instance I moved an item intact to the appropriate article talk page (it was not deleted it was moved); the subsequent edits document that, and I refer to my clear notice in the "N.B." section to the poster in doing that. It was not deleted it was moved.
5. There is no truth whatsoever to the claims of "collusion" between the voluntary adopter Ecoleetage and me; that is patently untrue. My own talk page and archive pages 21 and 22 includes all comments by him and me posted there, and the whole history of our interaction. His practice is to delete old exchanges from his talk page, but they can be found in the editing history there. I am not responsible for his maintenance of his own talk page.
6. I will not be bullied into not responding to false accusations with continued complaints about the length of a response. If it takes time and space to respond, I am doing so. This is not a "rant" or a "screed" (and those are scare quotes). This is a reply.
7. It violates WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF to characterize another editor's sincere reply as a "rant" and to malign the person for having replied.

--NYScholar (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• After a problem involving editing of The Dark Knight (which I have not edited since and would not touch with a ten-foot pole), I posted a kind message to Sarah. I will look for the "diffs." to it and post the link here in a moment. I was actually shocked to see Sarah's first and subsquent comments here. I posted the kind message to Sarah while Ecoleetage was my adopter, having learned from him the value of compassion and small acts of kindness. (Be back in a moment.) --NYScholar (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It will take a while longer for me to find the comments via editing history or an archive at Sarah's talk page. I will also post the "diffs." link to the item in OrderinChaos's first post here. Please bear with me. [I corrected the above link to the article on the film so it doesn't go to the disambig. page.] --NYScholar (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the Diffs. from the editing history of July 16, 2008, containing my thank you post to Sarah; I learned how to use that "smile" template from my early interaction with Ecoleetage. I posted smiles to him around that time for his guidance at the time, but posting the smile to Sarah was my own idea and not discussed with him in any way at all. I was applying what I was learning from reading his talk page and seeing how he interacted then (July 2008) with other Wikipedians. I admired and tried to emulate his example of civility and kindness. I am only familiar with him from that point in summer 2008 until now, as documented in my talk page archives 21 and 22 and current talk page, not yet archived by the bot (which I hope is working okay again now). Sarah placed my post to her and her reply to me in her archive 17, which can be found via her current talk page and which also contains earlier archived exchanges from before my adoption by Ecoleetage.

Note: At the time I posted that, I expected to be away from Wikipedia for an extended period of time; but that was the period of time coincidentally that the film The Dark Knight was released and, as a "major contributor," I continued to edit Heath Ledger in order to update it and keep it up to date; one link would lead to another in Wikipedia as I added sources, and I would find myself making corrections and adding sources to other articles; around that time I was interacting with my then new adopter and attempting to follow his example in my editing. In the past month, I have not been "adopted"; after Ecoleetage suggested that I take a look at a few articles, I got involved in editing them and creating a couple of related articles. I will probably take a break now, due to exhaustion from the process of editing those articles and the upset caused by this "incident" notice. --NYScholar (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sarah, OrderinChaos, Wikidemo and others were involved in the previous incident, but this situation is not that situation, and if they are going to ask for a block of me or a ban of me, they are required to post "diffs." in an official action of some kind. In my view, on the basis of my editing of Wikipedia since my adoption, any such action would fail. They seem to be engaging here in instigating a punitive block (not in keeping with block policy) or ban, but, again, I do not see how any such thing is warranted. As I stated way above and as Ecoleetage and Keeper have also stated, OrderinChaos's initial post and subsequent ones by others are entirely unwarranted and this whole thing should be dropped and expunged. It is not I nor Ecoleetage nor Keeper who looks bad here, but other administrators (Keeper is an admin.) who are not even able to follow the instructions given at the top of this page (just quoted). I may be wordy, but being wordy is not a punishable act in Wikipedia; my intention is not "disruption"; my intention when I comment is the opposite: clarification to the benefit of Wikipedia and other Wikipedians and Wikipedia readers. --NYScholar (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I recognize the poster below as another one of my main detractors from the past already-resolved incident (which again is not this "incident" that is being listed by OrderinChaos, without "diffs.", which I have been unable to locate that refer to what he is talking about); the one posting below (ThuranX) also has done so frequently in the past incident without posting actual "Diffs." and constantly makes repeated accusations without backing them up with "Diffs."; that is not what this project noticeboard is for; and it is also not for dredging up past documented situations as if they still are happening. They aren't.

Big LIE (another) [by ThuranX] below in another subsection just added; I added the subheading: I did not "reluctantly" accept mentoring; I wholeheartedly and completely accepted it, even turning down an offer from User:John Carter to allow an informal adoption and no template of adoption; I accepted a formal adoption offer and the formal adoption template was posted. --NYScholar (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link (made linkable for purposes of linking here) from the automatic-bot archived sec of my archive page 21: [21] Hope it works. --NYScholar (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link to the [automatic-bot-]archived section (mostly about the archivingbot that I am voluntarily using (not a requirement); the adopttion is discussed in section above it): Response to John Carter; we were working together to try to develop the best archiving bot for the situation. Frequently, it archives things out of chronological order, and it hasn't been doing anything lately, so I've had to doing some archiving after material has been there 2 days myself at times, or straighten out the chronological order of archived things.]. I'll see if [Diffs.] are accessible from my current talk page editing history, though I don't think it's necessary for me to post them. It is, however, necessary, for the initiating user (OrderinChaos) to post them so people know what he's referring to and can follow the previous and next edits. The bot was doing the archiving after mid-July 2008, not me, except for recent problems w/ its functioning. I've asked for help w/ it but none has arrived yet. --NYScholar (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

[Note: Adding another arbitrary break below. See Sarah's suggestion re: SHORT; mine is only "SHORT(er)"; due to the additional comments added by ThuranX; it became longer; I don't know what "Tl;dr" means. Perhaps someone will translate it into English for me. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)]

Tl;dr. Didn't have to, NYScholar is back to NYScholar's old tricks. NYScholar again with the proclamation that NYScholar never does wrong, everyone else just doesn't understand what they themselves say, and so we should all listen to NYScholar . I note that NYScholar began by interrupting others comments, a behavior that has come up before as inappropriate. NYScholar then decided to fill two screens with a lengthy, platitude and vapid nothings filled response playing the innocent (to the specific nature of the restrictions previously instituted), and victim to a group who just want to get NYScholar. It goes downhill from there. When confronted with 'Mentorship or community ban', NYScholar reluctantly accepted mentorship, only to be rapidly released from it to engage in more behavior of at best dubious ethical style. Again NYScholar protests, feigns cluelessness, which can't have happened, given how many policies were thrown in NYScholar's direction during previous troubles. By now, NYScholar should be aware that NYScholar should be editing and acting in a cautious nature when unsure, and should follow up with questions when unsure, instead of more bold editing, which so often gets NYScholar in trouble. It seems clear that the troubles NYScholar regularly stirs up are of greater weight than the edits done, which so often go undiscussed and cause trouble. I therefore support a community ban. All other avenues of recourse having been tried, and the clear demonstration of a lack of desire to comply being evident, there's no choice left but to 'ask' NYScholar to leave this project for greener pastures. ThuranX (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• The above poster is distorting documented facts; see my comment above this section (posted while I was still writing it) and notice the lack of "diffs.". This is terrible. --NYScholar (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Blah Blah blah 'diffs'. This is nice, and would this be some infantile payback for the 'diffs' problem last time around? face up to things. You have a problem interacting with others. You're unwilling to listen to others about this problem. You have an arrogance problem. You don't believe you need to listen to others about this problem. You don't think you're wrong, and know you don't need to listen to others about this problem. As such, I stand by my assertion. As for diffs, the above, and previously linked archives support my contentions just fine, I see no value in reposting all those links again. ThuranX (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, ThuranX: But if you would actually read the archived section with the exchanges between User:John Carter and me and between User:Ecoleetage (my adopter from mid-July to first week of August--about 3 weeks), you would see that they already contain the "diffs." and everything is archived. This procedure (AN/I) requires posting of "diffs." to back up any accusations against another Wikipedia user/editor; you are not doing that now, and you did not do that before. I am not "arrogant"; I am fair, serious-minded, a good-faith editor, and I contribute important and well-documented content to Wikipedia. Your opinion of me is your opinion. Apparently, you were not able to "get over" the AN/I that I initiated about another user to whom you refer as "Stu"; Stu apologized to me, and I accepted his apology; he offered to be "sanctioned" himself, but you and others supported no one sanctioning him. It's all discussed in the archived discussion in my archive page 21, linked to above. Please do not use uncivil and offensive language in your editing summaries; and please explain what your abbreviations at the beginning of your post above mean. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

thank you for agreeing that it's all already linked. that means I don't have to link it all again. There's your interpretation of previous events, which you harangue about here, and there's the interpretation of your behavior which I, Sarah, steve, erik, and numerous others saw. Its' really that simple. I've said my piece here about your constant wikilawyering, arrogance, and general inability to socialize here in a way conducive to editing. I leave it to others to either agree, and put an end to your tenure here, or to find some OTHER other other way of getting your to behave. ThuranX (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: WP:BB: I do not follow that at all. I do not really accept "bold editing" as worthwhile. I follow WP:POL not qualified by WP:BB. I have never said to anyone "be bold" and I have never tried to "be bold" myself; I have tried to follow WP:MOS when I can (though it is often difficult to understand and inconsistent): see discussion re: that between me and Keeper in Talk:Heath Ledger, now probably archived. It can be found in the editing history. --NYScholar (talk) 03:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember how to code Keeper's user name; I'll try to fix it later. Scroll up to Keeper's comments (way up) in the meantime. I'll add the section later if that helps. --NYScholar (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the exchange from the archived page 9 of Talk:Heath Ledger Please correct typographical error]: It was a request while the article was fully protected from editing due to repeated acts of vandalism throughout its history; it has been either fully protected or partly protected since January 22, 2008, the day Ledger died, and it was frequently protected at various times before that (if I recall). I have edited it between Jan. 2008 and now. It is an article that I have contributed a lot of time and energy to keeping well-documented. It was the biographical article on Ledger that first led me to the article The Dark Knight, which I began working on and encountered a group of editors who specialize in film editing (it seems to me) who know one another and who did not appreciate my working on the article and drove me away from editing it, via the AN/I that is being referred to throughout this current AN/I discussion. --NYScholar (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I was not "released" from mentorship; Ecoleetage canceled it, as was his prerogative. The only reason that I am commenting here is because of the outrageousness of Orderinchaos's claims in the top posts. All the rest of this stuff relates to a resolved matter. Where are the "diffs." to current matters. My comments in response here to others' false statements are not cause for "sanctioning" me; those who make false statements and statements without "diffs." need "sanctioning"; see WP:AGF and WP:NPA and WP:AN/I (this page at top). Please don't just jump on a bandwagon; read the top of the section and from then on first. I responded and no one is reading what I said earlier. Read Ecoleetage's replies and Keeper's replies. This is not a matter of "supporters"; they are simply replying to the outrageous comments of previous posters here. --NYScholar (talk) 06:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• For what Orderinchaos has initially claimed (and been refuted) see top of this AN/I. It was filed by Orderinchaos who did not discuss anything relating to it with me on my talk page before doing so and did not notify me of this AN/I involving me after doing so. I found it, as I say above, by accident. --NYScholar (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keeper posted comments about this current AN/I a couple of days ago, saying that it appears to be a "travesty" and suggesting that it be dropped, as has Ecoleetage, who also sets the record straight re: the adoption. (Apparently, John Carter had not required Ecoleetage to consult with him when Ecoleetage thought it time to "cancel" the adoption, in part based on my then current editing and engaging with other Wikipedians and Keeper's praise of it; Ecoleetage simply informed me that he was canceling it, and I thought that meant that he was canceling it via John Carter; apparently, it was not a condition of my adoption that there be a time period or that the adopter inform the blocking administrator of the time when it was canceled. I was adopted by Ecoleetage from mid-July to the first week of August, about 3 weeks (which I refer to as "briefly"); actually 3 weeks is fairly standard for some adoptions, I learned when looking at adoption information in Wikipedia. Their time frame varies. Please scroll up to their comments. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• As I have already communicated, the only thing about Ecoleetage's initial telling me that he was nominated in an RfA that I was concerned about, as I express in my "support" of it, was that he couldn't perhaps serve after the end of the adoption to advise me about Wikipedia matters anymore, because he might become too busy as an administrator, and that he wouldn't have time to contribute to content of articles. The charge by Orderinchaos was of "collusion"; both Ecoleetage and I and Keeper have most emphatically said that charge to be false. Everything was entirely above board, and everything in my talk page exchanges with Ecoleetage is either still current or archived. --NYScholar (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

