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

Give us your fucking money

I moved this discussion from the Help Desk--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw a banner on Wikipedia that said this. I don't care if Wikipedia has articles on sex-related stuff, because children won't see them unless they want to. But they will see this banner even if they don't want to. I'm not going to donate, and I'm going to tell children not to read Wikipedia in case they see this banner. And where do I complain about such banners? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.57.203 (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This banner was on someone's user page, as I recall. Whose page was it (I can't remember)? I thought it was a fairly harmless joke, but understand how some might be offended. Also, this question might receive prompter attention on WP:AN/I.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Assuming the above recollection is correct, I agree with the anon. Wikipedia isn't censored of course, but that sounds unnecessarily crude, even in user space. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the harm, in user space. I curse in my user space pretty regularly. Parents who don't want their children exposed to the word 'fuck' probably should monitor their internet usage very, very closely. I sympathize with this user, but- well, since we don't know where the banner is, we can't even go and look at it for ourselves and see whether it's appropriate or not. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It is of course a quote from Bob Geldof, from the original Live Aid tv broadcast. Is it possible somebody has typed this in with a donation, and it's got into the rotation of quotes on the official banner ad? Jheald 14:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A paraphrase of a quote, I think; I have a vague recollection that either Rory Bremner or Spitting Image started that meme. Guy (Help!) 00:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

(EC) I think the IP may be referring to the Bob Geldof article... Or not? pedro gonnet - talk - 09.11.2007 14:38

No, i saw the banner myself, it was intended to be a harmless joke i think. I can't remember where i saw it though. Woodym555 14:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In any event, Wikipedia is not censored. Dppowell 14:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(copied reply from help desk)Woodym555 14:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC):

Image:Giveit.jpg and Image:Giveit.png was a little joke as the author Neil says at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Donation Banner. It is apparently only displayed on User talk:Addhoc, User:Jeffpw, User talk:Jeffpw and User talk:Dynaflow. They are just three of a huge number of Wikipedia editors and they personally chose to add this (see [1] for Addhoc) to their own user or talk pages. User space like this is not a part of the encyclopedia and I hope you don't advice people against Wikipedia based on something in user space. PrimeHunter 14:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried to copy it myself but got edit conflict twice. The second time was with Woodym555 copying it! PrimeHunter 14:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you've got to be quick at this game. ;) Woodym555 14:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I took it off my talk page in case it offended anyone. I still think it's awesome, though. Neil ☎ 14:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree that there is no need for admin action here. The banner, while somewhat offensive, is displayed only on a handful of individual user pages that are virtually impossible to stumble upon accidentally. And it is obviously a parody of the famous Geldof quote. No policy has been violated. -- Satori Son 14:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It says "Give us your fucking money" with a link to the official fundraising page http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising, and it's displayed above the page name like other donation banners. Many people don't know users can edit there and readers (like the original poster) are likely to think it's an official banner. This is unfortunate. I think that if it stays then it should be made more clear to readers that individual editors are choosing to display this in their own space. PrimeHunter 15:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, PrimeHunter is absolutely right. In addition, the same policies apply to userspace that apply to any other part of Wikipedia. WP:Profanity, although a guideline not a policy, is fairly clear:

Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if they are informative, relevant and accurate, and should be avoided when they serve no other purpose than to shock the reader. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.

I think this clearly falls into the latter bracket, and the users in question should be asked to be a bit more careful. Waggers 15:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel as the creator of this little image I should point out I - in no way - intended it as a parody of Bob Geldolf, as I was unaware he even said such a thing, and wish to dissociate myself entirely from him, his daughters, and his maelevolent beard. I just made it for a joke on Wikipedia:Fundraising redesign. Neil ☎ 15:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I see this on the main page FA. --Kaypoh 16:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I keep reverting the IP whose doing it as vandalism because article space is not a place for these things, and it's obviously being done in bad faith. Bmg916^Speak 16:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should semi-protect it. --Kaypoh 16:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said an AN, I love the alternative banner. Since my walk to work every morning takes me straight through the heart of San Francisco's lovely Tenderloin District, that is the kind of language I've come to expect to hear when being solicited for "donations." If the typical Wikipedia reader would be shocked by the word "fucking" [cringe] and would not immediately realize the banner is satirical, I guess I have no choice but to take it down. I did copy the code to make the thing transclude in place of the real donation banner from elsewhere, and if I got rid of that part and just had the image as obviously a part of my userspace, I don't think it would cause quite as much of a fracas should someone be ... accidentally exposed. Page visitors would then have an extra clue, above and beyond the banner's content, that it's satire. --Dynaflow babble 03:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That horrible begging banner currently defacing every single page of this fucking project is what offends me. It's just so...Wikipedian <shudder>. I commend Neil for giving us an alternate that actually puts a smile on my face (though under no circumstances will anything compel me to put any money into this project's pockets--my free labor will have to be enough). For me the choice is clear: it's either the "fucking money" banner (which is really what you're trying to say with the original, dreadful banner) or stop editing until the beg-a-thon is over for the year. Jeffpw 17:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Using this image is probably a bad idea. It's needlessly crude and serves no encyclopedia purpose. Friday (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Friday, I just visited your userpage, and those pink whatevertheyares scared the hell out of me. Do they accomplish anything encyclopedic on your page??????? If not, I'm afraid they'll have to go, no matter how attached you are to them. Jeffpw 17:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone can make a reasonable case that they bring the project into disrepute, I'll remove them without complaint. Friday (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen no reasonable case made about the banner; just the usual gosh gollying about little tots and their innocent eyes. Last I heard one could say "fuck' in a PG movie, so I doubt any brat coming to Wikipedia would be led down the primrose path to hell by seeing the word on my pages. Jeffpw 18:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there has been a semi-reasonable case made--that some people may mistake this for an official banner and take the Wikimedia Foundation (or whatever they're called) to be somewhat unprofessional. Not every new editor understands the distinction between userspace and mainspace. Note that I don't necessarily buy this argument, but I don't think it's entirely meritless. In general, though, I'm in favor of more wikijokes, not less.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Peeps make a queasy whenever I see them, and they bring back bad childhood memories of The Worst Easter Ever. Anyway, there's a difference between being obscene for the sake of being obscene, and taking elements of what might otherwise be obscene and using them for a satirical purpose. The banner in question is clearly an example of the latter. --Dynaflow babble 18:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is really being added to articles like the FA of the day, a sensible solution would be adding both versions to the MediaWiki:Bad image list with appropriate userspace exceptions.--chaser - t 18:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. [EDIT:] Make that all three versions; here's another: Image:Giveit.svg. --Dynaflow babble 18:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with temporarily adding these three images to the Bad Image List to prevent vandalism, but I still want to be on record as opposing any application of WP:PROFANITY here. Surely the community did not intend that guideline to prohibit the use of colorful language in an obvious satire used only on personal user pages. I fully realize we have to draw the line somewhere, but this behavior doesn’t cross it. — Satori Son 18:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. — Satori Son 18:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Satori, did your edit interfere with the image displaying on my user and talk page? Because it's just a blue link now. Jeffpw 19:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As I understood that MediaWiki feature, it is only supposed to prevent use of those images "inline in articles", but I cannot see the image on your page either. Anyone else more familiar with this feature with some insight? — Satori Son 19:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like user pages require exceptions as well. Fixed by others - thanks. — Satori Son 19:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here, after all WIkipedia is not censored, and it's funny as hell!! (except if you're the Moral Majority ) ;) KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 19:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Kosh Vorlon

I think restricting it to userpage only is a sensible solution, good stuff. Neil ☎ 20:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to restrict it to a single "domain," or is the only option to restrict the image from all of Wikipedia and list one-page exceptions one at a time? --Dynaflow babble 20:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not think there is any such mechanism in the software. I don't mind including people in the list if they ask at my userpage. ··coelacan 20:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that there is any need for restrictions. I would hope, however, that people would have the common sense and maturity not to use it. I guess it shows quite clearly what kind of people we have on this project, and so in that sense is not misleading donors. User:Veesicle 20:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It was showing up in the featured article earlier, so the potential for abuse is pretty high and I think the Bad Image List is a workable solution. As for the kind of people we have around here, well, we have various sorts, including the sort who don't care for what they perceive as intrusive pledge-driving and who, in the relative autonomy of their own userspace, prefer to subvert that with an irreverent and light-hearted jab. And I wouldn't want it any other way. ··coelacan 20:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If they have a problem with the WMF needing money, they are welcome to edit another wiki. User:Veesicle 21:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

They certainly are. And they are welcome to edit here as well. Last I checked, we do not demand that editors sign loyalty oaths. ··coelacan 21:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No, but it is rather childish. User:Veesicle 00:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Giveit.svg now helpfully offers: To use this image legitimately, such as in an article about human anatomy or physiology,... I'm now dreaming of legitimately attaching it to such an article. Hm, spleen, perhaps? Bile? (Moreover, it would seem to belong in [non-anatomical, non-physiological] expletive.) -- Hoary 00:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Something else: The banner says "Donate to Wikipedia NOW!". Donations are to the Wikimedia Foundation and help Wikipedia but "Donate to Wikipedia" could be considered misleading. I'm not a lawyer and don't know whether there are legal implications. PrimeHunter 01:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If one wished to donate to Wikipedia, he or she would do so through the Foundation, as my understanding goes. There's no logical conflict there. --Dynaflow babble 11:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Shop steward's thoughts

While I personally don't struggle with this, I know that this banner can easily be considered harassment. I'm not sure about how this is treated on the web, but if it were in a workplace, and someone might look there FROM a workplace ......., or most other places, one would be vulnerable to complaints on the grounds of the local human rights code. Also, it does not portray a desirable image. I personally despise political correctness with a passion and view it as a plague and would view the inventor of it and ardent supporters of it as hypocritical, holier-than-thou twits. However, the law is the law and there is little anyone can do about that. One can easily make a case, that no part of an encyclopedia should be such as to communicate on that level AND be linked to an official part of the site. It is asking for trouble and degrading to the image of the whole site. Were it allowed, one could then also make a case for permitting that sort of language in discourse between editors. That, however, is not allowed. I would love to use more emphatic language with some individuals on here and am prevented from doing so by the rules. In short, the banner should be altered to delete the f word. If not, then why not say: "Give us your motherf?$§*ß%& money." Or how about: "Give us your motherf.... money, you stupid, motherf&%$, etc." Where do you draw the line, once you allow it? I know that as a union steward, if I had to defend a member who had been disciplined for the use of such terminology, I'd have a serious case. Even if I dealt with it under a collective bargaining agreement, that still leaves the path open for charges with the local human rights commission..... You just don't want to go there in today's environment. Even celebrities are losing their jobs over this stuff now. --Achim 03:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

For the thousandth time, "Wikipedia is not censored." Please actually go and read that official and non-negotiable policy. We actually have an article entitled f*ck, and it's not going anywhere. We also have articles for sh*t, c*nt, and a**hole. (Yes, ironically I prefer to self-censor my own language, but no policy requires me to do so.)

We make no guarantees that the website is safe for any workplace, nor will we ever. That argument has no legal relevance whatsoever. — Satori Son 04:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I just did some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis and pornography) and do not violate any of our existing policies . One, this isn't an encyclopedic image being used in an article. So its relevance to the content doesn't really apply here. As far as violating existing policy, some people might consider this to be a little uncivil. 'not censored' doesn't protect this, yet civil would indicate it shouldn't be here.--Crossmr 01:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You're joking, right? "If it were a workplace" It's not, it's a website. There are no collective bargaining agreements and the only work contracts apply to a half-dozen foundation employees who have no connection to this situation whatsoever.--chaser - t 06:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That is just funny :) - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I Would like this on my userpage, if at all possible - would it be in any way possible o the bad imag list to permit it to be use here? No more bongos 06:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I added your userpage as an exception for all three images [2].--chaser - t 06:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for typos, my keyboard is broken. Especially E, D and N. No more bongos 06:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't sweat it.--chaser - t 06:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... No more bongos 07:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if we're taking requests, I'd like to use the banner also. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 00:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Also  Done.--chaser - t 00:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that sort of language is all OK, then why don't we go much further? And since we're not censored, then why not throw "being civil" out as well? So that means anything goes, right? What about the N word? I made it quite clear that I was not making claims to legalities here. It's just that it's a slippery slope, once you allow that sort of thing. Apart from that, ask yourself this: If you have never previously considered donating, would you be more likely to donate if the request contained the F-word? Personally, I am not, much as I am amused at the use of it here, but it certainly does not make me more likely to donate. So what's the point of having it? Amusing the author of the banner? --Achim 02:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Consider it a bit of rebellion from good standing contributors. I've donated money to the foundation, I'll donate again. The fundraiser banner annoys regular contributors because it is unnecessary to use. If I use a Wikimedia foundation project daily, I don't need to see a banner. But I have no choice. It's akin to being a listener to National Public Radio during pledge campaigns but with the ability to comment in response. As mentioned before, Wikipedia is not censored and so follows that the word "fuck" in satire is applicable. If it trips your work filters, sorry for that as well but that's a baseless claim for removal if that is the ultimate problem. By rhetorical definition, those offended are the on the Slippery slope's fallacy. Just keep on editing. Keegan^talk 06:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As I just pointed out above, "not censored" doesn't protect this usage in non-article space. Not censored protects the use of words and images that people might find offensive when they are necessary to article space. It doesn't give you license to fill an article with "fuck" and in fact the policy clearly states that its only allowed so long as it doesn't violate any other policy. So you might want to cruise over to WP:CIVIL and have a read. Which obviously some people feel this doesn't jive with.--Crossmr 15:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are asking to go re-read Wikipedia:Civility, but let me assure you that I am extremely familiar with that policy. Especially the part that says "Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress." And the part that says "Profanity directed at another contributor." Please note carefully the "personally targeted" and "at another contributor" language I have bolded.

If someone visited your talk page and demanded that you "f*cking donate," that would be a completely different issue. But colorfully worded satire on your own personal user page is not a violation of any official policy, and it never has been.

I hope it doesn't sound like I am completely insensitive to your concerns. I personally do not approve of such language: I don't use it here and I wish that others would not either. But just as I argued that the personal essay "Don't be a f*cking douchebag" was not a policy violation, I will always defend those who choose to use profanity in a way that is not uncivil. It is simply not behavior that requires administrator attention or action. If someone feels that it should be, they should make a formal proposal at the pump. -- Satori Son 00:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Humour is not universal and you're going to have to accept that fact that obviously this isn't universally hilarious as its seemed to be thought. But I don't see how behaviour has to be personally targeted to be uncivil. If I go off on a rant about the general behaviour of wikipedians and lace it with profanity you can guarentee I'll be blocked for it regardless of whether or not I name names. Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another. More than one editor has indicated they don't find this hilarious and have an issue with it. That's enough as far as I'm concerned to consider this as not acting civilly towards each other. Another quote from the page and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally.. This obvious was unintentional but people have been offended. And 'not censored' doesn't provide any protection here. So there is nothing here to support keeping this image and a clear policy which indicates it should be removed, along with WP:AGF which means you should take their complaints at face value unless you see any evidence to the contrary.--Crossmr 00:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against admin action because I think it's "hilarious"; I don't. And I don't see anything that indicates I have not assumed good faith; I have.

My argument, simply, is that official En-Wikipedia policy does not strictly prohibit the use of profanity that is not uncivil. Obviously, I strongly disagree with your interpretation of policy, but I respect your opinion. And if it's supported by other administrators, I will support consensus. -- Satori Son 01:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The moment someone comes here to complain about it, it has become uncivil. Whether its intended as such or not that is how its has been viewed.--Crossmr 06:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if one grants that it's not strictly prohibited (which I would grant), is that really as high as we aim? I don't really care whether it's prohibited; I care that it's unprofessional, tacky, and unbecoming the dignity of this project. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right: whether a behavior is "strictly" prohibited by policy is not really the standard we use for determining when administrator action is required in a situation, and I have stricken that needlessly restrictive qualifier. My other points still stand. Sorry for the misstatement. -- Satori Son 15:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for completely missing my point. Even if behavior is not prohibited in any way, does that make it excellent, or professional, or indicative of any class at all? Is there any reason that we might want to be excellent, professional, or classy? Is our goal to do everything right up to the edge of what's prohibited? Nobody has made an argument that the banner is tasteful, or that their chuckles are more important that presenting a professional face to the world. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to correct a mistake I made, not irritate you. I am sorry. -- Satori Son 19:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter whether I'm irritated - I'm not really anybody. What I think matters are two things: (a) Can Wikipedia rise to the challenge of being culturally sensitive, as opposed to culturally insensitive, and (b) Is our attitude that of doing anything that's not forbidden, or of trying to be as excellent as we can? I don't see how such a banner could possibly be consistent with cultural sensitivity and excellent behavior. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The key to the civility policy is to act civilly towards others. The presence of the image on a userpage is not directed or addressed towards anyone; it only exists as a self-obvious bit of humorous ironic hyperbole on the part of the user whose page it happens to appear on. Now that the image has been BADIMAGE'ed, there's no worry it might be maliciously forced on a mass audience. If what is causing emotional distress is the image's simple existence, we are dealing with a different issue entirely. WP:AGF also calls for the image's detractors to accept that the users of the image are probably not using it in a manner calculated to shock or offend. As regards the "gratuitous" profanity, as long as we're still citing not being dicks as one of our most important, core values, we have to accept that profanity and quasi-offensive language, in both humorous and merely emphatic contexts, have a secure and long-standing place in Wikipedia's culture. <font color="#285991"&amp;gt;--Dynaflow babble 06:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the humor is as obvious as you make it out to be. I find it cute enough, but Wikipedia is read by a lot of people from a lot of different cultures, and writing cultural differences off as some kind of oversensitivity on the part of others strikes me as very unprofessional and unbecoming of an encyclopedia. The f-bomb means a lot more in some places than it does in others. I think the banner is very tacky, and while I wouldn't support sanctions against users who display the banner, I would hope that most of us aim to be a little classier than that. We are being watched by the world, after all. The conflation of profanity with our fund-raising drive is particularly unfortunate, to my mind. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I made the banner (in a deliberately crappy manner with all manner of bad jpeg artifact) with the sole intention of making people giggle when they clicked on the pipelink to it on Wikipedia:Fundraising redesign. It wasn't intended for display on talk pages or anything like that. Neil ☎ 09:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to suggest that you made the banner for bad reasons, or that anybody who's displaying it is doing so in less than perfectly good faith. I'm just hoping to point out that there may be reasons for not displaying such a banner that some people have not perhaps considered. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

i think it is VERY unprofesional of wikipedia to have such a banner. after i see the banner, i will NEVER donate. americans think saying the f word is very funny. here it is NOT. i didnt come to wikipedia to see that kind of thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.19.150 (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the argument about the use of the f word's being directed at a specific person. Anyone who reads it may very well feel addressed. The author wanted all readers to feel addressed (Otherwise what's the point?) And the point of the banner is purportedly to get people to donate. I don't think anyone can argue that it fulfills that purpose. That means that either there is another purpose or the author was unable to see that the purported purpose was not served by the banner. In any event, it's in poor taste. I don't see the upside of having it on a site like this. --Achim 18:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a good reason to keep these images on our servers? I appreciate that Wikipedia is not censored, but that's an important article-space policy. In user-space, we're presenting the face of Wikipedia, and I think it makes a lot of sense to appear professional and culturally sensitive. The banners are neither. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The face of Wikipedia is in fact the encyclopedia: article space. We have never had any pretensions of professionalism in userspace. Despite the war on userboxes, and UCFD, and a few sad essays scattered about, there has never been more than a tame breeze pushing for professionalism in userspace. Giant Jefferson and I hope we will never see such a day. And I know it's tragically politically incorrect to say so, or perhaps I'm just a clod, but I can't muster any sensitivity for people who get flustered about fornication. Is there a good reason to keep the images? Perhaps you don't value these reasons, but I do: some productive users like them, the area of usage is confined by the software, the time of usage will be temporary, we never know what potential good we stifle when we curb expression, and there's no consensus to delete. ··coelacan 09:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

So, the "potential good that we stifle" when we "curb expression" is worth more than the fact that we're basically pissing in the face of entire cultures? I don't think you're getting just how disrespectful the banner is. Do you walk into churches and spit on crosses, because it's not forbidden? Yes, I'm choosing extreme examples, because I'm trying to get across that, until you've been there, you don't know just how offensive these words are. I was shocked, when I lived in Kenya, to learn just how beyond-the-pale the f-word is considered there. I wouldn't say it there, unless I were trying to offend, and maybe get my ass kicked. Every time I edit Wikipedia, I think about Kenyans reading it. Is it really such a painful hardship to be respectful of other humans' feelings? I know a lot of people who do it, and seem to enjoy it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the silly thing about this is how people can make a case for being obnoxious (and the comment isn't made at Neil who made a one off joke and is no doubt bemused about the ongoing molehill/mountain scenario), but at those who then seek to construct a whole principle upon it). In context, I swear, I will even use the odd swear word or two on Wikipedia to make a point (and risk being reprimanded), but it is done in the knowledge that swearing is offensive, even on the Internet.

In the end though, gratuitous swearing or obscene images just make those who use it seem ignorant and insensitive. If people want to create the impression of themselves being ignorant, then I guess that is there prerogative, but it does then reflect on Wikipedia. People who wear the badge of Wikipedia, and to be that includes admins (regardless of it being "just some tools"), need to reflect that what they do on Wikipedia is seen as what Wikipedia condones. If you want Wikipedia to be reported as being run by a group of foul-mouthed geeks, then carry on, but don't fall for the kidology that what you do in userspace is not part of what Wikipedia is, regardless of what you think it should be.

It is not the first time I have seen an argument that user pages are off limits to Wikipedia rules. This view extends to one that civility does not apply on talk pages (or your own talk page). That is simply unreasonable if user pages are part of the Wikipedia mechanism. Spenny 09:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"It is not the first time I have seen an argument that user pages are off limits to Wikipedia rules." Who is making this argument? I am not your straw admin. If the image is in violation of some rule, let's hear it. ··coelacan 10:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"... no doubt bemused about the ongoing molehill/mountain scenario ..." ' - you are not wrong. Neil ☎ 10:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

coelacan, I will not point to specific examples as I do not want to either revive old wars or fan ongoing ones. I'm not overly fussed about Neil's joke, which only backfired because of someone else's vandalism, but I would simply make the point that generally rude jokes have the potential create an atmosphere of incivility and as such you should be sensitive to those who might reasonably claim to be offended. (Long ramble omitted for all our good!) Spenny 12:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Neil's joke, which only backfired because of someone else's vandalism. Exactly. And now that the potential has been dealt with, the rest of this discussion has been only so much Wiki drama, suitable for passing the time on a rainy day, but of no lasting consequence. As a quick aside, I fail to see how this innocent little sign could stimulate so much discussion, while userpages which advocate nuking other countries and spouting racism were allowed to stand for eons before action was taken. If we wish to keep Wikipedia from being discredited by its users, perhaps we could first get our priorities in order and deal with those kind of pages--or figure out some way to stop the vandalism which is a far greater problem and makes us look like such an unreliable source of information. Just a thought. Jeffpw 12:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. In any case, a little harmless vulgarity can pay dividends beyond a chuckle from those unafraid to laugh at it: "Regular swearing at work can help boost team spirit among staff, allowing them to express better their feelings as well as develop social relationships, according to a study by researchers."[3] Leave the fucking thing be. --Dynaflow babble 13:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Dynaflow, I hope you drop the f-bomb sometime in a cultural context where it's considered truly offensive, and then you can explain to the people you upset that their culture is wrong to be so "afraid to laugh". Then, I hope it doesn't get you into too much trouble. Cultural sensitivity is not simply "Wiki drama". -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL requires we also avoid being unintentionally offensive. As pointed out there are cultures and even people in the west who find this truly offensive. This has no place here.--Crossmr 19:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe displaying this is intentionally offensive - I'm not intending to offend anyone. I don't see any harm in a little satire in userspace. If anyone reading my userpage would be offended by the banner, I might suggest to them that they should lighten up. No more bongos 21:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no requirement that it be intentionally offensive. ...and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally. The fact that some people have posted here and said they are offended is all the evidence that we need that this could be offensive. Continuing to display something that some people have indicated offends them, services no encyclopedic purpose, and could potentially offend other users may have some questioning your motivation for doing so. We don't assume good faith blindly and had I encountered your userpage outside of this discussion with no previous talk of this issue I'd assume good faith, but now that good faith concerns have been raised and a policy very clearly cited to indicate why it shouldn't be used, we don't continue to blindly assume it.--Crossmr 22:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops, misread quote above. Well, fine, people are offended and the image is gone. I would suggest that some editors are rather easily offended. I suppose we all have different standards on this kind of thing, though. No more bongos 22:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterize cultural differences as people "needing to lighten up". I think it's rather provincial to put it that way. Try living in a very different culture, and then see how comfortable you are saying that your culture is right and others are just "easily offended". Wikipedia is trying to be a world-wide institution; doing that involves learning about what it means to interact with all kinds of people. They are not to be judged for being different from us. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Direct you to my comment further down. Have seen plenty more potentially inflammatory things on userpages. Wikipedia also involves learning not to get unnecessarily inflamed. No more bongos 00:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not inflamed. I'm saddened that there seems to be so much resistance to the idea that we might take people's feelings more into consideration than to write them off as "easily offended". Article-space is one thing, and nothing can compromise NPOV. In the rest of the project, I'd rather not offend people if I can avoid it; I'm sorry that others feel differently. The fact that plenty of potentially inflammatory things are on user pages does not make those things classy, or courteous, or good ideas. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted

Note that User:David Gerard has deleted two of the three images. No more bongos 21:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think he missed the third accidentally, rather than deliberately. Joke's over, the thought police have won - I've deleted it. Neil ☎ 22:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, Neil, at least one portion of your sign is still providing me with use and pleasure: the code for the sign is still suppressing the crappy beg-a-thon sign from appearing on my userpage. For that I thank you. For the rest, I'll just say I'm glad the well meaning Wikipedians take themselves so seriously. God knows nobody else does. Jeffpw 22:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite agree. It's possible to edit an encyclopedia seriously at the same time as engaging in light relief, just see List of sex positions. Honestly though, I don't understand the issues people had with this. No more bongos 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Other cultures are silly; let's laugh at them and at how stupid and easily offended they are. That's class. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No more bongos, your statement above, "I don't understand the issues," is precisely correct. You don't understand how words sound to people in different parts of the world, and that's why others are here trying to help you understand. Go travel and learn. You don't sit down among Arabs and put your feet up on the table. You don't go to dinner in India and eat with your left hand. You don't make irreverent religious jokes in a religiously conservative country (no matter how stupid you think religious conservativism is). It is a different world out there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes - however this is the internet. Although I normally agree with those opinions of yours that I've seen, I think in this case you're both drawing irrelevant parallels and being unnecessarily patronising. No more bongos 00:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

So what if its the internet? That means everyone should suddenly subscribe to your ideals? Wikipedia is also a community. Part of working together is not doing things to offend other members of that community. Its one thing to do it unintentionally, its another to pursue it doggedly after the complaint has been raised. However as a community we aspire not to do it unintentionally in the first place.--Crossmr 01:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No, and would be nice if you didn't try and simplify my argument by extension. Being the internet means we do not have a homogenous moral standard. The nearest thing that exist to this is policy. Policy is flawed and appears to be self-contradictory at times.

