Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Boomgaylove II

Note: the first AN/I incident may be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive373#User:boomgaylove) - Wikidemo (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see this edit I inadvertently made to the archive. Should I pull the whole thing back here or file a new report? I'm really not sure how to proceed here but we could use some help in the midst of a sock/meat/disruptive/AGF/NPA/AfD, issue that seems to be blowing up. I don't know whether a checkuser request is the best approach. I'm hoping we can declare a standstill (and possible protection for the articles and speedy close on the AfD) for J Stalin and Cypress Village, Oakland, California while we sort out the sockpuppetry issue. Wikidemo (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we kindly get some administrative help on this? There are edit wars brewing on the AfD discussions, articles, etc. I'm in a tough spot of having to choose between attempting to keep order at the risk of edit warring with possibly legitimate Wikipedians, and letting the articles devolve because I don't want to get involved. This may all clear up once we run a checkuser on some of the suspicious-looking editors who have jumped in, so I think everything would benefit from a cool-down. Some neutral, experienced help would be much appreciated. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There are several issues here, one of which is a possible BLP violation accusing this rapper of having been a drug dealer, another of which is alleged sockpuppetry, but if a user is using socks and another user is making potentially harmful claims of drug dealing by a subject of an article, then we have a problem. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please, do help! I am not "making" claims of drug dealing or inserting any derogatory material. The article mentioned the rap artist's drug-dealing (he was convicted of it and placed on probation as a 17-year-old) before I ever came to this, and I did so only because of the abusive sock puppet issue. The sockpuppets have been gaming this issue heavily. The information does not seem to be harmful because he apparently freely admits to it, and a feature article about him in a local newspaper mentions it. The news article and the artist's own words are the sources, and the attempt to remove the fact and the citations, as well as all references positive and negative to the rapper himself, were part of the sock attack. Since the sources are reliable and the mention relevant and harmless, there is no obvious BLP violation. I have no stake here, but I do not want to let sockpuppets dictate article content or goad people into starting edit wars. Wikidemo (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparantly is the problem, it must be verified by a reliable source. Also what newspaper article says this? Provide it! Provide an opinion based on WP:RS how album notes are reliable. You simply can't. Therefore it is gaping BLP vio.Icamepica (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SELFPUB for the interview. The newspaper source is obvious from the article. Try reading it.Wikidemo (talk) 10:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved Wikidemo's edit from the archive to this thread for ease of use. --jonny-mt 03:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

New sockpuppetry report

Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Boomgaylove. In addition to the obvious sockpuppets / evasion of block, a number of IP and recently-registered users have recently flocked to the issues, nominated for deletion the two (now five) articles that the now-blocked editor was trying to gut, parroted the same tactics and language. There are several users who are not clear sockpuppets but may be, could be meatpuppets (the user has admitted to meatpuppetry as well), or might just be innocent editors who wandered in. I'm not sure what to do next - a checkuser?

Also, I'm wondering if we can speedy close or otherwise suspend the AfDs pending a resolution of the sockpuppet issue. I won't argue the articles' notability here (obviously I think they are or I wouldn't be here), but it's an undue waste of time dealing with edit wars, AfDs, and other wikigaming in the middle of trying to figure out who is a sockpuppet. If the articles are deletable they can wait a couple weeks until we've gotten rid of the trolls, and reasonable editors can have an honest content discussion. Wikidemo (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There are legitimate AfD concerns which are evident by the majority opinions on the AfD of J Stalin. Just because some user was blocked for contentious editing does not mean that any editor which coincidentally has a similar stance on the article's notability its a sock puppet. Also not a reason to indefinatly stop AfD's which you are biasly in favor or not occurring, while vindictively adding arbitrary and baseless warnings talk pages.Icamepica (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't look like it will be deleted so the question is moot, and I see no point responding to the random potshots of an accused sockpuppet. I don't want to get into AfD procedure because, assuming this is boomgaylove, he/she has nominated at least six articles for deletion in five days, including this one three times using three different accounts, and should not be taught the ins and outs of how AfD relates to sockpuppetry.Wikidemo (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Note - I am commenting out some of the residue of user:Icamepica's trolling from yesterday. As per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Boomgaylove we have uncovered a dozen or more sockpuppets (including Icamepica), some clearly linked to boomgaylove and some not yet. I'm adding this comment in part in case Icamepica causes trouble again when his/her block expires in a few hours and if the account has not (yet) been indefinitely blocked. Wikidemo (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet more attacks

And in the midst of all this, yet another user with civility issues, User talk:ILike2BeAnonymous is making personal attacks. He's attacked me before in opposing my attempts to deal with the swarm of sockpuppets / trolls. See this edit[1], which he has made three times and I've deleted twice as a personal attack on me. My statements are correct, actually, and for that he/she calls me "ignorant" and says my edits are a demonstration of an "encyclopedia-that-any-idiot-can-edit." Rather than reverting him a third time I'm inviting him to remove his (or her) comments. Would someone mind taking a look to see if this is an NPA violation and if so, what we can do? Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 06:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Some additional material - He's been edit warring in support of the sock puppets and making personal attacks on this article elsewhere in the past two days. here he calls me "irrational" for adding a second source, and deleted it along with sourced content, during the article's WP:AfD process. here he's doing the same thing a few days earlier. From the talk page this editor has a pattern of civility problems, and showing up in the midst of the bizarre sockpuppet swarm raises concerns (although the majority of the account's overall edit history does seem productive and in good faith). Anyway, I don't want to let stand an attack that I'm "ignorant" and an "idiot" for saying something that is, actually, true. Wikidemo (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The user has not removed the attacks. They really should not stay as a fixture on the article talk page, nor do I think it's good to leave them up while the article is under a sockpuppet AfD effort. I haven't gotten any guidance here and the user hasn't responded to my request for removal. I'm also hesitant to go to a different forum with this because I've tried to consolidate it all here after the sockpuppets went forum shopping and canvassing. So unless anyone has any other suggestion I'm going to just archive the incivilities. The editor has threatened to go past 3RR, claiming my removing his attacks are "vandalism", so please be alert in case this continues. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

---

I'd just like to point out that whatever the merits, or lack thereof, in Wikidemo's arguments above, that he (or she) has tried to, basically, censor the discussion on the Cypress Village page, most recently by a rather transparent move of "archiving" a short discussion with the clear intention of getting it out of sight. I don't mind the ongoing back-and-forth here, but I do object to such unilateral attempts to remove what this user apparently sees as embarassing material. Discuss the issues on their merits, why don't you? As I said there, for my part, I'd like to get back to a substantive discussion of the topic, in this case, neighborhoods in West Oakland. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing a personal attack (calling me an "idiot" and "ignorant") is not censorship. I proposed here exactly what I was going to do if the editor did not remove the uncivil comments, and I did it. Of course it is transparent, deliberately so. I archived the thread with the insults because there is no more conversation to be had when one of the two parties is calling the other an idiot, and that is the best way to preserve it without altering it. The editor said he "stands by" his comments (notably, that I am an idiot and ignorant), and has now violated WP:3RR with this edit[2] by inserting those invectives for a fourth time. Can someone please help? Is this the wrong place - should I take it to the 3RR notice board? Wikidemo (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I can block both of you for violating WP:3RR, or I can conclude that both archiving is different than removing completely and unarchiving is also different from restoring after a removal. I choose the latter. Stop edit warring, both of you, or I'll change my mind and go with option 1. Yes, his comments are incivil, no they don't reach my standard for administrative action. GRBerry 19:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Scolding both of us is not helpful. The other editor has violated 3RR, I have not. The other editor is misbehaving by spewing insults; I am not. I am trying to deal with a serious abusive sockpuppet problem here; the other editor has been supporting the sockpuppets. I am not a disruptive editor. I have been asking again and again for guidance and help, and gotten none. Is that the official word from administrators around here, that I get blocked? I have zero risk of future disruptive editing - I have asked for administrative blessing every step of the way and gotten no opposition or guidance of any sort. If that's the thanks I get for helping with the encyclopedia, go ahead and block me. Wikidemo (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC) I should note that the two of us are talking on our talk pages and I don't expect any more trouble for now. I've asked if he/she would mind putting an archive box around the part of the discussion that just concerns the two of us, so that it does not distract from the larger ongoing sockpuppet matter.Wikidemo (talk) 04:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As a victim of both of these users, WikiDemo's McArthy-in-scope sockpuppet paranoia and ILike2BeAnonymous' colorful borderlining and incivility may I suggest all parties involved take a breather?Cholga^talK! 00:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that there is considerable evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Boomgaylove pointing to the fact that Cholga is Icamepica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was recently blocked for disruption in this very discussion. While I rather agree with your suggestion that a breather might be in order, I object to your misrepresentation of the situation in order to take a dig at both editors involved. --jonny-mt 01:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mdsummermsw PROD's and AFD's