[NOTE: I have to go offline for personal reasons and can no longer comment in this space. --NYScholar (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)]

To me this seems like beating up NYscholar to take out enmity against Ecoleetage. NY is a good contributor, who has done many good things for this projects. So what if the mentorship was terminated without consensus? Did any evil come of it? Provide a link to one bad thing that is a direct effect of the termination of the mentorship. Having trouble? That's because there isn't one. Come on, ANI is for serious things that require the attention of admins, not silly squabbles over non-issues like this. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 04:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you get that idea from. I have never had anything to do with Ecoleetage, never participated in his RfA and don't know enough about him to have an opinion about him either way and I don't the other admins and editors have had anything to do with Ecoleetage either so your claim is a rather poor show of ABF, IMO. I'm really rather astounded that anyone could look at NYScholar's posts to this page and conclude that the problem is everyone else. Sarah 05:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

An outside opinion: I remember the last AN/I report involving NYScholar very clearly. Sara and ThuranX have accurately characterized the problems with NYS here. NYScholar accuses others of bad faith motives while simultaneously demanding good faith in return in page after page of prose. He or she gets angry if an editor innocently refers to her or him with any particular pronoun that may portray one sex or the other. The editor edits profusely contributing pages, mostly to talkpages, while at the same time disingenuously claims to be "too busy" in real life to edit here at all, especially when others request his or her attention. These issues were brought forth on the last report. These issues still exist. There was no justification that I can see for NYS to be released from mentorship, and I would hope if NYS continues to edit here, that one of his or her supporters would consider continuing the mentorship. Aunt Entropy (talk) 06:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

We are not supposed to be relying on your or anyone else's "memory" in this proceeding; scroll up to the instructions; if you have a specific and current complaint: please file links to "Diffs." as the instructions say and as other admininistrators have asked everyone complaining to do. Thank you. (I do not feel well and will be offline.)--NYScholar (talk) 06:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A "diff" you say�? Well, you don't exactly make it easy. Here, in the last paragraph of your edit, you told us you would no longer respond to this page. That is disingenuous. Below, you show bad faith of Sarah, accusing her of "baiting" you and vindictiveness, lack of compassion while also complaining of the editorial environment here. Then you accuse her of personal attacks without proof while simultaneously demanding diffs from her and me. Now that is chutzpah. Aunt Entropy (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

PRESENT AN/I not past; read what comes above. And see last post. --NYScholar (talk) 06:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sarah's comments: As in the past, she makes statements, does not provide "diffs." to support them, baits me into responding, and then complains that I respond or how I respond or at what length I respond. Everyone can examine my own talk page archive to see at what length she has posted comments to me. She has been now and in the past one of the reasons why I do not feel well; the continuing attacks, the unfairness of them, the lack of humane compassion, and the sheer and utter outrageousness of the ongoing vindictiveness both against Ecoleetage (scroll way up) by those who were involved in commenting on his RfA long before I went to the page and against me is beyond chutzpah. It is hardly a way to improve the environment in Wikipedia. At this point, I wonder if those continuing to engage in such machinations should themselves be under review. Please desist. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have filed a request for review of what is going on here in Requests for Arbitration. I do not feel well (have a terrible headache from all this), and have asked for relief. I have too much of a headache now to find the link to the Arbitration request. It's currently at the bottom of the pile. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 06:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's called "the first step" in such a process at Wikietiquette Alerts: [22]. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder and possible legal threats

Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs) seems to have made a new legal threat (or promise of action) on his talk page. I'm not sure whether this is a problem, but considering past problems with this editor maybe this should be reviewed. I brought it to the attention of the person who unblocked him and the person who blocked him previously. Verbal chat 17:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is just blatant disruption now. There will be no more NLT blocks, and I suggest a permanent ban for disruption. As the unblocking admin, I have reblocked Guido indefinitely, but I think, due to the complex issues involved, the proper length of this block should be decided here. My personal opinion is that it is not appropriate to keep suing editors, regardless of if the language prefix is nl or en. This is not contributing to the collaborative environment we want on the Wikimedia sites. Prodego ^talk 18:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

For more info on Guido, please consult the WP:COIN archives here:-/ SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I presume that this is the edit that has prompted this section? If that notice had had "person" rather than "Wikipedian" in the text, would we be having this discussion? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw a thread a while back posted by him on one of the noticeboards - apparently despite the other person happening to be a wikipedia user, this is not actually arising from something that happened on-wiki. --Random832 (contribs) 19:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it have been better to keep it off wiki, and just announce a wikibreak in that case? Regardless, it's on wiki and he should have known better. Verbal chat 20:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

See my comment below. If I was ever unfortunate enough to be taking legal action (it does happen you know), I wouldn't want to be judged under the current overly-broad interpretation of NLT. The aim was always to stop people using legal threats to influence article content and to influence the actions of other editors. Simply leaving a note like that is not, in my opinion, a legal threat. Who feels threatened after reading the edit Guido made? Carcharoth (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone that ever interacts with him. Verbal chat 21:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That's being over-sensitive. WP:NLT doesn't mean block litigatious editors because they are litigatious. It means block them if they threaten legal action related to Wikipedia, or a user's actions on Wikipedia, not any old off-wiki dispute. There are many litigatious editors on Wikipedia who don't make legal threats concerning Wikipedia, but who would be very quick to litigate against you in situations off Wikipedia (eg. if you failed to pay your rent). The WP:NLT nutshell is misleading because it says "threats of legal action to resolve disputes", but the lead section says "legal threats or [...] legal action over a Wikipedia dispute" (my emphasis). Carcharoth (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

He didn't state it wasn't a wikipedia dispute, there is no information, and I wasn't referring to policy but trying to answer the question you ended your post with. The user should be blocked until this is sorted out, and that shouldn't be a problem as they're on a wikibreak. If someone was to talk about people they sued who are also on wikipedia I think admins and the arbcom might get involved in that too (hypothetical). I'm off to bed now - it's late here. Best, Verbal chat 22:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I can make out, he is trying to abide by the NLT policy, not breach it (the edit summary said "temporarily unavailable in accordance with policy"). Prodego, the "disruption" charge is too easily bandied about. A case could be made that blocking people for vague and ill-defined reasons disrupts the collaborative editing environment. There should be something specific you can point to, rather than saying that your personal patience is exhausted. And SheffieldSteel, bringing up the COIN thread from April is not helpful. That was nearly 5 months ago. Have you reviewed Guido's more recent contributions? Carcharoth (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

From looking through Guido's recent edits, I came across this discussion, which may shed some light on the matter. I think Guido realised that he needed to either drop the matter, or go on a wikibreak to deal with the matter. He seem to have chosen the latter course of action, and I think people are over-reacting to the message he left. Carcharoth (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If you do choose to use legal action or threats of legal action to resolve disputes, you will not be allowed to continue editing until it is resolved and your user account or IP address may be blocked. And he's not editing...Someguy1221 (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, suing two wikipedians, at two separate times is not something to ignore. We can't just let people go about suing anyone who disagrees with them! Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative project. If you can't collaborate without suing people that is most certainly disruption of the worst kind. Prodego ^talk 20:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If what GdB is suing over does relate to the discussion at my talkpage, per Carcharoth's link above, then my understanding is that it does not involve an editing dispute. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"bringing charges" says to me more than just "suing". Though that might just be something being lost in translation due to use of a non-native language. To my ear, "bringing charges" implies criminal proceedings, and not just legal ones through civil law (I know they are both legal, but still). I think if things get to that stage (and I'm not saying things have - we don't really know what is going on here), with really serious accusations being made, then WP:NLT no longer applies, but a break from editing is still common sense. And, as others have pointed out, making unsubstantiated accusations, even if later substantiated, is a personal attack. Carcharoth (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you know who he is suing? Is he suing them because they disagree with him? From what I can tell, NLT applies to using legal threats to influence on-wiki disputes. eg. "If you revert me I will sue you", or "If you block me, I will sue you" (please don't say I have to point out these are hypothetical examples I'm giving here). If there is an off-wiki legal dispute that happens to involve another Wikipedian, the situation is far less clear. As far as I can tell, he is mainly in dispute with Dutch Wikipedians, such as User:SterkeBak and User:Oscar, the former over some allegations about wikisage (a wiki Guido appears to have set up), and the latter over some mentorship thing. The dispute with Oscar was demonstrably on a wikipedia (the Dutch one). The allegations against SterkeBak concerns a, private, non-WMF wiki, but Guido has brought that dispute here and to meta. Not a good idea, but have a look at the advice LessHeard vanU gave Guido. That would have been a better way to handle this, and it seems Guido took that advice and the situation was handled. Well, until User:SesquipedalianVerbiage (Verbal chat) raised the issue here - presumably, as he edits alternative medicine topics, he had Guido's talk page watchlisted. Carcharoth (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't watchlisted until this, I got there following a comment I thought strange on a watchlisted article which took me to a page GdB used to edit, and from there to him, where I saw this very strange comment - I then brought it up with admins and here for review, after looking at his bock log and recent history. I wasn't aware of the COIN stuff. He's been blocked and I agree with that view, he should be blocked until this is resolved. If it's off wiki he should have left it off wiki. The fact is we don't know and by posting on talk pages he's brought it on wiki. Also, I agree with JzG below. Verbal chat 21:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that Guido should be, and remain, blocked, until his dispute, whatever it is, is settled. It's not just the legal threats and apparent over-reactions, it's the numerous other disputes which are being flagged up on his talk page as well. Time for a break, I think. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Blocking users who seek a fair on-wiki treatment is i.m.h.o. completely stupid. Assume good faith was the main pillar of wikipedias... where has that gone? I only see in GdB a user who is sometimes somewhat critical (fortuntely!), but in this case the point is that GdB gets blocked for living up to the rules wikipedia provided.... therefor please unblock a.s.a.p. DTBone (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• No, I believe he is being aggressive and pursuing legal action against others. That is a problem. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• It depends what others and for what reasons. You should be able to cite a specific user and a specific legal threat and a specific way in which it affects Wikipedia's article content. A legal threat against a non-Wikipedian does not count. A legal threat concerning non-Wikipedia matters (eg. actions on other websites) does not count. Let's take a more concrete example. If someone with an account at a Wikia wiki was in a legal dispute with Jimbo over matters involving the Wikia wiki, that alone, in my opinion, would not be a valid reason to block their Wikipedia account. If the legal dispute was discussed here (it shouldn't be, but sometimes people can't stop themselves), and both parties (Jimbo and this other account) participated in the discussion, then, yes, both parties (including Jimbo) would be skating on pretty thin ice due to having brought a legal dispute on-wiki. If the discussion of an off-wiki legal dispute has a chilling effect here, then something does need to be done. In some sense, Guido is pretty blameless in this - it is those who have started and perpetuated this thread that are more problematic, in that this thread is bringing far more attention to the issues than Guido's talk page post - I haven't found the earlier threads yet. In other words, there needs to be a clearer distinction between: (A) mentioning and discussing here (on wiki) legal matters about off-wiki stuff (eg. I'm suing User:X for what he said about me on this random website); (B) mentioning and discussing here (on wiki) legal matters about on-wiki actions (eg. I'm suing User:X because he blocked me); and (C) mentioning and discussing here (on wiki) legal matters about on-wiki content (eg. WP:NFCC and WP:COPYVIO and WP:BLP discussions). The response to (A) should simply be "That's nothing to do with us. Please stop talking about this here." (this response is needed even if there are no threats involved - off-topic stuff is disruptive, full-stop). The response to (B) should be to block. And (C) is perfectly normal. Even though most people participating in such discussions are not lawyers, they are discussing legal issues such as copyright and fair use, seen through the filter of our policies. The worry is that the "threat" part of WP:NLT is being watered down, and now even the mention of legal action is considered threatening (or chilling) enough for action to be taken. In some cases, yes, but, in my opinion, not this one. Maybe this discussion should continue at WT:NLT. But as far as I'm concerned, if Guido returns and says everything has been sorted now, then he can be unblocked, unless someone can demonstrate that there is a visible tendency to initiate legal action that is having a chilling effect, and even then I'd be wary of going down that route. The only reason some people now know Guido might have this litigatious nature is because people keep talking about it. In some ways, that is a good argument to present to people: "don't fling legal threats around, because even if unblocked, you may get a "reputation" for such actions and it will be very difficult for you to get rid of that reputation". Carcharoth (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Letter from Chris Selwood to the community