Userpages in particular are still a very grey area. If somebody had posted a nice note on my talk page, for instance, asking me nicely to take it down as use of the "'F' word" offended them, I would have given it serious thought. Nobody did this.

Instead - and this is only a probability rather than fact - what appeared to be a regular user logged out and used an IP specifically and only to remove it from my userpage and anyone else who had it, which struck me both as gaming the system and as assuming bad faith.

In any case, parody is parody, and as far as I understand it - and this forms my rationale for displaying it there in the first place - it plays on the visual aggressiveness of the fundraising banner. If people don't find it funny, that's down to them. It wasn't my intention to cause any offence, but I found the reaction here very bite-y, which made me slightly overly combative above.

In any case, this discussion here is getting WP:POINTy, since everything has been deleted, so I invite you to my talkpage to continue the discussion, should you feel the need. No more bongos 02:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"Do you walk into churches and spit on crosses, because it's not forbidden?" No, and in fact that is forbidden; it's defacement of private property. It's not only illegal, but immoral, since I have no right to damage or leave my spittle upon others' property. But to correct your analogy, I have in the past linked from my userspace to this monstrous text in which a terribly insensitive man calls "one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites."

Religious conservatism of all brands is remarkably consistent in relegating women to second-class citizenship, if they are afforded autonomy at all. Women in Kenya who've been raped have to flee traditional society to live safely without reprisal. Rape is their fault only if one begins from the ludicrous superstition that a woman first brought "sin" into the world, initiating bodily and sexual shame, and was punished for it with painful childbirth, thus making sex and reproduction the centerpiece of a busybody institution that maintains mindshare by normative violence in this life and threats of hellfire in the "next".

There are indeed plenty of people who are offended by words denoting human sexuality, and those people are wrong. Their beliefs are rooted in misinformation, and are factually wrong. Their beliefs contribute to sexual and gendered oppression, and thus are morally wrong. If they learn their beliefs from their cultures, then their cultures are wrong. Insofar as their culture restricts freedom of conscience and freedom of speech, it is damaging to humans and must be opposed, or we will still be born free but live everywhere in chains. Insofar as my culture values and protects liberty to a greater degree, yes, my culture is better.

If we pretend that an aim of communication should be to appease the most easily offended, then let us not neglect to cover the female visage, easily as offensive to some people as the word "fuck" is to others. If we pretend this a moral endeavor, let us make haste to remove all graven images from Wikipedia servers (surely a worthy criterion for speedy deletion). But I'm confused; you mix in pragmatic arguments too. If I should shut my lip in Kenya lest I be beaten, this is but amoral pragmatism. On the other hand, GTBacchus, if you felt it pragmatic to restrain your vocabulary or "maybe get [your] ass kicked", then this unspoken but understood shadow of violence is all the more reason why those people are morally wrong.

It is impossible to avoid offending someone. I have just offended many people with my assertion that my culture is better than any culture which lacks liberté, égalité, fraternité. You have offended me with your suggestions that I should kowtow to my neighbor's superstitions. Sensitivities, then, cannot alone dictate what stays or goes at Wikipedia. Those who sought the deletion of the images should have taken the question to MFD. Consensus rules here, and these impassioned defenses of taboo might, sadly, have carried the day. For future reference, though, such exhortations are lost upon me. ··coelacan 09:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I find it a shame that you mistake courtesy for taboo. If I suggest being mannerly, apparently I'm "kowtowing to superstition". If I think it's better that we try and get along with each other, then I'm "trying to appease the morally offended". You're pretty sadly mistaken about me. I'm probably more opposed to "taboos" than most people you'll meet, precisely because of experiences I had in Kenya. That does not, however, mean that I think that casual vulgarity is going to set matters right. I still believe in treating others as I would like to be treated, and for me, that means maintaining a certain level of decorum and class.

I think it's entirely appropriate that we have articles confronting such practices as female genital cutting, which is hardly addressed in Kenya because they've got taboos against saying words such as clitoris. That's not the same as keeping vulgarity on our user pages. There's a time and a place for shocking people by dropping the f-bomb. I don't see how our user pages at the encyclopedia is that time or place. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something but where, exactly, is "stupid and harmful banner" listed as a reason in the criteria for speedy deletion? Or was this an out-of-process deletion undertaken with zero participation in discussion and with absolutely no desire to follow Wikipedia policy, either in spirit or letter? Oops, my mistake. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:IAR. We do not owe unencyclopedic pages "due process" or something. If you wish to formally contest the deletions, Wikipedia:Deletion review is right there. Furthermore, I find it very easy to see how the deletion was an attempt to follow the spirit of various policies. Assuming good faith is easy if you can just place yourself in another's shoes. If you can't... um... yeah. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The image was deleted on behalf of the m:Communications Committee because it was in extremely poor taste while representing the WMF. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 10:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, in any event, I was only using the wonderful image to obscure that annoying banner from my userpages. Now that a helpful editor has told me how to edit my monobook to obscure it from every single page of wikipedia that I view, I'm even happier than I was with Neil's banner. For me, the issue was being harassed for money each time I gave my free labor with an edit. Now that's offensive, in my opinion.Jeffpw 18:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What a load of bullshit. Can I now demand that all American Wiki users are required to remove the Stars and Stripes flag from their user pages, as it is offensive to myself, and others that are still rightfully aggrieved over the illegal rebellion perpetrated on what was rightfully and legally UK holding? What a joke. I just hope the "editors" that spent so much time here moaning about this spend as much time chasing rasists, vandals and other dickheads.Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 19:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

We do. Also, I didn't "demand" anything. I asked that people take others' feelings into account, instead of not doing so. Apparently, that makes me an asshole. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, yes. (With due respect otherwise). Duja► 08:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not you, but David Gerard did quite a bit more than ask, he forced the issue. And Swatjester claimed it was on behalf of ComCom, which has not made an official statement at all (nor was such a thing cited in the deletion summary). The images were ALREADY on the bad image list, therefore they could not have been placed anywhere near article space anyway. —Random832 17:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

We're not civil only in article space. People found them offensive, civil covers this, 'not censored' doesn't make any exemption for jokes in poor taste, I'm not really sure where the disconnect is here and why some people feel they should be allowed to be as offensive as they want in the name of humour.--Crossmr 21:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The question, though, was whether it was really on behalf of ComCom, and whether it is appropriate to claim that if there was no foundation-level involvement in this decision. —Random832 19:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've actually been curious about this, too. I see on Coelacan"s talk page that Swatjester says it was done after email discussions, which brings up the question of transparency. I would like to have some clarity about this. Further, after reading the page for the committee, I wonder if it was even within their scope to delete an image solely used in userspace. On my page, the image didn't even link to the beg-a-thon, as I removed all other code. I would hope someone would check into this further, or Swatjester would be somewhat more forthcoming than he has been until now. Jeffpw (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground for you to protest against the fundraiser, and it's certainly not a place for images to make offensive remarks with the appearance that they are sanctioned or even on behalf of the foundation. That is a publicity issue which is clearly within the scope of ComCom's business, which by its nature does not have to be transparent. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that "Wikipedia is not censored" is sometimes used to defend incivility. Is the policy only for articles? --Kaypoh (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Yidisheryid

• Yidisheryid (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yidisheryid
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive302#In which there is a dispute between User:Yidisheryid and User:Avraham.

I am afraid that the user is exhibiting symptoms of recidivistic behavior, especially as relates multiple personal attacks against multiple editors, incivility, misunderstandings and misrepresentations of wikipedia policies such as reliability, verifiability, hoaxes, and Wikipedia:Non-free content, among others.

The user has a history of sockpuppetry, and was blocked for such, and only unblocked after issuing an apology.

The user was brought to ANI earlier, see here for these issues, and especially for his habit of redacting other people's edits. The user was blocked for disruption and incivility, admitted such, and once again, promised to reform.

Unfortunately, there has been no indication of any reform; au contraire, there is only further evidence of incivility and personal attacks [4] [5] [6] note edit summary [7] [8] [9] [10], improper accusations of admin-tool abuse [11] [12] [13], continued ignorance of wikipedia policy even after being informed [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19], and subtle and overt changes to others' comments [20] [21]. More examples exist.

Since I am this person's main target for abuse, it is possible that I am too close to the issue, so I am asking my fellow editors and sysops here to comment on this user, his track record, his recidivism, and whether or not some time to review wiki's policies and rules would be helpful, or perhaps other remedies, such as a topic ban or long-term block would be appropriate to prevent further disruption to articles relating to Judaism, Zionism, Israel, and attacks against other editors. Thank you. -- Avi 21:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that every time there is heat against him at one project he moves on to another project as can be seen here evidence for incivility, misunderstandings and misrepresentations of wikipedia policies such as reliability, verifiability. It's been ongoing for more than a year now, every time he is quiet on yi I see him active either on en or he.--Shmaltz 23:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

for the record i am active daily in all 3 wikipedia languages; he; en; and mainly Yi.--יודל 14:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• "au contraire"? Is this the Spanish Wikipedia, or something? LessHeard vanU 23:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No, but the term is pretty selbstverständlich . -- Avi 23:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • it's not Spanish, it's French for "to the contrary" ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

YY's Reply

Who am i: First of all i can say to u i am a man of many wrongs and the community may decide that they don't want to put up anymore with me if they deem me a drag on the wiki, to tell u the truth i was blocked many times in Hebrew wikipedia and many more in the Yiddish wikipedia, and now i am back full force corrected and straightened, after all so much dedication, well over 40.000 edits daily i have declared the wikipedia my addiction and home, mostly in my native language Yiddish where i was already 2 times sysop, i am faulty and nobody has to live with me, but until i am not thrown out of here i believe in this medium especially for my community the Williamsburg Brooklyn Hasidim which needs desperately a form of transparency of knowledge and information to cope with our repressive lifestyle, i have not spoken the Hebrew language nor the English until a very recent time in my life, i believe that we must interlink all those 3 languages and many more on all topics.

Quote: my native language Yiddish where i was already 2 times sysop this is misleading, and if one looks into what really happened there one might wonder if this is not further proof against YY. He was voted out as an admin, to which the other admin that had bureaucrat permissions desysoped him. Since the bureaucrat doesn't know much English he went on IRC and ask for an emergency, they listened to just one side of the story (there was no one to tell otherwise) and gave him back sysop. In fact a week later when he came with a new name (sockpuppet) and I blocked him, he ran to IRC again, but this time I waited for him, the Stewards then gave me right for doing what I did. A lot of what happened because of that can be seen here.--Shmaltz (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Uncivility and Personal Attacks

i will try to answer all the links avi brings one by one and to explain it, and let u judge it as u see fit. he claims that i am uncivil and use personal attacks, i beg everybody to look at his links not the last edit link but my answers to him as well, (i will have time i will link them as well) about my detractors i have nothing to say, but please keep in mind that this is an ongoing constant attempt by Avi to get me blocked and last time i tried to show his pattern about me i was blocked for it, so i am silent. Yes i have ticked off the few users mainly Avi and Shmaltz and yossia and Izak. but i beg to consider my contributions just as worthy as theirs, shmaltz and yosia arent active and avi and izak i consider as better users than i but before u want to block me on their word i would like to correct myself so be very clear what i have done wrong and i will change by further noticing my blemishes thanks for everybody who feels important here to comment and on my behavior, i will take them deeply into my heart and construct it into positive motherly criticism and nurturing of my humanism.

Sockpupetry

i was never ever a sock puppet, and once i was guilty of vote socking which i did not know at the time to be illegal.

The above are 2 seperate lies, one he has engaged in sockppupetry before, for which I will not bring evidence at the moment. 2 He did know that it is illegal look at this edit here he wrote it back in Oct 2006, as well as here written again in Oct 2006, if translation is needed please ask and I'll translate.--Shmaltz (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive

yes i was found to being disruptive at one moment back a few months by an admin who blocked me for 24 hours, i had at the time apologized and moved on. please take a look at the whole incident and see what i did wrong was heavily debated and even though i did nothing wrong in of each incident because i was found by others of dismissing their opinion i felt a need to apologize so what it was boiling down to it is lack of respect to other users, which i was promising not to do again and i hope i did breach my promise.

You have promised this more than I can remember to count in the last year plus. You have run out of chances.--Shmaltz (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring Policy

also about my ignoring policy he brings his accusations that i ignore them, never did i take policy here easily i read them over and over, and i even translated all of them to the Yiddish wikipedia, i will answer everybody and retract my words all the time if somebody shoes me that i am wrong, i have even been accused of being a flip-flopper because i changed my opinion after rereading policy.

This is again a lie, for anybody that knows yiddish and those who have been active on yi.wp know that he would translate them and change the policy as he saw fit for the moment during his translation, and if someone tried correcting him he just did what he wanted, one example is here, he just erased all the parts that shows that he had violated them.--Shmaltz (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Changing others text

also about his links that i make neutral headlines on my talk page, it was already discussed in a previous ANI nomination by Avi, and it was answered that i may put my headline above his if its my talk page, as long as i don't temper with his words--יודל 13:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

--יודל 12:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Avi's Acusation of YY changing others text

• I won't comment on the rest (i looked at a few and agree with you on some points), but your "subtle and overt changes to others comments" examples are both changes in a heading level (not even the text), and addition of a comment (with its own heading) above it - in one, he even explicitly states what he has done to avoid even the appearance that it is intended to mislead people about what someone else has written. It seems like you can build a case against him without resorting to such accusations, so why'd you throw that in there? A heading is not part of a comment, and thus is not owned by the person who wrote the comment. People change talk page section headers all the time with no objection, and he didn't even change the actual text in either of your examples. —Random832 13:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Please be clear on what other points there is a case against me so i can correct it. thanks--יודל 13:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

My own interactions with YY have always been civil, though we frequently disagree on specific issues. I think the general tone sometimes not ideal, but not outside the run of things here. DGG (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the tone taken with myself and others has been rather the contrary, as the links above demonstrate, I beleive. However, thank you for your input. -- -- Avi (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

From my own interactions, I think YY's arguments at AfDs and discussions are not always based entirely on policy, and he can be a bit heated in exchanges at times, and not always ideal in tone, but nonetheless I don't think he's fundamentally here to disrupt the project. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

While I can't disagree and I could agree that fundamentally he is not here to disrupt the project, his actions show otherwise. There has been lots of chatter with him on IRC, I believe some stewards might have some input here about his civility.--Shmaltz (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

General advice

The above conversation looks like a request for comment discussion, and perhaps this should be pursued at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on users. If User:Yidisheryid was banned and is now doing the very same things which got him banned, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Yidisheryid, please read our policies and guidelines. Until you've acquired a good grasp of how Wikipedians are expected to behave, your actions will be inherently misdirected and will only cause more friction. Please SLOW DOWN while you learn the rules of the road, and proceed with caution. The Transhumanist    20:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Reblocked User:Whig

Whig (talk · contribs)

To summarise: Community banned homeopathic POV-pusher who was unblocked as part of an attempted mediation, then disappeared for a month. Just returned, and began the same idiocy all over again. Re-banned. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with reban, the user obviously has no intentions of contributing constructively here. Qst 20:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Good block. Multiple RFCs have failed to solve the problem. This one's here only to advance his POV, at which point he and the encyclopaedia have to part company. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This user should have been banned months ago. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that this is a good block - but then I thought this particular tendentious user had exhausted all of his chances last time around. I don't see a lot of value being added to the encyclopedia here. That said, Whig was unblocked on probation under the mentorship of User:Mercury last time around, so I'd be interested to hear Mercury's thoughts on the matter. MastCell ^Talk 18:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You should specify what you mean by 'began the same idiocy all over again.' what idiocy? please give the diffs. thank you Peter morrell 17:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I want to see what behavior Adam Cuerden was referring to in the form of diffs. Whig has made the same request. I think to be fair, this request should be satisfied. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no real stake in this one way or the other, but the last debate on ANI can be seen here. --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the reblock. As far as I can see from the logs, he has behaved appropriately for any other editor on Wikipedia since his unblocking. It appears you are reblocking him because he did not consult with Mercury when he re-appeared on Homeopathy. It also appears - from your justification given above - that the main force you cite for reblocking him is your antipathy to the topic of homeopathy. From the previous RfC it appears your behaviour, Adam, is being repeated, and needs to be addressed. Show us please why his edits since the unblock have been disruptive, conflict with Wiki policy, or (apart from not having sought an opinion before editing on the article of Homeopathy) contravened any agreements. From my reading of his edits, there are none. Justify please. docboat (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Whig is not "any other editor on Wikipedia"; s/he's a tendentious editor, as reinforced at his last RfC, who avoided an indefinite block and ban on the basis of agreeing to Mercury's mentorship. I think we should wait to hear from Mercury before going any further here. MastCell ^Talk 03:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

For the moment, I am going to refrain from commenting on the block. I am fairly confident Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) will address concerns regarding his reapplication of the block. Regards, Mercury 04:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Whig was unblocked because I and Mercury agreed that he might have some potential if he took a break and was able to get used to Wikipedia community behaviour standards, and we hoped he would learn what NPOV was as part of that. He disappeared completely for weeks, then suddenly came back, leapt into the topics that had caused so much trouble full-guns-blazing - indeed, he didn't edit anything else except to add homeopathy into Potassium dichromate - and his behaviour and language showed no signs of change. Whig is a true believer. We had hoped that he could learn to play nicely with others. Instead, we got more inane WP:OR homeopathy apologetics, and bold (and uncited) claims that, in fact, physicists and doctors support homeopathy, as well as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=171726760 this post where he takes David's sensible suggestion and turns it into a repeat of the "no criticism whatsoever in the lead" POV-pushing that he'd been canvassing for before the block. In short, a return to the behaviour from the RFC. The objectors to this ban, User:Peter morrell (RFC where he was nearly banned, but agreed to moderate his behaviour (which he stopped doing a few months ago)) and User:BrianWalker are cut from the same cloth, and, frankly, if they hadn't cleverly decided to constantly attack me, meaning I couldn't ban them without a COI, I'd have blocked them already.

But then, I'm in a brutally honest mood tonight. And, frankly, I'm sick of the whole subject. I don't LIKE editing Homeopathy. I wish thew whole thing would go away. But I'm an admin, and that means I have to monitor articles that are prone to trouble. And so, when asked to help out there by friends, I did. And what hell it's given me. More stress than any other bloody article, and that's with me trying to avoid it as much as possible, just checking for vandalism and POV-pushing. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Brutally honest, Adam? Right then. You have made a scurrilous attack on me now "cut from the same cloth" - how dare you, and you an admin? If this is the real, brutally honest you, and you have seen my edit history and read my own background to be able to make that ill-founded judgement, then the WHOLE of your judgements must be called into question. This will go further, I suspect. This is simply not good enough. Fail. You must do better. Quite apart from what you now decide with Whig, I want a competent admin to take a close look at your work. docboat (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do we spend so much time on such users? We give these folks umpteen last chances, soak up the time of good editors in futile attempts at mentoring them, burn out admins dealing with their incessant wikilawyering protests, and on and on, in the hope that maybe, someday, perhaps, possibly, eventually, with infinitely patient nurturing and lavish attention they'll learn to push their version of The Truth^TM in a slightly less tendentious way. Are we really so desperate for contributors? Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree. No, we aren't desperate for contributors, and much less for disruptive fringe editors who just "don't get it" and never will. Often it isn't even a matter of bad faith or ill will, it is simply that they lack the ability. They are immune to cognitive dissonance. We have the bar for acceptable behavior and attitudes set far too low here and this means we have fringe editors who get blocked, while their numerous sympathizers (whose - often fake - civility somehow protects them?) show up and reveal that they don't get it either, but they don't get blocked. In an ArbCom situation sympathizers can get blocked simply for showing too many of the same attitudes as blocked editors, IOW showing too much sympathy for them. They share their guilt because they think the same way and are also guilty of aiding and abetting them by supporting them in normal editing, in edit wars, in RfCs, and in the ArbCom proceedings themselves.

The bar needs to be raised and such sympathizers who don't get it and show signs of never getting it should also be shown the door, or at least be placed on probation. That is one advantage (possibly one of the only ones...) of RfCs. It draws all of the fringe sympathizers out of the woodwork so they show their true colors and they can be identified and the community alerted to which disruptive editors who don't understand NPOV are in need of watching. Unfortunately - because of the low bar - this occupies far too much good time that could be otherwise used on constructive editing. This situation needs to change. No more multiple and longsuffering series of warnings. Adam has several times revealed courage and resolute determination to protect Wikipedia from such time wasters and he should be commended, not interrogated by sympathizers from the flock of "birds of a feather who stick together." They should be warned together and blocked together. It shouldn't be necessary to waste time explaining common sense to those who don't understand it. I too am in a brutally honest mood this morning, but I'm sure only those who feel guilty will complain. -- Fyslee / talk 07:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Brutally honest eh? this does not seem to be an adequate response. The honesty of it must be judged by others, Adam. A number of specific points need to be addressed.

• you have edited homeopathy more than any other single editor in the last 9 months and control it (along with a few others) on a daily basis; you rvt other folks edits and seem hostile and owning towards the article and any other editors; you have created more edit wars and disputes on that article than any other editor; you are intolerant and disputatious and refuse to back down; this is why you block people; you abuse your admin powers; now you are threatening to block many more people including myself and docboat; I see you have a very 'impressive' history for deleting articles and blocking people; do you envisage a good WP as a police state? you are a self confessed anti homeopath; thus how can you say you dislike editing this article? the data simply does not stack in your favour.

• Why do you claim that Whig 'repeated his idiocy?' it seems he merely made some useful and factual edits to potassium dichromate; he never went near the homeopathy article as far as I can tell. His comments about potassium dichromate were fair, moderate, uncontentious, factual and neutral. How was he POV pushing? how was his language and behaviour block-worthy? I just don't see it in the diffs. Please explain your reasoning.

• you have still not supplied the diffs as requested by several folks here.

• attacking others who you claim are attacking you is a distraction, a side issue, and just muddies the waters; let's focus on the current issue and what you have said and what you have declined to say about this particular block.

• please provide the diffs which illustrate your comment that Whig was 'repeating his old idiocy' and show how his language and behaviour was block-worthy. You also claim he was POV pushing; please provide specific diffs that illustrate this.

• please provide the date you became an admin and also the dated diffs that show your claim that 'some friends asked you to check' the homeopathy article with dates. otherwise we have no idea of the factual accuracy of what you state. You must be able to show that you became an admin BEFORE you started editing the homeopathy article. I find that claim somewhat suspect. As I recall, you started editing homeopathy about February 2007. On what date did you become an admin? thank you Peter morrell 07:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Peter, seeing as I asked you just yesterday to tone down the rhetoric after you made a couple of attacks on Adam, you should be aware that you're skating awfully close to the edge of a block. Why on earth would Adam not be allowed to monitor an article for POV-pushing before he got his sysop bit? (Which, for the curious, he got on 2 March 2007). Why would he need to dig through nine-month-old page histories to find an invitation to edit?

Asking (civilly) for more information about a block is a reasonable practice, and an important part of making sure Wikipedia is working smoothly. Using this forum to push what has apparently become a personal vendetta against Adam is not. Please find something – anything – productive to do on Wikipedia that doesn't involve commenting on Adam. (I have warned Peter on his talk page that his current approach is unhelpful and may draw a block.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

When all the points raised have been answered, we shall all be happy. Assuming that is the answers are coherent and verifiable. thank you. Peter morrell

I have just reviewed the edits to the Potassium dichromate article and its talk page, and I do not see that Whig's edits were inappropriate. I note a rather aggressive edit summary from AC to one of the edits. [22] I think my few previous edits on this subject show no bias towards homeopathy, which, to be honest about it, I personally consider a dangerous absurdity. DGG (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's more his edits on Talk:Homeopathy and WP:FTN. Though the positioning of the section he added to Potassium dichromate the first time shows very little ability to judge its importance - there's a chemical with numerous applications in industry and chemistry, and he thinks that homeopathy is more important than major uses that, if I recall correctly, appear in the A-level chemistry exams in Britain (if briefly). Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

As for the Fringe notice board, I see only one November edit of his [23], a single sentence non disruptive comment. As for the Talk Homeopathy, I also see no disruptive edits--just the attempt to refine a single paragraph. DGG (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, Adam, you are a major contributor to the discussion on Homeopathy (and , as I said , I very much agree with what you say there). So why did you block someone for contributions to that subject? I would never use admin power on any one who had significantly contributed to an article on which I had also worked, especially if I were on opposite sides of the argument. (I am in no way defending Whig's earlier edits or opposing the earlier blocks.) There are 1300 other admins, and at least 1250 of them have never edited this subject. Why didn't you ask someone else to do the block for you? DGG (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Adam wasn't the person to make this bock, but seeing that Whig was trying, once again, to push his ideas about quantum mechanics providing an explanation for how homeopathy might work eg diff and diff, the block itself seems justifiable - unless of course Whig had cleared these edits with Mercury beforehand. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

A good block, and I agree with Raymond Arritt, users who are here to make a fringe into the mainstream via wikipedia need to be shown the door when their agenda refusees to meet our policies. As for Peter Morell's post above, that's a perfect textbook example of wikilawyering. deamnding dates and times of adminship conferrence? What could that have to do with anything else? It's a distraction. The user's had numerous Procedural reviews, and continues his behavior. Let him find a new outlet. ThuranX (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(I have been away for a week and not following the discussion.) On reviewing it, I think two points I raised in the previous ANI discussion about Whig are still relevant. 1) I do not think Adam Cuerden qualifies as a neutral administrator in this particular case. This concern, which I made in all seriousness, was never addressed in the previous ANI discussion. 2) If an editor persists in a line of argument that other editors consider absurd, there is the option of ignoring them. In homeopathy, this option might usefully be used more than it is. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Deeceevoice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently blocked for one year under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice. This block may or may not mature into a ban. The user may appeal the block/ban by the normal procedures. As such, there seems no need to continue this discussion. Physchim62 (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice, please check out for background and context.