This is basically my last step before this heads to RFC. User:Mdsummermsw continues to prod articles with no notice. He never marks them for improvement just prods, as you can see by his user page dozens and dozens of articles. He is obsessed with notability criteria and his arguments are getting increasingly pointy. Nominating albums with imminent release dates citing WP:Music [3]. He also has a habit of not taking enough time to look at what he is proding, such as he here where he prod'd it as being an unreleased album [4]. If you look through the list on his user page you will find many examples of things that are clearly notable that he has nominated [5] [6][7]Among others . He seems to be trying to prove some point about notability, and seems to be actually asking for an RFC. Ridernyc (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

He never marks them for improvement just prods,

"never"? e.g., Hittman: [8][9][10][11]

And a few others:[12][13][14][15][16]

as you can see by his user page dozens and dozens of articles.

...any of which went through AfD, ending in deletions.

He is obsessed with notability criteria

Wikipedia has notability criteria for very good reasons.

and his arguments are getting increasingly pointy.

I can only state that I am not trying to disrupt wikipedia, nor am I trying to prove a point. I'm trying to get rid of articles on unsourced (or poorly sourced), non-notable, unreleased albums.

Nominating albums with imminent release dates citing WP:Music [17].

Albums that haven't been released are unreleased.

He also has a habit of not taking enough time to look at what he is proding, such as he here where he prod'd it as being an unreleased album [18].

The first time you took issue with this was for what you said was "actually more like a demo". As I explained, the article and its few sources called it lots of things: a "demo album (which) has never been released in any form", "a suite ... but not a complete album", an "alleged recording" [[Category:Unreleased albums]] at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Ballad_of_Stuffed_Trigger. This case was a poorly written article. The lead tells us it's "I Murdered Mommy is a the name of an abandoned cd-rom project by avant rock band The Residents" and put it in the category "Unreleased albums". I'm still not sold on the notability of this one [19]. I'll get back to it.

If you look through the list on his user page you will find many examples of things that are clearly notable that he has nominated Homegrown (album)

Neil Young is clearly notable. Homegrown, in my opinion, is not clearly notable.

Human Highway

Please be sure of your accusations before you make them. I've never touched that article. [20]

[21]

Are you also taking User:Ten Pound Hammer to task for voting to delete the same article? Seems I'm not the only one who isn't sold on that one.

He seems to be trying to prove some point about notability,

If I'm "trying to prove" any point about notability, it's the same point I "try to prove" about verifiability, reliable sources, NPOV, etc.

and seems to be actually asking for an RFC.

I'm not hoping for an RFC, but you are certainly welcome to start one. If you find a meaningful consensous that says I shouldn't PROD and AfD based on Notability I will certainly stop. Or, perhaps you can mobilize them to make whatever changes (if any) you feel are needed in the guidelines. Personally, I think requiring substantial coverage in reliable sources is a good standard.

Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, there isn't any administrator action being asked for, nor is there any that would be appropriate. Ridernyc, a better first step would have been to talk to Mdsummermsw on his/her talk page about your concerns. From the random edits I looked at, I see no evidence that Mdsummermsw is not acting in good faith, nor does he/she appear to be violating any of the deletion policies, so I see no reason to take any action at this point. Natalie (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:Natalie Erin's assessment here. What admin action are you hoping for? Saying "this is the last step before an RFC" seems overly dramatic. You obviously have a dispute about content/appropriateness of unreleased albums with Midsummermsw in that you think they should be kept and he/she thinks otherwise. I personally don't see enough justification for an RFC, but by all means go for it. I think mediation or dispute resolution, if not attempted yet, would seem to be a better venue. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have dicussed this issue on his talk and totally ignored. Ridernyc (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I see one message, which points out things you want Mdsummermsw to pay more attention to. Is it at all possible that he/she took your advice and didn't feel like any further comment was necessary? Regardless, now you both know that you disagree, and you can either hash this out on one of your talk pages or agree to avoid each other. Either way, there really isn't anything here requiring administrator attention. Natalie (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No because things got even worse today. Look at the 2 unreleased Neil Young albums he sent to AFD. Ridernyc (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No, what? What are you asking administrators to do here? Natalie (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Prods and AfD's are often completely fine without other efforts by the prodder on the articles. For instance if the prodder thinks the article's subject is genuinely not notable at all. People are free to add the 'hang on' template and improve articles they think are encyclopedic. Removing stuff that is genuinely not suitable for wikipedia is a great thing to do IMHO, and Ridernyc you should try to WP:AGF that other editors are trying to improve wikipedia by prodding etc.Special Random (Merkinsmum) 22:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the amount of Prods. I have literally spent the last 2 hours going through all his prods and AFD's and finding sources. His recent batch of AFD's are not going well, more then a few people have commented that the articles never should have been brought to AFD. I Have no problem with proding things and sending things to AFD, just look at my edit history. The problem is sending so many things in such a short amount of time and being clearly wrong a high percentage of the time. Ridernyc (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Small point of fact: prods do not have to be contested with the hangon template. The prod can simply be removed by anyone for any reason, and that is taken as contesting the prod. Again, if you feel that this user is nominating a lot of things incorrectly the best tack would be to start a conversation with him/her. There is not rule that says he/she cannot nominate a hundred articles a day for deletion, whether prod or AfD, and you haven't demonstrated at all that this user is acting in bad faith. And for the fourth time, I think, what admin action are you asking for? Natalie (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that excessive nominations in a short period of time , especially excessive ill-thought-out nominations, do raise problems for other editors, and are not conducive to the orderly removal of material that ought to be removed--and the improvement and keeping of what ought to be kept. To nominate an article for deletion as "No released albums" when the article plainly shows two released albums as for Kiley Dean, shows carelessness and makes unnecessary work for multiple editors, preventing the proper consideration of what needs consideration. (I make no comment about actual notability--I cannot judge in this subject) There's nothing wrong with prodding a lot--I wish people would use prod more in general--but it should have some reasonable relation to the need for deletion. Nominating for afd without follow the steps and leaving others to complete them shows a similar lack of consideration. Nominating for speedy without looking for a redirect when its just a case of finding the right title and leaving it for others as in [22] is also inconsiderate. A certain degree of inconsiderateness can amount to the obstruction of normal process. The appropriate reason for bring this here was to bring this pattern to general attention. DGG (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like generally very good work is being done - lots of junk being cleared out by an editor willing to take the time to do it, with perhaps an occasional oversight or lapse, but of a purely trifling nature. Since there is no suggestion here that the editor's actions require admin intervention, I suggest this be promptly closed. Philosophical differences are not stuff for ANI. Meanwhile, I have a barnstar to award. Eusebeus (talk) 04:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like an Admin, to go through all of his deleted articles and make sure none of them were mistakes. I'm worried how many things might have sliped by before anyone noticed what was going on. In the last week the a large number of his prods have been contested and and even larger proportion of his AFD's are failing. I could easily picture a admin missing something like the I Murdered Mommy mistake. Ridernyc (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked through the first few and found gems like "Open was going to be an album by Q-Tip - the follow-up to Amplified - but like Kamaal the Abstract, this was canceled for not being commercial enough. Tracks will re-appear on his album The Renaissance in 2008." and "Take It Easy is the first single for rapper Rich Boy for his second album Tears of Joy produced by Polow Da Don that's scheduled for release in June 2008." Mdsummermsw's prods seem pretty sound. Orderinchaos 01:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There are many like this After the Astronaut (album), After the Astronaut (Butthole Surfers), After the Astronaut (Butthole Surfers album). Not sure why After the Astronaut would be deleted [23], if it was a considered a non-notable album it should have been redirected. This is only the second deleted title I have checked I'm sure there are others. Ridernyc (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• The problem is the willingness to misinterpret rules in order to attempt to delete articles and information, and the borderline incivility of collecting the pelts of articles they got deleted on their user page. The context of "unreleased" in the sentence in WP:MUSIC is clearly a reference to demos, promos, bootlegs, and historical albums that have never seen legal release, such as Smile (Beach Boys album), Songs from the Black Hole, Chrome Dreams, etc. It clearly does not refer to confirmed albums with release dates in the near future; only Mdsummermsw claims that it does. Other editors agreed that this interpretation was so offbase that they changed the guideline to eliminate any possible misinterpretation or misuse of the word "unreleased". The result of this? Mdsummermsw is now going around removing confirmed, sourced release dates from album info boxes based on one phrase in Template:Infobox_Album#Released. The section states in full: "Only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified, using a single occurrence of {{Start date}}, for example {{Start date|2007|7|31}} (or {{Start date|2007|7}} or {{Start date|2007}} if the exact date isn't known). Later release dates can be mentioned in a Release history section." - This clearly refers to albums with multiple issues released on different dates. However, Mdsummermsw is, I believe based on the pattern of behavior, willfully decontextualizing and misinterpreting the section by isolating the portion "Only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified". Let me state that again: after failing to delete several articles based on a clear misinterpretation of the WP:MUSIC guideline, the editor has begun deleting confirmed, valid information from the article based on the tense of a verb from a sentence that has been taken from instructions for an infoboxe and stripped of its content. This isn't about successful AfDs for articles lacking sources - (Yes, sometimes Mdsummermsw's AfDs are correct, but my VCR clock has also been accurate twice today, too) - this is about a pattern of behavior that clearly indicates WP:tendentious editing. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 12:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not removing confirmed information. Immediately before reading this, I restored this edit, removing the future release date "Released = March 25 2008". My edit to the talk page clearly explains that the information remains in the body of the article. "Released = March 25 2008" states that the album was released on March 25, 2008. It probably will be, it might not. On March 26, someone checking the article will see wikipedia saying that it was released. This one is somewhat higher profile than most debut albums, so it might be edited as soon as any change to that date were announced. Others would likely fly by unchecked. I would welcome a change to the info box to allow for scheduled release dates or support for other ideas. One possibility is changing "Released" in the info box to "Release date" and ensuring scheduled dates are so noted. An awkward work around would change "Released = March 25 2008" to "Released = March 25 2008 (scheduled)". At the moment, this seems like the wrong venue for this discussion though. If you would like to suggest admin action against me at this time, please do. Otherwise, I'm taking this piece to other venues. I'll note this on your talk page. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