With respect toward all, I ask that we keep an open mind and refrain from speculation at the present time. Being bold and collapsing for now. Durova^Charge! 05:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Seconded--Tznkai (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the archiving of the whole thread, though if someone wants to re-archive the letter, please feel free. This is a very serious issue (especially the checkuser aspect) and it needs to be aired. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 05:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have received this letter from Chris Selwood, the boyfriend of the women shown across Wikiprojects as "Taxwoman": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Chrisselwood I've been asked to share it here, and reprint it in full:

Two years ago, I was informed that pictures of my girlfriend were on Wikipedia on a profile of a person calling them self “taxwoman”. I did not really understand what Wikipedia was about at the time. I looked at the site and yes found pictures of my girlfriend and the profile they were on was called taxwoman. The worst thing for my girlfriend and I was the fact that the majority of articles taxwoman had contributed to were of a sexual nature and mostly to do with the subject and paraphernalia relating to BDSM and bondage. Several articles had a line saying “with picture of myself” obviously the picture was of my girlfriend and not the person writing the article. As previously stated I did not understand what Wikipedia was about or how the site worked, so I started to delete the pictures of my girlfriend. I soon received messages within the site about vandalism etc. I replied to these messages explaining that taxwoman was using pictures of my girlfriend and how could I put a stop to this. At first I was met with the question from the administrator about how could he know that I was telling the truth? I replied that we would take a picture of my girlfriend holding a card stating the she was not taxwoman. During this time I e-mailed taxwoman through Wikipedia and in short said “take the pictures of my girlfriend of the profile.” The pictures were removed; I also received a reply to my e-mail from an e-mail address gaggedbound@...............com telling me that they had been removed; this e-mail also had a name Vicky, like a signature at the bottom. I also had correspondence from the administrator that in investigating taxwoman it had to come to light that several other profiles “poetlister” “londoneye” and others I do not remember were all sock puppets, this term meant nothing to me, but in short taxwoman and other profiles were blocked from using Wikipedia and the pictures were removed.

Move on two years, taxwoman is back using Wikipedia and with pictures of my girlfriend again and also on adult related sites, one in particular has a picture of my girlfriend taken in a fancy dress costume, which is a black corset. On this profile is a text line “as you might have guessed I’m an accountant. I’m one of the administrators here. Please feel free to e-mail me or leave me a message” On this profile page there is also a list of things this person likes, they range from butt plugs to rope bondage and many other things again relating to BDSM. So in short you see a picture of my girlfriend, a list of kinky likes, and an invitation to e-mail who people will assume is the girl in the picture. The big problem with this is that my girlfriend works in the service industry, she weekly meets with hundreds of members of the public, she also works within a company of approximately 14,000 employees, due to the nature of her job she works with different people every week. If any body were to come across the taxwoman profile and put two and two together and come up with five it could be at the very least embarrassing to my girlfriend.

I guess many of you reading this will have had correspondence with taxwoman. Well I know taxwoman is not the girl in the picture, I am pretty sure that the person doing this is a guy, a guy who dresses as a woman, he is an ugly man and an even more ugly woman, I have what I believe to be a picture of him dressed as a woman.

I still am unsure as to exactly what Wikipedia is about; if I am right it is a community of online people who contribute to an online encyclopaedia. I do not understand why then contributors would have profile pictures, it is not a dating site. If in contributing to an article, for example about black corsets, if to help in your article you want to show a picture of a girl wearing a black corset, and somehow you get a picture of my girlfriend which is not copy written and you head this picture as a woman wearing a black corset, then I have no problem. Because of what this person has done, which is to use someone else’s picture and pretend to be that person, then I have absolutely no confidence that any information within the Wikipedia website to be truthful or reliable.

I would like to finish this letter asking that taxwoman reply to this so that I and other people will be able to see what this man has to say for himself. From reading some of the articles he has contributed to he seems like an educated intelligent man. I guess he is just also a sick, probably lonely sad pervert.

Chris.

Proabivouac (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

He should probably contact Wikipedia:OTRS. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Owch! This is serious. I notice some diffs[23][24] from over two years back from Chris Selwood which seem to confirm this. Suggest contacting ArbCom on this one, too. Not sure if there's much we admins can do here - Alison ^❤ 22:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

in about 15 minutes I'm going to blank this. We should be taking this to the User's talk page until we've figured out the right course of action, but this is definitely not the right place for it. Objections?--Tznkai (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, hold on a second. Can we determine if there are any of these images left on this site, or on Commons? If this is any ways true, they're both unlicensed and misused and should be removed - Alison ^❤ 22:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

See these uploads to Commons by Shalom Yechiel (talk · contribs) -- Jheald (talk) 22:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nooooo! Not the roads! --NE2 12:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There's evidently quite a lot of history here [25]. Jheald (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Holy smokes. I still think this is outside of our league as Admins.--Tznkai (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Roger roger, but this is definately not the best place of this, and I'd like for us to take the discussion somewhere else.--Tznkai (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm on OTRS and I work in London. I will happily arrange to meet the purported parties in the City or Canary Wharf at some convenient moment. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hundreds of people have been duped by this impersonator. The community deserves to see the truth.Proabivouac (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully asked the original poster to perhaps link to it from his userspace as I don't think this is the correct place to bring it. As said above, bring it to OTRS, not here where administrators can do nothing :-) Utan Vax (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Better in my view to leave this thread open for a while so all of us know about it. We'll be better able to make any necessary changes to process if we're informed about it, and someone may see it and realize they know something relevant. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Re JzG's suggestion above, I've already arranged a meeting with the victim and her boyfriend. That said, Mr. Selwood's claims have already been verified beyond a shred of doubt.Proabivouac (talk) 23:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever else may happen, we probably need the subject of the images to contact OTRS themself, for obvious reasons. Can you let Chris know, Proabivouac? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a little late in the day GMT, but I'll no doubt speak to him tomorrow.Proabivouac (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The way it is, I guess, is that we have two people claiming that the pictures are of them and obviously, one of them is not telling the truth. I think I can guess which is which, and I believe Proabivouac has the correct version here. However, I think the subject/victim here need to contact OTRS to verify the authenticity of their claims - that should be pretty easy. Once that's established, we can take things from there, and in that case, it's a very serious matter indeed. Chris has started the ball rolling here now via his letter, so let OTRS find out first-hand from the complainant - Alison ^❤ 23:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please let us proceed with dignity. I don't think this board is the best venue to manage this allegation. Endorsing the recommendation to proceed via OTRS, and requesting we assume good faith of all concerned until all accusations are thoroughly vetted. As someone whose reputation was stained on the Internet somewhat more than was deserved, I wouldn't wish a similar dilemma upon anybody else. If consensus on Commons decides that the images should be deleted I would gladly implement the deletions, although (due to past involvement a year ago) I recuse myself from any other action related to this matter. With respect toward all, Durova^Charge! 23:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Images have now been deleted from Commons as 'out of scope' - Alison ^❤ 23:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

One local image seems to have survived the last image cleanup: Image:Newport.jpg. It is orphaned. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted it under I11 as there is a significant cloud of doubt over these images. If they can verify who they are, they can be restored. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that User:Taxwoman was blocked in 2007 as a sock of User:Runcorn? Where are these new appearances of the photos? Whoever is posting them could potentially be Runcorn, a banned user. Jehochman ^Talk 01:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A lot of discussion on the issue over at http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20205 from users, admins and others - There's some pretty serious evidence and discussion going on. --78.86.153.121 (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of what? Corvus cornix_talk 02:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Evidence for/against the allegations? I'm not sure. I'm curious, though, whether these photos have appeared via a registered account (indef block) or an IP (more complicated). Also, did the photos appear on wikipedia, or just on commons? That could affect who would need to make an action in this situation- Wikipedia admins can't do anything about it unless they are also commons admins. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A lot. It's positively Machiavellian. Has an arbitrator clerk, bureaucrat, admins and more user socks. Wikipedia has been had deeply. It's like the man set out deliberately on an egotistical game to see how much control he could get. --78.86.153.121 (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for these allegations? This cannot turn into a McCarthian witch hunt, and you cannot be the one to hold up the folded paper with the communists in the State Department. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Read the pages. There's way too much to go into and anyway I am not directly involved to explain it as well as others have. There's a press release being written up by Proabivouac at the moment from what I understand, and while I do realise that it's the thread is a lot read, until then that's what you need to do if you want to know, read all the pages. --78.86.153.121 (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There are 7 pages; if you just point to one of them with "evidence" that would help ;-) Seriously, I've read right through (I started several hours ago when this first "broke" here) and I saw no "evidence", just a great deal of OMG! Wikidrama! Evidence is being prepared and will be released to an eager public in a day! In a day or so! In a day or two!

Me thinks you're being just a teensy bit salacious.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  02:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Oh yeah, at the risk of getting off topic, what color is the flag now? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Black, though possibly with a hint of red around May 1st...!

Cheers,  This flag once was red  02:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm very glad this is finally coming out, and I extend my thanks to Proabivouac for posting here about it, and for getting to the bottom of it. This individual — who was very obviously not a woman never mind five of them — has taken Wikipedia for a ride for several years. He outed me, and I don't mean he simply put stuff together about me from Google, but he actually tried to "investigate" me in the real world back in 2006, then passed whatever he found to Daniel Brandt. He earlier admitted this on WR, and Brandt has just confirmed it.

He sockpuppeted on WP not only with regular accounts, but with an admin account (Runcorn). Using Poetlister, RachelBrown, Taxwoman, Londoneye, and Newport, as well as Runcorn, he subverted several RfA and deletion discussions. Using Guy and Poetlister (and apparently several others that I don't know about), he attacked Wikipedians on WR, helped to out people, and enthusiastically supported the neo-Nazis who ran the original site.

It was obvious these accounts were run by the same person. They edited from the same IP address, and they e-mailed from the same one too — that was before they realized Hotmail accounts expose the IP. It was also fairly obvious it was a man judging by how thick he had to lay it on that he was female.

Despite knowing all this, arbitrator FloNight not only arranged for him to be unblocked from WP, but also supported him becoming a bureaucrat on Wikiquote, after he abused his position there to harass Chip Berlet. I hope FloNight will consider her position. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 04:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cut the bullshit, Slim. Nobody is buying your drama-mongering. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should learn a little bit of the history before jumping on Slim's case. Just a tip. Bulldog123 (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm sorry, but I have to put aside my self-imposed non-vandalism edit restriction to agree with Dragon. Slim, stop using every moment you can get to make a campaign against the people who don't like you or go against what you say. Yes I'm being a hypocrite here but at least I can admit that. Kwsn (Ni!) 05:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So, um, support for a community ban of Quillercouch (talk · contribs) (nee Poetlister)? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently this letter is from a banned sockpuppet, I've been accused of being a sockpuppet of someone I've never heard of, covering up the truth, and being Jimbo. This thing is spiraling far out of control. Does anyone here have SPECIFIC complaints about SPECIFIC violations of WIKIPEDIA policy? If not, can we please, for the love of all things holy have the appropriate parties write up a complaint for ArbCom?