Today I banned this user from Afrocentrism and its talk page for tendentious talkpage time-wasting, incivility, edit-warring, and POV-pushing (see [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30] (you need to read the article and see how bad it is to get that one)). Please also check some of her contributions to other articles to get the full flavour of her/his POV-pushing. From the user talk we get such gems as this:

“ With regard to WDM's "proposal," I'm not agreein' to squat. I didn't start the sh*t, and I'm not going to curtail my editorial rights because of someone else who's just got the a** with me simply because I don't buy white folks' lies about who our people are and our history. The guy's got a problem with me -- but that's his problem, not mine (along with, obviously, some personal issues as well; people as hateful and nasty as he is generally lead very sad, empty lives). ”

Directed at User:Wikidudeman, I believe. In response to my banning this user from Afrocentrism, I get told my actions are "unresponsive, high-handed, arrogant and totally off the wall" on my user talk. Reviews? Opinions on further action? Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on Deecee's edits on Afrocentism per se, but I do believe she is guilty of multiple, repeated, and unapologetic violations of civility. Long as her block log is, I'm surprised it isn't longer given that she’s basically thumbed her nose at the arbcom ruling. She's been around since 2004--I'm not sure there's a way to reach her, though as I've seen people I respect say she's a good contributor, it'd be nice if there were an effective way to get her attention. IronDuke 22:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The block log and history here seem amazingly similar to the Haizum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) situation in the section directly a few sections above here, at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Haizum_-_request_for_further_admin_action. Similar blocks, similar long-term incivility, just a different POV is being similarly furiously promoted, for better or worse. Haizum was just blocked indefinitely (and then appears upgraded to an indefinite ban, afterwards). EDIT: Actually, Deeceevoice's block log looks worse than User:Haizum's. • Lawrence Cohen 22:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that block log, I am inclined to indef and be done with it. She has had every chance in the world to reform and hasnt taken it. Good writer or not, we don't need people with her failings here. Viridae^Talk 22:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There are many editors and admins who will vigorously defend DCV's rights to slander other editors, create tension, soapbox, ignore the arbcom ruling, poison every article she works on with POV and accuse anyone who calls her on it of racism. I think it's about preventing systemic bias. Somehow. I don't see the logic myself. Neil ☎ 23:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the amount of personal attack blocks logged on the arbitration page, and the extent of the block log for the same. Is there two other admins who will support a year long block per remedy seven of the arbitration case: "She may be banned from Wikipedia for up to one year by any three administrators for good cause.". I consider a failure to abide by the personal attacks policy repeatedly sufficient cause and the recent edits for which she has now been banned from that article. Viridae^Talk 23:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ban. We're finally winning the encyclopedia back from the trolls, so we shouldn't stop with this one. While it maybe a personal attack, you have to call a spade a spade, and with multiple blocks, ANI threads and an RfAr, it's not getting through. Will ^(talk) 23:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I would probably support a ban of some period. She's not here to improve the encyclopedia, she's here to fight some kind of race war. We don't need this nonsense here. Friday (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Viridae, although I don't oppose a block like the one you gave her, did you get the support of two other admins? Corvus cornix 23:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Both Neil and Friday are admins and are supporting the block. I have enacted it. Viridae^Talk 23:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Viridae, can you log the block on the Arbitration case, pretty please? And have it endorsed by two admins who agree to the one year ban as required. (Neil and Friday's endorsement of a ban of "some period" is not necessarily support for a one year ban as required at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice#Deeceevoice_placed_on_probation.) I personally would support something between a week and a month at this time, but I won't oppose a year if two other admins specificially agree. Thatcher131 00:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Logged. I may have been a bit hasty in enacting that block, but I think it will stick given that everyone appears to be sick of her behaviour - wouldnt have done it otherwise. Viridae^Talk 00:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a month would have been better. This would show her what will happen if she continues to use Wikipedia as a battleground, but will give her one last chance to reform all the same. If she continues after my proposed shortening to one month, then I would have no objection to re-extending it to a year. While I see this year block as better than nothing, it nevertheless does not strike me as the ideal sanction at this time. Picaroon (t) 02:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I simply feel that she has had ample chance. The block log is 28 items long, almost a third of which are since the arbcom case... Viridae^Talk 03:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, look at this another way: her last block, according to her arbitration case, is over a year old; to me that says she's generally reformed of whatever problems she was deemed to have back then (I was unaware of this editor back then, so I can't say). I'd say that's worth investing a little good faith in it.--Ramdrake 03:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Moreschi is the same user who called my requests for civility from Dbachmann "process wankery" (diff) I just wanted to add this so it is clear that Moreschi is not an "uninvolved admin." I'm not exactly uninvolved myself, but I want to say that to me this seems unfair. Where is the evidence? And if civility is an issue why isn't anyone saying anything about Dbachmann's lack of civility and unwillingness to cooperate with the proposed 1 revert rule to allow us to unblock the article and avoid edit wars? This is unfair. The block should be lifted. futurebird 00:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Instead of attacking Moreschi (who isn't even the blocking admin in this case), perhaps it would be more constructive to explain why a block of an obviously tendentious and disruptive user is even a controversial issue? ELIMINATORJR 00:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you actually SEEN the block log? Its as long as my arm. I am incredibly surprised she has lasted this long. Viridae^Talk 01:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

28 separate items in the block log, in fact. For all I know, that might be some sort of a record. John Carter 01:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that's SPUI (talk · contribs) by a mile. Hell of an editor all the same. Mackensen (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• How EliminatorJR conceived that comment as an attack on Moreschi, I don't know. It is perfectly acceptable to comment on a user's involvedness. Picaroon (t) 02:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• I want to comment on your own involvedness then. You kind of have this pattern of defending and giving support to abusive users if they are pushing some pro-black or Afrocentrist biased opinion on Wikipedia. I'm also pretty sure that that other administrator EL C what's his name will soon get all Che and "heroic" on this valid block. Make yourselves less predictable, or this place will turn into a complete joke to the outside world. 82.208.193.150 03:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Pattern of defending "pro-black" editors? Like when I warned Jeeny and Taharqa about incivility towards their allegedly "pro-white" opponents? Or when I blocked Jeeny for edit-warring on Race of ancient Egyptians, and protected the article on her opponent's version? Or when I supported a month-long block of Deeceevoice? That's hardly a pattern of support, my proxy-using friend. Care to comment under your main account, or are you banned? Wait, don't answer. Picaroon (t) 00:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• C'mon everybody knows this is all an act, feigning neutrality to cover your back. You block Jeeny knowing the cabal would be all over it in no time. Nobody is fooled. 222.231.8.175 (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, if you keep blocking people who have a lot of blocks then it's not a surprise that they have a lot of blocks. Second, I'm sorry if it comes across as if I'm attacking anyone. That's not my intention here. It is just that I saw the events that happened on the page Afrocentrism in a different way. Dbachmann, was the driving force behind the "edit war" and lack of civility on the talk page that got that paged blocked. Wikidudeman came up with an idea for a "truce" to get it unblocked. Deeceevoice and Dbachmann did not want to do it. They both refused. I don't understand Dbachmann's reasons, he seems to feel that he should not have to enter in to such agreements because it makes it hard for him to "fight trolls" (?) I don't know... (see his talk page to read it in his own words...)

Deeceevoice refused, possibly because she does not trust Wikidudeman, after all, he's the one who tried to get her user page deleted a few weeks ago. They seem to have had some issues in the past. Deeceevoice has not been the only aggressor in this.

So, if this quote, which isn't a personal attack as much as it shows that Deeceevoice is not assuming good faith (and if someone tried to get my user page deleted I don't know if I'd assume good faith...) is all that you have as the reason for this block then I think a block is way to harsh and unfair. futurebird 01:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as Deeceevoice is one of our best editors. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I took a closer look at the diffs listed above and I don't understand how they support the charge?

• This link here, which is given as evidence as to why deeceevioce should be blocked, seems to just be her responding to my question about a citation tag she added to one of my sentences in the article. I found her response helpful. (I don't agree with all of it, and will respond after looking at some sources) But, it's not POV "editing."
• this isn't a "POV edit" either it's an explanation for a lack of trust. I hope that the context I provided makes this clear.
• this is not a POV edit. If you read it in context it's something I agreed with. It's called "systemic bias" there's a whole project devoted to fighting it.
• This is not a "POV edit" either.

I agree that her tone is at times harsh, a warning will do for that, But it's not like she is an admin and saying these kinds of things. None of this makes any sense to me. futurebird 02:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

One question that I'd like to ask, is how much more scrutiny would have gone in that call to admin action if Deeceevoice's record had been spotless? I may be wrong, but I feel she's been summarily declared guilty of all charges in good part because of her past record, and I don't think this should happen, as it is the practical application of the logical fallacy of Begging the question, namely she must be guilty; just look at the number of previous blocks she has. Yes, her exchanges show that she had problems assuming good faith in the situation reported, but it should be clear by just looking at histories from Talk:Afrocentrism, User talk:Dbachmann and User talk:Deeceevoice that she wasn't the only one, at the very least. Look, one of the exchanges that are linked in the list of offenses she purportedly committed was directed at me, and I took no offense, especially in this extremely tense situation (and again, it should be obvious from looking at the Afrocentrism talk page that another editor actually started the tenseness. So, in summation, I must agree with Futurebird here that the sanction was totally out of proportion with the purported offense.--Ramdrake 03:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I want to question the one-year ban also on the basis that it is customary at Wikipedia to escalate the length of blocks when offenses are repeated often, and when users stop offending for a long time, the blocks usually de-escalate. Based on this, I'd like to point out again that Deeceevoice's last block was in October 2006, was for 24 hours only, and that she's made litterally thousands of constructive edits since then. So, a one-year ban for repeating an offense one year after the offense garnered the offender a mere 24 hours is totally out of justifiable proportions. I say, if people feel she needs to be blocked, anything from one day to one week would be more appropriate, or possibly the time served so far on this block may even suffice.--Ramdrake 13:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I seriously question a one-year block. For the record i seldome have agreed with DCvoice's comments or edits though it has been a long time since I have worked on the same articles. I know DCV can be conentious and have no doubt that s/he can use some cooling down right now - a few days, maybe a week at most. But I think that systematic bias at Wikipedia is a serious problem and DCV's POV is no more extreme and no less valuable that that of many active editors. Perhaps DCV can benefit from some mentoring. perhaps DCV and Dbachman need mediation. My point is, we MUST have better mechanisms for these kinds of problems than one year bans. I believe if anyone wants to ban DCV for more than a week that they file an ArbCom complaint and ensure that due process is provided. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Couple points.. first, yes, a year is probably excessive. Why not start with a month? Also, I agree that the case of POV editing has not been made well on this page. I assumed it was true because it's historically been a problem with this editor, and I assumed that the admin who banned her from Afrocentrism exercised due diligence in determining that it was warranted. If she's not still making unconstructive biased edits and being generally impossible to work with, that's another story. Mentoring is not an option in my view- if she cared about feedback from other editors, we wouldn't be having this problem. She's a racist with a chip on her shoulder, and if someone disagrees with her, she assumes they're part of the White Conspiracy Against The Truth. Does this sound like a mentorable editor? No, the solution is to keep her in a box where she can't hurt anything. Friday (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I'll vouch that her edits were pretty much in line with majority consensus on the article page, and this situation got escalated through the one dissenting user (Dbachmann); this should help explain some of the angry reactions to this user's block. I can provide diffs to demonstrate if needed.---- Ramdrake (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The incivility is over the line, and this is a long-term problem, so I think a block of some length is necessary to make clear that this won't be tolerated, but I'm also hesitant to support such a long-term block. Why not a week or month, with a longer term block if more incivility follows? -- Everyking (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is evidence to justify a block of any-kind. I think a warning is all that is required in this case. Also, Friday, you tone is rather condececeding, and I don't think it's very professional to talk about keeping any user "in a box where she can't hurt anything." I think your tone is too harsh, in the same way that deeceevoice's tone is often too harsh. -- futurebird (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's sometimes necessary to attempt damage control here at Wikipedia. Maybe it's not nice, but it's what the encyclopedia needs. Friday (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

How many warnings does Deeceevoice need? How many has she had? Don't you think those multitudes of previous blocks would count as warnings? -- Corvus cornix (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why she is being blocked this time? -- futurebird (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies to Physchim62, but I'm unarchiving this for a little while, because I believe this could do with more time for scrutiny. (Closing the discussion less than 24 hours after it began is not really good for those of us who do not have the ability to live and breathe Wikipedia 24/7...) If you look at her block log, you'll observe that I'm not Deeceevoice's greatest fan, and have myself been the target of no small amount of her invective. However, I do feel somewhat that a year's block may be a little disproportionate to her actual recent conduct. Let's accrue some collective opinions about this for a little longer, before we declare this topic closed. There's no need to be hasty. — Matt Crypto 22:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not involved here, but I've seen Deeceevoice get a free pass on civil/npa like no other editor I can think of over the years. I've always been a little amazed how she gets away with it...I doubt very many other editors would have gotten as much slack as she has gotten since 2004. But having said that, a year long block is ramping things up a little fast. The ArbCom result aside, her block log isn't outrageous over the last year...I think a shorter block might be more appropriate for starters. A week or two maybe? RxS (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

After multiple suggestions, I am willing to reduce it to a month, only because she has been better (not perfect, just hasnt got a block out of it) recently. Viridae^Talk 10:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at the six or seven edits p0rovided above as evidence justifying the ban, and I do not see how they justify any ban. If you are looking for a community ban, you need consensus and you do not have it. Ramdrake, Futurebird, and I obviously feel strongly about this. Several of the edits provided as evidencts of tendentious incivility and edit-warring are anything of the sort - the first edito for example is very reasonable and just what we would want contributors to post to talk pages. I see an conflict between DCV on the one hand and Dbachman on the other. If one merits a ban, so does the other. I see this whole proceeding as an attempt to side-step ArbCom because the evidence provided simply would not stand up under ArbCom scrutiny, or other editors who have been in conflict with DCV would end up being blocked or banned as well. I have seen a lot of crap at Wikipedia and the evidence offered above simply doesn't raise to a bannable standard (unless we have a racist double-standard that holds people we think are black or women to a higher standard of behavior than white men). Some of the edits presented as evidence are DCV simply registering dissent. If that were a bannable offence we would all be banned. Even a one month ban is not justified in this case. Am I wrong? take it to ArbCom and see how the so-called evidence stands up to a rigorous due process. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Easily. We know what we'll get if we unban this person. We'll get the same old use of WP as a blog, blatant contempt for other editors, same old POV editing (did people see what DCV was condoning on Afrocentrism?), same old time-wasting drama. Do we really want to? And yes, the same people protesting here are the ones who were quite happy to let screamingly bad POV content stand on Afrocentrism, along with DCV (thank heavens for this edit!) Either DCV appeals to the ArbCom or this ban stands. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 11:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Easily? Then take it to Arb-Com - I mean, take your complaint to ArbCom. Wikipedia insists that people with diverse points of view work together. DCV represents an extreme - but notable point of view. It is clear to me that some people cannot work with DCV, but it is also clear to me that other people can work with DCV. DCV's behavior is not more extreme or tendentious than many other editors, and oftentimes less so. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

We've already been to ArbCom. They gave us measures to stop DCV from troublemaking in the future. Now we're enacting those measures. You also fail to understand that Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is our most important policy. DCV's deviations from this policy cannot be tolerated, we simply can't accomodate them. If a user is POV-pushing we kick them out. This is obvious, so I should hope. DCV does not even attempt to edit in a spirit of neutrality, as the diffs and quotes presented show. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 11:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Slurbenstein, it has been to Arbcom. DCV was told to cease using her user page as a soapbox, and warned to respect our boundaries on civility and avoiding personal attacks. Not only does she ignore these enjoinders, editors like you passively encourage and perpetuate the behaviour by describing her poisonous, hysterical, self-martyring and aggressive ranting and rabid POV warring as "having a diverse point of view". Those who defend that kind of behaviour are no better than those who carry it out. Neil ☎ 11:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. A "diverse point of view" is the last thing we want. We need one point of view - the neutral one. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 11:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Man, do you misunderstand NPOV:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly .... As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".

Diverse views (use the plural please, when using the word diverse) is precisely what we want, and your attempt to ban a view you do not like is a violation of NPOV. Moreschi, I think you have revealed your true colors here. As for the ArbCom decision, DCV's parole does not mention his/her own user-page as a soap-box. It does as Neil suggests refer to disruptive edits. And this AN/I report provides seven examples none of which rise to any fair standard of "disruptive editing." On the contrary, I see Deeceevoice trying to comply with the ArbCom decision i.e. taking their counsel to heart. You should be encouraging that rather than look for ways to twist the ArbCom ruling to support your own POV. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• There is no neutral point of view in the sense you are referring to it. NPOV is an amalgamation and a balance of various point of views in conformity with consensus. Why else do you think we are witnessing these conflicts and arguments on the talk pages of the articles. DCV might be uncivil, but the same problem plagues the other side as well. It is consternating to watch people label somebody as "uncivil" and "racist" without checking the entire facts. Given that DCV is prone to making comments that might be perceived as racist, she has also one of the long-standing and good-faith contributors to the project. What we need is a proper reform programme, otherwise we can only wonder how Wikipedia would sustain itself in the coming years – as both the number of articles and users increase on this website. Banning productive, but occassionaly disruptive editors is not the answer. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Guys, that is completely not the point. We don't allow people to fervently push their own POV in the vague hope that someone else will push their counterbalancing POV as hard as they can, and so we get a decent article - it doesn't work that way. You have to strive for neutrality within your own editing, and not rely on other people arguing with you for neutrality to be achieved. DCV doesn't even make a pretence of editing neutrally. If you don't even bother, what's the point. For you two to fundamentally reject the concept of neutral editing makes me sick at heart. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 13:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not internally consistent. As the numbers of users increase, the fact that some disruptive editors make some productive edits should weigh less with us, not more. Relata refero (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Also in WP:NPOV is the statement: "NPOV is a point of view". I think that's quite clearly what Moreschi was saying. If this editor was incapable of editing without tendentiousness, if she clearly was completely uninterested in WP:WFTE, then I don't see how her presence would help the project. Relata refero (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Regardless of the correctness of the one-year block (personally I think this was far too long), I am very uneasy that the unblocking admin did so apparently unilaterally, without any attempt to contact the blocking admin or any of the supporting admins per the terms of the ArbCom resolution. And does the topic ban on that article still apply, or has Slrubenstein's unblock cleared this user of all wrongdoing? This is all very messy. ELIMINATORJR 12:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I can't help but be very concerned that admins would say that there should be only one POV (the neutral one) (who decides it? based on what? who has a voice in the process?), and that those who disagree, and even those who support these dissidents, should be shown the way out of WP. Can everyone here stop and just ponder exactly what that sounds like??? Pretty please? Also, I think it is best if some admin uninvolved in the dispute is the judge of this and SLR just started taking interest in the talk page of Afroncetrism this morning, after the cause of all this commotion was over. Not sure what is being aimed at here.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes - I have refactored the above comment, which probably better addresses my concerns. as for NPOV, the policy page WP:NPOV covers this quite well. Anyone who has mediated on a controversial issue knows how difficult this is to achieve on a controversial article, because different editors' version of NPOV will differ depending on their viewpoint. In the end, though, it is aggressive and disruptive pushing of a particular POV that will lead to sanctions, not the actual content of that POV. ELIMINATORJR 12:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Eliminator, I fully agree with you that it is aggressive and disruptive pushing of a particular POV that will lead to sanctions. Now, keeping that in mind, please take another look at the history of the Afrocentrism page on November 15, and ask yourself again: where was the consensus, and if disruption can be considered to be in part pushing POV against consensus (or however you wish to define it, in the end), who was being the most aggressive in reverting without explanation and against talk page consensus?--Ramdrake (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently we're going to have a war over this one as well - and an unhelppful block comment to boot.[31]. More than one person feels there's a problem here and the length was being discussed. Removing the block wasn't the solution. Shell ^babelfish 14:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The evidence provided (40 -46) simply does not provide enough evidence of "tendentious talkpage time-wasting, incivility, edit-warring, and POV-pushing" to justify banning an editor. What is the solution? How about isolating a few major conflicts over content and one by one seeking to resolve these conflicts over content in ways that satisfy concerned parties and complies with core content policies? I have looked over the recent talk on the Afrocentrism page and it is not clear to me what the major "problems" ae that need "solution" - but I do see a number of editors including Deeceevoice who are talking to one another, trying to explain their views, in constructive ways. Perhaps that discussion does not get to the core problems, but neither is it evidence of a major breakdown in communication and collaboration. Again, I see no cause for banning one editor who has a strong point of view. And to be clear: it is not a point of view I share. Which is exactly why it is important to me that this view be represented at Wikipedia. If that doesn't make any sense to any of you, then i suggest you completely miss the point of our NPOV policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

While there's no real consensus for a year long block, there's none at all for this unblock. Please reinstate it, at whatever length of time you feel this discussion justifies and we can go from there. You don't get to unilaterally decide these things. Another option is for someone to reblock at a length of time based on this discussion...at this point that would be supported I think. But the preferred outcome would be for you to take care of this yourself I think. RxS (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the unblock was a bad call. DCV is a disruptive racist and we don't need that kind of garbage here. Yes, the evidence presented here is weak, but if you're not familiar with the situation, why are you overriding the block of someone who is? You should at least note your unblock in the log on the arbitration case. I'm willing to believe she edits in good faith, but good faith alone is not enough. Editors must also be reasonably competent at following core content policies, and she's not. She doesn't even try. Send her off to Deeceepedia and let her do what she wants. She has no place here, where we expect neutrality and verifiability. Friday (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose unblock - the block was arbitration enforcement. Simple as. What use is AC when the decisions aren't binding? Will ^(talk) 16:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

To Friday: not sure if you're aware of this, but your latest intervention looks very much like an ad hominem attack. "She edits in good faith, but she's a racist, so let's block her anyway?" How about we calmly continue this discussion until a consensus is arrived at as to whether to block her, and for how long? I don't see that she's edited anything since her unblock, let alone disrupted anything, so it isn't like there is a clear and imminent danger to the project.

To Will: yes, there is an ArbComruling,and if we suspect a breach of conditions, how about we present the facts to ArbComand let them decide whatever sanctions are appropriate?--Ramdrake (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I almost never try to describe the mindset of another editor (because how can I really know?) but in this case it's relevant. It looks to me like people are calmly discussing. If an editor cannot be reasonably competent in editing according to policy, yes, we need to show them the door even if they're a nice person and are really trying very hard. A bull in a china shop may have good intentions, but he's still bad for business. Friday (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Not all of the editors were calmly discussing. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The unblock by Slrubenstein was staggeringly against consensus. Based on the above, there seem to be a minority calling for a long term / indefinite block, and a minority of one (Slrubenstein) for nothing at all. Somewhere between the two extremes would seem appropriate, say a month. I won't do it myself, as I personally feel a month is not long enough, but it's a fair compromise. Neil ☎ 16:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If I may interject, I don't see that there is a consensus around any specific sanction,so I don't see how unblocking the user while asking her not to edit mainspace articles while we try to arrive at a consensus (which we don't have so far) isn't the correct thing to do.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and also that unblocking the user at such a juncture would have sent the wrong message. But it would only be pragmatic to wait a while and let DCV comment here. Let's not take this decision in haste. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

To Ramdrake - did you actually read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice#Deeceevoice_placed_on_probation?

Deeceevoice is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. She may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article or talk page which she disrupts. She may be banned from Wikipedia for up to one year by any three administrators for good cause.

Arbcom have already passed a verdict on this. There shouldn't be a need for further process wonkery. Neil ☎ 16:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The decision was given more than one and a half years ago. Since then DCV has improved greatly and tried to productively contribute to the project. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Really? I invite everyone to read this and decide whether this is the attitude of constructive contributor, or someone who's using the 'pedia to fight some race war. Friday (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It was rude, obviously, and this kind of attitude is not to be condoned. DCV has also had borderline personal attacks on her user-page in the past, which had to be removed after tedious discussions on the noticeboard. However, it must be noted that you had been an involved party in the arbitration case against DCV. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the threshold before years of ongoing, low-grade or outright incivility becomes cause for a long-term block or banning? 5 blocks? 10 blocks? 1 ArbCom? 5 ArbComs? Does the threshold reduce or increase if the person also manages to create some good content? Does being able to create a variety of quality articles excuse perpetually acting monstrous or racist towards your peers? • Lawrence Cohen 17:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's no secret that I've been critical of her conduct for a couple years now. I still think it's a problem. I will freely admit I'm very biased against racism. Friday (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom decisions are binding until ArbCom say they're not. So if no time limit is set on the decision, it's indefinite. Will ^(talk) 17:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The ArbCom exists for the 'pedia, not the other way around. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the merit of her contributions, she's still on probation. Will ^(talk) 17:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If Zscout was desysop-ed (even temporarily) for unblocking Miltopia, then certainly Rubenstein's rash action deserves consideration for the same. Not only was there no consensus to unblock, there was overwhelming consensus against doing so. If we go by 1RR=wheel war when unblocking without consensus (or in this case, against consensus), then Rubenstein is certainly guilty of this. K. Scott Bailey (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, there was no discernible consensus around any specific block length that I'm aware, so I don't see the harm of unblocking while we try to attain a consensus.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw not one admin other than Rubenstein argue that this user should be unblocked. Thus the block, as status quo, should have remained, until consensus formed around a set time frame. This unblock is so far outside of policy that it's not on the same continent. And, as Jeff said below, how many chances does this user get? The probation statement by ArbCom was very clear on what happens if she becomes disruptive. It happened. Rubenstein undid it. Admittedly, I don't check in at AN/I all that much, but I'm here enough to know that going against a direct ruling from ArbCom is "desysop-able", that's for sure. K. Scott Bailey (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I thought decisions here were attained by community consensus rather than just admin consensus, and there were numerous editors who disagreed strongly with the original sentence. Slrubenstein raised the point that the evidence presented couldn't be construed as a breach of ArbCom conditions, and that should be reason enough to suspend the sentence until consensus is reached (which I don't think has happened). If several of the editors questioned that there was good cause in the evidence presented for a year-long block, I don't see that the ArbCom ruling was ignored, merely that the evidence wasn't found sufficient to invoke the strictest possible sanction in the ArbCom ruling. Moreover, I seem to remember at least one editor calling for a ban in furtherance of the one-year block, and that is distinctly not in the ArbCom ruling.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• This is of course one of the administrators who cozy up with the Pro-Afrocentist cabal on Wikipedia [32] [33] [34] [35], helping to push this agenda. Let the pretense charade continue. 200.64.191.49 (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• This is just one more example of people taking WP:AGF to the extreme. This project will collapse on itself if this sort of user is allowed to continually disrupt encyclopedia. How many times does one have to say "maybe next time she'll do better"? 28 blocks (I think I counted correctly) should prove to even the most naive Pollyanna that this user is not prepared to fundamentally change. I endorse a block of whatever length the original blocking admin wants to give, and I completely disapprove of Rubenstein's unblock. This uneven enforcement of policy and these free passes to certain users simply has to stop. The time wasted fixing POV edits and debating one user's actions is not compensated for by either the quality or quantity of the edits. Jeffpw (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you don't count the unblock line items, or the blocks that got reversed, the count drops down to 14 (which is still a lot admittedly, but I've seen worse). Also,the fact that this user had been blocked only once in the last 13 months would, on the contrary, strongly suggests to me she's trying hard to amend her ways.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The one thing I have no confidence she'll ever try to do is change her behavior. She doesn't want to be neutral- she thinks there are "white articles" and "black articles" and she doesn't think white people are qualified to edit "black articles". Again, we don't need this racist nonsense here. Friday (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is the example of the user revert warring on the Afrocentrism article. It isn't a 3rr but it's edit warring nonetheless. Here: 1, 2, 3. Reverting another users edit more than once is edit warring pure and simple, even if it's not a 3rr violation. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

WDM, with all due respect, if you will take a look at the edit history, you will see that she is not the editor who started this edit war (it was another, and there is currently an open RfC regarding this editor's actions), and the discernible pattern is rather that this other user was edit-warring against editor consensus at the page, even though he was invited by several editors to explain his objections on the talk page. But you're right in the sense that it takes two to tango, and she probably shouldn't have let herself be involved in the edit warring. But in this case, considering everything, I would say if one wants to mete out sanctions, they should be handed out on both sides of the dispute. Here's hoping this makes sense.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been released at least temporarily from an outrageous one-year block to comment here, but, unfortunately, I have no time at the moment. I'm trying to clear my desk to get away for the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday. I'll address this when I return. I haven't had much of an inclination or opportunity to read this matter here, but I'll say this. The charges of POV pushing at Afrocentrism are absurd and, as the post by futurebird clearly shows are totally without merit. I wonder if anyone posting in support of the actions taken against me have even bothered to investigate the talk page. It seems to me people saw my name and assumed Bachmann's charges were true -- including the admins who took precipitous and wholly unjustified actions against me. "Incivility"? That, too, is, IMO, baseless. I've been direct -- very direct -- in expecting/demanding that an admin justify his edits, that another justify her precipitous banning of me from contributing to an article. In both cases, I've gotten nothing worthwhile, just a kind of "tell it to the hand" response. Not good. I demanded that they produce diffs to substantiate their edits/actions -- and got nothing. And the diffs presented here are pretty sorry "evidence." Finally, Friday, you've repeatedly called me a racist here, and in your last post here you said I am "here to fight some kind of race war." Clearly, you have no clue who I am or what I am here for. Kindly refrain from such inappropriate, over-the-top, inflammatory and wholly inaccurate characterizations. They only feed this feeding frenzy -- precipitated by dBachmann's inrresponsible and unjustified charges (if you'll check his RfC, you'll find he makes a habit of such conduct). Those things said, I'm done here for now. deeceevoice (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the diffs, as well as your block log. The above admins are not incorrect in their assessments. You have blatantly violated the terms of ArbCom's decision. A friendly admin unblocked you against both consensus and the ArbCom ruling. Hopefully, you return from your break to a long, well-deserved block. K. Scott Bailey (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, Scott, just re-reading this AN/I should be proof enough that there is no consensus for the one-year block that was given to DCV; in fact, if there is any consensus at all emerging, it is that the one-year term is unjustifiably long. Secondly, I believe the hostility in your tone isn't really appropriate here.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. There is clear consensus that this is a problem user, who needs a long block. There was NO consensus to unblock this problem user. The only real discussion was whether there should be a 1-month or 1-year block. That she has violated the ArbCom decision is beyond debate. As for your assessment of my tone, that matters to me not at all. The facts of this discussion are about the user in question, not me. Stop trying to deflect attention from that fact. K. Scott Bailey (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I do remember several editors besides myself say something to the effect that there wasn't really cause for a block, and several others say that there might be cause for a short block (around a week), and yet others for a medium block (a week to a month). So, no I don't see that there is a consensus that "this is a problem user, who needs a long block". And I wasn't trying to draw attention to you, just telling you you don't need to come across as angry or hostile, which unfortunately and by the way, you still do.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

simple question

Let me ask a simple, discrete question so that I can get a simple answer. How is this edit by deeceevoive, POV pushing or incivility? Can someone please tell me, because it's part of the evidence here and I want to know why? Can someone just explain this to me because I'm mystified? futurebird (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible Spam and COI editing by search engine optimization firm

Resolved

 – Thanks for the help.- Jehochman ^Talk 04:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Could I get some of you to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Thwaites. There are possible sock puppets advocating for a bio and corporate article of a SEO firm' CEO and the firm itself. For several years I have kept watch over the SEO-related articles because they are a honeypot for SEO spammers and COI editors. By nipping these folks in the bud when they start articles about their own firm, we prevent them from creating dozens of advertisements within Wikipedia for their clients. An IP editor, first edit, has accused me of attempting to delete the article because the fellow competes with me. Well, I'm in the US and he's in the UK, and we have no connection whatsoever, but I'd rather that somebody else handled this. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see too many "keep votes" there, could you please provide some diffs for this. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 11:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Having seen the thread here I've gone through and added some refs and some more info to the article, seems to be alright as per WP:BIO just noting here so I don't get accused later of being a sock/SPA :P I'm not paranoid, it's happened before. - Dureo 11:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

For example, VivioFateFan, your account was created in late October and immediately started making lots of WikiGnome edits.[36] The activity of this account shows that it's either an alternate account, or a replacement account of an experienced user. You yourself have suggested keeping the article.[37] - Jehochman ^Talk 14:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikignoming- Well, I had to start somewhere, and this seemed the easiest place to start.