216.231.41.66 Threatening to Sue Wikipedia over VfD

Christopher Wunderlee, purportedly through a representative named "Greg Levant," is threatening to sue Wikipedia unless the Christopher Wunderlee article, which is currently on VfD, is kept by the community. This is one of the worst violations of the non-lawsuit guideline we have ever seen. In short, he is threatening to sue merely because his self-promoting article has been proposed for deletion. I think the full force of our guidelines should be applied and he should be banned. Here is the specific threat: [24]. Leesome (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless you have proof you are willing to stand behind in court, you should seriously refrain from accusing someone of "self-promoting". Indeed, I think your making this claim here would normally count as a personal attack warranting at least a 24 hour block. But consider yourself warned instead.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if banning the IP would mean an indef block, it might not be best if it is reassigned. The editor should be informed that it is a discussion page, so it isn't really libel. Based on the article in it's present condition, I'd say the article should be deleted, but I'm avoiding getting directly involved. If the article in question doesn't exist, it can't be libelous. How are all the other supposed legal threats handled? I mean, after all restrictive actions? Who do they contact? Why is Wikipedia never sued, with all these BLP cases. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 22:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be aware that your statements are being monitored and action will be taken. well monitor this, block for breaching WP:LEGAL. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for 48 hours and left a note explaining why on the talk page. Obviously the IP cannot be blocked for any longer period of time unless there is some suggestion that it's static, so this will just have to do for now. I've watchlisted the article, the AfD, and the IP talk page, but some other people with magic buttons may wish to do the same. If this becomes a real issue we can courtesy blank the AfD, but obviously not until the discussion is actually closed. Natalie (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not just 'splode it? Every entry has been for delete, the only entry not suggesting has been a legal threat and every entry since has been delete and salt. Snowball, maybe? Or too soon? HalfShadow (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Try putting the IP into the address bar of your browser, ie http://216.231.41.66/homepage.htm to find that it is actually the IP address of CollinsWoerman architects. This means that it's fair to assume both that someone has received a legal threat from an architect and that there's a good chance the IP is a static one, therefore blockable. --WebHamster 22:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel terribly strongly either way about the AfDs, but as this author appears to be somewhat upset and has an itchy lawyer finger, maybe it's best to let them run there course so the delete is as valid as possible. I'm also not up on my technical knowledge in regards to IP addresses, but if others are pretty sure that this IP is static then I'm not opposed to lengthening the block. Natalie (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Good catch! seicer | talk | contribs 22:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the AfD debate as a violation of WP:BLP. See section below. As for The editor should be informed that it is a discussion page, so it isn't really libel, you couldn't be more wrong. It doesn't matter where you publish something, it is still published. There is no excuse for gross insults to subjects of articles and such lack of courtesy. I suggest an apology is in order to the subject, or to his agent. The IP was warned 3 hours after posting the legal threat, then 12 minutes later he was blocked. Tyrenius (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Tyrenius is absolutely right. Yes, this poor person should not have made a legal threat. And people should never have engaged in the kind of completely failure of courtesy that led to it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Since it's my block, I'll point out that blocking indef is SOP for legal threats until the threat is revoked. To quote from WP:NLT: "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding." If the IP revokes the threat of legal action, they will be unblocked. If they continue in this vein, they will continue to be blocked. This is how these matters are nearly always handled, and I can't see any compelling reason to handle this matter any differently. Natalie (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think it's preferable to let a new user know they are doing something that contravenes policy, before they are sanctioned for doing so. They should be given the opportunity to withdraw. They hadn't done anything during the 3 hours after one post. Tyrenius (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, blocks generally aren't sanctions. They are an attempt to prevent further harm and I believe the theory behind insta-blocking after legal threats is that it prevents the user from pushing the lawsuit point, and creating a further chilling effect. And they have been given the opportunity to withdraw - there is a templated warning on the IP's talk page as well as a personal note from myself, explaining exactly why they were blocked and welcoming them back once they withdraw the threat. Once the threat is withdrawn, or once 48 hours has passed, they will be free to edit once again. Natalie (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not complaining about Natalie's block at all, although if forced to choose, I would support the idea of letting the warning stand in a case like this to allow the person to withdraw the threat. But a better response would have been a mass blocking on all the people who insulted the guy in the first place.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"VfD"? This guy must be an old user socking. John Reaves 21:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Loony: a novella of epic proportions

I've just deleted this as a violation of WP:BLP with its liberal accusations of vanity. Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Shorthands states unambiguously:

"Vanity is a potentially defamatory term that should be avoided in deletion discussions."