Don't worry, I'll recuse myself from clerking too.--Tznkai (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC) |}

Potential leak of private data

Title change since "hugeness" of leak now confirmed not an issue by original poster, see below. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

After reading the above, I'm most concerned that Poetlister/Taxwoman/Cato, in their position as a CheckUser on the English Wikiquote, may have had full access to the global CheckUser logs; until a few months ago, a CheckUser on any project was afforded access to view the combined CheckUser logs (including here on the English Wikipedia), and could have viewed them at any time to glean information about who is being checked and when, as well the checkee's IP addresses as in many cases. (I suspect this could have contributed to their ability to evade detection.) In a similar vein, they also had access to the CheckUser mailing list (with its full archives) and IRC channel. I'm a bit worried that they could have used this massive cache of data for malicious purposes and even leaked it to others. krimpet✽ 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Correction: after some digging, I found that the global CU log was disabled in r29527, on 2008-01-10, about two months before "Cato" was given CheckUser rights, thus they only had access to the local logs after all, thankfully. However, they still did have access to the full archives of the CheckUser mailing list. krimpet✽ 05:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait.. en.wikiquote didn't require proof of real-world identity before granting checkuser? Am I reading this right? SirFozzie (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well he was identified to the foundation, (don't know whose ID he used for this) so what Krimpet just mentioned above is true, he may have records of all the logs and can most definitely be a problem..--Cometstyles 05:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I had no idea he had access to checkuser too. If he did have access to the global logs, we can assume that it has all been compromised. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 05:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we get a confirmation from someone knowledgeable if Poetguy had access to these global CU logs? A *lot* of us are exposed, if so. rootology (C)(T) 05:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The global log was disabled in January 2008, Cato was elected in March, so he only ever had access to the Wikiquote logs. Thatcher 05:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What about the mail list archives? Do you guys store IPs and sensitive data in there? rootology (C)(T) 05:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sensitive material is discussed on the checkuser mailing list, and someone has said that Poetlister did indeed have access via Wikiquote. I was cc-ed on some mailing list posts a while back when Anthere, then Foundation chair, raised an issue I had raised with her; I was cc-ed because I was connected to the issue. Based on what I saw, if Poetlister had access to that kind of material, it would be very damaging. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 08:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Global checkuser logs were disabled in January 2008, before Cato was appointed to the position. Risker (talk) 05:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Do they mail around IPs, work information for editors, real names and all in plain text email? How much would he have had there? rootology (C)(T) 05:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes IP information is posted, usually to coordinate action against vandals who appear on multiple wikis. Sockpuppet investigtions on single wikis are usually not brought to the list since it is a global list and the majority of readers would not be involved in investigations specific to a single wiki. Thatcher 06:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And don't hat or hide or whatever

On this, please. At a dead minimum I see someone has proposed community sanctions above which need to be discussed and we need public confirmation from the WMF if this guy has all our checkuser data now. rootology (C)(T) 05:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, this discussion needs to take place and it shouldn't be hidden behind a header. There's a lot to consider here, and the community needs to take part in that. Everyking (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

He only had access to checkuser data on wikiquote. If you are concerned that you were checked on wikiquote, you can ask another wikiquote checkuser to look in the log. If you want to know if you have ever been discussed on the CU mailing list, email me and I will check (however, it will not be a speedy check, especially if there are a lot, and I am going to bed now. Expect requests to be handled in a day or two.) Thatcher 06:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I can understand why Durova collapsed the section, even though I believe an "official" statement is coming shortly as to the links between the accounts, there's still a lot of possibly sensitive information here. It's not hiding it, it's keeping it out from casual view until such time as the information is confirmed and we treat everyone as they are due. It wasn't done from malice, but with a good faith idea to treat sensitive materials in such manner. SirFozzie (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

As the editor who proposed community sanctions, I'm inclined to agree on reflection that my proposal was probably a few hours premature. I have no objections to it being collapsed for the time being. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Would people please stop trying to censor this discussion? These are serious matters that need to be thrashed through, because it now seems that any editor discussed on the checkuser mailing list has been exposed. People have a right to know what's going on. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 08:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you please stop trying to be a dramaqueen? The world does not revolve around you, your conspiracies can wait for another day. --Dragon695 (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nor does it revolve around you, Dragon695. There are real victims here, and yes, our checkuser data has been leaking like a sieve. As Slim says, people have a right to know what's going on. What's your angle, that they don't?Proabivouac (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Dragon695, your repeated attacks are not helpful. Please stop, now. Corvus cornix_talk 17:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to censor the discussion. Yes, these are serious matters. And as a community we have a track record of jumping the gun--people sniping at each other and wasting space on speculation that obscures the real facts when they come out. All I asked is that people wait a little while and consider the potential real-world ramifications of these things being alleged. It's easier to have a serious discussion once the full picture is available. Durova^Charge! 11:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Central discussion of Poetlister and Cato

I have posted an initial summary at Meta: Meta:Babel/Poetlister and Cato.

There is still work to do. It may take a few more days for everything to get caught up and all the followup that's essential, to be done. Some but not all socks are blocked at this time. Thanks.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Now at m:Requests for comments/Poetlister and Cato. Giggy (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that User:SlimVirgin is attempting to hijack the discussion in attempt to create maximum drama there. I suggest she be blocked from meta pending the completion of this investigation. Her hysterical rants are really not helping anything. --Dragon695 (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

strong opposeProabivouac (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

not a voteDragon695 (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I was merely pointing out that diverging into discussions about possible neo-nazi connections is not helpful. --Dragon695 (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say this Dragon695 but Slim is behaving more constructively in this discussion than you are. Granted I do not know whom she is referring to as "neo-nazis" as I am unfamiliar with the early development of WR. I'm sure she will explain this epithet if you ask her nicely, but that's beside the point. If even half of the claims being circulated are true this is a very serious issue, and getting to the bottom of it trumps everything including but not limited to Godwin's law. Please put aside any extant personal differences and cut people a little slack. — CharlotteWebb 13:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What is your problem, Dragon695, besides some sort of personal dislike of SV? Corvus cornix_talk 17:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No doubt...Random695 is not being helpful here.--MONGO 21:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither of them are being helpful, and both are cluttering up what is an otherwise useful discussion. Brilliantine (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I worked this Poetlister, etc situation long ago and was then convinced that none of these editors where who they claimed to be...at that time they appeared to be either all the same editor, or a series of editors using hijacked images off the web (or elsewhere) and claiming they were them...maybe newer editors aren't aware of the controversies about these accounts that date back some time.--MONGO 21:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been around here long enough to know the score. I'm sure others can dredge it up themselves if they feel the need to. What FT2 has written is more than adequate (and very sensitively done), screed from anyone on the talk page won't help anyone. It's pure attention-seeking from both of them. Brilliantine (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's be a bit more generous, please. The person who ran this sockfarm exploited a whole lot of people, some more than others. Although I don't endorse all of SV's reaction, it's a human reaction. This sockmaster went out of his way to damage the reputations of the people who were catching onto him. SV got that worse than most. Durova^Charge! 22:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind her posting about it - and would certainly cut her a bit of slack on this issue - if she laid off the personal attacks. And there are least two people that I am aware of (not including SV) who may have cause to bring libel proceedings against this man. In any case, I'll shut up about this for now. Brilliantine (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Socking amongst the earliest accounts dates back to 2005. This is but one odd page that several socks showed up.--MONGO 05:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I assisted in this investigation and I have posted my comment at the meta link. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Insults again and again and again

Can somebody please short block to user:Kirker. This is his 5th time to be on this noticeboard because of his insults ! First of this insults has been on November 2007, in second of 4 August 2008 he is calling user "snide arsehole" [26] and recieving administrator warning [27]. Only 2 days after that he is again on noticeboard because of insults [28] and on 14 August he is telling user "you're too spineless" and he is again on noticeboard (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive466).

Now on 5 September I am idiot: "If it makes one or two people see what an idiot you are, the effort won't have been wasted" [29]. Can somebody please give him reward for this nice words ??--Rjecina (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No. No no no. Rjecina is a POV warrior who makes many articles in the Balkans area an uglier place than they need be. Have a look at this, for example, just this afternoon, his/her latest unsourced highly POV edit/reversion to Lika: "But the propaganda and influence from Serbia and neighbouring rebelled areas was strong and heavy. Besides all that, the influx of greaterserbianist paramilitary volunteers and neighbouring warmongering extremists, as well the rise of influence of local warmongering extremists, these areas turned to rebels' side" the [30].
Kirker is a diligent, good faith editor who puts a lot into the project, with library trips and all manner of things to make articles better. Rjecina is everything that Kirker is not. Kirker seeks to make the encyclopedia better, while Rjecina's contributions are mainly to delete things hostile to the glorious memory of the Independent State of Croatia. Enough said. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of your view about Kirker's editing, he does not interact well with others. The only edit you gave was a reversion by Rjecina, which is a content dispute. If there are some language by Rjecina that you think deserve a mention, I'd suggest a subheading or a new section for them. I am blocking him for 31 hours. Note that this is not in response to his noting my grammar and my error in wording, but because I asked him to comment before and he chose not to. There has been numerous people questioning him and he doesn't respond to anything and keeps going the entire time. If someone feels that this is improper, please feel free to unblock. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(un-dent) And Alasdair, stop with edits like "Rjecina, you are, at best, an apologist for the NDH, and at worst, possibly, judging from your edits, a POV nationalist fanatic." You are not supposed to insults other edits and that kind of behavior is not acceptable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You are clearly entirely unaware of Rjecina's edit history. Disgracefully so, given that you have chosen to use admin tools here. This is an outrageous block. There is absolutely no justification for this whatsoever. Please supply diffs to justify your actions. Curtly, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And, by the way, from the diffs you have already supplied, you have a blatant COI here. I need say no more. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm involved and quite busy, but I think this is a bad block. We have an excellent user frustrated by a consistent POV pusher and an administrator who can't see the forest for the trees. Considering past interactions with Kirker, I'd think you would let someone else block as this wasn't an emergency. AniMate 01:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Even POV pushers must be treated with civility, even by other POV pushers. I agree that it is best to let an uninvolved admin make the block, as then there will be no accusation of COI. If this is Kirker's first block, I recommend also lowering the block time to 24 hours. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) So now the scourge strikes again. Just like when we batted this around at Elonka's RFC. So whenever a (neo)fascist or apologist for same turns up and deletes well-sourced material from an article then the most important thing is to be civil to them? I thought this was an encyclopedia. Yes, civility is crucial, but neither Ricky81682 nor Erik the Red 2 have bothered to look at Rjecina's contributions. So clearly, and I choose my words carefully here, it is obvious that for neither of you is the encylopedia the central element of this project. I think you'd both be better off over at MySpace. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I acknowledged that Rjecina's a POV pusher. I merely said she should be treated with civility, too. I am a wholly uninvolved editor, just offering my opinion as a ANI watcher. (I've been to Croatia once in my entire life, and that was for 24 hours on a layover flight. But I'd better stop rambling.) Accusations like that are uncivil in and of themselves. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Information for non involved users: there is August content dispute between me and AlasdairGreen27 , Kirker, Animate, DIREKTOR about use of words sadistic, bestial and similar in article (editorial style dispute). Other dispute is if victims citations can be used in Croatia related WWII articles because they are not used in German or any other WWII related articles. Because of meatpuppetry (articles Miroslav Filipović, World War II persecution of Serbs, Magnum Crimen and this discussion) in next few days I will start checkuser case against users in question. --Rjecina (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Continuously calling users meatpuppets or sockpuppets is just as insulting as anything Kirker. You've been warned about this time and time again. Shall I go through your contributions and find every example of you doing this? Considering how upset you get over insults, I'm assuming you'd support a block of yourself. AniMate 03:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I will start action on monday. This is answer to AniMate comments on my talk page--Rjecina (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I will respond to Alasdair first. Regardless of Rjecina's editing, you put yourself at focus when you chose to attack the person reporting the issue. Frankly, I have half a mind for just blocking you right now for calling User:Erik the Red 2 a "twat", but I would ask someone else to do it. I don't care if you want to claim that your edits aren't at issue. You made them an issue. If Kirker wants to dispute something, then he can ask for an unblock and I'll apologize for overreacting if that's people think. The last time he was at WP:AN/I here, he decided to get into a funny semantic game of saying "he didn't say someone was 'too spineless' but just musing aloud about the nature of his spine." I also see that you've posted below. That's fine. I asked for review and I hope someone does respond. I guess there's no point to keeping this thread open, but I'll leave it for another. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The block is completely justified. See my comments below. I have warned Alasdair for personal attacks against me. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 15:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Urgent block review please