Policy knowledge- My "extensive knowledge" of this is only because I have reviewed most of them at least 10-12 times.

Point 2- I have to admit was just laziness on my part. I went under the assumption— without checking the page's history— that the page wasn't sourced before, and now is. I also have to admit that I didn't even check whether the sources were reliable or not in this paticular instance.

I will accept whatever sanctions Wikipedia applies towards me with no complaints.VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 07:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I hereby slap you with the wet haddock that can be found here. You are free to take the haddock and slap me once. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Does this resolve the issue for you, Jehochman? — Sebastian 04:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

An article, an old OTRS ticket, a user and accusations...

I am a fairly new administrator and I have found myself in an odd situation that I don't know how to handle. I am a party, so I don't want to accidentally misuse any admin powers.

I summarized the situation leading up to this incident in this request for an OTRS review. The reviewer generally agreed with my position, stated here. As a result, I reverted to my recent edit, with a polite explanation; however, the other party (more on this individual in a second) reverted it back claiming that the OTRS review was incorrect. This is where I need to explain a bit further: during the original OTRS back in July, I received an email from this user that made the rather incredible claim that they were working on behalf of USC (I wasn't sure if that was true); I tried to talk them out of making bad COI edits, but to no avail --because of the OTRS ticket I wasn't sure how to proceed (it was my first time seeing one and the OTRS agent didn't explain things very clearly) --but I kept all of this correspondence in case the situation became a problem. Because the same user was now disputing the OTRS with weaker logic, I feel that the line needed to be drawn and finally called out the WP:COI issue. I am now being accused of having an "agenda" against the article subject and the other party has claimed to have contacted the Foundation (which seems a bit outside of standard Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but that's not really a central issue here). Needless to say I disagree and feel my edits stand up to scrutiny on their own: please read the edit and decide whether that's true for yourselves; I'm happy to answer any questions on any of my edits on Wikipedia. I have stopped editing the actual article because I do not want to violate 3RR. The most recent comment from the other party is exceptionally self-damning, including "I have contacted colleagues at USC so they can inform the Compliance Office that you are attempting to harm a student-athlete's reputation and put his family at risk." I should state that I am, in real life, an attorney in Minnesota and from that experience I know this is starting to sound a bit, um, fantastic in both what an organization can or would do --but again, I want to be sure so I'm writing here (I now work in medical device law so "online encyclopedia issues" aren't something I regularly deal with). I spoke with another admin, and they suggested going here (in addition to possibly contacting the Foundation if the other user actually has and letting them know I am happy to answer any questions). I am open to doing anything, as I want to solve this situation. (Alas, I'll be leaving for the night soon, and I hope to make my next step after reading the input here tomorrow) Thank you for reading this situation, I will appreciate any suggestions and input. --Bobak (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If there is information that is hurtful to the subject of an article, then it should not be included if there has been a formal complaint to have it removed by what appears to be the mother in this case. By putting back information that was taken out does appear to violate the original complaint. It would not necessarily be COI if it is to protect someone from being harassed. By going through these edits of yours, I have to be honest, it does appear that you are trying to take both sides of an argument. In one case, you do not want Mark Sanchez to have information included from reputable sources, but on the other case, you want to include information about Mitch Mustain from similar sources. In the instance of Mark Sanchez, those are incidents that appear to have been his own actions, yet you want to take them out. In the instance of Mitch Mustain, those are incidents that appear to have been the actions of other individuals out to attack him.

So I have to state that you do not appear to have a strong argument to put information in the article for Mitch Mustain if there have been complaints to have it removed due to its negative effect on him or his family. You do have quite a history of edit warring and this appears to be the latest chapter for you. You should perhaps recuse yourself from editing this article since it appears that you may have some inappropriate agenda based on your words and editing history. SouthFerryRoad (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There are, as you observe, many issues here, but the first that strikes me is that the edits of Caffehamp, even as they do not strictly run afoul of NLT, tend to suggest that he intends to involve extra-Wikipedia entities in a content dispute. Although there is, to be sure, nothing the Foundation or any individual editor should fear from the involvement of the "USC Compliance Office", neither is there anything actually worrisome about many of the legal threats we encounter here, but we nevertheless block indefinitely because, for one, we (correctly, IMHO) view attempts at coercing editors as quite pernicious and as profoundly acollaborative; since certain of the edits of Caffehamp are of the same character as legal threats, then, and since his edits are confined to Mitch Mustain and Mark Sanchez, I wonder if we might not do well to block, at least until such time as the user clarifies his intent vis-a-vis IRL "authorities". Joe (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I somehow failed to scroll down Special:Contributions/Caffehamp; "confined to Mitch Mustain and Mark Sanchez" is, I now see, erroneous, and since the editor is not, I now gather, a single-issue user committed to pushing a POV contrary to consensus, as first I read him to be, the whole "block indefinitely" thing ought probably to be disregarded. Joe (talk)

In apologizing to Caffehamp for my non-trivial initial misreading of the situation, I have notified him of this thread and asked him to comment at his leisure... Joe (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted, Joe.

In regards to this issue, the main point I am raising here is that the content Bobak keeps putting in clearly causes distress and harassment to a 19 year old student-athlete at USC, which is a concern that has been raised by his family with Wikipedia. That is why there was mention of the USC Compliance Office being informed in regards to Bobak being an alumnus of USC; not a legal threat. Since Bobak attends USC athletic events, they should be made aware that he is the reason why Mitch Mustain's family have disputed information that he has put on Wikipedia that puts them at risk of continued harassment and threats against his family. By including content regarding how there are people who wish to cause physical harm or, even, kill Mitch Mustain's mother on Wikipedia, despite their earlier complaints that such information regarding action by those at the University of Arkansas was damaging to Mustain's reputation and caused distress, Bobak is not only putting Mustain's family at risk, it is considered harassment to attempt to link one set of events to another without knowing the full facts of the situation, especially considering that Mustain's family disputed the issues in an OTRS ticket in July.

As far as using "reputable sources," this again goes back to the initial complaint in July. Those "reputable sources" only present one side of the issue, having come from the University of Arkansas, with Mustain never having made any comments, one way or the other, regarding the situation due to his position. By not speaking on the issue, Bobak has asserted that Mustain does not dispute those facts. Again, according to the OTRS complaint, that is not the case. The threats against Mustain's mother and harassing messages have all come from people within the University of Arkansas' athletic department, while Mustain cannot speak both due to his position and for legal reasons.

Now in regards to Mark Sanchez, if one goes to the talk page of that article Talk:Mark_Sanchez, one sees that Bobak has consistently attempted to remove information that could put Sanchez in a negative light and he himself stated "The issue wasn't about painting him in the best light, it was about how much information violates the principle outlined in Wikipedia:Avoiding harm." Based on Bobak's own statement, he is clearly violating this principal in regards to Mitch Mustain as Mustain's family has asserted that these comments not only harm this student-athlete, it is subjecting them to harassment and puts them at risk. If Mustain is a 19 year old student-athlete at USC who plays football, it is inappropriate to include on Wikipedia information regarding how people affiliated with the University of Arkansas seek to physically harm or, even, kill his mother. That immediately puts them at risk. Likewise, putting information regarding a booster who has harassed him, causing significant distress already, also adds to the harm to both his reputation and his family's well-being.

So Bobak's constant attempts to put information on Mustain's article not only attempts to link one set of unrelated events to other events without knowing the full story, they also harm Mustain's family and put them at risk. They already complained about this issue in July and it was resolved, but Bobak insists on putting it back, yet has long attempted to take out information about another student-athlete at USC under the premise that it causes harm.

This should not even be an issue. If Mustain's family believe this is harmful to a 19 year old student-athlete and causes them harassment, and places them at risk, which they already have, it should not be included. Caffehamp (talk) 06:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I wrote some on this yesterday, but decided to delve a bit deeper today. Let me start off by saying that I have no affiliation with USC or Arkansas and my alma mater did not even have a football team. I do enjoy college football and have contributed to college basketball articles, but mostly stick to popular culture. Looking at my history, you can all see that I have never engaged in an edit war in all my time at Wikipedia and that is saying quite a bit. Whenever I make changes, I describe the changes, with no one engaging in back and forth editing. So hopefully that qualifies me as an impartial observer here.

So after seeing Bobak's user page User:Bobak saying that he is a graduate of USC, I looked up the USC definition of a booster on their athletic site and it is described as alumni who "have been involved in any way with promoting USC’s athletic programs," which would include posting pictures and biographies on sites such as Wikipedia. So based on that, Bobak can be identified as a USC booster, which would make his claims that Caffehamp has a WP:COI to be quite hypocritical. Bobak could be considered to have a COI, too.

I went back and sifted through Talk:Mitch_Mustain and Talk:Mark Sanchez and several things struck out to me. These are two people who are both players in the quarterback position at USC, so I would assume they would be competing against each other in the future. Therein lies much of the problem that I encountered with the two articles. With Mark Sanchez, Bobak has a history of edit warring to portray this Mark Sanchez person in a very positive way, with his main editing issue being that he has tried to remove significant information about what appears to be an arrest in the 2006 season for suspicion of sexual assault. For this Mark Sanchez person, Bobak has tried to change the wording for the arrest to his own POV wording while trying to reduce the information available there on the grounds that it harms that person. With Mitch Mustain, Bobak has repeatedly put in information that makes this Mitch Mustain person come across in a negative way, including putting information that an OTRS request by Mitch Mustain's family believed was hurtful. With that information removed for several months, Bobak has put the information back in.

So all things considered, I would have to say that based on Bobak's editing history of these two football players at his alma mater, it does appear that he favors portraying the Mark Sanchez person in a positive way and wants to remove negative information and factual wording and wants to put in negative information about the Mitch Mustain person that is considered hurtful to his family. I do not believe the information about wanting to hurt this Mitch Mustain's mother should be included. That would be considered harmful, hurtful and stressful to the Mustain family. I also do not see what the criminal view that some people have (which is, quite rationally, very disturbed) regarding Mitch Mustain's mother has to do with inclusion on his article. Based on that, I would have to say this information not only does not belong on the Mitch Mustain article, if it has been known to cause hurt and harm due to an official complaint, it should be removed. SouthFerryRoad (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• I looked up the OTRS ticket. The fundamental problem is that this is subject to multiple, conflicting accounts. The text as included gave only one of them, and also linked to the content of offensive emails. In my view the events are neither significant enough nor well enough covered by properly independent reportage. We should not include this content. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that other editors have looked over the situation, and now please allow me to respond to some comments made about me, which I believe can be tied back into the topic at hand: does the OTRS ticket from July still hold sway over information published in November (which in turn have no negative comment to say about Mustain or his family).

Since my previous actions regarding Mark Sanchez have been brought up, I will address them: my position on the Sanchez article is that as a criminal charge that was not ever prosecuted due to a lack of evidence, I was concerned there was too much information (criminal law issues are treated with different than civil law issues --as an attorney, it makes me a bit more nervous). With that said, the current article remains with CaffeHamp's information because I really can't dispute its current state (it was whittled down through edits back and forth, the only thing I can't say is that it was totally amiable). However, outside of Caffehamp there were incidents (that predate his involvement with that article) that are tied to a single sock-master who was banned but still had a few accounts that were eventually swept by me and another editor (open proxy issue). I have never abused my admin privileges in the content dispute (and we know a dispute does not automatically equal an "edit war" accusation), and I've worked around the information Caffehamp's put in that article. I am treating the issue on the criminal charges in the Sanchez article as settled (and my edit history demonstrates that). An editor should never have to apologize for good faith edits and disputes if they are willing to concede, which I have done. Bringing up this issue is fine, but does pull the issue away from the facts of the Mustain article's situation.

With respect to JzG comments regarding the original OTRS, the media does not have multiple conflicting accounts (especially in the months after that OTRS complaint). Please re-read the information I've added as well as the sources: All accounts, especially in the recent month I cited to, agree. On top of that, the issue that is being argued by Caffehamp is that I am adding negative information about the subject. Here's what's even more odd: the articles do not disparage Mitch Mustain, the people who are getting the worst of these articles are Houston Nutt and the Arkansas staff. He claims the information is all coming from the University of Arkansas: then why is the University of Arkansas coming off so badly in the articles? So this argument that I am trying to "harm Mitch Mustain" doesn't make sense because this is, at worst, a bizarre side show he happens to have been been inadvertantly involved in. So this accusation that I am trying to harm Mustain while help Sanchez is also demonstratably incorrect: nothing I have added about Mustain in any edit has given a negative image to his ability as a football player, a person, or as a future quarterback --please point to cases otherwise and I will be happy to take a look.

Finally: The definition of booster for any university includes anyone who graduated, anyone who is a family member of a graduate, and even broader groups that would create absurd problems in COI and university articles. I am a USC and University of Minnesota alum, I edit a lot of USC-related articles (and players), but I do not feel I have a proven POV issue because I've added NPOV information to every player, almost always with citation (again, I stand by my edit history --not what others summarize it as). Unlike Caffehamp, I do not claim to work for the University or on behalf of the University. Caffehamp has openly admited to writing on behalf of the USC sports information department in an email I am happy to provide to any third party for evidence as well as in this edit. Having him point the COI arrow at me is, well, interesting. My goals on this website are to include interesting stories, but avoid things that could create legal issues; I, in good faith, feel that criminal charges (that were never followed through on) could be dicey if not written correctly, but I did not see (and continue to not see) the negative side of any of the information I have written on the Mustain article in regards to Mitch Mustain himself. I turned the article from a stub into a big article, and any careful review of my edits will show that I have no bias against him --just accusations of bias, which, I hope, other editors here can see or point me to where I am incorrect (in which case I will eat crow).

Thank you for any continued attention. --Bobak (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite honestly, you need to stop your obsession with CafeHamp. It does not even matter if Cafe Hamp is the president of USC, as Joe quite rightly pointed out above, any review will show that CafeHamp has always conducted himself with class and never pushed a POV against consensus, or POV in any way. In fact, this CafeHamp user has always come across as being quite rational and fair, always pushing for accuracy in articles and not trying to link unrelated issues to lead the reader to believe something that may not be accurate. Just accept that your POV was not accepted by consensus and there are people who could be subjected to harm and hurt by your actions. I am saying this as an uninvolved party and am calling it as I see it based on the actions of your edits and discussions on talk pages. CafeHamp cannot be blamed for being anything but calling for accuracy and preventing someone's family from being subjected to harm. In regards to evidence of your bias, the Mark Sanchez article and discussion page is sufficient proof that you wish to inject your own wording and choice of what is included to portray a subject in a favorable way, while ignoring what was really the situation as stated by law enforcement agencies. No more needs to be added to that. So I urge you to stop this obsession that is hurting your credibility. SouthFerryRoad (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not merely about Caffehamp, this was about whether or not an OTRS ticket still applies to clear and consise articles that were written several months later that happen to state that the supposed party "against its posting" here is actually involved without hiding their involvement. With respect, SouthFerryRoad, you have not actually pointed to any actual POV other than simply saying I have edits with POV. Please show me and I will apologize and drop it entirely. I admit this situation isn't black or white, but I find this comment not grounded in any evidence. Wikipedia is about evidence, track records and using those to make a point. Simply calling me a POV pusher doesn't make it true unless you can point to where I've done it. You have not stated how the information I added in this edit actually harmed anyone or portrayed his family in a negative way. If you hurl an accusation, please have evidence. I have nothiing more to say about Mark Sanchez than I said earlier (criminal charges are handled differently in the American legal system than civil --law enforcement agencies said "it wasn't enough to level charges" = innocence in our American criminal justice system, unless you know otherwise; but I concede the current write up is adequate), other than you cannot dismiss my work on the Mustain article simply because of it. There was no "consensus" on Mitch Mustain, it was one-to-one with an outdated OTRS that no one outside of OTRS is permitted to see. You are also incorrect in your assesment of WP:COI, as writing on behalf of an organization is not generally our policy, please re-review it. --Bobak (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Bias, lack of consensus and misuse of administrative powers

Resolved

 – Libertyinfo has continued to play the man not the ball, so has been blocked indefinitely. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In the Water Fluoridation Controversy article, User:jersyko has repeatedly deleted, edited and revised information so aggressively and over such a long period of time so as to indicate personal bias. As can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Water_fluoridation_controversy, for 16 months he has regularly and unilaterally deleted information from a variety of editors under the guise that they never comply with various Wikipedia policies. The policies cited for these deletions are usually subjective, but his revisions are frequently made without discussion and always without consensus. Here's a typical diff that has "too much detail": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_fluoridation_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=169091696 IIRC, as one of the original authors of the Water Fluoridation article, he mandated that any alternative or controversial information be forked to a new "Controversy" article, which he zealously guards, reverting and revising when any controversial information is presented. When he's through, the article bears no resemblance to the original. Later, any objectionable portions that still remain are edited again or buried further down the article. Just take a look at the above diff from two weeks ago and the current version. From time to time, this bias and censorship has been noted and commented on by other editors, including at least one other administrator. Jersyko's response is to always demand good faith, even when it hasn't been demonstrated.

I must admit to a certain amount of recent incivility and lack of good faith, but some of this is frustration over his bulldozer attitude that totally disregards any other opinion and an unfounded accusation that I was probably the same person who asked why he buried a section that I was recently defending (which gave him the excuse he was looking for to revert it again.) Allowing an obviously biased administrator to have unfettered control over an article without requiring that he seek consensus or demonstrate a NPOV is not what Wikipedia is about. Libertyinfo (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Though I assumed good faith from Libertyinfo for quite some time, Libertyinfo consistently revealed him/herself to be a single purpose account with a POV-pushing agenda. If anything, I've probably been too patient thus far, too willing to offer a compromise (which was rejected). Good luck with this . . . · jersyko talk 13:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I also note some POV pushing by libertyinfo to the (already messy) colloidal silver article.[38] Skinwalker (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Libertyinfo has also been editing as an anon with a non-static IP. Some of his/her IPs can be found in this subsection of a relevant talk page. · jersyko talk 14:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• I would say that Libertyinfo is an aggressive POV-pusher and we should give him one more chance to clean up his act or conclude that he is not helpful to the process of building a neutral encyclopaedia and send him packing. Kudos to Jersyko and others for trying long and hard to work with this person - seems to me in return he's not interested in workign with anyone who does not accept his POV uncritically. Shape up or ship out, Libertyinfo. Guy (Help!) 14:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• I already gave him a friendly warning which went over his head, apparently. --Haemo (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Haemo, I appreciate the warning and it did not go over my head. But why is no one addressing the central issue here? That being the propriety of one administrator taking it upon himself to delete and revise the contributions of not just myself, but many other editors over a 16-month period, usually without discussion and definitely without consensus. Has anyone even looked at how extensive these changes have been and how many editors have been deleted and revised? Isn't consensus and neutrality what Wikipedia is about? Is it really acceptable policy for one person -- especially an administrator -- to unilaterally and aggressively act as a gatekeeper of information contained in an article over an extended period of time? If it is, then I stand corrected. Libertyinfo (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, consensus is what Wikipedia is all about. You're currently hearing a consensus that your approach is highly problematic. Speaking of consensus, have you made efforts to achieve consensus? My read of the talk page shows you making quite a few accusations and repeatedly focusing on an "opposing" editor rather than the content issues and relevant Wikipedia policies. MastCell ^Talk 04:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

User:hopiakuta

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Not resolved, see my comment below. Davnel03 21:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Something is wrong with this user's contribution. Redirects, strange things. Something alien. I don't understand at all. For example Topple. I just can't figure out. sharara 21:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a soft redirect to Wikt:topple. So? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see why sahara is concerned, just look at hopiakuta's user and talk page, some proper weird shit going on, theres tons of bizarre, senseless links and weird formatting etc--Jac16888 (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've striked the resolved tag as it clearly isn't resolved. Something is weird here. Davnel03 21:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I was planning to remove the tag; I simply looked at the link she provided to Topple. EDIT) The only thing I'm getting from the pages is "fraudulent" websites, bad wiki-markup, and the sense of doo-doo-doo-doo doo-doo-doo-doo. However, I think there was a thread in which Hopiakuta was described as using a screen reader.-Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that this user is blind. There's nothing to see here (sorry). east.718 at 21:33, November 17, 2007

That makes sense, I guess. I chatted with him across a few pages and it was perplexing, like English was a third language perhaps. That makes sense, now. I don't know if it's appropriate, though, but could someone who knows him speak with him just about his signature and formatting, if it's possible? I have no idea what the limitations are of using a site like this with a reader as he does, but the grammatical disconnect makes it difficult to follow what he's after, to work with him. If not, no big deal and forget I asked (just tossing it out, if anything can be done to help him and us). • Lawrence Cohen 21:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a Wikiproject on accessibility somewhere; editor assistance might also be able to help. In addition to being blind, I suspect that due to this user being a French/Italian immigrant, English is not this user's native language; they've also admitted to having physical, emotional, and cognitive disabilities. [39] east.718 at 22:14, November 17, 2007

Found it, Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility, doesn't seem very extensive, i would think that this should be a top priority of the foundation itself, to make wikipedia the encylopedia that Anyone can edit--Jac16888 (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I see this user has previously talked with User:Graham87, who is also blind. I have some experience of JAWS myself, through a friend. Would it be a good idea to ask User:Graham87 of he would get together with User:hopiakuta to sort those pages out? I say this because User:Graham87's pages are legible to us lesser beings, and I can foresee this happening again if the pages are left as they are. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

See this discussion and here for more on this. Tvoz |talk 01:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Tvoz, wish you had told me this was going on, I would have been over here earlier. There was an extensive conversation regarding this user at my talk page- in fact this case was the basis for the formation of Wikiproject Accessibility. I cannot confirm that this user is blind- in fact he said something to the contrary during one of his conversations with Graham; "...I do know that you had expected that my primary disability, my severest disability, would be visual in nature. Now, although I currently have my machine set @ twenty pica, that is far from being my severest symptom. It is far down on the list..."[40] which would indicate that he is not using a screen reader. I am inclined to believe him, as he seems honest if nothing else. Although I do not question his good faith, I am concerned that his outlook, which seems excessively negative (apparently we are handicappist and racist... although I feel I've been quite understanding with him) may get him thrown off eventually. He has been asking for a phone consultation, however Tvoz, Graham, and I were unable to find someone willing to speak with him over the telephone. I'll be interested in seeing how this plays out. l'aqúatique ^talktome 20:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I've had some time to collect my thoughts, (sometimes that takes a while *grin*) and I have a few more bits for you guys to chew on. First, while misuse of a screen reader could technically be responsible for some of his problems (formatting issues, mostly) I don't see how that could account for the overall weirdness of the actual content of what he writes. I'm also not convinced that English isn't his first language- I had originally hypothesized something along those lines... see here[41] because of his tendency to substitute common words for rarely used ones (for example he says "scribe" in place of "write," "type," or "say"), but I have since realized that his use of complex ironies and other literary devices would seem to disprove my hypothesis. I'm not an expert on these matters (but my parents both are... so I grew up with crap like this as dinner conversation), but my bet is on neurological damage here. l'aqúatique ^talktome 06:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

For the formatting issues; it's possibly relevant that he is using older web browsers - iCab and IE on a [pre-OSX] mac. That's likely the cause of not only the formatting problems but the technical problems (crashes etc) he says he's been having with longer pages. Does anyone know a better way to browse wikipedia from Mac OS 9 or earlier? —Random832 15:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The user also does not seem to be 100% blind (though he does say he has a visual disability, and may well be legally blind) - he has (i think) said he does not use a screen reader, but must use a large font to read. —Random832 15:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(Unindented)Well, if the screen reader deal is off the table, would it be out of line to ask him to use a different computer- say one at the library? He would have no problems getting one of the volunteers or employees to increase the font size for him if that's all that's necessary. On another note, I should mention that I think it was probably a bad idea to blank his userpage. He will perceive that as being handicappist or racist or whatever it is we are, in addition to the fact that the person who did it did it before we finished this conversation and came to a conclusion. l'aqúatique ^talktome 16:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Sfacets

Sfacets (talk · contribs) was blocked recently by Blnguyen for brinksmanship at WP:PUI but unblocked when he agreed to discontinue delisting his own images there. Since he was unblocked, he has been generally uncivil at his talk page and at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2007_October_25, where he twice removed my warnings that by inviting other editors to review files he set up on his own server, he was collecting their IP addresses. (According to Will Beback, the text file in his directory includes the comment: "Thanks for your IP addresses.") I have blocked him for 1 week for continuing incivility and POINT violations, but I am posting this here because I have been involved in the back and forth with him, and because it was my comments he was removing. Thanks for your assistance! -- But|seriously|folks  01:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Next time, do not exercise your admin privileges with users you are involved with. There are plenty of admins around to block people that merit a block, so that you do not compromise your position as a admin. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, will do. Sorry about that. -- But|seriously|folks  04:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been involved in disputes with Sfacets, and find him to be one of the most tendentious editors around. This is his third block in a month.[42] When I recently warned him that he violated 3RR he complained that I didn't give him enough time for him to undo all of his reverts.[43] The article was protected, but as soon as the protection was lifted he again restored his reverts. A few days later I reported him again for 3RR after a warning, and he promised to stick to 1RR in exchange for an early unblock, but was edit-warring again within five days.[44] He has long exhibited ownership over Sahaja Yoga, a movement he belongs to, as well as related articles. He's shown bias by adding or restoring poorly-source negative material about rival movements. Sfacets has had previous blocks shortened due to promising to change his behavior, but I think he's actually gotten worse instead. I'll prepare a set of recent diffs later so the community can see the scope and nature of the problem and see if there's a long-term solution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I was not "collecting their IP addresses" - do you have any basis for this claim? You were poisoning the well against me, perhaps in a bid to persuade other editors to agree with your attempt to delete images uploaded by me. — Sfacets 03:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

I think the statement in readme.txt thanking readers for their IP addresses is a pretty good basis. Even though you've recently changed it to avoid scrutiny, it's still in Google's cache. -- But|seriously|folks  03:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I made one POINT edit, and was not uncivil. Not that these are valid reasons for a block. The simple fact of the mater is, I removed edits by this editor, and he/she got anoyed, and is now blocking me, abusing admin priviledges, since he is involved in an edit conflict with me. Sfacets 03:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

While we are at the matter of Invivility - here is a prime example of ongoing harassment by Will Beback. Far from commenting on edits, he appears to make it his mission on WIkipedia to target users, stalk them, [45], [46], ... , and harass them. I have seen many editors complain of this, and once my block is lifted I will ask the community what they think of his behaviour.