This has been there since October 2006.[25], after discussion at WT:AFD and WT:BLP.[26] Likewise since 2006, the shortcut WP:VANITY has had a warning:

Please do not use this shortcut, as the term can be considered insulting to the subjects of articles.

There are pertinent posts about this also (under maintenance at the moment).[27], [28], [29], [30]. Neither vanity nor self-promotion are in themselves valid delete reasons anyway, so there is no need to mention them. This applies to the above section also. Tyrenius (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a major difference between "should be avoided in deletion discussions" and "is cause for immediate deletion of an AfD page that makes use of the term". I've restored the page pending consensus for doing otherwise here; maybe the word vanity should be removed from the page, but your action was heavy-handed to the point of ludicrousness. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've refactored it. I'd point out that using the term "vanity press" is completely reasonable, it's a valid term for a self-published book and has even got its own article. Thoughts? Black Kite 23:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Vanity press seems like an acceptable term for me, but then again, I haven't tried to promote a vanity press-published book. I'm sure everyone can just avoid the specific word "vanity", if that's the problem, and the AfD can continue as normal. Natalie (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• "Note: Avoid using the word "vanity" in a deletion discussion even if you think it's the case — AFD gets media attention, and the word "vanity" in AFDs has caused real problems for the Foundation."[31] (emphasis in the original) I think that's clear enough. Tyrenius (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Given that the author's article has just been snow-closed as Delete, I doubt if it's going to be a problem for much longer. Black Kite 23:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd suggest courtesy-blanking (not deleting) the AfDs when they're completed. Note, though, that the individual was threatening to sue not over the content of the AfD, but over the outcome, which is plainly dumb. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think actually deleting the discussion was more than a bit overboard, especially considering it was two discussions deleted, and not one. If there is libel, you can delete the particular revision in question and leave a note. Deleting the entire page of an ongoing discussion without restoring any part of it is outlandish. Avruch ^T 23:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I've closed it as a snow delete and redacted the nomination. I don't see any reason to continue a minor drama. Black Kite 23:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Completed AfD deleted per WP:BLP:

Courtesy blanking of deletion discussions

If a biography of a living person is deleted through an Articles for deletion (AfD) debate, the AfD page and any subsequent deletion review that fails may be courtesy-blanked or deleted if there was inappropriate commentary.
"...In the meantime, it is my position that MOST AfD pages for living persons or active companies should be courtesy blanked (at a minimum) as a standard process, and deleted in all cases where there was inappropriate commentary. This is not the current policy, but currenty policy does allow for deletions of material which is potentially hurtful to people." --Jimbo Wales 01:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[32]
After the deletion of a biography of a living person, any admin may choose to protect the page against recreation.
End of material quoted from WP:BLP. Tyrenius (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think a courtesy-blanking would be more than sufficient in this case, and would ask you to stop making contentious deletions unilaterally. As "inappropriate commentary" goes, suggesting "vanity" is very mild. In the interests of avoiding wheel-warring, I won't restore the pages unless there's a consensus to do so, but I think your actions are getting a little tiresome here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Besides which, you appear not to have deleted the discussions at all. Please don't. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Vanity as in vanity press is apparently a provable fact here. Just to muddy the waters :-) Feel free to courtesy blank the debates after closure, that is entirely acceptable in these case. {{courtesy blanking}} does the job, but probably no need to actually delete. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Guy, but if we have not received such a request and have no obvious reason to expect one, the default would be to leave it well enough alone. — CharlotteWebb 23:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"No obvious reason to expect one"? Just above, there is a legal threat. The default is WP:BLP and the onus on wikipedia editors to act pre-emptively:

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.(emphasis in original)

Wikipedia is an international, top-ten website, which means that material we publish about living people can affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends.

Vanity accusations are clearly contentious and were made as pure editorial opinion.

Tyrenius (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've courtesy-blanked the pages, as there seems to be something approximating a consensus in favour of doing so. All history is still available to anyone who cares to look, so I don't think it does any harm, and I agree with the substance of Tyrenius's interpretation of WP:BLP (although obviously not with the severity of the conclusions he's drawn from this interpretation). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that is the main reason the server is configured not to allow Google to index AFD pages (despite how difficult it can become for as editors to find a specific AFD at a later date), not that the overall behavior of Google should matter much to us anyway. If we actually do believe the user plans to sue (and is not simply trying to troll us), I would suggest consulting Brad Patrick Mike Godwin before tampering with any of the "evidence". — CharlotteWebb 00:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that (not instantly, not overnight, not in a way as to shock people) policy be firmed up to make it clear that a deletion reason of "vanity" is a personal attack on the subject of an article, and not just "not recommended" but a blockable offense under WP:NPA.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wales has also stated here that to use the phrase "self-promotion" is a "personal attack warranting at least a 24 hour block", and in that same diff called for a "mass blocking" of everyone who "insulted" a particular person by using that and similar terms. These statements of Jimmy's are problematic and over the top. For one thing, WP:NPA does not and was not meant to cover "attacks" against subjects of articles. WP:BLP is better for that sort of concern, and it focuses—and rightly so—on keeping attacks out of articles, rather than on punishing offenders. Second, the text of WP:NPA itself wisely counsels that blocks are not the best remedy against personal attacks except in cases of high disruption.

The reality is, experienced Wikipedians, including many admins, use terms like "vanity" and "self-promotion" all the time. Does Jimmy really think that each time someone has used it, they deserved to be blocked? Should, for example, Freakofnurture and JzG be (or have been) blocked for popularizing the word "vanispamcruftisement"?

I submit that if use of phrases like "vanity" and "self-promotion" are causing legal problems for Wikimedia, then a separate policy page ought to be erected stating such. To proclaim that use of such terms merits blocking under NPA is not the way to go. Mike R (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the need to move away from "vanity" as a term of art in discussion. It has an inherent, unavoidable negative connotation and has caused Foundation issues in the past. On the other hand, there are some logistical problems with making a term blockable; would we similarly mandate that vanity press publishers (term in use since the 1950s) be referred to as print on demand or otherwise euphemistically? But more to the point, I am not at all comfortable with the idea that "self-promotion" is an equally damning descriptor. A CSD G11 article on, say, Bob's House of Stuff created by User:BobsHouseofStuff is, with NPOV in mind, a type of promotion and from the source itself. In particular, it is an example of below the line marketing (and wow, that's an article in need of work!). "Self-promotion" has been used in places as a pejorative, but is equally common with a positive connotation (there are many books available on Amazon touting self-promotion strategies for small businesses). Is declaring the hypothetical article above as self-promotion thus any more pejorative or biased than suggesting it meets the requirements of CSD G11, which specifies "blatant" advertising? Obviously it--like most anything else--can be made into a personal attack or otherwise cross the line, but, ceteris paribus, I am not certain that it does. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oy. We deep-six "vanity" & we're back to arguing over "notability" when all we want to do is get rid of articles about teenagers created by friends/would-be lovers, & business ventures with no chance of success or advertising budgets. Let's see an explanation how "vanity" is a bad thing before we consider this suggestion, if at all. -- llywrch (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