This appalling block [31] was imposed by an admin that posted his/her COI freely in the above discussion. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Insults_again_and_again_and_again. The original discussion of the block has turned into a train wreck of a variety of matters. I open this new thread to focus on the block issue and seeking to immediately overturn the block. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 02:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The block should not be overturned but shortened to 24 hours, and the posting user and Rjecina should also be blocked for the same amount of time for incivility towards myself, other editors, and each other. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Erik, please supply diffs that support the block of Kirker. For heaven's sake. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Rjecina supplied them for me above.Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 03:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain statement about my incivility ?--Rjecina (talk) 03:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was tired. I meant to say a 24 hour block for continuous NPOV violation. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 13:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that others review my comment above, particularly Alasdair's comment to Erik's talk page. If I'm in error, I'll rescind everything and apologize to everyone involved. I am sympathetic to Erik's solution, but don't want to get any more involved. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I've reviewed, Alasdair is not only in the wrong, but acting outside of good faith.--Tznkai (talk) 07:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Tag team vandals or socks

A mess at Miley Cyrus tonight, with false death rumors. Oberburgermeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Ilmc69‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) were apparently created solely to fan the flames. Burningacorn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added it into the article as his first edit in a year. Treenuh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added in the death date as well. I can't sort out whether DAP388 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is asking an innocent question or trying to get the rumor spread. Blocks all around, I say.Kww (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

DAP388 has a lot of good edits, it looks like a valid request for info. Corvus cornix_talk 03:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think its best to AGF for DAP, Ober... and Ilmc are clearly socks, most likely Treenuh is too, and burngacorn looks like the most probable puppet master. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 03:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Geoking66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has blamed his participation on a compromised password.Kww (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm, that's a new one.

I've blocked one of the persistent violators, and protected the article and one redirect. Since this is obviously an organized campaign, please watch for more of this. Antandrus (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Given the history of the article why isn't this semi-protected indefinitely? JBsupreme (talk) 04:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's only extremely rarely that it hasn't been semiprotected. The current semi-protection has been in place since January. Antandrus (talk) 04:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow. All that effort of back-and-forth in the protection log strikes me as a waste of time and effort.  :-( JBsupreme (talk) 05:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Burningacorn filed.Kww (talk) 04:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems 4chan is largely behind this. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Burningacorn came back as all accounts completely unrelated.Kww (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti-semitic remarks and edits

I feel this comment by user:Puttyschool was completely inappropriate: "it is WikipediA not JpediA" - after this editor wrongly assumed that the Jerusalem Post is "for Jews only."[32]

I'm very new to Wikipedia, and these comments are completely unacceptable and incomprehensible in an environment which prides itself on promoting civility. I am trying to be very civil, but I find these anti-semitic and ignorant statement to be completely repugnant, and I'm not sure how to handle it appropriately. I feel that this person should perhaps be warned and watched due to their anti-semitic slurs and multiple reverts along those same lines.

I have seen quite a bit of anti-semitic attacks on both my user page[33] and one of the main articles[34][35] in which I have been editing. It is my hope that Wikipedia will take a firm stand against this serious problem.--Einsteindonut (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A message has been left for Puttyschool on his talk page. You might want to request that your user page be semi-protected if you feel it is a target for vandalism. All the best, Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 03:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Erik, I will consider your advice and appreciate your action though I don't think I am able to see the message you left for him?--Einsteindonut (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

See User_talk:Puttyschool#JPedia. Corvus cornix_talk 03:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A relevant question

I don't agree with the revert of course but what would I say if someone said "this is Wikipedia, not Islamopedia/Hindupedia/etc"? I've heard these many times onwiki but would I leave a warning (stating that the remark was offensive) at their talk page just for saying that?

So why is it considered anti-semitism? Why that was considered offensive? Could you guys explain further? -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 09:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an anti-semitic statement since the "J" clearly stands for "Jew" - and because Putty made the statement that he believe the Jerusalem Post is "just for Jews." It's an assumption that "Jews are trying to take over Wikipedia" and put their "Jewish" POV into it. It's highly offensive and completely anti-semitic. I don't fling around that term lightly. I believe the majority of Jewish people would agree. And by "anti-semitic" I mean that it inherently expressing hatred and/or disdain toward Jews. I would never use the other terms you mention when dealing with an Muslim or Hindu editor because I would never judge any editor based upon their religion, as this comment CLEARLY does. I find it troubling that I'd would have to explain this to what appears to be an admin with the power to block people. Do you feel it is OK to make comments about editors and their work here based upon their religion? Or to assume that their religion is taking over Wikipedia to the point that stating "this is not Jewish Pedia" is acceptable? I find it extremely unsettling that you don't comprehend this and no one else (with the exception of Aharon) understands. If I said something to the effect of "this isn't "Palipedia" to some Palestinian trying to make an edit, my guess is that I would be blocked and banned for hate speech. The double standards here are appalling and extremely unsettling. Regarding a comment about the threat of a lawsuit below, it was a remark in general. I'm not threatening to sue anyone in particular. I was upset at the time for various reasons. I certainly think that some of the misinformation on Wikipedia with regard to people, situations, and organizations is certainly someone's responsibility. When things are highly inaccurate and possibly defamatory on such a notable site as Wikipedia, I would think that those entities might wish to consider legal action. That's all I was saying. Not against any editors in particular but against Wikipedia in general, perhaps. Again---not a threat. But what are people and organizations to do when Wikipedia completely gets stories wrong? What if the information on Wikipedia leads to damage a person or institution's reputation and/or earning potential? What if information on Wikipedia puts lives at risk? Is any of that explained to all these editors here? I'm not a legal expert and I'm not sure about legal recourse, but I'm just asking. I fail to see how such a small statement with regard to legal action should be considered should be taken as a "threat." I just think Wikipedia editors and admins should be far more responsible, especially when it comes to allegations of "Jews taking over Wikipedia" (ie. "Jpedia")--Einsteindonut (talk) 09:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I share FayssalF's analysis.

If this remark was uncivil and so, unappropriated, because it is contrary to wp:agf; it is not anti-semite. By comparison, I have been told several times, and I think with reason, that it was not wp:fr here...

More, I think the suspicion of anti-semitism made by Einsteindonut is also against wp:agf. And from my personnal point of view, the accusation of antisemitism here, is even worst, it is against WP:NPA.

In the particular context of Einsteindonut, who doesn't masterize yet all wikipedia policies, we should not give him the feeling "anti-semitism suspicion" is a good way out to solve the "content issues" he has with other editors.

Ceedjee (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, my point was addressed to the experienced admins (though no admin has commented yet on this thread) and Malik Shabazz who left the soft warning at Puttyschool's talk page. It was not addressed to Einsteindonut as he is a new Wikipedian.

On another note, I've just now run a CU on the vandal 75.3.147.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who left the swastika and the Islamic Jihadist flag at Einsteindonut's page. That lead us to here. I am not convinced of the response gotten out there and would ask some other admins to review though admin Luna Santin has already blocked the IP.

And Einsteindonut, I know you are new but please do not use sockpuppets. I am leaving Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) as your main account and blocking Wikifixer911 (talk · contribs) (which was already blocked once) and PeterBergson (talk · contribs) (the original one but with only a few edits) per wp:SOCK. I've not taken any action concerning Einsteindonut since this is your first time. As for the IP, I believe you used it accidentally three times or four, so please refrain from using multiple accounts. Puttyschool (talk · contribs) was also check-usered but came clean. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 12:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the contribs for the userids, it seems that they were used sequentially and not in parallel. I.e. it took a certain amount of time for him to settle on one id to use repeatedly and it wan't necessarilly deliberate sockpuppetry. Might it have been better simpy to ask him to settle on one and drop the rest?--Peter cohen (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is only deliberate use of mulitple accounts to create disruption. You could hardly call Edonut's other accounts "abusive". Hopefully he learns, but for now it's probably best to assume good faith. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 16:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The account should be blocked for legal threats anyways. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 16:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is abusive here and I made sure I didn't use that term when I blocked. And, he's left with the one with the most edits and the non-blocked one. It is like if he got no official history of sockpuppetry at all except this thread but this will be archived and we'll forget about it. I thought about it the way you did guys. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 17:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Re legal threats. Someone needs to explain to him that stuff. He's so pissed especially that he got a warning for a pic he had uploaded. It is a bad day for him and I believe he can reconsider. No big deals. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 17:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Fayssal, Thanks so much for handling this in a calm and equitable manner. I wonder is it possible for you to contact Eisensteindonut and explain to him what you did and why? I am also a newbie and I got blocked very quickly initially because of my bullheadedness but also because no one took the time to "state the obvious" the obvious of course being things that I had no idea about or of which I had different (and incorrect) interpretations. In other words, lets all go give Einsteindounut some free Wp support, to make up for the block.. Before the block I had offered to do some editing with Einsteindounut on a non controversial article together.Maybe you more experienced editors could do the same? Lastly, Fayssal, are you really interested in knowing why saying "Jpedia" is absolutely rude and possibly anti-semitic? Im not sure of the proper forum to discuss it but I spend four years as a Campus Director of a national Jewish organization and also headed others. I would be happy to provide further explanations, on your talk page or in email. I would do this for others too of course. aharon42 (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Aharon and welcome on board. I'll be using Einsteindonut's and your talk pages for the purposes you are stating. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 04:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Problem

About the block mentionned here above. It seems that Einsteindonut has a fixed IP. So when FayssalF blocked the IP, he also blocked the account... Einsteindonut didn't appreciate [36] but I think he doesn't understand. Ceedjee (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That's being autoblocked. "#1127998" unblocked. Please leave him alone as it may not be helpful. Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 14:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey... It is you who blocked him and that is the block that upset him...

Ceedjee (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I know Ceedjee. I was just hopping to diffuse the situation. The message you left him may have not been considered as helpful because of the timing. That's all the matter. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 04:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. :-) Ceedjee (talk) 07:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So the drama

This all relates to Jewish Internet Defense Force. As I mentioned previously, this seems to be spillover from a yearlong flame war on Facebook.[37]. There's excessive drama associated with this article. Some of the editors involved are affiliated with the organization. The organization comments on its web site about edits on Wikipedia, which seems to motivate their supporters and stir up their opponents. Despite that, the article is in reasonably decent shape. As an editing dispute, it's minor. The sides aren't that far apart. It bears watching, for civility and conflict of interest issues, but it's a tempest in a teapot. --John Nagle (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Nagle, as I have pointed out over and over and over again, the JIDF had nothing to do with that flame war in question. They stated their reasons for their action and it had they never once expressed anything to indicate that anything in that article you keep citing had anything to do with their actions. Furthermore, being a fan and a reader of the JIDF site hardly makes one "affiliated" with the JIDF. However, it is helpful in that I can say that the truth of the matter is that they targeted the group in question because of its content, not because of some flame war in which they never took part. RS have expressed that their reason for their Facebook presense in the first place was because a group went up to celebrate a murderer of students. Anyway, your assumptions continue to be wrong on both accounts. I have explained this to you in JIDF talk and now you are trying to raise the same moot points here. No RS prove that anything the JIDF did had anything to do with a "flame war." This apparently is your wrong/off track assessment of the situation. From my understanding, the JIDF had no idea about the information in the article you continue to cite. I'm not sure why you're trying to raise the same moot points again. --Einsteindonut (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalizing of Arjun MBT pages