Will Bebacks' interpretatio of my edits is flawed, I have been contributing on WIkipedia since 2004, on a variety of topics. Sfacets 03:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Posted on behalf of Sfacets. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets, Will Beback is a respected member of the community and a respected administrator. The fact that he may have opposing views to yours is no basis for a complaint. Yes, you edit a myriad of articles, but you keep making the same mistakes again and again despite a lot of understanding shown by admins that have dealt with you in the past. By now, you should know better: don't edit war; don't engage in tendentious editing; just be a good contributor and stay away from trouble. Otherwise you may end up being stripped of your editing privileges, and not just for a week. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In response to the blocking admin statement that I am agreeable to anything an uninvolved admin believes is appropriate. , I have reduced the block to 48 hours. Sfacets: See this as a chance for you to avoid repeating your mistakes. Next time around, you will be blocked for one month and I do not think anyone will challenge that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If a 48 hour block results in changed behavior then that's the best solution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We shall see... It is up to Sfacet to demonstrate that he/she can change his behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

King James I of England

There seems to be a declaration of edit war on this article, with ICarriere and Korismo colluding to remove sourced material from the article because they don't want his homosexuality mentioned. They no longer seem to care to discuss the issue, and both have clearly implied they will revert without discussing on the article's talk page. Korismo has also been decidedly uncivil on his talk page to a solid editor who attempted to discuss the issue.Some help to keep the Wikipedia process going would be appreciated. Jeffpw (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

ANI is not for resolving disputes. I've protected the article, now you should try to reach consensus on article's talk page or start a RFC. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 08:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking you or anybody to resolve this dispute, MaxSem, and frankly, your protection was not needed at this time. What was needed was a word from an admin on those two user's talk pages about edit warring. Both are novices here with less than 500 edits, and one is not even registered. They seem to not understand or not care about Wikipedia's policies regarding consensus and reliable sources. Further, ICarriere has a talk page littered with 3rr and sockpuppet discussions. I suggest you either unprotect the article or read up on the conflict before you involve yourself in it as you now have. Jeffpw (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sort of tempted to agree. There's no doubt James had very close relationships with men, and there's very strong evidence that he had sex with them (this is all links to the murder of Thomas Overbury, where the prosecution were terrified that details of James's relationship with Viscount Rochester (Robert Carr) would come out in court). This can all be sourced, too, and it should be a fairly straightforward case to resolve. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 09:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And that's just the crux, Moreschi: The original text was diputed as undue weight, even though it was sourced; the article was split and a summary paragraph was written explaining what the daughter article included. The two editors who are edit warring refuse to let that summation stand, even though that was the agreed upon compromise on the talk page. I fail to see why the article was page protected in the non-consensus version, and a heterocentric version by editors with a history of tendentious editing is put into place. MaxSem leaped before he looked, as far as I can tell. Jeffpw (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel that you acquaint yourself with admin actions in relation to edit disputes; MaxSem did exactly what is required - he protected it (in the Wrong Version, naturally) and requested that the parties either discuss it on the article talkpage or take it to a RfC. This board is not part of dispute resolution, it is for requesting admins to use their tools in the proper manner. MaxSem did, and now you can pursue those options.

I suggest that the discussion regarding Rex Stewart and his undue weights be taken to the proper venue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And I would suggest you reread what I wrote. I did not come here asking for page protection or to discuss the content dispute, but rather to ask for a look at the actions of two editors who seem to be colluding. Did I not make that abundantly clear????? Jeffpw (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Then I don't understand why you are here. This is not the dispute resolution page. Corvus cornix (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

He asked for intervention with the users to caution them against a bad path. That's legitimate enough. No one in the follows should be discussed how gay James I was: it's not the point. (By the way, "homosexual" doesn't exist as a stable category in his day, but he was as close to gay as most of the monarchs got. Contemporaries noticed it, groused about it, and saw parallels to Edward II's Gaveston.) Geogre (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The request was straightforward and I have done so. If Korismo, and to a lesser extent ICarriere, take the hint, this will be resolved. ··coelacan 00:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it is worth, there was an earlier declaration of an intent to edit war from someone on the "other side". See this comment by allstarecho (talk · contribs): "I'm not down with this plan at all and feel the article should be left as it were, except to expand it. I have no qualms saying that any attempts to remove the homosexual depth, will be met with reverts. Thanks." I warned that editor not to engage in edit warring, but the situation had deteriorated by the time the later posts were made. This time from the "other side". My views on all this are clearly stated on the talk page of the article, and I would urge anyone commenting here to read that first and comment on the content issues there, not here. More voices over there may help resolve this. I feel that the balance of a well-written generalist article, where the primary editor has already considered these issues, is being disrupted by editors with a specialist interest in LGBT issues, who want to overdo the focus in the generalist article on the sexuality (the undue weight business that Jeffpw refers to). I am disappointed though that Jeffpw still sees this as a "heterocentric" issue, a view that will not help to resolve the dispute. When editors trying to get the balance of an article right are accused of being anti-gay, then that verges on LGBT POV-pushing. In short, summary in the general article, details in the specialist article (Personal relationships of James I of England). That article contains the Carr trial story that Moreschi refers to, though it should be noted that qp10qp has said (on Talk:James I of England), that the personal relationships article "contains serious factual inaccuracies, since Carr never threatened to expose a homosexual relationship with the king". Carcharoth (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Block of ICarriere

I have blocked ICarriere (talk · contribs) for 3 days following checkuser evidence that the accounts Korismo (talk · contribs) and DSuchet (talk · contribs) were sockpuppets of his - see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ICarriere. Korismo and DScuhet I have blocked indefinitely as abusive sockpuppets. Using multiple accounts to edit war and attempt to distort consensus is unacceptable. Given these blocks protection no longer seems appropriate and is it was ICarriere's socks that allowed the edit war to draw on - I have accordingly unprotected the article. I hope however that productive talkpage discussions between the remaining intrested editors will continue. WjBscribe 01:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone should probably tag the comments or leave a note over there as well. Blanket reversion will probably be unhelpful here. Sockpuppetry is obviously unacceptable, but I fear that this development will be used as an argument for supporting the changes ICarriere was opposing. Though it seems ICarriere was taking an extreme (and insupportable) viewpoint that nothing should be mentioned in the article at all. Carcharoth (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What I'm about to say is a bit of a rabbit chasing, but your previous statement is on the money. The king's habits are political. There is no private person in that era. Therefore, the king's sexuality is important inasmuch as it shows up in political actions -- peculiar blindspots, peculiar favoritism of Villiers, rapid promotions of alleged lovers -- just as it is with a priapic and heterosexual Charles II. The fact that people saw Buckingham as a new Gaveston means that the same issues were at play: elevation of the "unworthy," "weak" kings, etc. At the same time, making him some kind of icon of homosexuality would be bizarre, anti-historical, and just plain queer. There is no such thing as "homosexual" as a category of male life at the time, and placing a contemporary political sieve on the dead is just bogus. I hope that I was not understood to support any kind of "James is a great gay man in history, and the straights don't want you to know that" agenda, because that would be silly. I just think that the man's homosexuality leads us to such persons as Giles Mompesson. It, in a way, leads to the violent reaction against the crown that led to his son's decapitation. Geogre (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

My thanks to the administrators who took action on this issue. Editing here is thankless enough without being given the brushoff when you complain your edits are being targeted. Perhaps now that the user and his socks (and I think there were actually 3, since an anon IP was also supporting ICarriere's position) have been blocked this dispute can actually be resolved with discussion, rather than underhanded tricks. Jeffpw (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

More polemics

Sockpuppets on one side, comments like this on the other side (needless to say, that comment paints an incorrect picture of what happened). How do you explain to someone claiming the need to remove a so-called "heterosexual agenda" that they just might possibly be pushing an LGBT agenda? Or even that they are missing the point entirely, so focused are they on trying to detect a "heterosexual agenda". I tried on the talk page, but seem to have failed as far as this (fairly new) editor goes. <sigh> Carcharoth (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it paints an incorrect picture as long as you have to be right and your way is the only way. You don't own the article. The fact is, the homosexual references have been removed and replaced with hetero-agenda blabber. We go from [this edit that includes sourced/references homosexual affairs] to [this edit that turns male relationships into generic ones that could be conceived as just plain ole friendships with no "love"] and topped off with making sure we talk about his marriage to a woman, "whom he fathered his children". Heterosexual agenda indeed and you dare have the nerve to blame others for pushing a homosexual agenda??! I still stand by my statements. It's outrageous what has been done here - but I'm done with it.. because it's all about what you want. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 14:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Academy Leader Blocked

Academy Leader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) came to Wikipedia, and on the second edit [47] demonstrated that the account's purpose was to carry water for Wikipedia's critics, not write an encyclopedia. More from the first dozen edits: [48][49][50]. Within the first dozen edits this account is trolling policy talk pages, advocating for Wikipedia Review, a site that attacks and harasses our volunteers: [51]. Trying to get a link to slander and then discuss it: [52]. Justifies convenience links to harassment: [53].

Trolling an administrator: [54] Advocating for links to harassment sites: [55] Requesting policy RFC within first 50 edits. Is this really a new user? [56] No, it's a sock of Amerique (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Disclosed: [57]

Stirring up trouble at Talk:Martin Luther, although the account never seems to have edited that, or any significant number of other articles: [58][59][60][61][62] Check this one: [63]

Gets involved in promoting an agenda at Gracenotes' RFA: [64] Dang, I supported this RFA, and Academy Leader responded to me: [65] [66]

Continuing through the contribution history to present, I see more of the same. This account has made just 7 mainspace edits of 530 total. [67] There's virtually no contributions of encyclopedic content. On the contrary, this account is used primarily for disruption. It homes in on any controversy and blows smoke.

The account comments to Privatemusings (talk · contribs): "I noticed your recent drama and just wanted to say I was entirely sympathetic to you. Like you, I created this SPA account so as not to let my "political" opinions get in the way of my editing activities. However, I didn't care about publicly revealing my old account when asked about it, as I was dealing with a different set of people than I was previously, and when I resumed editing articles under that handle I rather more rigorously kept this account confined to policy discussions, so less "drama," as it were, seems attracted to me." [68]

For the above reasons, I have blocked this bad hand account indefinitely. The user may continue using the good hand account, Amerique (talk · contribs). Please do not reverse this block without discussion and consensus. - Jehochman ^Talk 08:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I am very concerned with what appears to be another poorly reasoned and inappropriately executed block of an editor account whose only infraction appears to argue viewpoints that differ from that of the blocking admin. I would comment that I am so concerned that I have given Jehochman a warning regarding his disruptive editing in applying blocks without reference to the processes and policies of Wikipedia. My own opinion is that the actions enumerated above do not constitute disruption that is remedied by an indefinite block, but that is not the grounds on which I am disputing the validity of the action taken.

I am unaware of any prior discussion between any parties prior to Jehochman issuing the block; there is therefore no consensus for the block. There has been no specific warnings issued to Academy Leader about the concerns mentioned above, and thus no violation of warnings which would permit the placing of a block. Lastly, the diffs provided are largely historical and indicate that Academy Leader has not suddenly turned rogue nor has developed a recent pattern of editing that required such action.

I hope other administrators will agree that the block is improperly applied, has not achieved consensus (and that consensus is required for a block to be enacted, not for one injudicially applied to be lifted), and should be lifted to permit Academy Leader to join in any discussion on whether the actions of that account is liable for blocking in any case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. Academy Leader, like Privatemusings, is an account that is created just for drama. I would also add that Academy Leader made a taunting post about the real life identity of another contributor, with whom he was in conflict. I am not going to post the details here, but I did make it known to some members of the ArbCom. Basically, he was insinuating that User:X is real life person Y, and while in an argument with X, he posted a link to Y's personal website or blog, saying something like "What a coincidence, they both do this, and they've both had that experience. Maybe they should write to each other." It was taunting. It was completely unnecessary. And it was not for the purpose of arguing a point about how to improve the content of an article. It was simply posted for the fun of trolling. People who are here for the purpose of writing an encyclopaedia don't do that. Academy Leader escaped an indefinite block at the time, but has continued carrying on drama. ElinorD (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU, as I noted above, the user has another account in good standing. He discloses the identity of the other account at User:Academy Leader. That other account is certainly free to come here and dispute the block. Likewise, I have asked you to refactor the "warning" which you admitted to issuing before investigating the facts of the matter.[69] - Jehochman ^Talk 16:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Good block. The early diffs and subsequent behavior show Academy Leader is a special-purpose account for pursuing controversy, and engaging in meta-commentary about process. In other words, it's a drama-only account, not here to write an encyclopedia. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Agree, good block. The encyclopedia is the point, not an afterthought. Account was only here to make a point. Shell ^babelfish 13:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• The block is good. See WP:DE. — Coren ^(talk) 16:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Good block. Wikipedia is not a role-playing game. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent block. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to create or support drama, or play games. Crum375 (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse completely. It is not acceptable to maintain a separate account for tendentious edits and drama. There is no compelling reason why these edits could not be made with the main account. Wikipedia is not a MMORPG. Guy (Help!) 17:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• (ec) Block of this one account was appropriate per WP:GHBH. As Jehochman stated, this long-time editor is free to contribute to this discussion and elsewhere using their primary account. — Satori Son 17:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Agree. The account wasn't making any positive contributions, and was creating or maintaining controvery. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse block...accounts set up just to engage in whatever ongoing drama there is and are not being used to write an encyclopedia, which is our primary mission, should be blocked.--MONGO (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• The idea of having a sockpuppet for controversial issues is that you might not want people following you from, say, Intelligent design to everywhere else you edit. You don't get to do things like this on a seperate account to avoid scrutiny. -Amarkov moo! 19:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, a good example of a permissible use is if your main account is readily identifiable to your RWI and you want to help clean up after a problematic editor on pedophilia articles or some such. Using a separate account for drama is not in the spirit of WP:SOCK however much people might want to wikilawyer about it. If you have a position on a controversial policy area, then stand up and say it. It will get more weight anyway. Guy (Help!) 19:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Would someone reblock Academy Leader with autoblock disabled? --Iamunknown 19:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Sure, sorry about that. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks :-) --Iamunknown 19:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note that my initial concern with this block is not with the use of alternative accounts, which I have now had the opportunity to review, but the process. This I did attempt to review; there were no warnings and no indication of consensus; simply one individuals actions following their view of what might be considered disruptive. In many ways the agreed process with dealing with a WP:BOLD action is to Delete (or Revert) and discuss, however my participation in attempting to redefine Wheel war (in the light of recent events) further disinclines me to go against the actions of another admin. I still maintain that the block was made out of process, that it should be undone and Academy Leader be permitted to state their case. As I understand it, this is how it is supposed to happen.

My consideration of the evidence is that there is no disruption, that this is an account that is being used in accordance with WP:SOCK; an alternative account being used in some contentious areas of discussing WP policy, which the editor wishes to disassociate from their article editing account. It is not a case of Good Hand/Bad Hand because the two accounts are not used in the same field to give the impression of two dissenting views, nor to circumnavigate any sanction against another account, and that (by Jehochman's provided diff) that the relationship between the accounts is both noted and reasoned. As regards disruption, I see nothing other than the presentation of a viewpoint which - while against consensus - is argued forcibly but politely and informs many policy discussions. The only drama generated is from the passion of the viewpoints, and the responses; there are no actions taken by this account which violate any of the policies they are arguing.

To that last point, I would ask some questions; if this were not an alternative account but the one used for editing articles, would a) there have been a block for the comments made regarding policy - notwithstanding the well regarded edits to mainspace - and b) would there have been a discussion beforehand and warnings given? If, as I suggest, that there a) would not, a b) would have, then I believe that this account operated in good faith application of WP:SOCK and should have the sanctions lifted.

I will also make a special pleading, outside of policy. This is not the only case today of application of an indef block of an account followed by a note to ANI. While there are differences (Jehochman provided material supporting his argument for the action) there is a similarity in that actions are made without consensus, and that consensus is then required for any variation. It isn't the way things should be nor have been done. I request that the openness and fairness of Wikipedia's processes be reconfirmed by the lifting of the block immediately and the allowing of Academy Leader to participate in this discussion. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

He can participate right now. The main account is not blocked, and he has disclosed the relationship, so there is no confidentiality issue. One working account is sufficient for most editors. I see no urgency to enable the second. Furthermore, we have here a very strong consensus that the block was appropriate. I think we need to avoid getting wrapped around the process axle. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and Arbcom has told me recently that they want administrators to take whatever action is necessary to protect the project, and that we have broad discretion to do so. Unlike the other cases you suggest, I have provided clear evidence, and I have not prevented the user from editing. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Footnotes

Please see Wikipedia:Protection policy#Content disputes:

During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people.

Like me Omegatron you are clearly not a disinterested party to the reference tag dispute that has been going on for a long time on the Wikipedia:Footnotes guideline page([70] [71] [72] [73] etc). So given that this action was clearly against the above statement in the Wikipedia:Protection policy, I am asking an administrator who is not a party to the dispute to remove the protection or to revert you last edit and reinstate the protection. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Rejected.

Sigh. So I'm "involved in the dispute" because I tried to stop it? Or am I involved because I continued to try to stop it after you kept right on revert warring? Is it possible to do anything as an admin without becoming an "interested party"? Anyone can look through my edits to the page to see the extent of my "involvement".

Philip Baird Shearer has been disrupting this guideline page, reverting to his preferred version dozens of times over many months, and ignoring all the comments on the talk page rejecting his proposal. All this fuss, over a completely trivial point of the Manual of Style, just because it's contrary to his personal aesthetic preference. It's completely ridiculous. What should I have done in this situation? Consensus only works when people are agreeable. — Omegatron 17:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to debate whether you (Omegatron) think that I am disrupting WP:FOOT guideline page" --- I think that the talk page shows that I have been actively engaged with other editors in trying to reach a compromise on this issue -- this is about an administrator protecting a page after making an edit to a version in a section that is under dispute (and which until you made your last edit contained a {{disputedtag}} template). Making such an edit and then protecting the page is a clear violation of the Wikipedia:Protection policy (Content disputes|). I think that if you were acting in accordance with the protection policy you would have protected the page at 23:15, on 17 November 2007 instead of making this edit. By making that edit you restated you previous position and yet again became an active a party to the dispute. As a responsible administrator please reverse you protection of the page now that it has been pointed out to you that you action was in breach of a Wikpeidia policy. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Omegatron, you took a clear stance on the issue at the heart of this dispute in the poll more than two weeks ago. Given that there are hundreds upon hundreds of administrators who have not participated in the discussion at all, I don't think it was appropriate for you to revert (twice) to the version you support, then protect the page on your preferred version. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And I note that the page has no {{protected}} tag, which neutral administrators routinely add to disputed pages protected to the Wrong Version. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Two reverts in 15 minutes and then one of the involved parties protecting on their version is not appropriate use of the protection button (and with only those three reverts in the whole day, protection was way premature in any case). I have unprotected the page for now, with the hope that discussion will continue on the talk page without further edit warring. Dmcdevit·t 01:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Scam Artist, Conman and Fraud

This concerns the article on Goncz Hi-Tec Pistols which is written by a scam artist conman who has defrauded many people by non-delivery of articles paid for on his web-site which is linked to the person's name in the article aforementioned. This article is written by the person who the article refers to as the Hungarian Inventor, Lajos John Goncz. The article cannot be verified other than by linking to other articles written by this man, except for a dated announcement of a lawsuit against him for copyright infringement which you can see the article has been written to defend his actions.

His ploy is to gather trust at forums and collect orders from his web site. He has been in and out of various forums, including candlepower, survival, and Bladeforum as I kept track of his posting and advertisements in order to intercept his discourse. There are literally hundreds of postings around the web involving goncz over the years and he has himself quite a notoriety, goncz has been involved in promoting himself as a technical expert in firearms, mechanical, electro-mechanical devices and flashlights and he has some history of firearms assembly with a hybrid pistol called the hi-tech, of course. He was basically heckled out of the blade forum but apparently he does deliver some variation of a misrepresented flashlight to some of his customers. It seems he targets those who are out of state for his scams. I believe his name is Janos; He was living in North Hollywood and had a fake business in Las Vegas which is what he uses as a cover operation to run his website.

I have just been contacted by a person named Mark who just lost $4000 by way of non-delivered goods. He is not the only person to contact me, and I am also a victim of his scam, losing $700.

Here is part of Mark's letter: I do not disclose Mark's last name of contact but can contact him to verify everything written here is absolutely true.

From - Chrismar (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Chrismar Chris Mar

The article in question appears to be Claridge Hi-Tec/Goncz Pistol. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

10 ghits, probably not verifiable. Does anyone want to do the honours, as I'm logging off for the night? MER-C 12:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the emails for the reasons cited in the drop-down box. Please don't readd them. Daniel 13:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I've got the AfD nom sorted properly. Having a / in the title is a pain... --AliceJMarkham (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claridge Hi-Tec/Goncz Pistol.

The initial edits of this thread are BLP violations. Corvus cornix (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Santa Claus

Resolved

There is a removed category (Wikipedians Who Like The Big Guy In The Red Suit) that shows up in the Talk page of the article, and folk cannot seem to find it. Could an admin lend a hand in removing it? To further my own knowledge base, would who ever does so please post here how they found the darn thing? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This edit is where the problem stems from. The userbox automatically adds that category. I've removed the userbox since it has no place on the talk page since it in no way, shape, or form helps to improve the article. Metros (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out, Metros. I would like to say that I suspected that the userbox might be part of the issue, but the only connection I made was they both seemed silly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block of an established editor

Blanked text at [74].