G11 is not about "self promotion". It is about "promotion" regardless of who is doing it (could be a fan, for example), so that is not relevant to this discussion. "Vanity" and "self promotion" are both used in this context as disparaging terms and are therefore unacceptable, whether per WP:BLP or WP:NPA. They are furthermore needless and irrelevant in AfD debates as neither is a reason to delete. Arguments should be addressed to the worth of article content per WP:N and WP:V. Derogatory comments about living people are not only against the ethos of wikipedia, but are also likely to result in complaints to the Foundation,[33], [34] and should not be used, including for example "scam artist"[35] and vanispamcruftisement. This needs to be firmed up in guidelines and policy. When it occurs it should be removed with a strong warning to the editor who made it. Reinsertion would merit a block. However, at the moment I see such offences are unintentional, and most users would co-operate, once they were made aware that it is not acceptable. Tyrenius (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your hypersensitivity aside, "self-promotion" is a perfectly accurate description and "vanity press" a perfectly valid consideration and term. "Vanity"? Eh, so what. I'm not seeing the value of your attempts to ban perfectly valid, descriptive, and useful terms merely because you don't like how they sound. I, for one, will continue to use such terms where appropriate, and I think you'll find little support for disciplining editors who insist on precision over knee-jerk hypersensitivity. --Calton | Talk 04:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that some people, including Jimbo, are being way too sensitive here. Calling something vanity being blockable? What? It's No Personal Attacks, not Might Be A Personal Attack If You Are Easily Offended And/Or Suffer From Blood Loss To The Brain. -- Ned Scott 06:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ned, I think that statement is closer to being a Personal Attack than nominating an article for deletion as "vanity". :) -- llywrch (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Mikkalai

• Mikkalai (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I appologise in advance for not discussing this directly with Mikkalai but if you read his talk page you will hopefully understand why. He's put a notice up refusing to take part in any discussion within Wikipedia whatsoever and that talk page messages will go unanswered and most probably reverted. The note is inflammatory as well, calling other admins trigger happy cowboys and wikilawyers and if anyone comes to his talk with a concern about this, it makes them a jerk. A quick look at his talk history shows he's simply been reverting any complaint for some time now. I'm sorry to say it, but this isn't the behaviour we expect of administrators and communication is something that admins must be good at. This attitude, and lack of civility is simply not the way an admin should act, but I'm at a :loss as to what to do about it. Has anyone got any suggestions? Ryan Postlethwaite 04:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• and here's his reversion to my AN/I notice. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

An admin who refuses to discuss anything should be desysopped. Corvus cornix_talk 04:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We have had this conversation before regarding Gustafson. If you're an admin engaged in administrative tasks, you'd damn well better be prepared to admit liability for them, and discuss them. If he doesn't want to discuss editorial issues, that's a different issue, but if he's including admin tasks in this too, bad idea. No go. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AOR. He wouldn't pass a second time. seicer | talk | contribs 04:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is really ridiculous now. It's almost like pouting. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So you support this type of behaviour? seicer | talk | contribs 04:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not pouting at all - just a serious concern about an admin who is refusing to discuss anything. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the admin's unacceptable behavior. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I have to agree with Riana, while it is not the best practice to not discuss article building, it does not require de-syoping. Now, if this user was not communicating about admin related functions, thats a whole different boat. Tiptoety ^talk 04:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering he's still performing admin-powered actions [36] I'd agree that there is a problem given that another admin wouldn't be able to check an action with him before undoing it. A non-admin user wouldn't be as much of a problem, as the same rules of discretion in acting wouldn't necessarily apply. MBisanz ^talk 04:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to play Devil's Advocate here. Is anyone really disagreeing with his admin actions? Is it possible everyone could simply leave him alone for a bit and let him cool off? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been an issue in the past, so when we have to inform him about issues regarding admin actions, we will get reverted. If you noticed, Ryan gave Mikka a chance to respond to this, but Ryan was rebuffed with a revert. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You say "rebuffed". I say he read/acknowledged the note and didn't feel like it being there anymore. Common practice nowadays. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not his admin actions I'm trying to bring up here - it's just the general inability to discuss things. It's his editing concerns he's not communicating about either, and simply rolling people back. It's not just been happening over a few hours/days - this goes back quite a long time. How long do we give him? Ryan Postlethwaite 04:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We can't make him communicate. What we can do is make his continued participation here contingent on him conducting himself like a civilized editor. Sure, we could leave it alone- if we want to make it clear that we welcome childish sulking admins. Friday (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan, but dont think that de-syoping him is going to change the way he communicates. Tiptoety ^talk 04:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the block of User_talk:Alex_Vogt is a good block since it was vandalism, but the lack of a template or notice to the user's page that he was blocked (and how to appeal it), is disturbing to me. MBisanz ^talk 04:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

For now I would take a cautious approach, we can't force him to communicate but if somebody disagress with his sysop actions then we have a problem, the last admin to ignore communication when asked about his use of the tools was taken to arbcom and temporally de-sysoped. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one, an IP block for 2 week [37] without any comments to the user talk [38]. Again, the IP was vandalizing and should have been blocked, but a notice should have been left. MBisanz ^talk 04:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I think this provides a clear example of his ability to communicate, when Ryan left him a message regarding this thread he reverted it, if he does not care to even leave a message here what does that say? Isn't this dealing with administrative issues (if that makes any sense :P), and still there he is silent. Tiptoety ^talk 04:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleting talk page messages and not leaving block messages for blocked users - both more common occurrences than you might think. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that does not make them right. Users should still know their options for requesting unblock. Tiptoety ^talk 04:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Then there's a whole host of admins to bring here too. Why single out Mikkalai except that he's openly pissed off right now? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn’t singling anyone out, how many admins do you know that have a “I will not communicate with anyone” notice on their talk page? Ryan Postlethwaite 04:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The same number who have had their comments interpreted in a way that got them blocked within the last few days. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the block of User_talk:Alex_Vogt is a good block since it was vandalism, but the lack of a template or notice to the user's page that he was blocked (and how to appeal it), is disturbing to me. MBisanz ^talk 04:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no need for block templates because we have MediaWiki:Blockedtext. John Reaves 04:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Opps, did not know that feature existed. MBisanz ^talk 04:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's important to distinguish his editing behavior from his administrative actions. If he refuses to discuss reverts and the like then he can be handled like we'd handle any other uncommunicative editor. Being uncommunicative can be a form of disruption depending on the circumstances. Refusal to discuss admin actions is far more serious, and in my view would be grounds for summary de-sysop. You just can't block people and so forth, then refuse to discuss the matter. (I hasten to add that disinclination to respond to pestering and badgering is of course within one's right as either an editor or admin, but that's not the issue here.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Wknight94. It serves neither the encyclopedia nor the community to continue hounding him when he's already pissed off. All it will do is confirm his low opinion that us. Meanwhile, if it really bothers you that these vandals didn't get their notices, go ahead and post them. Hesperian 04:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

WKnight, if there are others as well, & I agree that there are, all the more reason for us to get started doing something about them when they get noticed. Are we admitting its unacceptably wrong, and saying we should ignore it? DGG (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you suggest we do DGG? Tiptoety ^talk 04:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If Mikkalai wishes to not communicate via his talk page, then go ahead (I'm not condoning such behavior though). But Mikkalai should be warned that any of his actions, admin or not, can be overturned without his notification and consent. —Kurykh 05:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a bad idea... the only thing that now seperates him from the POV pushers is the mop. Will ^(talk) 09:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That and unreasonable content editing. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If this was a new problem, just waiting a few days would be sensible. As Ryan points out, this has gone on a long time. So we are faced with a question: do we tolerate admins behaving in unacceptable ways, or don't we? He needs to understand that his editing here depends on him behaving like a reasonable editor. The only way I can think of to communicate this message is a desysop and/or an indefinite block until such a time as he comes around. Yes, it's time for the clue-by-four; we've already seen that lesser measures do not work. And, for the record, no, I don't care what good things he's done in the past. Editors are only welcome here as long as they continue to do the right thing. Friday (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This admin needs to be desysopped. No matter how good the admin actions, a refusal to discuss them automatically makes them bad - it is not possible to be a good but uncommunicative admin. We could do an RFC on his behaviour, but I think it's safe to say that he wouldn't participate. I have little experience with ArbComm; would they accept a case like this without an RFC? Would they accept it with an RFC? I know ArbComm's the last step in dispute resolution, but where somebody's admin bit is concerned, there aren't really any preliminary steps, especially given a refusal to discuss anything. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