The user By78 is vandalizing the Arjun MBT pages. This is supported by the Admin Jauerback. Admins Jauerback has misused his Administrative powers earlier as well and went to the extend of blocking me to support vandalization of Arjun page with inaccurate information. He has repeated the mistake again. Request warning of By78 from vandalization of the Arjun MBT page and request the removal of Admin rights of Jauerback for acting in a very irresponsible manner and preventing me from contributing to Wikipedia (Arjun MBT pages) in a positive manner. Thank you.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I see an edit war but no vandalism.Geni 04:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Chanakya, Please assume that other editors are working in good faith on the encyclopedia and work to find a consensus talking with other editors on the article talk page. Your attempt to bring this here for administrator intervention is inappropriate or at the very least extremely premature. You need to discuss this constructively and in good faith on your own part on the talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

How can preventing a person from editing (me) can be considered a good action. I am not against someone editing the articles by providing sources. But what if he removes my edit completely. I had edited the articles by providing valid sources. Someone (By78) blanks those edits the Admin (Jauerback) comes and supports it. Is that not a violation of Wiki basic right or edition of the article by every person by providing valid sources. How can Wiki admins allow blanking of those good edits. No reason is given expect that he disagrees with me. On what? No one knows. Just disagree. No source provided to prove his point. This kind of behavior is unacceptable. I had provided detailed explanation. Admins says he is least bothered about the content. Then why is he the Admin. Revoke his Admin rights.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried asking them why they ar reverting you?Geni 17:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Chanakyathegreat, as I've tried explaining to you on your talk page and on the talk page of the article, I have no position on what the content of the article is other than it remain neutral and properly sourced. In the past, you have attempted to add content from unreliable sources that are outdated from which you tend to pull out your own opinion from. Your "attempts" to discuss the changes on the talk page have been solely to accuse others of vandalizing your work and to repeat the same poor reasoning on why your content should be included. Then, without ANY consensus, you make the changes to the article. Before you add any content to that article, you need to gain consensus to do so, because you obviously can't seem to do so without pushing your own POV into every sentence that you write. So, let's summarize what you need to do: 1. Discuss on the talk page without making vandalism accusations. 2. Gain consensus on the content, wording, and sources. 3. Add to article. 4. Rinse, repeat. Fairly simple, huh? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you might like to see WP:COOL? —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 19:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A block for civility violations or repeated NPOV violations is not a cool-down block. But I see no mention of blocking here. Am I missing something? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 04:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Jauerback, you still is not acting as a responsible administrator. Absolutely agree that the article must be nuetral and the Admin must make sure that it is neutral. What you are doing is just the opposite. You are supporting someone who reverses my edits. Those edits I made was by providing valid sources and remember that this time I had not even removed any links or sources added by By78. I had tried to include the real issues with valid sources and explained the same in the talk page as well. Now why are you reverting my good edits.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Block review of Thewikiqediarollbacker

I just blocked Thewikiqediarollbacker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) because his initial edits were copies of FirefoxMan's user page and Alison's talk page into his own user and talk pages, respectively. He copied Alison's talk page twice and then copied my user page. After I left him a note, he threatened to take me to ArbCom and then copied the Main page and Main talk page into his user and talk pages. The account name didn't exactly sit with me very well either. Probably somebody's sockpuppet. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And, of course, the inevitable unblock request proclaiming innocence just appeared. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds as though he's up to no good and knows how to do it. Support block. Ty 06:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not that unusual for new editors to copy existing pages to theirs for experimentation purposes, to see what the markup does etc. This could just be innocent behavior, though an immediate threat to take someone to arbcom sounds non-new-userish. Let me take a closer look here... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The behavior seems sort of suspicious, but ... I can't for the life of me see what policy you blocked him/her under. I don't know of any policy saying that you can't copy content out of another's talk page. Even though the arbcom reference seems unlike a new user, this seems pretty bitey.

Can you please explain your blocking rationale in more detail? The page only existed for a couple of minutes before you deleted, it appears to be BITE and failure to AGF on your part. Plus no warnings. If there's a sequence of other behavior that this might be a sock of, that's one thing, but standing by itself this needs much more clarification...

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was a lack of AGF at all, since it is obvious that this editor was not a new editor to Wikipedia. You have a user name that references a feature that a new editor is not likely to know about. The first edit of a full copy of one administrator's user page followed by a full copy of another administrator's talk page, it is rather suspicious. Then following up with references to ArbCom and a copy of my own user page, this shows me that this is not a newbie at all. The unblock of making only three edits is totally bogus since the first edit references the deleted edits. If anything, I feel that I gave him too much AGF. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 09:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Copying material from another user's User or Talk pages is a GFDL violation. Corvus cornix_talk 17:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a username violation regardless. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 09:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes on both GFDL and name violation - however, temporary copies to study the content and layout are (again) not unusual here. The usual response to name violations is a polite "you need to change your name" message, and to really abusive name violations a username block, but that's not the reasons given here.

Agreed that it's probably a sock of an existing user of some sort - but we only indef socks which are abusive, and the actions here only rise to technical violations of policy rather than gross violations. For technical violations, we warn and allow for correction. For apparent socks without evident real abuse, we warn and perhaps CU, but don't indef. This could turn out to be any number of abusive users, but the evidence is poor so far. Hammer too big. Try something smaller. AGF and checkuser to verify? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment that this is a new editor temporarily studying the content and layout of user and talk pages. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

We AGF in the lack of evidence to the contrary. This person knows their way around wiki and knows exactly what they're doing by creating a false user page claiming to be an admin. They then post a cleverly false unblock rationale: "I'm not quite sure what I have been blocked for? Just check my contribs. I've made 3. Two of them have been to Gogo's talk page, and 1 to my own." They made 9 edits, but of course the deleted ones don't show up in contributions. That is not the conduct of someone genuine but misunderstood. Can we not waste any more time over this: that's exactly what it's designed to do. Ty 03:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Time for User:Ricky81682 to go?

Resolved

No further action required. See content below. --VS ^talk 07:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I just happened to have found this place and I'm greatly concerned about Wikipedia's future viability if we allow people like Ricky81682 to run amock destroying the hard work of people like Kirker (and smearing people like AlasdairGreen27) just out of a personal vendetta. We need to immediately stop him and I would suggest a long hard block to make sure he doesn't edit here again. Look at the destruction he caused above at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Urgent_block_review_please. We cannot allow conduct like to go unnoticed and I think someone should go to Jimbo and stop it right now. 76.171.201.224 (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

For someone who has just found this place, you sure do know the ins and outs of it already.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

[EC] I agree Ryūlóng and I just happened to find this notice (and I admit have been editing for a long time). Indeed I couldn't add another word to your synopsis of this complaint.--VS ^talk 07:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This IP has one other edit back in august 5 and guess who else is involved?[38] Ricky. Looks like sock puppetry to me. Considering a Checkuser request.--Tznkai (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

User:kirker has a recent history of conflict with Ricky and Rjecina, and a distinct lack of civility in much of it, writing tone seems suspicious. Anyone else want to weigh in before I submit a checkuser request on 76, Kirker and AlasdairGreen27 for block evasion?--Tznkai (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Let it go. There has been a mass of checkuser and sock allegations going back forever. Let's not add to it. It's probably meat puppetry anyways. Just offer an opinion at the other section and close this nonsense down as resolved. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the IP address looks closer to a series of crazies I annoyed late last year with another article. I wouldn't be surprised if it's not even related to these guys this time. I've been here long enough to annoy plenty of groups, some of whom I guess have nothing better to do than complain when they see me. My personal favorite was this chaos, including threats to complain to an Indian government minister. Seriously, people take things WAY too seriously. Can someone else just mark this as resolved and leave everyone on their way? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

IP block reviews on administrator Kaihsu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

A little while ago, User:Da monster under your bed became concerned about several long-duration IP address blocks issued by administrator User:Kaihsu. Monster mentioned this to User:Gogo Dodo and apparently administrator User:Gonzo fan2007 noticed on his own.

I just flipped around and reviewed the last several IP address blocks, and I found them extremely suspicious - 1-year blocks after 4 questionable but not horridly abusive edits, with no warnings; an IP address indef blocked; multiple IP address blocks with no block message left on the IP talk page.

More administrator eyes on this needed. I'm going to ask him for clarification, but more review further back is probably a good idea. These may be sufficiently out of policy to overturn. I'm not going to do more than ask about it, as I'm going to bed soon, but more eyes on it seems like a really good idea. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

These blocks are extremely problematic. I am very keen to see the explanation from Kaihsu. If there is no response by morning my time, I intend to unblock the IPs. Kevin (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't even see the vandalism for the last two, though the third and fourth (especially!) certainly are. I also think the tariffs generally are far too severe. I note that Kaihsu is another "older style" sysop enabled account, and might not be as up to speed on current practice as most. The only saving grace is that these actions are infrequent (although that would be no comfort to a potential editor with that addy). A response would be appreciated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Incivility

Resolved

can someone block this editor [39], for breaking my The Giano code of civility, thanks. Giano (talk) 09:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked, and the page was protected by another. Kevin (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist, please

Ifeanyi Chijindu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had a spate of IP vandalism a month or so back and has been subject to a snide edit more recently, the subject is upset and asks for protection but the level of vandalism is very low so I have said I will ask some more people to watchlist it. VRTS ticket # 2008061610024571 (and coincidentally THEN WHO WAS PHONE? reverted some of te earlier IP vandalism, small world). Guy (Help!) 10:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I will watchlist it for whatever it's worth :-) SoWhy

OK, will watchlist and try to notice it when there are any edits. Easily distracted by these things, must focus on article writing. . . dave souza, talk 12:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible legal threat

I reverted User:PURECREATIONS here for not adhering to NPOV and the editor has made a legal threat here. Could you advise me if it is a legal threat or should it simply be ignored, thanks BigDunc^Talk 12:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It can be taken as a legal threat (however muddled). You might ask him to retract it. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Although it is a legal threat, I would ignore it as infantile and grossly inacurate. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have asked the editor to retract here. BigDunc^Talk 12:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds totally stupid to me. Looking at the threat its nothing more than a child messing about on the computer thinking that he/she is funny. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

EBFilms is back

Resolved

 – Accounts blocked, article deleted and protected. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ebfilms seems to be back. He was using Yuppio (talk · contribs) and now as Artkemp (talk · contribs). --triwbe (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yuppio is indefinitely blocked for vandalism anyways. Artkemp, judging by his contributions, is a sock/meatpuppet and should be blocked/checkusered. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 16:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Suspected Gwp Sock

Yesterday, Commander Appo (talk · contribs) did some tertiary edits and then Grawped up. I suspect Commander Gree II (talk · contribs) miiiight be on the same track. I don't have admin tools, so someone who does might want to put him/his edits on a watchlist. Just in case. --EEMIV (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say doubtful. All of the socks yesterday were created a while ago. Commander Gree II (talk · contribs) is a brand new user. KnightLago (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser just in case? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No need. Appo probably is a vandalism account, and will be blocked down the line. Let's assume good faith for Gree. No reason to preemptively throw around accusations of sock puppetry. He's probably just a Star Wars fan like Appo, hopefully with more maturity. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 16:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic note: I've abbreviated you-know-who's name in the header to stop setting off the IRC warning bot. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

IP, User page list, strange editing.

Not sure if this counts as sockpuppetry, but I think so. An IP, 79.65.160.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making numerous edits like this, which 'cite' User:JokerFan2.0#Top_100_Greatest_TV_and_Film_Villains, a user's personal list. The IP has made numerous edits to the userpage, including creating the list diff of six edits, and has edited right after JokerFan2.0 at times. I started to roll these back, but think a more serious investigation might be needed. It seems odd though. Either he's logging out to make what he must know will seem like bad edits, for plausible deniabiility, or an IP is spoofing the socking to get him in trouble. Those are the two obvious explanations I can come up with.ThuranX (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I note that JokerFan2 does not revert the ip's edits to his/her page, so I would assume that they are the same or known to each other. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Continuing evasion of block by Wikitestor

Wikitestor was blocked for 12 hours on August 29, 2008, for violating WP:3RR and was warned at that time not to use anonymous IP accounts to evade the block.