Question "courtesy blanking"

If an administrator makes a serious mistake, as Durova did here, does this fall under the "courtesy blanking" guidelines? I thought courtesy blanking was to protect the identities or other personal information of editors, not to put an admin's mistake out of plain sight. Is this a common practice and, if so, doesn't it threaten our goal of promoting transparency and accountability for our actions? Cla68 (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think hiding away discussion like this only gives trolls the recognition they crave by seemingly confirming their claims of conspiracy and secrecy, instead of simply being open about everything that has gone on and heading off silly conspiracy theories at the pass. Also, if the "courtesy" is being extended to !!, it would probably be most courteous to leave the discussion public (though closed/archived), so that his innocence in the matter is made clear. --krimpet⟲ 02:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicted)My request was specifically to courtesy blank for that editor's privacy so that any doubts about my own actions could continue to be discussed on their own merits, without collateral damage.[75] I'm not sure that what happened really was all that serious a mistake. Blocks get overturned all the time. I overturned my own action in 75 minutes, opened the thread here myself to invite scrutiny, and extended prompt apologies. The action itself turned out to be mistaken, but was neither hasty nor superficial. Nobody bats .1000. And I wish to emphasize (in case any lingering doubt exists), the editor I blocked is very much a productive individual in good standing. Durova^Charge! 02:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You're saying that it was courtesy blanked out of concern for the wrongfully-blocked editor? Cla68 (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, out of respect for his privacy. I requested it and other editors agreed. I specifically opened my own actions to scrutiny twice: first in starting this enormous thread and then in requesting that my own behavior remain under scrutiny after his had withstood it. From your own opening post to this subthread, it seems you agree that was the right thing to do. Durova^Charge! 02:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What privacy? You killed any expectations of privacy with sleuthing. Not to mention there were no private details revealed above. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Echoing Swatjester's rationale, I don't agree that courtesy blanking was the right thing to do here. For Durova to say that it was out of respect for the wronged editor is laughably disingenuous. I'd like to hear Crum375's explanation for why he blanked the discussion. Cla68 (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The only person such a blanking helps is Durova herself. east.718 at 06:31, November 19, 2007

Hi, does User:!! want it blanked? It may be a naive question, but it would seem this should be his decision. Has anyone asked him? • Lawrence Cohen 06:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't available at the time when I requested the blanking, but it seemed like the right thing to do. From the tone of his comments afterward I see no reason to question that. Rather than reopen that, please refactor the portions of this thread that pertain to him and concentrate on my actions if there's any more to be said. He's no longer under scrutiny. Whether I ought to be is not for me to decide. Durova^Charge! 06:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't trying to cast any aspertions either way. I was just thinking the whole question of blanking could be wrapped up immediately if he said a simply yay/nay to that. From reading all this the only thing I was curious about was the unanswered question (I saw it asked several times, by various folks, including !! on his talk page) of who saw the evidence. • Lawrence Cohen 06:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If he wants it unblanked, then by all means fulfill his request. My only intention was to diminish any lingering suspicions regarding him by inviting criticism to focus on myself. To other posters at this thread, WP:AGF shouldn't need to be mentioned. Durova^Charge! 09:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Followup

It seems to me that this was a colossal failure to assume good faith, and that Durova has forgotten that this is an encyclopedia, not a practice ground for sleuthing. This is not the first time this has happened: "Sleuthing" evidence that Durova was not prepared to bring to the public drove Alkivar from the project. Durova, I would like to see some statement from you that you are going to stop accusing editors and blocking them without presenting any public evidence, and I mean "public" as in fully transparent, not only to those you deem worthy. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to go along with this. Even if this user is Willy on Wheels, Karmafist, myself, or the Devil incarnate, there would be no reason to block until the account actually did something disruptive (such as create abusive sockpuppets, run at RFA under false pretences, or something). This appears to have been a botched attempt at killing a goose that's laying really splendid golden eggs (ouch, that's not hugely polite, my apologies to !!, but you get my point). At the very least we need reassurances that This Will Not Happen Again. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

""Sleuthing" evidence that Durova was not prepared to bring to the public drove Alkivar from the project." Really? I thought he left because a RfA found against him and desysopped him. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 19:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

He left before the decision was rendered, because of the evidence. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If the evidence was against him, and the desysopped was likely (as it seemed to be), why does it matter if he left before the RfC was closed? The evidence against him seemed pretty thorough, with or without Durova's. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 19:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Darkson here. Alkivar was going to be desysopped with or without the *puppetry allegations, and it should have happened months (if not years) before it did. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I've never claimed that Alkivar ran any sockpuppets. I've explicitly stated that I have no reason to believe he ever used a sock. There were other serious concerns about his conduct. Durova^Charge! 20:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

He was going to be desysopped. He wasn't going to be driven from the project, as is where we are now. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's naive. Alkivar was taking his cues from a banned use,r probably the most prolific and disruptive sockpuppeteer currently active. Durova's evidence was not made public but was presented by email to arbitrators, and the arbitrators reviewed it independently. He left because he knew what was coming. I regret that, we probably all do, including Durova, but it's useless to blame Durova for the fact that Alkivar was dancing to Barber's tune, any more than it's her fault that Burntsauce was doing so. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm with SWATJester 100% here. I don't think you can go and block a respected editor indef, announce it on AN/I then refuse to comment on any evidence, realise you've messed up and offer a two line apology and expect people to be satisfied here. Revealing your investigation techniques doesn't strike me as being a very good reason to direct everyone to ArbCom rather than allowing transparency in your block. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... You can't tell people that you MUST be taken to Arbcom or you will refuse to do anything. If there's some reason that only Arbcom can be given the evidence, then go to them BEFORE you block, don't block and make other people go through Arbcom to challenge it. -Amarkov moo! 19:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

She sent her "report" to ArbCom before blocking !!. She says she got approval from ArbCom members to block the user as a violation of WP:SOCK. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it was precisely these assumptions that allowed Burntsauce to cause serious damage to the project for half a year. Dannycali was also indeffed as a long term sockpuppet. Such things do exist, and I pledge to work on better checks and balances to reduce false positives such as this one in the future. My report had been in circulation for two weeks among some very senior people and I acted on the reasonable belief that any false positives would have come to light before this. If there's anything more to be said on the matter, please do this editor the courtesy of archiving this discussion out of respect for his privacy and focusing any criticisms on my actions alone. He shouldn't need to be a part of this. Durova^Charge! 20:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It is precisely relevant to this discussion. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

However, !! apparently did little but work hard on articles. I've seen no evidence that a single edit he made was considered disruptive... whereas with people like Burntsauce, who made some productive edits, you never had to look too far to find disruptive edits too. Where is evidence of any of this for User:!!? I apologize if I've missed it. --W.marsh 20:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We keep hearing about these "senior editors". But WHERE are they? Why don't any of these senior editors come forward and confirm this? -Amarkov moo! 20:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and say what I've heard plenty of people saying on IRC: It's disturbing that an editor so heavily involved in the SEO field, would use some "proprietary" investigative techniques on Wikipedia, ruin people's Wikipedia experience, and then refuse to provide any evidence to support the allegations out of a fear that those uber-valuable methods will become public. I don't find that acceptable in the slightest. I'd like to hear what Durova has to say about this, and what her plans are for future sleuthing. Forget about "pledging to reduce false positives". Why are you sleuthing in the first place? Why, as it appears, is it your mission to hunt down other editors using private evidence? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

To Swatjester: bizarre conversations like that are one reason why I oppose admin channel IRC on principle. Durova^Charge! 20:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not relevant and it won't wash. If we lose !! because of this it will take a good deal more than a few lines of rather weaselly apology for collective anger to be assuaged. I have great respect for you, Durova, but I think this shows we need a change of method. Somewhere wires got crossed - we need to make sure that doesn't happen again. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

While dissociating myself from the more extreme implications in SWATJester's report of what's being said on IRC, and acknowledging that some of the motivation for your actions have been spelled out in your candidate statement for the ArbCom elections, I'd like to see either a statement about what extra checks and balances you intend to employ if you continue your activity in this direction, or at the very least an acknowledgment that public distress in this case seems to indicate that you need to sharply reverse course in terms of sock-hunting. Relata refero (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicted)Something in Nishkid's statement requires correction: I did not send the report to ArbCom as a body. I did circulate it in ways that some arbcom members saw it. Nor do I say I got specific approval from ArbCom members to block: I circulated a report that roughly two dozen trusted people saw and no one objected. Please, Nish, clarify these things before speaking on my behalf. This puts me in an awkward position regarding sensitive information. If such posts continue I will only point out that some representations are not my words. Durova^Charge! 20:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears I misinterpreted Durova's statements in our discussion. I assumed it was sent to all ArbCom members, instead of individual members, and I thought approval was received before the block was enacted. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with many of the critical points raised above, and in addition the attempt partially shift the blame to nameless senior people is pretty poor form. RxS (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty poor form to characterize things that way. At any rate, if there are serious concerns about my conduct and discretion I have no objection to having my actions scrutinized by people who have full access to the facts. Either ArbCom or the Foundation would be appropriate. Durova^Charge! 20:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Or, you could just explain who these nameless "senior editors" ARE, so that they can confirm what you're saying. -Amarkov moo! 20:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a pretty easy characterization: I circulated a report that roughly two dozen trusted people saw and no one objected. In addition you seem to be saying that outside of this 2 dozen people you won't allow your actions to be scrutinized, that's not the way things work here. RxS (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

A more specific summary of the due diligence you conducted would reveal no private information at all but would allow the community a much better understanding of the procedure you undertook in making this block. I find it impossible to believe that there is a compelling reason not to provide this detail (i.e. on date I sent a summary of my investigation to names, who responded positively on date).Christopher Parham (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this case supposed to be closed as resolved, why are we still talking. This is a Secret ^account 20:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue is manifestly not resolved, in that a serious error was made and we have no understanding of why it was made or what will be done to prevent exactly the same mistake from being made again. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) More to the point; that !! had a more than pristine record, with a history of DYK involvement and that this was instrumental in their unblocking. It just looked severely wrong and people were willing to express their shock and surprise here. Had it been some nameless account with a mediocre past, I'm sure the outcome would have been very different and we wouldn't be discussing it. They would have been gone - QED - with no recourse open to them. I'd really like to know a little more about what went wrong here so we can ensure it doesn't recur. Not everyone is afforded the level of 'justice', if you like, that this editor received - Alison ^❤ 20:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

A review of the Burntsauce and Dannycali histories would shed some light on that. It's not much of a secret that some banned editors do build up sockpuppets for long term use and attempt to mimic legitimate Wikipedians by doing some useful work. That's how, in spite of their disruption, both accounts survived for over half a year. They might still be editing if I hadn't examined them. What happened in this investigation was a rather odd set of coincidences lined up. Durova^Charge! 20:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That's perfectly understandable, but I hope you realise in the absence of any actual ability to scrutinize your methodology, the community is justifiably concerned. Simply put, the basis of any admin action must be satisfactory and timely review; otherwise, however much your intentions might be trusted by all of us, we will always have doubts about your unilateral actions. Relata refero (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point. That's why I've pledged to route these things directly through ArbCom in the future. Durova^Charge! 17:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

How's this for a resolution? In the future I'll send such reports to the Committee formally and let them act. And if I happen to be on the Committee I'll let another member act. I don't want to create drama and I respect consensus. Durova^Charge! 20:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If you truly don't want to cause drama, why can't we hear one of these people you discussed the block with corroborate what you've said? That would pretty much kill the drama. -Amarkov moo! 20:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well if I'd been a better dramatist I certainly would have lined up some people to me-too this thread. Hadn't anticipated the necessity. That's not my style. Durova^Charge! 20:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems you are doing OK on the drama front. More to the point. I'm sure that you blocked in good faith and that you did seek lots of feedback from sensible admins before blocking. The worry is that this might happen again and that's why so many people are fired up about this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. To do otherwise, as you did, makes it look like unilateralism. I'm sure that's not the case, but it certainly looks that way. And yeah, the flipside is that ArbCom is so bunged up anyway that it could be some time before they act upon it - Alison ^❤ 20:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a problem we need to get better at addressing as a site: some banned users refuse to go away, and not all of the sockpuppets they create are throwaway accounts. We're dealing with a situation here where a core of people share tactics and operate as a team. Probably most people who read the noticeboards regularly get that impression. One of the things I've been working on doing is to reverse engineer these people's playbook in a way that lets us identify them and act upon the problem. Such accounts are simpler to identify than to address because they do look legitimate to a superficial browse, and because they'd likely write a better playbook if they knew where their mistakes are. I do my very best to avoid false positives and I pledge absolutely to correct myself as quickly as possible when I make a mistake. In the future, situations where a substantial part of the evidence needs to be confidential are situations I'll route through ArbCom. I hope that satisfies reasonable concerns. Durova^Charge! 20:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Routing through ArbCom is a sensible first move; some scrutiny is better than none. I'd just say that I'd like to know that the actual "reverse-engineered playbook" has been scrutinized by those who are trusted by the community to ensure that drama of this sort is minimized. Relata refero (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me that this was a similar situation as what happened with Melsaran. Evidence was uncovered as part of an investigation and it was reported to ArbCom. However, given the potentially confidential nature of the evidence and the fact that there was no ongoing disruption, would it not have been best for an Arbitrator to make the block, specifically stating that they were doing so for the ArbCom, based on confidential evidence, as that is part of the reason ArbCom exists (to deal with such evidence)? Mr.Z-man 20:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right, and I realize that now. Will do. That was how we handled Runcorn/Poetlister, for instance. Durova^Charge! 20:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(blanked post by sock of Amorrow)

The key difference with Melsaran was that the evidence was supplied to ArbCom and they took the decision, with the result that the block stuck despite concerns over it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

With respect to: This account has been blocked indefinitely for violations of WP:SOCK. [76] the WP:SOCK page states:

The general rule is: one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, to create controversy, or to circumvent a block. Do not ask your friends to create accounts to support you or anyone else. Multiple accounts are not for collusion, evasion, disruption, or misuse.

Would it be possible in the future to be more specific on what part of the policy is being violated? (Among creating the illusion of greater support for an issue, misleading others, creating controversy, or to circumventing a block.)

Of course I am not requesting the revealing of proprietary sleuthing techniques or any other information that the community at large need not be privy to. Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Durova, I wish you'd discussed it with me, though that was just bad luck. But is it necessary to change the subject above to the point of using terms like "banned users", " throwaway accounts, "share tactics and operate as a team", "these people's playbook", "look legitimate to a superficial browse", in a thread about the blameless User!! ? Don't you see how it makes a certain guilt by association stickily adhere to him? I hope you know by now how little that editor deserves such an aura. A good strong apology (I hve a low opinion of the apologies you did post) would be a lot better than irrelevancies about evidence needing to be confidential (qué? evidence of?) and how "we" need to get better at finding abusers. What does any of that have to do with User:!! ? Bishonen | talk 22:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC).
  • When I first reversed the block I made an apology to this board and requested that the thread be closed out of respect for that editor's privacy. When the thread reopened I promptly requested courtesy blanking of that older portion so that any concerns could address my actions alone. I also delivered a prompt apology at that editor's user talk and reversed the block exactly one hour and fifteen minutes after implementation, which was as swiftly as I could verify the new information that came to light. After speaking to Bishonen by chat I have also archived my own user talk as a courtesy to this editor and, via a different intermediary, I have offered to communicate with this person by either e-mail or chat client, although I doubt that much more could be added to the corrective action and apologies I've already extended. Sockuppet investigations and blood tests sometimes yield false positives. Even checkuser results can yield false positives. About two months ago an administrator got blocked due to a false positive checkuser. That instance took longer than this to correct and the individual who performed the block did not reverse themselves with apologies. If this person informs me himself of other things I can do to set things right I'll certainly do all that I can within reason, but I have received no direct reply to these overtures. In the absence of any direct reply, I think the measures I've already taken are more than reasonable. Durova^Charge! 22:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Agree completely. I saw the evidence, it was definitely suspicious, but I can see where it went wrong. Unfortunate, but there does not seem to be any lasting damage, the editor was interrupted only briefly and a sincere apology has been given. What more are we supposed to do now? Guy (Help!) 22:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You're supposed to stop doing things like this. Nothing you in particular have done in terms of blocking recently has reduced drama at all. Relata refero (talk) 05:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing. Durova has apologised and taken a reputation hit that means it is unlikely to happen again. Other than slight curiosity as to the identity of the half dozen admins I think we have reached case case closed move on and go find some copyvios or something.Geni 22:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(blanked post by sock of Amorrow)

Perhaps you missed part of the discussions. I had assembled a seven point report with 28 diffs and had circulated it for two weeks before acting. Obviously the methodology needs improvement, but the fact that it ultimately proved to be mistaken doesn't mean the approach was either hasty or superficial. I've pledged specific improvements so this doesn't happen again. Durova^Charge! 01:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• The one thing that remains to be seen, in my view, is what Durova has done to correct an apparently flawed methodology for uncovering sockpuppets. When a blood test has the potential for false positives, doctors don't use it as the sole basis for initiating potentially devastating treatment in situations that are not time critical. My issue with Durova's response to date is that it casts this as the inconvenient byproduct of an effective process rather than as the result of a flawed process which requires correction. Additional oversight by the ArbCom is not likely to be a solution -- oversight by a handful of experienced editors was not sufficient to catch the errors in this instance, why would that be sufficient going forward? Christopher Parham (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The question here isn't "was Durova wrong to have blocked !!", we already know the answer to that. The question here is why are we supporting a continuous failure to assume good faith, and what place does "sleuthing" have on this project? I thought we were here to write encyclopedias, not to dig up dirt on other editors, certainly not to character assassinate them with evidence that won't be made public by someone heavily involved in the SEO industry using their proprietary tactics. That's just wrong to me. We don't answer to them, we answer to the community, and the community is obviously NOT O.K. with private sleuthing being used without revealing the evidence and the methods involved. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Responding to a couple of the recent posts, the corrective measures I'm taking have little to do with whatever effect today's events have on my reputation. Editors who contribute legitmately shouldn't be put on the spot. We all want to minimize that and I'll do my part, although not to the extreme extent one or two people suggest of giving up sockpuppet investigations. In a recent conversation about the 500+ JB196 socks I mentioned that I'd really like to be spending more time on other things, but the net good to the project of rooting out one Burntsauce probably exceeds the net good of creating one featured article: the damage being done by that individual was really quite extensive. Other than that, the points being raised at this stage of the discussion are repetitions of things that have already been addressed quite a few times to the satisfaction of most people. I'm sure the sockpuppeteers and their supporters would be delighted if fewer investigations were performed, but there's no need for such a radical and detrimental solution. Durova^Charge! 23:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Durova has the ability to be fair and reasonable. She blocked me previously for using two other accounts, which admittedly I did, but after I demonstrated that I could operate constructively with only my main account, seek mentorship through adopt-a-user, check in with her, alter various other editing habits, etc. she has allowed me to be unblocked and since being unblocked I have received some barnstars and much positive experiences with other editors.. Since being unblocked I have also unfortunately experienced some on-Wiki harrassment from a few accounts (two of which, thus far, checkusers proved were indeed sockpuppets or sockpuppeters and others of which were blocked for invility and personal attacks) and so I can understand why some would want to limit on-Wiki posting of evidence, because it's hard to resist the viciousness of some of the more disruptive editors and their socks. Anyway, I hope that helps. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me (and quite possibly many others) that the main problem here is the patent lack of transparency in regards to Durova's sockpuppet "investigative techniques". I can see Durova's logic in not revealing methodology on-wiki, but why can't she provide a syllabus of it through e-mail to established users who ask, especially users who are very logical and will all but eliminate the falsity coming from these methods?  !! has many, many DYKs and should be treated like a jewel, not like a criminal in disguise. What's more unnerving is the issue Alison brought up: What if a sporadically-editing, obscure, new user was one of the "false positives"? They very well could have been the next Newyorkbrad. For that reason more than any else, Durova, in my opinion, needs to recuse herself from sockpuppet hunting until her methodology for which has been reviewed by a sensible user. —Animum (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Normally I do offer to circulate this type of report among trusted users upon request. Most editors who submit private evidence do not make such an offer, nor do they make it known that they have submitted any evidence privately. In this instance I stopped doing so almost immediately because new information came in that showed up a flaw in the result. Durova^Charge! 12:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe instead of calling for her recusal, we could ask that she discuss with the Arbitration Committee her investigative blocks prior to blocking? --Iamunknown 01:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Iamunknown, I've already pledged to route future investigations of this type through them and let them handle it. Or, if elected, I'll let another arbitrator act upon my investigations as proof to the community that I'm not being the lone ranger. Incidentally, TOR nodes keep posting cricitisms of my actions to this thread. It's become a rather good honeypot for that purpose. ;) Durova^Charge! 01:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears User:!! has been ennulled unblocked^[77] with an explaination. I doubt there is any one here who hasn't made well intentioned errors. Lets close this and focus efforts on more productive channels--Hu12 (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and with a note to Krimpet: please do not restore posts that originate from TOR nodes.[78] I think it's a fair assumption that the person would use a legitimate account if he or she had any. As my previous post explains, the blanking was not accidental. Durova^Charge! 01:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Why remove the post, when this only gives trolls more to lap up? It would make more sense to rebut the post, or at least leave it be and let people decide for themselves if it's just baseless trolling. Though, if this user was in fact blocked by you as a sockpuppet using similar proprietary detection methods which have now proven to be faulty in at least one instance, I think it's reasonable to at least acknowledge this person's concerns. --krimpet⟲ 02:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The above post was one of two TOR node posts that Krimpet restored to this thread today. Here's the other.[79] If the user had reasonable and legitimate concerns then, after the first blanking if not before, he or she would surely have signed onto a legitimate account. Most of my investigations and sitebans have stood up to extensive scrutiny, and in unusual instances such as this I correct myself swiftly. Per WP:DUCK, TOR node posts to a thread such as this are very unlikely to be legitimate. Please do not restore such posts again without consensus support. Durova^Charge! 02:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is one reason why the user in question might well need to use TOR: if their IP was blocked about a week ago. It seems to me that that is, according to the diffs actually exactly what the IPs complaining about! At least in this case, TOR node posts to a thread such as this are not unlikely to be legitimate. This is precisely the kind of slapdash thinking/repeating of conventional-wisdom-talking-points we cannot afford. Relata refero (talk) 06:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The user has been referred to the proper venues: ArbCom and the Foundation. The individual's refusal to pursue normal options does not validate the complaint in the slightest. It would be a strange day when the refusal to seek a legitimate unblock becomes an excuse to violate WP:SOCK. Durova^Charge! 17:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(blanked 2 posts by sock of Amorrow)

• I see this IP doesn't come from a TOR node. A separate thread at AN is discussing the issue of TOR blankings. If this is a good faith post, then please overwrite the signature from your regular account or IP address. The two posts above were the second and third edits ever from that IP, and in order to reduce a drama-ridden thread it would be better to have clear accountability.[80] Durova^Charge! 03:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I am still concerned about this incident. It is a not-widely-known statistical fact that if you have a population with 5% incidence of a condition, and a test that is 95% accurate in detecting the condition, a person who is selected at random and tests positive has only a 50 percent chance of actually having that condition. In other words, running a "test" on random users will result in an unacceptably high number of false positives. Durova, do you realize this? Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 03:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a flawed assumption in that analysis: what makes you suppose I run these tests randomly? The other due diligence methods pursued, and methods to improve them further, have already been discussed at length here. Suffice it to say that false positives are rare, I make diligent efforts to make them still rarer, and I correct errors promptly. What more can you reasonably ask? Durova^Charge! 03:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

My question, which you did not answer, was a question, not an assumption. You don't have to get defensive about it, and I would still appreciate an answer. Can you clarify what you mean by "false positives are rare" - do you have a number that you can share with us?Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 04:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What I responded to was the query, In other words, running a "test" on random users will result in an unacceptably high number of false positives. Durova, do you realize this? The whole question is problematic on several levels. It simply doesn't correlate to what I actually do well enough to be answerable. Kinda like saying, "Are you aware of the risks that commuter trains pose to your daily commute?" to someone who works from home and doesn't live in a region serviced by commuter trains, and doesn't particularly want to discuss how or where they get their work done. Durova^Charge! 04:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it's possible to make a meaningful assessment of your rate of false positives, given the samples available and the potential for future cases to differ materially from past ones due to puppeteers changing their behavior. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec)(Reply to Durova) Actually it's like asking that question of someone who's arrived at work with what looks like a train ticket sticking out of their pocket. You've said, in a strangely roundabout way, that you don't pick users at random and run tests on them. That's great, however you still haven't reassured me about whether the underlying statistical phenomenon, which comes up time and time again in things like cancer screening and drug testing policy, manifests itself in the kind of evidence that you collect. The math is so counter-intuitive that the vast majority of people get it wrong. I'm not questioning your intentions or your character, which in 100% of my previous interactions with you has never seemed less than stellar. Designing test methods in a way that will give a low and quantifiable number of false positives is difficult. Knowing that someone as smart as you misread the evidence, I'm afraid that giving the same evidence to ArbCom is likely to have the same result. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, without getting into too many specifics I'll lay out some differences between this and my arbcom evidence. For the Alkivar case I was preparing a three part presentation. The first was on Burntsauce, the second on Alkivar, and the third didn't fully materialize because the research generated some unintended results. During the third part of the investigation I implemented what appeared to be a routine block that precipitated the the Eyrian arbitration case. Eyrian's own conduct in the aftermath overshadows the work I was doing in that portion (except for the Dannycali block). The Alkivar portion of that presentation was a six page text file of description and dozens of diffs, distilled from original notes that ran to about 30 pages, and the Alkivar evidence itself implemented some more definitive methodologies. The Burntsauce evidence was on a par with that. So while I wouldn't call two pages and 28 diffs superficial or hasty, it wasn't as extensive or as conclusive. With regard to statistical analysis, I don't think there are enough stable variables here or a large enough sample size to really make that useful. What matters from my perspective is that this does generate mostly accurate results and we've been good about correcting the errors swiftly. I'd love to get the false positives down to zero. Everyone would. It takes a lot of hard work to locate and implement specific improvements. Durova^Charge! 06:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you're bringing up the previous Arbcom case. I didn't ask about that case and have never gone anywhere near it. I am disappointed that your response when asked to clarify what you meant by "rare" was to repeat your assertion with its original level of vagueness. I only hope that the people whom you ask to act on your evidence will read my concerns and understand them more than you do. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 09:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if that response missed the point of your question. We seem to be operating from different paradigms. If I understand you, you want a statistical clarification. I've attempted to convey that the question is framed in ways that make not useful. If that's an unsatisfactory answer then the basic dilemma is this: in order to begin answering it I'd have to correlate it more closely to the actual field conditions it attempts to describe. You seem to regard that as digressive and I definitely regard it as treading on sensitive territory. Then if we got that far, we'd be stuck with too small a sample size to parse statistically. Comparing two different sock investigations can be like comparing apples and oranges. What I want to ask in return is why you place such weight on framing the question in these terms when the good results are valuable, the false positives are uncommon, and the errors get corrected quickly. Durova^Charge! 09:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I do appreciate your response. Let me try this again: I asked two compltely separate questions. : First question: "It is a not-widely-known statistical fact that if you have a population with 5% incidence of a condition, and a test that is 95% accurate in detecting the condition, a person who is selected at random and tests positive has only a 50 percent chance of actually having that condition." This is a mathematical fact. I asked you whether you are aware that this fact exists. I was expecting something like, "I completely understand what you are talking about" or "I didn't know that." Second question: You have repeatedly asserted that false positives are "rare." What is your definition of rare? I was hoping for an answer like, "In the past 6 months my methods have led to blocks of 100 accounts and only 1 of them has asked to be unblocked." Please do not reply by saying that false positives are rare. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 10:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be asking that Durova be perfect. Why? One mistake is now known, and it was swiftly rectified. 99 blocks which were not mistakes, stand. Other blocks in which Durova's investigation played a part, also stand. The group of individuals most focused on abusing Wikipedia right now are resourceful and determined. It will not be especially helpful to tell them the ways in which they betray themselves, for obvious reasons. Of course the best solution for all concerned would be for them to go away and leave us alone, but since they refuse to do that, and since they are resourceful, determined, devious and obsessive there are likely to be very occasional errors. As long as they are repaired swiftly and we both apologise and learn from them I fail to see the need for further debate. Sure, it would be better if such false positives never happened. The way to get there is by the banned abusers going away. Since we can't make them do that, all we can do is watch. You saw the damage Burntsauce did, and that also had the regrettable side-effect of bringing down Alkivar. Nobody is happy about that. For reasons I can't fathom, a few people seem to give encouragement to these banned users off-wiki. For reasons I also can't fathom, but which may not be entirely unrelated, we seem to be engaging in a witch-hunt here. Apart from apologising and swiftly reversing the block, what else is Durova supposed to do? Guy (Help!) 11:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem to not acknowledge that the community has almost universally expressed concern that this particular block was of an editor with several positive contributions, indeed someone who appears a near-ideal user. If it happened to someone with a more dicey record, like 90% of the users on the 'pedia, most of us would have let it slide. What this means is that of the 99 blocks that 'stand', in your reasoning, we have no way of knowing for certain, absent the normal discussion and scrutiny, that they are in fact all justified. They may well be, and (in my opinion) probably are; but we can't assume that. We have checks and balances, scrutiny and noticeboards, for precisely this reason. If we start seeing 'banned users' or their enablers under every bush in a paranoid manner, the project will suffer. And it appears that that's what happening. This is not the first time that this is being said. If you are genuinely interested in reducing drama, then you need to take the community along with you. It seems you haven't, or have gone too far. Can we agree on that? Relata refero (talk) 12:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, Relata. Please do not speculate on decisions to which you were not a party. Durova^Charge! 17:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Why would I need to "acknowledge" something that Durova made clear right up front, with the original post to this noticeboard? The correct response here was what Durova did, which was to reverse the block, apologise, and learn from the experience. It is not clear to me what else is expected from this continued debate. The cause of the problem is very clear: long-term abuse by determined and unscrupulous people. Be on your guard, everyone, and "trust but verify". I really don't see what this debate is achieving at this point. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No, dash it, Guy, what you need to acknowledge is our concern that the only reason that the unblock happened this time is because the user's as near ideal as can be. All of us are worried that if it wasn't an ideal user, we wouldn't even be here. (We're also a little guilty, perhaps.) The cause of this problem is not long-term abuse, it is overzealous enforcement. We all know that one extreme is as bad as the other, history and experience will tell all of us so, and the community seems to think we've swung too far towards the enforcement extreme. So lessen up a bit, OK? This is more drama than any of us want. Also we don't want too many productive users scared off the project. Relata refero (talk) 14:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Per this check, I average about one apology a month for all purposes, whether block related or not. That's roughly one every 1000 edits. And with regard to the first question, I'm stunned to see a pop quiz in basic statistics here that wasn't intended analogously. Durova^Charge! 12:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova, to refuse to answer some of the editor's questions here and say that if anyone has a problem with your methods to "take it to the ArbCom" isn't very helpful. The overworked ArbCom doesn't have to get involved if you'll answer to the concerned editors on this page. Would you please answer the following questions?