One thing is for sure (in my mind anyway), if you can't find any sysop-related infractions, there's little chance of ArbCom even accepting a case against him. Why desysop someone who isn't misusing the sysop tools? I'm still waiting for someone to point out a sysop-related infraction... —Wknight94 (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

so your post here will most probably be reverted without reading is a very childish attitude for an admin to take and how are blocks etc suppose to be discussed with an admin who claims, he will not read his talkpage? --Fredrick day (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with Wknight that there needs to be a blatant infraction of an explicit rule before Arbcom would jump into it. But a user's participation in an RfC isn't required. And there is a special Admin-focused RfC procedure. MBisanz ^talk 17:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Precedence, ArbCom has already stated that admins, more than any other user, must communicate to the community. Just wanted to point that out. « Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that what he is not responding to is basically everyone saying, "Hey, why aren't you responding to me?!" I haven't heard anyone raise any other issue that he has subsequently shot down. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom has stated that admins must be available and willing to discuss their actions. He is not responding to more than just "why aren't you responding to me?" [39] [40] [41] He is refusing to speak about his own administrative actions. That is a problem. If he continues to refuse to discuss his administrative actions, he should be prevented from conducting them. Simple. RxS (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The three diffs you provided are for Richbold, Count of Breisgau. While he didn't respond, he did actually restore the article as asked. Then, in your third diff, Friday (talk · contribs) says he's re-deleting it anyway and says Mikkalai is "being a jerk" about it. All this within a few days of being blocked. Gee, I can't imagine why he doesn't feel like talking to people. </sarcasm> —Wknight94 (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

All of them were in reference to admins actions and he responded to none of them. If he doesn't feel like talking he shouldn't be in a position that requires him to. RxS (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure he responded. He responded to one by restoring the article - that's a response - while another was an uncivil jab and didn't deserve a response. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would draw the communities attention to a request I made to Mikkalai back in January, to which I never received a response. This matter eventually wound up at ArbCom. I had previously requested comment in December, last year, from Mikkalai regarding his involvement in the initial area of dispute, again to no response. I recall I checked Mikka's contributions at the time to see if he was editing, and simply not responding - and it appeared he was. As I remember, I didn't bother chasing the matter as I was then compiling evidence for the ArbCom. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure of your point here. You were questioning Mikkalai about a three-week-old block that had already been undone (with his permission) - a block of a user who has since been banned in the very ArbCom case that you're referring to. I might have ignored you too. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well, Zeraeph wasn't banned when I made the first request - and it may have actually impacted on the subsequent ArbCom which resulted in the ban if I had had a response - and neither was she when I made the second; since I was clearly commenting about ongoing situations. Indeed, I was trying to gauge the basis by which he gave his permission. Now, unless it is your position that Mikka knew that Zeraeph was going to be banned and there was no point in responding to a polite request for information to assist in the administrative processes of the community, I would gently suggest that your responses appear to be simply imply that Mikka is outside of normal avenues of communication. I thought that that was the basis of bringing this discussion here in the first place, which is why I placed the comments I did.

Also, I will try to remember not to bother you with bringing up mundane questions regarding your actions in relation to editors and other such bothersome members of the community until after it has been decided that there was no case to answer, or that they were right, or something innocuous like that.LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Community desysop?

Resolved

 – WP:SNOW, no consensus to de-syop. Take to arbcom if you wish to continue. Tiptoety ^talk 19:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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

---

The community can do anything ArbCom can do, as long as we have the necessary consensus. Typically this is defined as "no admin objects". If the community feels that it is highly unacceptable for an administrator to refuse communication (for an extended period of time), then we can decide here and now to desysop, and then ask ArbCom to implement the decision. As observed above, an RFC will not work because the user refuses to participate. If any admin objects to desysopping, we can refer the matter to ArbCom and let them decide what to do. Jehochman ^Talk 17:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose: No demonstration of sysop misuse. Plain and simple. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - He has the right to walk away for a short time or a Wikibreak. Block for a long period of time (1 month?) if necessary to avoid harm to WP. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

But he hasn't walked away and is not on a break, he is just refusing to communicate but continues to wield the admin mop. Corvus cornix_talk 17:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Not yet. Maybe in the future if things don't improve or the circumstances drastically change somewhat. Rudget | talk 17:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - While I don't agree (and that's putting it mildly) with how he/she behaved - If the admin is determined to take a respite for a short while, then there is no reason to desysop. If he/she returns and something similar is brought to ANI again, someone should consider reopening this discussion. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So this idea has no support. No need to continue. It seems that the admin can proceed with the current behavior until there is a disputed block. If and when that happens, they may end up in hot water, but we can cross that bridge when we get to it. Jehochman ^Talk 17:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• He knows he has a handful of rope; if he hangs himself, so be it, but until he abuses his power, there's really nothing to complain about. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• So then we do welcome childish sulking admins? Act as poorly as you want, just as long as you don't abuse the tools? --Kbdank71 18:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't necessarily respond to every message left on my page. And I've even disappeared for a few months. Does that mean I am subject to desysopping too? How about everyone just leave the guy alone and stop coming to WP:ANI for everything (this one has been a waste of time, honestly) and see if he does anything wrong. I'd rather he quietly did everything right than noisily did everything wrong. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer that too. Then again, if you're quietly doing everything right, there would be no reason to come to AN/I for anything. --Kbdank71 18:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct but we haven't been to ANI since his vow of silence ---- except to discuss his vow of silence (and a desysop discussion resulting from the silence). —Wknight94 (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think the question is whether a pre-emptive refusal to communicate about anything constitutes abuse of the tools. Being an admin isn't just hitting the block, protect, and delete buttons or whiling away the hours in elevated discussion on IRC. An admin whose talk page states: "I hereby pledge to not engage in any communication in wikipedia whatsoever" (emphasis in original) is abusing his power - my sense was that ArbCom has affirmed that communication is a central part of administrative responsibilities (e.g. here). Add to this that he's not using deletion summaries as even a minimal form of communication about his admin actions. What if he deletes one of my articles, even justifiably, and then I go to his page and see a blanket refusal to discuss his actions or respond to my questions? Don't get me wrong - I've never crossed paths with Mikkalai, I'm biased in favor of grumpy rouge admins in general, and I'd favor giving him time to chill and regroup. Still, I don't think we need to wait for a bad block to call this behavior "abusive", and if he keeps using the tools even non-controversially while refusing all discussion, then that would seem to be a problem. MastCell ^Talk 18:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• How do we know if tool use is controversial? A user who is aggrieved may go to his talk page and be discouraged from inquiring by the hostile message. This creates a poisonous atmosphere and should not be allowed. Jehochman ^Talk 18:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This could be rather controversial, or at least out of policy. Mikkalai deletes Marathon dancing as a copyvio [42] (which it was). He then restarts it as a stub, which is ok. But now he's deleted Special:Undelete/Talk:Marathon_dancing the talk page twice, without restoring it when he recreated and stubbifyed. There wasn't a copyvio on the talk page, just discussion. MBisanz ^talk 19:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm not seeing any reason why Special:Undelete/Cut-and-paste_job should have been deleted. It was 2.5 years old and didn't have any deletion/questioning tags on it. MBisanz ^talk 19:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose he could have deleted Talk:Marathon dancing under G8 (talk page of a deleted page) and then forgot to restore it when he recreated the article, but I can't see any reason at all to delete Cut-and-paste job - it's an adequate stub, didn't meet any criterion for speedy deletion, and wasn't sent through prod or AfD. What's more, no deletion rationale was provided. Hut 8.5 20:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste job is the first small red flag for me but it was completely unsourced. Articles like that get me inching towards the delete button too. So, if he doesn't want to talk about it, go to WP:DRV or raise the issue at WP:ANI, etc. If further questionable actions occur, try a WP:RFC and eventually WP:RFAR. But pre-emptive desysopping is silly, esp. when someone is clearly pissed off. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Even while MasterCell raises a good point, I do not think that there is a clear cut case where this has ever effected the way he used the tools. I would say differently if he was abusing the tools, or using they questionably and did not discuss it. But that just has not happened, how do we know that he will not engage in discussion when he must justify his admin actions? Tiptoety ^talk 19:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, of course. Taking draconian action against people who get riled when relentlessly trolled is not a great way to reduce the amount of trolling that goes on. Guy (Help!) 20:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• But should a administrator get riled when trolled? If they are unable to re-main civil and keep a calm demeanor, then what good are they to the project. Maybe talking with those "trolls" may change their contributions to the project. (I still oppose de-syoping) Tiptoety ^talk 20:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• By definition, talking to trolls is unproductive. Hence WP:DNFT. Wknight94 (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Users DGG, Kim Dent-Brown and Friday are not trolls, thanks. And calling people trolls is hardly ever productive. RxS (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Straw man? How did we get from Guy talking about trolls to me calling DGG, Kim Dent-Brown and Friday trolls? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You invoked WP:DNFT in response to Guy's claim that he was undergoing relentless trolling. At that point the last 3 editors that tried to talk to him were those 3 editors, and they got blown off. They were not trolling nor were they relentless. WP:DNFT absolutely positively does not apply. RxS (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment One of my biggest criteria at WP:RfA is evidence of communication - I think it vital for the position. Perhaps it is legit to not respond to "trolls" - but it appears that that sobriquet is being applied a little too liberally here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Before everyone forgets, Mikkai is a long-term member of Wikipedia, who can be expected to know what is good behavior & what is not. As at least one person pointed out above, he hasn't done anything that deserves desysopping. On the other hand, he's clearly a burn-out case. He's demonstrated a brittle & contrary attitude (to put it mildly) towards anyone else that crosses his path for some time now: one may wonder which is worse -- being blocked by him or receiving a message from him. :-)