Just five hours after the block was instituted and four hours after the don't-evade-the-block warning was issued, he began editing using 81.184.70.220. As a result, his block was extended to one week on August 29, 2008.

Because he continued to use anonymous IP accounts to edit during the block period (see 81.184.38.52, 67.161.4.108, 62.57.197.139, 62.57.196.206, 81.184.38.42, and 62.57.197.82), his block was extended to one month on September 3, 2008.

Despite the one month block, he is continuing to edit with anonymous IP accounts. See 62.57.197.114, 62.57.213.3, 62.57.196.206, and 62.57.9.202. Given his editing history and style, all these IP accounts undoubtedly are his sockpuppets. See also his userpage, where he admits to using IP accounts that begin with 62.57 and 81.184 and his expression of pride in evading the blocks. If administrators are unwilling to make IP range blocks, then I request that all the articles he has edited be semi-protected. Thanks. Tennis expert (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked 62.57.0.0/16 for 48 hours - It's the same cable modem ISP in Spain for the whole block, and he's using wide swaths of it, as far as I can tell.

I am also leaving a message on User talk:Wikitestor about this. Hopefully he'll knock it off. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but he also is now using the 81.184 IP range. See 81.184.38.28, a self-admitted sockpuppet of Wikitestor. Tennis expert (talk) 06:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

81.184.0.0/16 has been blocked for 48 hours as well, and another message left on Wikitestor's talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous Aryan activist

A person posting from a variety of IP addresses, including:

• 24.39.124.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 24.185.128.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 65.88.88.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 65.88.88.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 65.88.88.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 65.88.88.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

has been blocked under at least four addresses, in some cases twice, for the same small set of violations, despite warning after warning, despite block after block, despite semiprotection having been placed on both Ten Lost Tribes and its talk page (twice, in the case of the latter) on account of him.

He repeatedly deleted paragraphs he found offensive in Ten Lost Tribes, then kept posting the same off-topic diatribe over and over at the very top of Talk:Ten Lost Tribes, above the templates. He has repeatedly replaced Dardic with Aryan at the top of the Kashmiri people article, after having already been told that that's incorrect. He's made related changes in at least a couple of other articles. He has never once responded to anything I've written to him or seen anyone else write to him. His whole purpose in contributing is to push his POV.

He has been extremely active in Ten Lost Tribes since August 26. Having just taken a deeper look I see now that he has been making frequent improper revisions, deleting paragraphs, and inserting rants and statements of opinion into the Kashmiri people article under other 24.185.*.* and 24.*.*.* addresses, ever since at least April:

• 24.185.131.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 24.185.136.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 24.191.12.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He never provides citations to support his views over the ones he's replacing.

Meanwhile, ever after I've written warnings and AIV requests explaining his persistence and his refusal to knuckle under after all of the blocks that have been placed on him and the protections put up because of him, admins keep giving him 12-hour blocks and 31-hour blocks. This is not a first-time offender. He's a die-hard, calling for industrial-strength action.

What can be done with this character? —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be needing a CU who can check the range to see what collateral damage may be caused by a rangeblock. As for the short blocks, if the vandal is using different ip's then blocking any one for a long length is pointless - they will just move onto the next. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Consider semi-protection of Kashmiri people for at least a month, and ask a checkuser about the wisdom of a rangeblock on 65.88.88.128/25 for a month. Though the abuse has continued for a long time, some of the IPs you have listed are not recently active, and many of the affected articles have enough normal activity to easily dilute any bad-faith IP editing. The recent semi-protection on Ten Lost Tribes was well-deserved. (That is one of his favorites). EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: according to a notice at their talk pages at least to of the 65.88.88.XXX IPs belong to the New York Public Library. Funny thing is, almost all the edits from those IPs seem to be related to India and South Asia, which you wouldn't really expect from a casual library user. In any event, wouldn't a rangeblock affect all library users? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I've decided not to do the rangeblock, after searching contributions from that range manually. (There are some good faith IP edits from other parts of the range). Due to long-term consistency over a multi-month period, I think the four 65.88.88.* IPs already listed above are the ones which are definitely our guy. Good enough consistency for a long block, so I've blocked three of them for two months each (anon only). The fourth already has a long block. Please comment if anyone disagrees. EdJohnston (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Abusive, COI & Sock Puppet Edits by BronsonPunchout and 68.175.98.195

I would like an admin and intervene to check the edits made by BronsonPunchout & 68.175.98.195. I believe these are sock puppets of the same user and has been created simply to edit the page for the Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre. A quick look at the edits on the page shows [40] edits being made within minutes and seconds of each other by these two users often on the same exact topic/subject[41]. A deeper look into the edits of 68.175.98.195 shows that they have clearly attempted to game Wikipedia by linking the fairly generic topic of bits to Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre: diff here[42]. Additionally, the user in question has been harassing me and borderlining on revert war edits when I have attempted to add citation and reference tags or removed empty topics or trivial sections. Additionally he's harassing me [43] and claiming I have a connection to the Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre because I have dared to enforce Wiki style. I will admit I have gone to shows at the UCB theater in NYC, but I have barely contributed anything to the UCB article to endure these claims of "ownership". Heck, BronsonPunchout claims my attempts to get the article in "Wiki shape" oppresses the growth of the article and "perhaps one of the reasons it has not grown very much over the years." Ridiculous claim and my history of edits proves otherwise. Can an admin please step in and look over this mess. Perhaps someone who is an admin familiar with theater and improv egos and how they react to Wiki edits? --SpyMagician (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

i too would like an admin to check the edits made by SpyMagician, under the ownership clauses, agressivley removing others contributions and using hostile citation. They have made edits without actually reading the edits, undoing others contributions and used contradictory explanations, such as removing citations added to sections, then removing the sections claiming lack of citation. When they claimed i was a sock puppet and connected, i had reason to believe the same about them and added that tag as well. I did not remove the tag against me cause that seemed bad faith, but they kept undoing the tag relating to themsevles. I believe this person has a grudge or something and has removed others contributions, leaving the article in poor shape and lacking large amounts of info. It is possible i have made errors in my lack of understanding, and i apologize. Even so, it seems there are many opportunties to leave up a citation needed tag, or a section stub tag as opposed to immediately undoing all contributions by other edits. THis is not an improv ego thing. I added basic history data and cited it all, but SpyMagician is agressively undoing. Perhaps they are a sock puppet, perhaps they are just terrtorial, perhaps i am in the wrong. Either way, please help. BronsonPunchout (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate that any admin should simply look at my history of edits in contrast to the edits of this user and potential sock puppetry. You can make claims all you want, but the logs tell the tale show and the trail of edits. --SpyMagician (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's see: is it the "Upright citizens brigade theater school", or the "Upright citizens brigade theater training center"? This is obviously a question on which the future of the world depends. (If you're having trouble figuring it out, I'm sarcastically saying that this dispute is totally incomprehensible to outsiders.) Looie496 (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Looie496, that is is ridiculous, but i don't know what else to do. Go ahead and check ips, please. I am not entirely familiar with Wikipedia policies, but i don't know how else to deal with the disruptive editing via hostile cite tagging SpyMagician is engaging in. SpyMagician is demonstrating a clear sense of ownership and impeding other contributors thru gaming/disruptive editing. BronsonPunchout (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Looie496, I can make it simpler. Please check the edits made by BronsonPunchout and 68.175.98.195. These are clearly the same person and evidence of sock puppetry despite the fact that BronsonPunchout denies the connection. And despite the fact these two users have only editted UCB articles in the past month; they contribute in no other way to Wikipedia.. Also, the claims of "hostile cite tagging" are baseless; the most amount of edits I have made to this piece are today. Why can't I tag uncited sections to an article? And how is it hostile to do so or should one assume that everyone in the world knows who/what the UCB is and is beyond reproach. --SpyMagician (talk) 03:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, in general I'm going to say something that will make most actors and theater geeks faint: Most people don't know or don't care about theater details or history. Citations ARE needed for many of the claims being made on behalf of the Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre. This is not unreasonable. What is bizarre is why I'm being harassed for daring to claim citations are needed. If a theater is closed due to fire code violations, provide the information. It's not hard to understand. And in between now and the time this nonsense started I have edited other articles without issue. If there is an admin with experience dealing with improv and theater articles, I welcome their input. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool and places like Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre shouldn't be magically excluded from the rules that have helped make other articles great. --SpyMagician (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What is this nonsense?

Are we no longer a wiki? All typo fixes must be supported by forms completed, signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, subjected to public inquiry, lost, found, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as fire-lighters? People, BLP is not a carte blanche for imposing any restriction you like! We put full-protection in place only to protect from vandalism and edit-warring. Look at the history. See any problems? I don't.

People, can we please keep our fingers off the triggers? — Werdna • talk 02:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If we could trust our admins to not go and make content changes and wheel war on an article as prominent as that, I'd agree with you, but the current arbcom case indicates that we can not. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 02:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, admins should still be allowed to make non-content changes (such as spacing etc. fixes) w/o being potentially in violation of ArbCom. ffm 02:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree - most would, but there are some people around there that unfortunately, are too stuck on policies and are preventing things from being done. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No problems in the recent history because its been full protected for awhile. What strikes me about the history is there are way, way more edits than there ought to be for a fully protected article. Avruch ^T 02:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Jimmy Wales and Tim Shell are fighting over Sarah Palin now in their own deathmatch version of the Wheel. aharon42 (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

**Shrug** Even as a non-Admin, I could find Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war, accepted at Warp Speed compared to other ArbComs I've seen. And even as a non-Admin, isn't that the location for comments like this to be currently lodged? Or have I missed something fundamental about Wikipedia? Not trying to start a flame war, just can't understand why this comment is here and not there, in some form. Me, were I an Admin, I'd let ArbCom (or Jimmy, whatever) sort it out, or get involved there. But that's just me, an editor. Apologies if this comment violates something-or-other, or if there's something about AN/I I don't understand yet. LaughingVulcan 04:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I semiprotected Wikipedia:Requested moves

• I regrettably felt forced to semiprotect Wikipedia:Requested moves, after a bout of 15 IPA anonymous users (or the same person 15 times) replacing its contents with indecent ascii art in less than an hour. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That should take care of them. Well, frankly speaking, it is what my father calls "a bunch of lunatics", doing nothing than complete nonsense and indecent humor... Blake Gripling (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been about four hours now, so I'm unprotecting it (hopefully it'll be alright). If they go at it again and the page is protected again, though, could someone make a place for new and unregistered users to actually request a move? The sprot template directs them to the talk page, and the talk page directs them back to the project page. WODUP 08:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Shoemaker's Holiday

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here, move alongTznkai (talk) 06:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There was just now a little flap over at the talk page of the NPOV policy. Things were going fine, till Shoemaker's Holiday came in and poisoned the well against me. He didn't even get it right. I removed it, but he put it back. This is not the first time he has tried to get me. I would like someone here to issue him some sort of warning that this kind of pursuit of me is inappropriate. Now, everyone here knows what his other username was. Everyone knows (as he revealed it in his request for adminship recently) that he was desysoped partly for a block of me, and also that I played a major role in his RfC, which the ArbCom no doubt took into account when they desysoped him. I am sick and tired of his following me around and trying to "get" me. I have refrained from bring up his past, which of course is even more relevant than mine, in discussions. He has not accorded me the same courtesy. Here are only the recent diffs. I can, of course, dig up the other diffs of his trying to get me, on several occasions which I remember. But I am not here to try and get him sanctioned. All I want is a warning to him that this vengeful behavior should not go on any more.

I remove it here Here is the section where it's put back and discussed. He continues to compound it. FYI, I'm under sanction only for disruption, and POV pushing is one of the things which people spectacularly failed to prove against me. I even requested the ArbCom tell me if they thought that such was the case.

If the people here would like to go over and raise the tone of the general discussion it would be of great help. I personally don't think edits undertaken with such care over such a long time should be met with such surprise. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I dispute Martinphi's description of my arbcom case; however, it is also merely a distraction from the matter at hand, as I can prove my description was correct:

From the Arbcom decision:

2) Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has engaged in a variety of disruptive behavior ([5]), including, but not limited to, using Wikipedia as a soapbox ([6], [7]), threatening disruption of the project ([8]), and making deliberately provocative edits ([9], [10]).