• How do you decide who will be a target of your sleuthing?
• What methods do you use to sleuth editors?
• What is your rate of false positives and how do you know when you get a false positive?
• Who are the ArbCom members that you mail your evidence to, or is it to the entire ArbCom?
• Why do you feel that you should act "behind the scenes" with the ArbCom over these matters, when you could just as well post your observations and proposed actions here or at AN, which I've seen other admins do?
• Do you share your evidence with the accused editor and ask for an explanation before taking action on their account? Cla68 (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

In light of these previous questions there's some room for doubt about whether that list is assembled in good faith. If it was in good faith, could you clarify? Why do you repeat a series of questions, most or all of which I've provided reasonable justification for declining to answer onsite, without any new reason for answering them? Durova^Charge! 09:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Your "justification" may seem reasonable to yourself: not to many others. You appear to have appointed yourself as the Wikipedia Bureau of Investigation, and treat the criticisms of little admins with disdain. As I have mentioned to you on several occasions, if you methods are so secret, for @@@@'s sake don't shout about them! Otherwise we might just conclude that your spouting self-agrandiziung rubbish which is detrimental to the project. Given your repeted blanking of contributions to this page (four since 10:00 UTC today), I have warned you to stop. If you continue to user your editing privileges in such a controversial manner, you will only have yourself to blamew if they are suspended. Physchim62 (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If any one doubts that Durova is in the business of self-agrandisement, they should take a look at this edit from her talk page, coming just two minutes after she semiprotected it (for the first time). Physchim62 (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is beginning to generate more heat than light. shoy (^words _words) 14:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, we can always move it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Durova if you think that would be more helpful. Physchim62 (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

To the admitted block-evading IP editor who keeps trying to post here: you have already been advised repeatedly of the legitimate options for pursuing an unblock. Refusal to try normal venues is not an excuse to violate policy, nor does persistent policy violation strengthen your complaint. This noticeboard needed semiprotection for several hours due to your disruption, during which time legitimate unregistered users were unable to access it. Please demonstrate respect for those people by making your case to ArbCom or the Foundation, if there is any case to be made. Your conduct here is likely to be weighed in their decision and it would strengthen your own position to demonstrate that you are amenable to feedback, by following this advice. Durova^Charge! 20:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Songgarden Durova^Charge! 21:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Beowulf (hero)

Resolved

 – no administrator action required

I moved Beowulf (hero) to Beowulf (fictional character) because I thought "fictional character" was more neutral and more in line with other fictional articles. User:Berig reverted my edits, stating that "There's a difference between legend and fiction". In the talk page, he wrote "Legendary characters, OTOH, like King Arthur and Beowulf have no identifiable original authors and there is scholarship which discusses their possible historic origins." Anyway, I still think "hero" shouldn't be used in the title for the reasons I stated before. If "fictional character" is not suitable then I think the title should be moved to Beowulf (legend) or something similar.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised that CyberGhostface brings the discussion up here without even discussing the new suggestion "Beowulf (legend)" on Talk:Beowulf (hero). Notifying the ANI looks a bit excessive.--Berig (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not an issue that requires any sort of admin intervention. Note the big red letters at the top of this page reminding everyone that this is not dispute resolution. I would suggest that you keep this conversation to the relevant talk page for the time being, as this doesn't even appear to be a dispute yet. Natalie (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

A unilateral move is bad practice. It may be your judgment that "fictional character" is more natural and more consistent, but making the move without getting consensus first can easily result in conflict and conflict escalation. For my part, I think Beowulf is just Beowulf the hero, because he actually has roots in more than one saga, because he gets reused, and because his function is Hero, with a big H. Never mind all that, though: moving without consensus can lead to the sorts of conflicts that do end up here. Even if it's wrong, the majority has to set the pace, and, if there is no consensus for a move, status quo has the advantage (particularly with old articles with a spiderweb of links). Geogre (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Without expressing an opinion on the merits of this minor dispute (but of course, I do have an opinion), it would be advisable for all editors to be aware of the principle set out in Geogre's last sentence. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed to merge the article as a whole back into Beowulf. His roots elsewhere are barely mentioned in this article, and should be mentioned there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. The Anglo-Saxon scribe was not very interested in psychological realism, so the character of Beowulf isn't very developed. The narrative origins belong in a "sources and analogs" section for the poem, and as Beowulf he appears only in Beowulf. Hrothgar has much more complexity as a character. Even Wiglaf is more interesting. Beowulf is an active force, not a meditative one. Utgard Loki (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please block this (my) username. Ais523 is not online.

Because it is name of Indian superstar, who was polled as 'superstar of the millenium' by BBC World. You can easily google it. Thanks. Amitabh Bachchan (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Err...blocked. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There were moments in my life when I felt like banging my head on wall. How on earth the whole world left this for me? Please block this also. I request you not to consider me as vandalist. This 'Abhishek Bachchan' is son of 'Amitabh Bachchan' and husband of Miss World, termed as most beautiful woman on earth, Aishwarya Rai. I am of her age. But I never proposed her. Otherwise... Abhishek Bachchan (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I have no idea why this user decided to ask me, considering that I rarely do blocks except as sandboxing and on out-of-control bots. In case the same person is reading this thread: WP:AIV or WP:UAA would likely be better places to request blocks because they wouldn't depend on the admin you ask being online. --ais523 10:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Threats

Resolved

Moved from WP:AIV Woodym555 (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not know if this is right place but .... This are comments of user:Justiceinwiki on my talk page [81] Can you block him for few days ? In reality this block will not help very much because he has opened 10 socks for editing only 1 article but until end of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Justiceinwiki this must be enough. --Rjecina 19:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't generally block without warning first. I've left a warning on his talk page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

A permanently blocked editor has returned

Resolved

Permanently blocked User:Mark75322222 has returned today as User:Mark753222222. 156.34.224.2 (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

71.239.133.107 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Resolved

• Continues to not sign posts to talk pages, in violation of "You should sign and date your contributions on all talk pages by typing four tildes: (~~~~)" on Guideline Wikipedia:Talk page#Using_talk_pages.
• Continues to make uncivil Edit Summaries, in violation of "Judgmental tone in edit summaries" in Policy Wikipedia:Civility#Examples, that tend to be judgemental of the editing skills of everyone who has let particular erroneous texts stay in articles for so long before this user deigned to notice and corrected those erroneous texts.
• Continues to violate "The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user" at Guideline Wikipedia:User page#Removal_of_comments.2C_warnings for every removal from the user's user talk page without reading.

I noticed this user's contributions (specifically this one) while on RC patrol early in the morning of 12 November UTC, and have tried to "take it up with them on their user talk page", but they keep removing my attempts without reading those attempts, in accordance with their posting on their user talk page, which currently reads "If you edit this page, no matter your intentions, I will undo it. This is, after all, my User Talk page, not yours."   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

To the first point, it looks like they've been signing more consistently; if not, {{unsigned}} is an easy enough template to gently remind them with. To the second point, I'm not sure if I see recent examples, and would appreciate if you could point them out. To the third point, I'm not sure what you're getting at. They're responding to messages left, it seems. Sure, they're not exactly being the most friendly person I've ever seen, but taking a look at things from their perspective, neither are you and Green Kirby. ;) Is there some compelling reason we need to slam them with the rulebook? Are they damaging the project? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

To the first point, SineBot added the gentle {{tilde}} note to their user talk page as far back as 06:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[82]; it did not seem to help any. The very next edit is very telling - "I don't really care for this whole thing. I just come here to practice writing."[83]. To the second point, "bad spelling too" (08:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC))[84] is not exactly a stellar example of civility. To the third point, they removed comments while still indicating they were not reading those comments as recently as this morning (07:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC))[85], and they removed a warning while still indicating they were not reading that warning as recently as two days ago (23:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC))[86].   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of his recent talk edits have been signed. The judgemental tone in his edit summaries is nothing one could not handle. If he declares not to read messages sent towards him, it has no imminent effect; you cannot look into the editor's mind. That guideline is meant for those who put up a warning.--141.84.69.20 (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing any urgent need for admin response. Sure, they should be signing talk page posts, but that's not some dire situation we need to start a witch hunt over. Likewise, "bad spelling" isn't the nicest thing I've ever heard about anybody, but it's far from the worst that could be said. Is this a big deal warranting this much attention? Why can't we just leave them be? – Luna Santin (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize that I was obligated by Wikipedia policy to sign my own edits on my own user talk page. I'll make sure to do so from now on. Incidentally, I'm at least the second user to have access to this IP address (hence the weirdly varying subject matter of edited articles). 71.239.133.107 (talk) 05:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have seen much improvement from you in the past day. You are signing most of your talk page posts, you haven't made an uncivil Edit Summary, and you no longer claim not to read the warnings posted on the talk page for discussing your IP Address. In addition, you have done much good work on Jar Jar Binks. Consequently, I withdraw my incident report. You are still welcome to create an account to distance yourself from the other person who has used that IP Address, and for these other reasons.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 10:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing and disruption

On the talk page of WP:PW there is a debate going on which is going close to getting completely out of hand. Lid is trying to push a POV that WP:SPOILER applies when a wrestling title belt changes hands on WWE Smackdown, and edits that reflect this should be allowed. It has been argued by myself and by The Hybrid that this is not the correct path to take - due to issues with people within WP:PW who hate spoilers, and may consider them tantamount to violating WP:NOT (by turning the wrestling section of Wikipedia into a news site). My issue with it is that Lid is trying to push the Australian transmission of Smackdown (before the US transmission by about 18 hours) as proof. He has pushed the Cit Episode Template - which as a result I sent to TfD because of the threat the usage of this template posed in this manner (explained on the TfD). Lid's conduct - in my opinion - is disrupting what until now was a consistent and reasonable course of action within the group of editors who work through WP:PW or independently as wrestling followers. Lid's questioning of the process has got to the point where I can not address him any more without violating WP:CIVIL. He isn't listening to reason or the silent majority that The Hybrid has said he represents - and I agree with him. We need admin help on this, and because Smackdown transmits weekly and we don't know when the next title change will be, mediation or RfC simply isn't an option as it would take too long. Lid has made a number of false accusations against me (which could be a WP:CIVIL violation anyway but I'm not sure - it's certainly close if it's not) including accusing me of hyperbole and excessive "attitude" (for want of a better word). I am doing my bit to protect the wrestling part of Wikipedia under the rules - certainly WP:OR and WP:V in this case. This is being ignored or at least not respected. Admin help would be very much appreciated with this. !! Justa Punk !! 22:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And I forgot the direct link! Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling#Consensus !! Justa Punk !! 22:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty, I can't quite see the problem. WP:SPOILER doesn't stop you posting spoilers, it just suggests that you post a spoiler warning. If the information is true and can be sourced - even if the source is the TV program itself - then what's the problem? it's a viable source, and we shouldn't, in my opinion, withhold content that's true and verfifable, even if it means some US viewers will have their entertainment spoiled. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought it said DON'T include spoiler warnings, except in certain exceptional cases where you would not expect an article to contain spoilers (like if an unreleased movie leaks to the web, etc). <eleland/talkedits> 23:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

As a member of WP:PW who has privately had these conversations with two different administrators (both Mangojuice (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Lid (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)) I'm going to have to say that my view point has done a complete 180 on the spoiler topic. WP:PWis not a walled garden, and is subject to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, one of these being WP:SPOILER. If SmackDown airs in Australia, then the results do meet WP:V, and WP:RS. Also, the Cite Episode template does not lead to WP:OR in almost any case. How else am I supposed to source information say, on a character from the television show Scrubs since no other sources but episodes of the show exist? If the "spoilers" can be verified, then we cannot exclude them just because some people "don't want to be spoiled". It is not acceptable to delete information from an article about a work of fiction because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality -- from WP:SPOILER. I'm sorry, but I don't see Lid POV pushing and being disruptive, if anything, I see him looking out for the betterment of this project. Not wanting to be spoiled is not a leg to stand on in my opinion. Bmg916^Speak 23:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Something is being missed here. The Hybrid brought his point up - and it's being ignored. He said that there is a silent majority that does not want WWE spoilers. It doesn't matter what WP:SPOILER says, a silent majority doesn't want them. Lid is abusing his position as admin by pushing WP:SPOILER because the wrestling is a special case. It's outside normal spoiler procedure. I completely disagree with the assertion that the TV showing in Australia automatically passes WP:V and WP:RS. Where is the back up? What's to stop someone coming in with a spoiler after the Australian showing, and just make an edit that is completely false. And state that "It was on TV". TV by itself - in the case of pro wrestling - does not pass WP:RS, and without a third party back up WP:V also fails. I thought consensus was a cornerstone of WP policy? Right now, Lid is trying to force a change against the tide of existing consensus. If allowed this will open a massive can of worms and Lid can't see it because he is putting general policy forward without taking the unique nature of pro wrestling into account. This is a frustrating situation - WP is not a news site. Allowing spoilers will turn it into a news site. Why can't anyone see this? !! Justa Punk !! 05:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What silent majority? how have you measured them? why should wrestling be considered a special case? This is just another example of one of the special interest groups we have here trying to twist wikipolicy to suit their own aims. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not just that it's aired in Australia, it's that it's aired in Australia (or Canada, for that matter) and it's been reported by numerous internet sites. I don't want to hear about dirtsheets failing WP:V, we're not talking about some nobody's speculations on who's going to main event WrestleMania, we're talking about event reports sent to these sites by people at the taping. When it airs, and we know what's been cut or what hasn't, what's left to prove? Moreover, most of these people have no reason to lie. Occasionally, a goofball does send in a fake Smackdown report to the sheets, but it's quickly corrected by the real thing. I grant that this happening at all is sufficient cause to not rely solely on the sheets, but a very similar situation exists with the World Series of Poker. Bracelet winners are "spoiled" on wikipedia months before they air, with nothing but assorted web reports to back it up (the main event winner is announced on TV news here and there, but not the earlier events), and of course the accounts of the people at the TV tapings. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 09:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I could not reply earlier but I was performing some things in real life that needed attending to. I will now do a little breakdown of your last post on me with commentary.

• POV: Yes, I will admit I have a POV on the topic. I say this as you yourself also have a POV on the topic and that is why we are where we are right now. Your usage of POV isn't the way it is meant to be used on wikipedia and gives the idea that having a point of view on a discussion is against wikipedias rules. It is not. What is against wikipedias rules is modifying wikipedia to reflect your own biases, which I have not done, and the basis of this topic has nothing to do with bias on a topic but apparently "bias" on implementation of WP:SPOILER. I have been involved in many disputes, that's not in question, but from your interpretation AfD's are against wikipedias rules as users are planting their POV's on whether articles should be kept or deleted. I have been here for over a year now and one thing I have always tried to adhere to, and to the best of my knowledge I have, is neutrality in articles.
• Silent Majority: You keep making reference to the silent majority of WP:PW supporting your view point except that my position in the discussion is that of the more important majority, which happens to be silent in this regard, which is the majority of wikipedia that support spoilers hence why it is an agreed upon subject at WP:SPOILER. I have stated it numerous times but a wikiproject can not overrule this simply because they don't want to and don't agree with it, it is the rule that wikipedia as a whole have agreed upon and countering it with an anonynmous silent majority in a wikiproject does not work.
• Lid is abusing his position as admin by pushing WP:SPOILER because the wrestling is a special case.: Not once, until Bmg916 mentioned it in his reply here, has my admin status even come up in the course of the discussion. I have been simply a user bringing to light what I saw as a situation in opposition to wikipedias stance as a whole. In addition to which I have not used any admin tools in the course of this topic, in fact this entire topic has taken place on talk pages where my tools are worthless anyway. I have not in any way, shape or form used my adminship to take a foothold in this topic, relying on policy and guidelines to back up my positions and claiming otherwise is simply based on that I am an administrator and thus every time I involve myself in a debate it's "admin abuse" to the opposition.
• It's outside normal spoiler procedure.: No, it is not. There is absolutely no support for this position and you have yet to bring up a compelling argument as to why professional wrestling should be treated differently than either television shows or sporting events. In both cases the spoilers would still be posted, and that is even if they had not aired on television yet and had sources for the spoilers.
• TV by itself - in the case of pro wrestling - does not pass WP:RS: Actually, from your point of view TV by itself, in the case of television shows, do not pass WP:RS because anyone could make up what they saw and post it claiming that episode was the source. It's a position that is illogical and seems to be based on potential abuse rather than actual usage.
• Lid is trying to force a change against the tide of existing consensus.: You pointed me to it, although I thought I had also pointed you to it, but again - Wikipedia:Consensus can change.
• WP is not a news site. Allowing spoilers will turn it into a news site.: This is correct, wikipedia is not wikinews, it is however an encyclopedia and recent results of wrestling events are NOT news in the traditional sense. Say a mixed martial artist won heir fight and the results get posted here, is this news? Yes because it is recent. Does this make wikipedia a news site? No, it makes it an up to date article with the most recent changes to the individual in question. Claiming recent events are "news" and thus omitting them because of that is a position that is semantical in basis and has no support in policy.

In the course of this topic I mentioned that if you felt so strongly about your position that you nominate Template:Cite episode for deletion as by your rationale it is OR. I was being sarcastic and attempted to illustrate why I thought your argument was illogical, but instead you took me up on the offer and are now attempting to have a template, linked to by 2000 articles, deleted on the claim that professional wrestling is a special case which, as previously stated, it isn't. Trying to create special rules for a specific area of articles is simply walled gardening and should not be allowed. I realise this reply is quite lengthy and wordy but it is all I could think of to respond to the allegations brought up against me, the suggestion that I am an incivil POV warrior. If anyone has any question to my demeanor or more actions in this case I implore them to look through my contributions and find a case where I have fallen out of line. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

User:141.151.90.105

Resolved

Somebody want to block this guy? Persistant vandal who was blocked just yesterday for 24 hours, and is now back and page blanking, and is making legal threats - [87]. Corvus cornix (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Oxymoron83 has done the honors. Corvus cornix (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What can be done about this?

Resolved

 – Several editors blocked 72 hours for edit warring. Hopefully dispute resolution is effective when the blocks expire.

User:GundamsRus has been reverting most of my edits lately and falsely calling my edits vandalism in edit summaries. This is just another example of the disruptive and contentious edits this sockpuppet continues to make to Gundam articles and is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL. Can something be done about this, please? Jtrainor (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

While GundamRus doesn't appear to be going about it very well, their edits don't appear to be disruptive, e.g. the in-universe tag you keep removing from various places seem like they should be there, and you should stop removing them, bare in mind the 3 revert rule. This is not a matter concerning admins, it is a content dispute, and the two of you need to take it to the talk pages of the articles concerned.--Jac16888 (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking further into it, it seems that you are not exactly a model wikipedian. For starters there's your userpage, care to explain the "jewish conspiracy" comments? Plus there is what could be construed as attacks on two other editors. Then there's your talk page, which shows you maybe need to read WP:OWN and WP:Fiction just for starters, not to mention WP:CIVIL--Jac16888 (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

MalikCarr, Jtrainor, GundamsRus, and A Man In Black have all been blocked for 72 hours for edit warring on multiple articles over an extended period of time. Mr.Z-man 03:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I applaud Mr.Z-man for his actions, I've witnessed way too much edit-warring going on among these four parties for too long on many articles. east.718 at 04:12, November 19, 2007

I'll spam Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gundam again, but I filed that request before it literally exploded – GundamsRus wasn't around, and the breadth of articles have widened to at least a dozen more Gundam articles than the original three when GR was not there. Everyone just keep reverting after the page protections and/or blocks go away. GR toed the line with a 3RR block a week ago, though. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot help needed

Resolved

I've never had to ask this before, so I'm not sure where to put it. I think most bots are run by admins, so could someone tell me if one could help here? We have 250ish afd templates to remove from articles and oldafd templates to toss on these articles.. I'd rather not do it by hand [88].--Crossmr (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

ill nuke the AfD templates. β^_command 03:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

ROHA 's anti-Semitism again

Once again, an editor calling himself Hans Rosenthal - ROHA - is posting insulting and offensive comments. Please see this recent discussion, in particular the comments by User: Nemissimo. Strill asking for a range block - or do we just keep accepting his years of harassment? Tvoz |talk 04:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This editor has a long history of spewing anti-semitic vitriol and general disruption. Unfortunately he is coming in from a broad range of IPs (see here). To catch them all we'd need to block 84.148.0.0/17, which is not likely to fly. Instead I propose that we put a de facto ban on ROHA such that any editor may revert him on sight. Such reversions would be treated like any other reversions of a banned editor; namely, the person reverting would not need to take into account 3RR or other restrictions. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone ever tried contacting his ISP? --Golbez (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

In principle that could work, but in practice we may as well beat our monitors with colored pencils. Especially in this case, where the ISP is Sprint. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What about what Nemissimo says about how .de handles him: here? And has anyone talked to Foundation legal-types about situations like this? Tvoz |talk 17:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist the Movie

Resolved

 – Restored by Cryptic Anchoress (talk) 05:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This article just survived a near snowball keep AFD, but was deleted anyway, citing an AFD from this summer. The current AFD was authorized by DRV. What gives? I opposed the recreation of this article, but changed my mind after reviewing it again. There will be a major shitestorm if this article is not restored. - Crockspot (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I looks like this may have been a mistake, but I see you left a note for the administrator who deleted it 6 minutes before you filed this report. It might be worth waiting just a bit longer for him to respond. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if he packed it in for the night, so I was covering bases. Trying to keep ahead of the inevitable conspiracy theories. - Crockspot (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What NYB said. Six minutes isn't even enough time to post a proper "Ack, you're right!" and undelete even if you're still awake to see the message. Do bear in mind that we've been playing whack-a-mole with this article at a ridiculous number of titles, and unlike most DRV undeletions, there wasn't a restoration in the newly-afd'd article's deletion log to get anyone's attention. —Cryptic 04:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up for everyone - the actual movie page is Zeitgeist, the Movie - the title of this section is a redirect. Anchoress (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Aware. I've undeleted both, as this was clearly an error - the deleting administrator was prompted by this helpful anon edit. —Cryptic 04:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy indeed! :D - *Note to self (for deleting admins): Check talkpage headers before deleting*. Anchoress (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for having contributed, albeit inadvertently, to this "shitestorm". Certainly it was the helpful link to the AfD, which I checked, that prompted the deletion (and in a strange quirk of fate, I actually remembered the AfD being closed out as a deletion, but clicked there to confirm my memory anyway). The other thing that led me to delete it without further ado was that I remembered seeing its name on the list of pages that are protected against further recreation -- I added the spelling I'd found as a sub-entry to the one that was there, thinking that someone was trying to get around the results of the AfD. I've gone and checked and someone has already gone in and deleted both entries, for which thanks. Just one thing: I'm not sure what "Check talkpage headers before deleting" might mean in the context. If there's something I need to learn here, I'd like to learn it; was there a clue I should have recognized? (I've only recently received admin tools.) Accounting4Taste:talk 05:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Accounting4Taste - congrats on your adminship. What I meant was that the 'deletion history' template at the top of the Zeitgeist, the Movie talkpage showed that it had been legitimately re-created and survived a recent AfD. Anchoress (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment; I did learn something, and will definitely be on the qui vive for anything that's been recreated after deletion in the future. Accounting4Taste:talk 06:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have taken the unconventional step of adding a note below the non comment "keep" close, which I wish to see retained. Thanks in advance. El_C 09:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Kuebie

Resolved

 – Move along, nothing to see here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Kuebie (talk · contribs) has been edit-warring over Wei Man and, when asked to discuss the issues, responds by making derogatory remarks toward Chinese people. (See Talk:Wei Man; see also his/her contributions in general, as well as his/her talk page.) I would like to ask another administrator to intervene and warn said user. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 04:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you please provide a diff for the "derogatory remarks"? I browsed through the talk page and didn't notice any. — Sebastian 06:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

These are some examples:

• [89]
• [90]

Also see this -- which may appear innocent until you realize that this user is perfectly capable of using proper capitalization and is intentionally decapitalizing "Chinese":

• [91]

--Nlu (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything here either. Raising objections based on capitalization is heading into WP:LAME territory (note he did capitalize China and Chinese in the other diffs, for whatever that's worth). Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yamashita's gold

Can someon take a look at Yamashita's gold? User:JimBobUSA is unilaterally deleting longstanding material, based on blatantly subjective reasons, regardless of discussion, in addition to adding material pushing his own POV. This has being going on for some days now. I have tried to reason with him and have created an RfC, regarding one issue, but he insists on continuing with controversial edits rather than discussing them. I am out of patience with him and would block him myself but am personally involved. My warnings to him are at User talk:JimBobUSA. Grant | Talk 05:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the page for 1 week, so that the edit warring can stop and y'all can discuss. --Haemo (talk) 06:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Haemo. We defiantly need a neutral pair of eyes. Jim (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

User:ATren

Resolved

 – ATren has disengaged, others are monitoring David Shankbone's behaviour. Guy (Help!) 18:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some admin input. For those of us who have been around awhile, I think we have all come across users who rarely ever edit mainspace, but hang around on Talk pages and involve themselves in disputes, often making them worse. I'd appreciate it if User:ATren's edit history was looked at, because he is such a user. Very few vandal reverts, virtually no mainspace edits--and the ones he makes tend to revolve around a Talk page controversy--and lots of Talk page argumentation with a variety of editors. ATren became heavily--heavily--involved in my ArbCom and would never let any comment go unanswered, whether addressed to him or not. In fact, during the months of September and October virtually all of his edits were to my ArbCom. He was not a party, he just decided to involve himself vociferously. In his edit history are other patterns like this. On the stub I created for one of the U.S.'s most acclaimed journalists, David Margolick ATren fairly included a controversial issue, but he has taken a quote that pointed to a larger trend in journalism and put it on Margolicks page, which I think has WP:BLP issues. I don't think Wikipedia is well-served in applying a passing remark about a journalistic trend to one journalist, just because the journalist is talked about in the article. Regardless, ATren is also arguing non-stop against a quote about the National Legal Center for the Public Interest made by Margolick that three editors have seen nothing wrong with (User:Jeffpw, User:Swatjester and User:Newyorkbrad), in addition to myself. So his addition of that quote seems somewhat WP:POINT. Since RfC is going by the wayside, perhaps there is an easier way around and to have someone look at his edit history, that includes trying re-litigate a dismissed ArbCom on User:Raul654's Arb Nomination, and if they see a problematic trend, to please give him some advice. If there's nothing wrong whatsoever, then I would welcome advice as to why that is. Because I find it disruptive, and if one look at my contributions, they will see a wide array of high-value contributions (new lead photos on Stephen Colbert, Bill Maher, and Ingrid Newkirk and several new article creations, including Murray Hill (performer), David Margolick and Tashi Wangdi). --David Shankbone 05:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