To repeat myself, he hasn't done anything deserving action -- yet. Refusing to respond to questions on his Talk page doesn't help him in the long run, although it might in the short term. Many cases of questionable behavior can be adequately dealt with by exchanging messages on a Talk page; take that option away & the options we have left are desysopping or blocking. Probably the best option is to let this slide, while keeping a careful, non-stalking watch over him in case he does cross the line & needs immediate handling. -- llywrch (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment How interesting. The rudeness and refusal to cooperate are troubling, and perhaps the project might be giving him stress. On the other hand, judging by the edits he's a productive administrator who does good work around here for which administrative privileges are important, and seems to have good judgment about staying on the right side of a dispute [43]. Maybe we should just agree to call him User:Dirty Harry and be done with it. It might shock people to hear me stick up for a problematic admin but I really think the way to go is through discussion, kindness, and understanding here, not arguments and threats of desysop. Wikidemo (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose very strongly, this is one of our best editors and admins and deserves our full support against the harassment he is receiving, to desysop would be to side with his trolls. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Who has been harassing him? If we can stop them, perhaps he will cheer up? Jehochman ^Talk 05:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Check his talk page hsistory for details. I have been watching it for a long time myself. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose If anything, the community needs to help good users who are stressed or harassed, not stress and harass them further. Kicking somebody when they're down is certain to hurt the encyclopedia and the community in the long run. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

While I would oppose a too hasty desysop on AN/I, I'm equally uncomfortable with the idea that we should just wait until something goes wrong again and then press the point. This is the third time in ten days that Mikka's behaviour has been raised on AN/I (see here and here). There are obvious civility issues, along with the unresponsiveness. But all I see is a variety of bad options. A longish break seems best, but that's pointless unless he desires it. Marskell (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose community desysop. Desysoping is not the job of a group of people chatted about it for a couple days then had a vote. This is a job for arbcom, who will examine the evidence and rebuttal in detail. If it continues then that is exactly where it will end up. I do however endorse the communities right to block disruptive users. I also condemn the unilateral unblock of this user as a violations of the blocking policy, a fact the unblocking admin couldn't care less about. I think this is an even greater violation of admin trust that what Mikkalia did. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Discussion

Obviously de-syoping is not the way to handle this, but something needs to be done. Why don't we try and discuss other methods of fixing/improving this issue. Tiptoety ^talk 19:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• It should be noted that he is participating on other user's talk pages and article talk pages...[44][45][46][47][48][49]. --Smashville^BONK! 22:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This is outrageous conduct for an administrator. Does anyone imagine an RFA passing, where the candidate says "Once I become administrator, I plan to delete things and block people and I refuse to discuss it with anyone"? There is no way that this is anywhere within the realm of reasonable. There is a DRV currently under discussion, where the editor had to take the issue straight to drv because the admin refuses to accept any communication on wikipedia. If the deletion policy and the instructions at Deletion review say for editors to discuss the deletion with the closing or deciding admin, then this implies that the admin should discuss it with them. To refuse to do so id an abuse of the tools. What message does this send out about administrators in general, and our collabarative consensual community? This can not stand. Desysopping would be the appropriate measure to take, so how do we get that done? Someone said arbcom? Is that right? Lets take it there... who knows how?... lead the way. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A clear weakness in the system. If this came to rfa, how would it turn out. Yet since this occurs after the rfa clears the only word is "live with it."--Cube lurker (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Yep, it needs to be taken to arbcom, though i do not feel comfortable doing it. I do not think desyoping is the appropriate measure to take. Tiptoety ^talk 04:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear a week ago when the last Mikkalai post was started when I said "per his pledge of muteness and per his previous actions, the next step should be arbitration". Now a week has past since that pledge of sorts and there is continuing problems arising. Again, my recommendation is arbitration. — Save_Us † 05:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So let me get this straight.. there's no actual problem (as in, no one is currently talking to him about admin issues), but there might be a problem, but no one is sure if it even exists? Don't you people have articles to write? -- Ned Scott 06:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ned. Is there a specific admin move that people are concerned with? I see some concerns with Mikkalai about the lack of warnings or posting for blocks (it can be a problem if blocked users don't know how to contest their blocks). If so, someone here complaining about that should just ask him. If he doesn't respond to that, you have something to go to Arbcom with. Otherwise, this is just pointless. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There are multiple issues Ned Scott, and they have been addressed many times over. Mostly it is his civility issues. This week in particular because of his 'pledge of silence', there are issues with him blocking editors and not issuing warnings, improper deletions and protections which were addressed on his talk page (responded to them with a revert) and issues with him removing content from pages (which he again responds with a revert of the message questioning him). Then there is the message on the bottom of his talk page: "If you came here to teach or bait me, this is a proof that you are a jerk and I am right.", which is a personal attack to anyone who thinks commenting on his admin actions is worth discussing with him. And if you look at the history of his talk page recently, you will find that you're statement "no one is currently talking to him about admin issues" is patently false. — Save_Us † 09:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• My recollection of the Gustafson mess was RFC first, then ArbComm. And that case resulted in only a thirty day suspenseion. To me, that seems the most relevant precedent, and if people really are that bothered they should take the time to do it right - expecting no more of an outcome than that. GRBerry 14:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have a wacky, loony, goofy, koo-koo suggestion: what if we wait until this is actually a problem, rather than just a potential problem? I can think of a lot of reasons why one might cut oneself off from communication temporarily: a death in the family, a medical procedure, religious reasons, or simply to introspect and clear one's head. I wouldn't do this myself, and I make clear that I'm not condoning it per se, but at the same time it's absolutely nothing in comparison to Mikkalai's years of excellent work as an editor and as an admin. Give Mikkalai some breathing room and see what happens. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Did you folks read before you replied? there is a problem. An editor had their page deleted, and they wanted feedback on what was wrong or what they could do to get it right, and they went to the user talk page of the deleting admin and saw that nonsense about that admin not being willing to discuss anything wikipedia-related. THis particular editor had the wherewithall to go to deltion review, but how many editors will not know how to do that? How many brand new editors will just leave the project with a middle finger waving at the rear view mirror? We won't know how many, and we won't know if/ when this happens. But at least one editor was denied the due process described in the deletion policy, to have a civil discussion with the deleting admin. So that is a problem. Now let's deal with it, as you suggested. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Take us to arbcom then Jerry! Tiptoety ^talk 06:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