Then later:

1) Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, they may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and properly logged. Should they violate this ban, they may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

He is cited for soapboxing, and this is the first diff the arbcom cites as evidence of Martinphi's soapboxing: "I just want to get parapsychology defined as a science on Wikipedia, because I keep getting stuff from people who say, it is not a science, there is absolutely nothing to this. I want to be able to cite it as a science, rather than just something some crazies study." I'm sorry, but the arbcom clearly intended disruptive editing to include POV-pushing.

Here are the diffs to the NPOV policy:

Long-standing version	New version
None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.	In order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible, in a neutral manner, to the reader, no single view, even the most popular, should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth".
Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.	Articles may be specifically devoted to Notable minority views. In such articles, the minority view should be described in detail. References to the majority viewpoints should be made in proportion to prominence in the sources.
We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.	[Deleted]

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note the related thread at WP:AE: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Martinphi_at_WP:NPOV. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Amazing: Shoemaker hasn't read the edited version. The paragraph he says was deleted was revised to:

Articles in Wikipedia should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally omit views that have little to no support. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. For example, the article on the Earth gives less attention to cultural and religious beliefs about the earth than to the modern scientific understanding, and does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept at all, since that has no significant scientific or popular following. Similarly, the article on Flat Earth does not cover such things as the Earth's chemical composition, orbit and rotation, and tectonic plates. Wikipedia always aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies to article text (in terms of wording, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements), and also to the use and placement of images, external links, categories, and all other article material.

Further, I think he may not even presenting the actual original, that is a recently edited version.

But let's say he's right. Poisoning the well and saying I'm in the soup for POV pushing when I'm not, and insisting on keeping up the attack- wow. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Martin, that's two other paragraphs in the original, that's not the deleted paragraph. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of my own sanity, I'm going to be dealing with both User Shoemaker and Martinphi over at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Martinphi_at_WP:NPOV.--Tznkai (talk) 06:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I see there is a bit of it therre, but not much, and it's rather changed in foxcus. More accvurately::

Original	Changed
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view.	Articles in Wikipedia should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally omit views that have little to no support. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. For example, the article on the Earth gives less attention to cultural and religious beliefs about the earth than to the modern scientific understanding, and does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept at all, since that has no significant scientific or popular following. Similarly, the article on Flat Earth does not cover such things as the Earth's chemical composition, orbit and rotation, and tectonic plates.
Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.	Wikipedia always aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. N.B. This section comes later: Articles may be specifically devoted to Notable minority views. In such articles, the minority view should be described in detail. References to the majority viewpoints should be made in proportion to prominence in the sources.
Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.	This applies to article text (in terms of wording, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements), and also to the use and placement of images, external links, categories, and all other article material.

It is, at the least, a major shift in focus. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I absolutely agree. Martinphi is the canonical example of the civil POV-pusher, as far as I can tell his main focus within Wikipedia is to legitimise fringe and pseudoscience topics. This behaviour is completely repeatable, and to find him trying to change the policy under which he has been repeatedly knocked back in his attempts to lend legitimacy to the fringe views he supports is definitely disruptive - not only does it violate the ArbCom restriction, it also violates the policies he appears to be trying to change! Guy (Help!) 08:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this really OK?

Um... anyone think it's something less than a good idea for an admin, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, to be hovering over the contributions of an editor he's recently been in conflict with,([44],[45], [46] (DunstandandRann),[47], etc) not because the editor (me) has done anything wrong, but because the editor doesn't subscribe to the admin's ideas about policy?

As for watching your steps, well, yes, I am. As per my original response on the RfC, I never make a secret out of it. Not a retaliation for your behaviour on the RfC, but a consequence of what I've seen of you defending bad uploads elsewhere. ([48] Emphasis added.)

Since when has it become suspicious behavior to disagree with an admin about whether an image upload is policy-compliant or not? This really doesn't seem right. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 06:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If an admin suspects that someone may violate policy it makes sense for that admin to monitor the person. I don't know who's right about the policy (I haven't looked into the dispute), but keeping an eye on someone is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. --Tango (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Like everyone else, my contribs are out in the open, available for inspection, all 22,000 of them, and if FPS or another admin came across instances of bad actions and decided to keep an eye on me, that would be one thing. I've done that same for a number of vandals -- they do some vandalizing, you check their contributions to see if there's more, when you find it you undo it and post warnings, and if you're an admin perhaps you eventually decide to block. But that's not what FPS admits to doing. He admits that he's keeping an eye on me because I disagree with his interpretation of policy. Doesn't that strike anyone as a dangerous thing that can lead to no disagreements about policy, because there's no discussion, because the herd has been culled and anyone who disagrees has been hounded off the project?

Let's be clear, I'm not accusing FPS of that, not in any way shape and form, nor am I suggesting that such behavior is going on, or prophesying that it will happen. I simply think that using a difference of opinion as a basis for following someone around and checking their edits is kind of a real bad idea. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 07:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ed's antics about non-free images included edit-warring to keep an obviously replaceable map graphics, and another [49] that he aggressively defended with the bizarre argument that while it was being used just as a "substitute" for a possible free image, it was nevertheless not "replaceable" by the latter (here). This is enough to give me reasonable grounds for expecting some more of his image work probably requires cleanup. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. We can review all our past arguments again if you'd like, but I doubt anyone would be terribly interested, and the point here is that all these things are cases where I did nothing wrong, I simply disagreed with you, and in most of those instances, other people disagreed with you as well. Are you so entirely and positively certain that your interpretation, your views, your opinions, your analysis, your take on image policy is so completely, totally, absolutely 100% percent correct that whenever you declare an image to be non-compliant, even to disagree with your declaration is tantamount to misbehaving? Can you not see why someone might find such a view to be disquieting, to say the least? Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 08:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm, RFCs aren't supposed to be a way of forcing an editor away from an area they have been working at and in this case the doesn't seem to be an overwhelming consensus against FPAS. The correct forum to discuss this is the RFC. Sorry to say this Ed but your conduct here just makes you look like a petty wikilawyer and I really thought more of you then that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikilawyering? How do you figure that? I came here because this is the place where you come for administrative action. I thought that if my view of FPS's behavior was shared by uninvolved admins, someone could advise him to, you know, not go out of his way to shadow me. But, in any case, as I remarked elsewhere, if FPS sees something wrong with an image I upload, how difficult would it be for him to run it by another editor, who could then contact me if they agreed? In what respect is that trying to "force [him] away" from image work?

You know, maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's the community's consensus that this sort of thing is acceptable behavior. If that's the case... I don't know. ... I guess I'd have to seriously reconsider my committment to the project, because that's something I would find it quite difficult to live with, I think. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 07:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm having trouble with the "wikilawyering" thing. The man posts on my talk page, at first I laugh his Big Brother act off, but then it starts to bother me, and then it starts to bother me a lot, so I come here to see if something might be done about it, and I'm accused of "wikilawyering"? Wow. Just... wow. I'm not coming here in an hysterical state, screaming and carrying on and calling for people to be desysoped, as so often happens when there's conflict between an editor and an admin, and a charge of "wikilawyering" is laid on me? Huh.Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 07:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for referring to petty wikilawyering. Perhaps forum shopping would fit better? You have an RFC but you want to extend the drama to an admin noticeboard as well. So I think petty forum shopping is a better discription. My apologise for mischaracterising your behaviour but you really need to settled for a single location for your crusade against Fut perf. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Humor me for a moment, and assume that I'm telling the truth, that FPS's post on my talk page actually concerned me. Now, if I wanted some administrative relief, how would posting about his actions on the RfCU help me? Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 08:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously? We aren't going to block FPAS for leaving messages on your talk page so there isn't any admin action that is going to follow from a message here & and do you honestly think it would help having someone tell him to lay off? If you raise it in the RFC and there is extensive support that FPAS shouldn't be reviewing your contribs then there will be a significant level of moral pressure on him not to. The trouble is that an RFC inevitally raises the entire temperature on any dispute and this kind of thing, is, I'm afraid, what happens. Perhaps I should have been nicer in my comments but honestly, I wonder what people expect sometimes when they get embroiled in personal disputes like this. It not like we haven't seen it before and its high time that we stopped chasing out defenders of the NFCC. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Where did I ask for a block? Am I being in some way unclear about what I hoped would happen here? Geez, talk about "raising the temperature"!Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 09:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Admins don't have any special powers except blocking, deleting and protecting. Aside from that being an admin adds no extra cachet to any discussion. So, if you don't want a block, would you like us to delete or protect FPAS? Otherwise this isn't something that requires admin action. If its having a word then anyone can do that. If its to guague community consensus on his actions you already have a RFC to play on. So, seriously, what did you expect us to do about this that requires the use of admin tools?. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And, they have the power of the bully pulpit!

Indulge me and, once again, assume that I'm telling the truth, and further assume that some folks here saw my post and agreed with my concerns, at least to the point where they thought it was worthwhile to talk to FPS. So, if those admins were to go to FPS and suggest that it would be preferable, for the sake of avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest, for FPS to channel any concerns about my image-related behavior through another uninvolved admin, don't you think that might carry a little more weight than if I made that suggestion? You see, that's administrative relief.

And there's a larger point - I really think it's a pretty crummy precedent to set, and if that kind of behavior becomes broadly tolerated or acceptable, Wikipedia would be a decidely less pleasant place to be, so, besides my specific concern about FPS, I wanted to raise, for administrators, in a place that administrators frequent, this issue for their consideration, something which, again, can't be done at FPS's RfCU.

I'm not asking for special dispensation from the pope to misbehave, or to not have my edits scrutinized by FPS or anyone else, I'm simply suggesting that FPS and I are, in the Wikipedian sense, involved, with all the problems that brings with it, and that his following me around on the basis of our disagreement over policy is a really bad idea. I honestly didn't think it would be a controversial concept.Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 09:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Violation of TTN's Restriction?

I'm relatively inexperienced in matters of Arbcom, but this [50] would appear to be in violation of TTN's restrictions, especially considering the similarity to this situation which resulted in a one week block. I realize that his restriction expires within the week, but if its a violation then its a violation (if this is not the proper place to discuss this then please let me know).75.93.9.235 (talk) 07:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically belongs at Arbitration Enforcement, but whatever. I'm currently too tired to look into it just now, but I'm sure someone will be by soon. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Offensive content about a user on another user's userpage

Description: User:Evenin'_scrot! has posted the following message:

"I enjoy practicing law without a license, fishing, and collecting parking tickets from all over the U.S. I also enjoy cleaning up/correcting the numerous mistakes made by other Wikipedia editors, the majority of which are made by Non Curat Lex."

I find this inaccurate (I have made less than 500 edits, I cannot possibly be responsible for the majority of wikipedia's mistakes), offensive to me personally, and advocacy of unlawful activity (e.g. practicing law without a license) should not be condoned, even on a user page.

In aggravation, it should also be pointed out that the user is a sock of user:snookerhorn; between the two socks (and a third I cannot locate), there is a history of discipline for abusive and disruptive edits.

Administrative intervention is requested. Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Buspar has removed the reference to you with the summary WP:NPA. If he restores it, feel free to leave him a civil comment about it.

About your suspicion of sockpuppetry, the place to comment is WP:SSP.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

User:138.251.242.2 Concerns

(Realized I posted this to the wrong noticeboard, so here's a copy paste from WP:AN.)

First, a quick Google search of 138.251.242.2 shows this is the IP of known spammers [51]. Next, you have personal attacks against other users: [52] ("incredible narcissism") and [53] [54] [55] (false accusation of sock puppetry). Third, you have at least one instance of vandalism: [56]. Soft block at the minimum is probably appropriate. Buspar (talk) 08:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 55 hours - please feel free to undo if you feel it was inappropriate, it's almost 5AM and I'm a bit irritable from lack of sleep and a late-night duty call. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. - And yes, I have no business being online at this hour, I know. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a school ip, see the whois report. --Kanonkas :  Talk  09:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)