David still insists on edit-warring Ted Frank related articles, after 4 admins and one arbitrator has specifically asked him not to. Ted Frank is the directory of this organization. That fact was recently added to the article, and within a week David was on that article adding criticism. I felt some of what he added was undue criticism, but the main issue is that David continues to edit Ted Frank articles, and this is problematic since David and Ted were just involved in a very contentious arbitration case. There are millions of articles to work on here; why is David editing warring on the one which happens to be Ted Frank's employer? ATren (talk) 05:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

To answer ATren's assertion, I work in law and I volunteer in public interest law; but I added a reputable cited source that is not even a criticism. What ATren is doing is focusing on the editor and not the edit, and multiple editors have seen no issue with it. It continues because ATren continues to stoke the problem when I'm citing the national legal affairs editor the The New York Times on something that is not even a criticism, but an observation. Second, ATren's behavior itself is a problem and there are other editors who have contacted me about him. One need only look at his edit history to see that 90% of his contributions are to Talk page arguments, ones that he involves himself in. That would be fine if there was a healthy mix of mainspace edits and vandal-reverting, but a pattern has developed with him that could arguably be called WP:HARASS. Regardless, with three other editors (including Newyorkbrad, who was also involved in the ArbCom) seeing no concerns over the addition, why is ATren fighting a fight that need not be fought? There's a pattern. --David Shankbone 05:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to point out ATren has a history of this. He has made his User page a place where he rants against other editors whether it be me or or other editors. My only point is that this is not healthy behavior on this site and we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to go around arguing on Talk pages in disputes that have nothing to do with us, and using our User pages to voice our "disgust" with other editors. This isn't the way we should be working on here, and I am only asking this be pointed out to ATren. --David Shankbone 06:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

David, why do you continue to edit war on Ted Frank related articles? Ted has left the project, you won the arb case, so what is the point in continuing this conflict? The only reason you and I have a conflict is because you refuse to leave Ted Frank's articles alone, even after others in authority have asked you to. ATren (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

ATren, this has nothing to do with Ted Frank--the source I put on there was fine upon review by three other editors, two running for ArbCom, and was from 17 years before Ted Frank ever entered the picture!--but has everything to do with your problematic behavior. Why are you on a crusade here? Why do you go on crusades? Why are you involving yourself in so many disputes? Why don't you contribute more and stop arguing with me, User:William M. Connolley, User:Avidor, User:Raul654, User:Ossified, User:Dev920, et. al. ATren, it is not so much that you have these arguments--we all do--it's more that these arguments form the vast majority of your edits. Discussing it with you, I have learned will get me nowhere. I'm asking for outside admins to look at your edit history and see if there is nothing wrong with it. --David Shankbone 06:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not getting into a pissing match here. I'm fully prepared to defend myself against all these charges, but I'm not going to comment anymore on this thread. If someone wants clarification on my position, you know where to reach me. ATren (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not asking for admins to clarify anything with ATren. I'm asking them to ask themselves if a user with 80-90% of their edits revolving around Talk page disputes with next-to-no mainspace content contribution, whether there is a problem with that pattern. I'm sure ATren can explain all of his positions. My point is a pattern has emerged that is there for anyone to see, and it is a pattern that I think is problematic behavior, whether call it WP:DISRUPT or WP:HARASS. --David Shankbone 06:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• I find the arguments on both sides unconvincing. If you need action, post diffs to show what the other person has done that requires administrator attention. My advice to both of you is to avoid the other. If you want to make a complaint here, keep it concise and show us the problem edits. Otherwise, this is just a bunch of unactionable chat. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That 80-90% of the entirety of a user's edits are arguing on discussion pages is WP:DISRUPT. His relitigating a dismissed ArbCom against an arbitrator going through nomination could be WP:HARASS. He has followed me onto mainspace pages [92], [93][94], on my ArbCom (only one of about hundred diffs supplied) [95] then started to re-litigate that Arbcase at User:Raul654's ArbNom [96], on my work on sister projects [97] and ranted about me on his User page [98]. I'm getting sick of it, and I think it is very actionable and I'm asking for admins to review his edit history and to do something about it, because right now a valuable and longterm contributor feels this behavior is disruptive and harassing. --David Shankbone 06:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

And he continues to follow my edits. I'm asking something be said to him about his behavior, because there is clearly a problem. --David Shankbone 06:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, ATren is clearly stalking David Shankbone's edits (see AEI Legal Center for the Public Interest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for an example). My experience with ATren is the same as David's: he focuses on motive, not content, editor, not edits, will not drop it once he has a bee in his bonnet, and consistently mistakes his own personal viewpoint for neutrality. But this is not a job for ANI (other than to instruct ATren to stop stalking David). Guy (Help!) 12:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Guy. If you had researched the situation more closely, you'd realize that Shankbone is clearly stalking Ted Frank. If you had researched the situation, you'd find that AEI Legal Center for the Public Interest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was not touched by anyone for two years - then as soon as it became associated with Ted Frank, Shankbone took ownership by adding undue criticism, then edit-warring to keep it. He also recently tried adding the "neoconservative" label to all of Ted's articles, which was rejected by others. And if you had researched the situation, you'd find that Shankbone is getting his "dirt" on me from your attack page on me, which you had ironically linked from your user page even as you were fighting to suppress such links in the BADSITES debate. ATren (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• If you think that David Shankbone is stalking another editor then the solution is not to stalk David in return. But thank you for noting the truth of the point that you never drop it. Neither do I. Guy (Help!) 13:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not stalking David, Guy, I'm disputing his edits on Ted Frank's articles. Don't misrepresent something you haven't properly researched. Every conflict I've had with David in the last week has been related to his pursuit of Ted Frank, and nothing else. ATren (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

In other words you're following him round picking holes in his edits, which is what we call stalking. Is it not obvious to you that it would be better for someone other than an avowed supporter of THF to do this? Especially since the arbitration was set to go against him and his interpretation of COI? It's pretty obvious to me. There is no shortage of admins who would not mind reining David back a bit, it would be trivially easy to recruit one if your own approach were less self-evidently adversarial. You've also made a Real Big Deal about people "redacting" from dispute resolution where they are even slightly involved, yet you are pursuing this one-man crusade. It's not productive. Guy (Help!) 13:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, do your research Guy. Four admins and an arbitrator already warned him, and he told them he'd stop. Then he turned around and added a 17-year-old derogatory soundbite to the article on Ted's organization, and edit warred with me and another editor to keep it. Yes, there is a grudge bearer here - and that grudge-bearer is editing the BLP articles of the grudgee. ATren (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy, do you recall our discussion about Shankbone? I was and remain concerned about his editing behavior on two grounds; first, his continuing to make THF-related edits, and second, a tendency to edit war over any of his edits, whether content, photographs, or links to his wikinews interviews. In this case I agree with Atren that Shankbone is making questionable editorial judgements in regards to THF and projects THF has been associated with, and I am I think the fourth admin to ask Shankbone to refrain from making THF-related edits. He promised to stop editing THF's bio, but has not stopped making edits on THF-related subjects, and I think enough is enough. Thatcher131 14:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I am making no Ted Frank-related edits and if you look at my history you will see. This argument over a piece of history with ATren pre-dated any agreement to not edit biographical data about Ted Frank, of which I think consisted almost solely of two edits that, had I not been the one to make them, would have been fine. This is always the problem with focusing on the editor and not the edits. Thatcher, you are so focused on the editor, as is ATren, that you fail to even see that the edits I made are only controversial because I made them. That goes against the entire idea behind this project, which is we are here to share information, not play political battles and put a Scarlet Letter over a particular editor. Additionally, the only finding against me was that I used THF's name too often. I have no "tendency" to edit war over anything. In fact, on Talk:Stephen Colbert I ran a poll to let the editors decide the new Stephen Colbert. Thatcher, ATren's behavior has not only been directed at me, but many others on this project. You go championing his behavior, you are only going to be left with editors like him, because editors like me have better things to do with our time than work on a project where proven troublemakers are defended, and those of us who have given countless and highly valuable contributions are see as the real problem. --David Shankbone 15:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher: Yes, I recall our conversation. You would be a good person to resolve the dispute. ATren is not a good person to resolve the dispute because his style and tactics are only inflaming it, and because he is clearly partisan in respect of THF, who he asserts had no conflict of interest (a view which was, I think, pretty much rejected before the arbitration became moot). It's also likely that Shankbone will accept you as an honest broker, whereas there is no chance he'll accept ATren as such. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy has an attack page directed at me - a page that Shankbone apparently read to get "material" on me. So he's far from a neutral source on my behavior. ATren (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that you always have these problems ATren? Why is everyone else the problem? Have you not noticed that almost all of your edits are arguments? That's just a fact. --David Shankbone 15:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. I've had extended disputes with precicely 3 editors in 2 years. You've had that many in two months, and you don't see me waving your unrelated conflicts around here. My concern is and always has been your relentless pursuit of Ted Frank, which you seem to have no intention of stopping. Let's be clear here: I have no COI on Ted Frank. I don't know him and don't support his politics. I generally defended him in the arbcom case, but that's the extent of my involvement with him. You on the other hand, were his main antagonist here, and now that he's gone you insist on editing any article related to him, adding negative associations. So, why am I being asked to cease instead of you? ATren (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Your edit history does not lie. You add virtually no content to this Project and spend all your time on Talk pages arguing. --David Shankbone 15:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Because I resolve my disputes on talk, not by edit warring in mainspace. I am generally very conservative about what I add to mainspace, especially when in a dispute - where I prefer discussion to mainspace edit warring. That's why my talk page ratio is high. So why don't you cite specific examples of my supposed abuse rather than citing inconsequential statistics? ATren (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've already cited a few of those examples above. The problem is you have an excuse for everything, never realizing that most of us are busy on here contributing and not arguing. For most editors, ATren, arguments are a tiny percentage of our work on here and most of what we do is uncontroversial. I am in the top 1,700 contributors as far as edits go to this site, and I am one of the top 50 downloaders on the Commons of images few people can obtain. That I am not engaged in more disputes is what stands out. Virtually all of your contributions revolve around disputes, and ones you insert yourself into and that didn't happen organically (i.e. you weren't contributing, you decided to take part in a battle). Perhaps you should focus more on article creation and expansion, instead of arguments. --David Shankbone 16:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

See below. ATren (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed all Ted Frank related articles from my watchlist. I stand by every statement in this dispute, but in the end it's not worth the trouble. David, do whatever you want, I will no longer be involved. ATren (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• This is wise. Now monitor them occasionally, and if you think there is a problem, then state it to the three or four neutral parties who have expressed reservations about David's editing. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• ATren, the issue is not Ted Frank, it's the constant arguments and your pursuit of grudges. Declaring a "truce" in one belies my main issue with your edits and your personalizing disputes with User:William M. Connolley, User:Avidor, User:JzG, User:Raul654, User:Ossified, User:Dev920, et. al. Focus more on article creation and expansion and less on arguing ad nauseum. You have become a serial arguer, and that needs to stop. --David Shankbone 16:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

David, what part of "I will no longer be involved" is unclear to you? ATren (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

David, please save a permanent link to this thread (See the Complete diff and link guide for info on how to harvest a page section link). If ATren doesn't keep his word, it will be trivially easy for you to return here, present that permanent link, and a few diffs to show that the alleged (added) problem has resumed. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC) (modified at 16:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

Thank you for your help. --David Shankbone 16:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, just to clarify, which "problem" are you referring to? ATren (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I inserted the word alleged above. I take no position at this time whether there is an actual problem or not. If you avoid the contentious articles as you have pledged, the question is moot. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

persistent edit warring under different user names, WP:COI

New user: Ugesum appears to be today's incarnation of AWachowski/LWachowski. He has picked up exactly where the latter left off on the BKWSU page with persistent large-scale edits without discussion or attempts to gain consensus. Further, as an extremely vehement ex-BK member he suffers from a COI (and is a single-purpose account). Please see Ugesum's first edit below and then compare with the exact same persistent edit reversions in the following difs:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=172445848&oldid=172120342

(With this massive change above, identical to those difs below, this is all he wrote on the talk page.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reneeholle (talk • contribs) 12:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=169339063&oldid=169128361
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=169484684&oldid=169365976
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=169512295&oldid=169496108
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=169531222&oldid=169526066
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=169695579&oldid=169548520
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=171341777&oldid=170961438

This is getting extremely tiresome. He just changes usernames and comes back as a different person over the different months. Can his IP be blocked? This is a waste of good-faith editors' time. Thank you for looking into this. Renee (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is under a very unusual form of probation, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris. One IP editors has been banned from the article, and another is on probation. I recommend taking this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement, as they are probably better able to help sort this out, but the most likely direction will be to take it to the Arbitration committee for review. GRBerry (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. Renee (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible privacy issue

First, some background. The London Gazette recently re-vamped it's website, breaking all existing references to it as they've completely changed the url construction. I've been working my way through this list User:Rich Farmbrough/Article lists/Gazette of articles which contain London Gazette urls and converting them to use {{LondonGazette}} which should make it easier to deal with such changes in future. The latest article I updated, Bez was using the Gazette to reference the fact that the article subject was at one point declared bankrupt. I have updated the reference, but it then occured to me that since the notices (published by order of the court) list the full address of the article subject, this might be considered a privacy violation. I don't know whether this is actually a current address, and anyone could find the info via the website anyway, but obviously linking directly to it in a Wikipedia article gives it much wider currency, so I thought I would seek some wider input as to whether it is actually appropriate to use these references in these particular circumstances. David Underdown (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Not much we can do about that, I think. Guy (Help!) 15:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The address has been published in the London Gazette, which is officially a newspaper. Claiming that a living person has been made bankrupt is certainly a controversial claim per WP:BLP but the London Gazette is the ultimate reliable source for such matters. If it is reasonable to mention the bankruptcy (in other words, if it is significant in the life or career of the subject) then the source should be mentioned; and remember anyone reasonably familiar with the London Gazette will be able to search the full online archive and find it themselves. I can, though, see some circumstances in which the bankruptcy of a living person is not a significant matter and should be removed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth, a celebrity bankruptcy is generally a notable event, especially as apparently winning the Big Brother television series took care of that problem for him. • Lawrence Cohen 16:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• • • If a court of law has ordered the address to be made public, can it now be considered a "privacy issue"? AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• The problem will come if the person has since discharged the bankruptcy, or if osme conviction is now spent under the Rehabilitaiton Of Offenders Act. Guy (Help!) 16:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• In a roundabout way, I'm curious how we should handle otherwise fine sources that also include private information that was ordered public--would the source be no longer acceptable for us after the fact? Or before? • Lawrence Cohen 16:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

MobileHopper spamming

Resolved

 – Blocked and blacklisted. Oh what joy An easy one for a change. Guy (Help!) 15:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Can an admin please checkout Xiaoyezai (talk · contribs) (formerly MobileHopper (talk · contribs) ) who seems intent on spamming us with links to his/her Canadian website. He's using distinctly dishonest tactics e.g. [99] and [100]. It's pretty apparent that his/her only interest in WP is as an advertising aid. ---- WebHamster 14:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

File:Cmurphy-discopigs.jpg and discussion of fair-use images

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Fair use images of celebs in Biography articles? regarding whether it is acceptable to use non-free images of performers from their notable performances. During the course of the discussion, one party removed the above image from the Cillian Murphy article, stating that it was not free use, and an admin subsequently deleted it. I have two questions.

• (1) How, if at all, does one go about requesting restoration/undeletion of the image?
• (2) There was a question raised during the discussion about whether it was reasonable to delete this image while discussion is still ongoing. Are there any valid concerns regarding such conduct? John Carter (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You're looking for WP:DRV. --Haemo (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Turd the Borg

I could use some help with Turd the Borg. He's disruptively adding cleanup tags to some video game featured articles, (example) but he mixes in helpful edits as well. He's been editing The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages, a featured article I actively maintain.

• Borg adds unwarranted game guide tag
• tag removed by another editor
• Borg responds by deleting the entire section
• I revert
• Borg tries a different, still incorrect tag to the same section
• After others remove that tag and make other changes, Borg adds a sentence with a Fact tag

I feel like he's trying to goad me into violating 3RR. I've left him a couple of notes on his talk page, and he responded by cutting and pasting a piece of an article onto my talk page. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#New user adding excessive cleanup tags in which another editor agrees that some of his edits are helpful, and other seem to make a WP:POINT. Another editor complains that Borg nominated an article for GA, despite it being an obvious quick fail due to numerous cleanup tags. Strange behavior for an editor who primarily adds cleanup tags. Any help would be appreciated. Pagrashtak 17:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Took a quick gander at some of their edits... the specific edits you've linked don't look so hot, as a group they seem passive-aggressive, at best. Of the other edits I've checked, though, most all have been helpful in some way or another, though (I'm not professing to have checked every edit). Is this an isolated mistake, or part of a larger pattern? – Luna Santin (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, some of his edits are helpful. Looking though his contributions, it appear he went through the list of video game featured articles adding cleanup tags and fact tags. For example, this is a bit of a stretch. Sure, the page uses "RPG", but the term role-playing game is introduced first. When viewed independently, it seems harmless or in good faith, but when taken in aggregate it is disruptive. Here's another example of a patently incorrect cleanup tag to a VG FA I helped with during the FAC, which I reverted. As I write this, the last seven edits Borg has made with the exception of my talk page, are to the seven articles I list on my user page as having created. While they are not of themselves necessarily bad edits (at least one is a notability tag with which I don't agree), it feels like he is doing this to spite me. Pagrashtak 18:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This edit is one that's sticking out in his contributions for me. I personally care not for Final Fantasy, but he's removed a heck of a lot of text, spread all sorts of tags through the article and then put up a notice for additional citations. The fact it already has 86 references (probably more before he gutted it), most liking off-site to places like IGN, GameSpot, and other reliable games journalism source, apparently means nothing to him. Not even an edit summary to explain his edits.-- Sabre (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, he just added this, which is a direct contradiction of his previous edit. I am not assuming good faith with this user. Pagrashtak 18:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Should be username blocked anyway. Guy (Help!) 18:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  To quote Raul, "FAs are by definition the best Wikipedia has to offer. Therefore, any user adding a cleanup tag is by definition, wrong." Also support the username block. I'd do it myself if I weren't about to leave immediately for lunch. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 19:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Having said that (and not referring to these articles), anyone who has been reviewing FAs recently will know that many of them can get into a terrible state if they're not watched carefully. ELIMINATORJR 20:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Username-blocked by me. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 20:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Karl Maier

After taking a look at Special:Contributions/Karl_Meier, almost all of Karl Maier's edits for the past 30 month (from October 19 to now) have basically been reverts, and most of them revert my edits.

What's more disturbing is that when Karl Maier reverts me he/she does not attempts to use the talk page to discuss reverts.

I would not have posted here, if Karl Maier had discussed the issue instead of removing my comments from his/her talk page.[101] Clearly he/she is not interested in discussing the issue.

I request that Karl Maier be told to use talk pages to discuss reversions and changes.Bless sins (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Karl Meier has been instrumental in removing huge amounts of POV from contentious pages. He should be praised not censured or his efforts.Bakaman 20:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Karl was subject to a now expired ArbComm probation - but it is now expired. And I know of ArbComm cases where the committee has explicitly said that discussions in edit summaries while reverting is not sufficient discussion, the talk page also needs to be used. Karl is only editing about every other week, it will be very hard to actually have a conversation with him about anything. Is there anyone he is known to respect who can say "discuss, don't just revert?" GRBerry (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible Doctor Who sock?

Following the indef-block of Christian07TARDIS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see here and here) who was a sockpuppeteer with I think 10+ socks, a new user account was created with, if memory serves, 27 minutes' interval. This new user, It takes ages to find a free username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), seems absurdly well-up on policy, having used the phrase 'non-notable' in an edit summary in his/her first 60 or so edits. Conversance with policy, however, doesn't seem to be one of Dwrules' strong points, however, so it may be just be on that side of things. The account's definitely a bit too knowledgeable, though. Good old Martinp23 agreed to edit for a banned user :-) and post this here for me; thanks, Martin. Would someone make sure that warning is given to ITATFAFU, too? Cheers, guys! --Porcupine (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Posted here by myself indeed, because I don't have the background knowledge to look at the big picture here and impose a sanction if required. Martinp23 18:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection of this page

I see that this noticeboard was semi-protected by Durova; is it appropriate for this page to still be semi-protected? At a glance, it seems there are some threads about IPs above, not sure how they're supposed to have any input. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

All right; I've unprotected it. We were getting a spate of block-evading TOR nodes last night. Let's hope that's ended. Regards, Durova^Charge! 19:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...since they appeared to be have been posting about a block that you were involved in, you probably shouldn't have protected the page yourself - it gives the appearance of using your admin tools in a dispute. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Calton blocked

Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked for 24 hours by User:CBDunkerson in late September for persistent incivility and taunting. The block did not stop him from continuing to be uncivil, to taunt people, and to escalate every conflict he enters into, so I have re-placed the block, this time for a week.

I first left him a cautionary message on his incivility during a recent revert war he was involved in. He responded predictably, showing his usual disregard for the civility policy.

The purpose of this block is not punitive, of course, but preventative. In an ideal world, this would get the message across that his way of interacting with other users is not acceptable to the Wikipedia community. Here's hoping...

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorse  Avec nat | Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  20:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Skeptical You have not documented incivility. The one diff you provide isn't worthy of a one week block. Other users have made serious allegations against ATren.[102] Consider the reliability of the source of the complaint. I suggest you either lift the block or provide proper evidence. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC) (modified 21:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

This block isn't about ATren. I do not care about whether Calton is right or wrong in a particular content dispute, only that he blows up every dispute he enters with his incivility. Also, I'm pretty sure I don't need to go digging for diffs when reporting my block to AN/I in such an obvious situation - this isn't an ArbCom case. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not familiar with Calton's editing style. Is it too much to ask for three or four diffs that show actual incivility? - Jehochman ^Talk 20:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Calton has a long, long history of aggressive, sarcastic, taunting behaviour, generally contributing to an unpleasant editing environment, and has shown himself unwilling to stop. ElinorD (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Need evidence. I am familiar with Calton's editing style, so won't be surprised if you can present some recent diffs showing some pretty impressive incivility. But please do present those diffs. This is not nice, but blocking for a week seems a bit harsh, and this is not usually considered a "I'm going to block you for a week" kind of warning. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Here are some diffs:

[103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111]

Also, if you read Calton's user page, you'll see he's already had loads of warnings. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, that's Calton. :-(. ATren was being much nicer than that. Some of those do go back to last month, and a week still seems a bit harsh (maybe suggest a downgrade to 2 days?), but I'm not going to object as such. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This is by no means the first time that Calton has introduced an error in an article through reverting another editor without sufficient care and investigation, nor is it the first time that he has responded to correction with stubborn contempt. A couple of months ago I had an unpleasant experience with him after he erroneously reverted JackOfOz, accused Jack of vandalism, and then attacked Jack. See User talk:Calton#2007; User talk:JackofOz/Archive6#2007; a nasty attack.

As it says right on User:Calton, he sees his work on Wikipedia as "mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical". Unfortunately, I think he sometimes misjudges the line between the fanatical POV-pusher and the innocent miscommunication. His abrasive style then inflames a minor misunderstanding into a major conflagration. I don't know if this particular incident is the most egregious or the most deserving of an incivility block, but against the background of Calton's history of consistent rudeness, it's not surprising that someone was inclined to block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Good evidence, now. A week is within your discretion. Consider lifting earlier if the user shows a willingness to make adjustements. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• As is usual on Wikipedia, we give no quarter to any long-time user who does the encyclopedia's dirty work, demanding the utmost in perfection from them while assuming good faith beyond all sense of reason of those who they must clean up after. I have reduced the block to 48 hours - in my opinion, one week is a grossly over-long penalty. His last block was more than a month ago. Give him a chance to cool down for a day and return. FCYTravis (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Excuse me, but any changes to a block should have been discussed here before you changed it. The 1 week was within the blocking sysop's discretion. Secondly, blocks are not punitive as you have put it, they are preventive, and the 1 week block was justified as this user, according to the evidence listed here, has a long history of incivility.  Avec nat | Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  21:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good job discussing it beforehand, we all know who well fucking around with blocks without discussion goes. John Reaves 21:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If there is an administrator who wants to reimpose the week, they should feel free to do so - I'm certainly not going to engage in a wheel war. FCYTravis (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• FCYTravis, you aren't doing him any favors you know. If he doesn't accept what people are telling him and change it'll only be the worse later on. Calton does alot of good work, but he's one of the most consistently incivil users we have and has a tendency to attack even the admins who warn him about it. Sooner or later the hole he has dug for himself will be too deep for anyone else to get him out of it. --CBD 21:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  So give him a couple days to think about it. Seven days is not warranted. If his objectionable behavior continues, another block can be issued. FCYTravis (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Legality of the Vietnam War

Resolved

Can someone please userfy this deleted page? Thanks, Stayman Apple (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean by "userfy this deleted page".  Avec nat | Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  21:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Nat, userfy this page meant to move it from the main article space into userspace, as it was obviously created in the Mainspace in error. Regards, —Qst 21:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a copy on user's talk page. He was the only contributor. GRBerry (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

User:81.159.77.176 (and previous)

This user has been causing trouble on British Rail Mark 3. Under several previous IP addresses, the user used terminology in the article that is considered non-preferred, mainly because it is obsolete and also ambiguous. Myself and another anon tried to discuss this on the talk page, and got bombarded with huge breezeblocks of text telling Why They Were Right And Everyone Else Is Wrong. Any attempt to restore sanity in the article was reverted and any attempt on the talk page was met initially with more of Why They Were Right And Everyone Else Is Wrong, and later with a heavy dose of You Are All Wrong So There. Having failed to get any sense from them, I made it clear that it would probably be a good idea to stop. This was ignored, and the user again introduced poor terminology, making sure to wikilink every occurrence of the word "second" in the article, which I consider to be disruptive, since not only is the term unhelpful, to keep it in there would have required someone to clean up the mess of redundant links. At this point, I dropped a warning on their talk page, which was met by the user taking the You Are All Wrong So There onto my talk page. Having read the rather rude and insulting comments, I removed them from the page, only for this user to add them back (repeatedly). This stopped only after dropping a level 4 on their talk page, while they continued on the article itself. I have stopped for now, since I'm entirely sure which edits counted for WP:3RR and which didn't, and in any case since the other user insists on having their version on top (F5 syndrome at its best) I couldn't even revert myself when I realized.

Can someone deal with this user please? 90.203.45.244 (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• With the greatest of respect, I have hardly been rude to anyone during any edits, or discussions, and have been more than happy to cite sources for any edits that have occured. Any changes I have made are POV changes, and having originally advised the user 90.203.45.244 that unless they could cite sources, they should form a concensus before changing the article. They have failed to do this on the talk page, only further editing of the article. The user 90.203.45.244 claims than another user has agreed with his POV, however, the editing history of both 85.92.190.81 and 90.203.45.244 seem to be very similar. This is, I believe is the same user. As the user 90.203.45.244 has never cited any sources, nor formed a concensus on the talk page, I believe that they are responsible for the vandalism. 81.159.77.176 (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)