EliasAlucard still posting anti-Semitic rants on Wikipedia

Resolved

 – Block 'em both. Nandesuka (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Despite a warning, EliasAlucard continues to post anti-Semitic rants on Wikipedia:

• In the talk page of a biography of Kevin Macdonald, he out of the blue refers to the Holocaust as the "Holohoax" [50]
• anti-Semitic and belligerent edit summary here By the way, it's an invalid source that he keeps insisting on putting in, apparently thinking anti-semitic rants are a substitute for WP:RS.

When can this hateful editor be blocked? Boodlesthecat (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked for 72 hours; if he persists after that, I think an indefinite block is in order. Wikipedia is no place for such bile. — Coren ^(talk) 05:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I don't think this was a good block. Bloodlesthecat has been basically attacking him non-stop for quite some time now, and I'm pretty sure he's misrepresenting what's been said here. Look at the first one:

• [51]; he's discussing the second one in the context of the views of Kevin MacDonald, which include the view that the Holocaust is used as a political tool by "Zionist" to great effect; one should not be surprised to note that these same views form part of Holocaust denial or the "Holohoax" argument.
• [52] The second quote is similar. Kevin MacDonald (and, indeed, many other individuals) view Israel "birthright" citizenship based on race/genetics as hypocritical; that is what the source in question discusses and I fail to see how it is an "anti-Semitic" or "belligerent" edit summary

This looks like a bit of a hit-job, designed to get him blocked for disagreeing. --Haemo (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, even though it has become obvious that both users have issues the information posted on WP:WQA seems quite troubling, the user was warned and he was aware that the alert's resolution concluded that he should be blocked if the pattern continued. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Then how do you explain that "Holohoax" was apparently used as a quotation of the subject of the article (Kevin MacDonald) and not by the user. This "evidence" does not show what is being claimed. Why is that? David D. (Talk) 06:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Read the thread in WQA, apparently this user has a tendency to make the comments in a manner that might hide some of its bias, but some are rather obvious attacks. The point is that he was warned and continued pushing the issue. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen enough to form an opinion yet, but this edit is problematic, even AGFing on the "holohoax" thing. --B (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok ... after continuing to go back over edits and seeing this edit, I've seen enough now. I endorse the block. --B (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and Jossi talked to him about avoiding inserting his own political opinions (questionable though they may be) into discussions on his talk page, and how to avoid it. Frankly, I think he's put up with quite a bit so far, being called at literally every turn names like "anti-Semite", "hate-monger", "racist", etc. --Haemo (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Haemo, here is another compilation of this editor's vile anti-Semitic rants and personal attacks. Your insinuation that my challenging this vicious, racist bile ia a "hit job," and your odd rationalization for this user to call the Holocaust the Holohoax is very, very offensive. Haemo, be so kind as to AGF and likewise desist from your insulting insinuations and apologetics for anti-Semitic rants and Jew baiting personal attacks on wikipedia and against its editors. thanks! Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm, I do love being called an "insulting" apologist for "anti-Semitic rants" and "Jew-baiting". --Haemo (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And I do love insinuations that my protesting Jew baiting abuse and anti-Semtic rants is a "hit job" that I concocted. Just another whiny Jew, eh? Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I apologize for the term "hit job", but I still don't think your links support your claims. And the "whiny Jews" in my ancestry are spinning in their graves. --Haemo (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat, you need to calm down. Your "holohoax" link was less than convincing. On the other hand B's links were quite revealing. David D. (Talk) 06:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hows that, David D? The "Holohoax" comment was entirely Alucard's gratuitous use--has nothing to do with anything in the article. Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, as someone who has no clue about the history it looks like he is quoting, or paraphrasing, McDonald. David D. (Talk) 06:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

trust me, he's not. Macdonald never uses phrases remotely like "holohoax." He's a bit more sophisticated and not about to get himself fired from his college (although he's halfway there). Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

All you had to do was post more examples, which should not have been too hard given "he posts volumes of anti-Semitic rants on Wikipedia talk pages". The one you chose to present was not as obvious as you thought. Don't shoot the messenger. David D. (Talk) 07:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I hear you--this is actually the 3rd time I've filed a complaint about this user--I should have referenced all the previous examples. The two I cited were examples of what he posted after being strongly warned. Boodlesthecat (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• We have to be careful with this. We cannot block people for not liking or disagreeing with someone's political or religious views. Igor Berger (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  This is my opinion here. EliasAlucard has some opinions which most people (myself included) find distasteful. This was brought up to him, and he was warned about it. Since then, he has not made any more comments of the type he was warned against — he has, however, commented on some sourcing for an individual who has similar views. In doing so, he has apparently brought down wrath since his discussion of the sources includes similar opinions. What are we blocking him for again? Because if it's continuing to "rant" after being warned, this doesn't cut it. If it's for his opinions, then there's precedent — but then why the warning in the first place? --Haemo (talk) 06:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Haemo here. This isn't clear anti-Semitism. The Holohoax thing could very well have been misconstrued at first glance. The second comment that B used to endorse the block also doesn't prove anything. Even if it were that he was anti-Semitic (when rather I believe he is anti-Zionist) I don't see why he should be blocked for it. What matters is whether or not he is violating WP:SOAP or WP:POINT and being disruptive. I'm not seeing that here - I'm seeing accusations being thrown around left and right from both sides that need to stop. --Veritas (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's just not become Crusaders. Igor Berger (talk) 06:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There is precedent in cases where the user posting ethnic based attacks was warned and continued to use the talk pages to soapbox, what happened? Jimbo himself banned him, this case isn't that extreme but a short block might prevent that it becomes. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

AGF only goes so far. I am often told that I have a poor imagination, but I have a hard time imagining someone who participates at stormfront being a serious contributor here. That place turns my stomach and we have blocked people for linking to trash there before. Disagreeing with someone is one thing. Obviously, most of us have a worldview of some sort and disagree with anything contrary to that worldview - that's the law of non-contradiction. But the comments I have seen from this user convince me that he is here to push a racist agenda. --B (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've documented his anti-semitic ranting at length. How can you misconstrue someone using the phrase holohoax out of nowhere? He rants endlessly about JEWS--how is this "anti-Zionism? The logic that he is just presenting his "views" would make a mockery of NPA--I can tell anyone to eff thmselves, because that's my "personal opinion".

But SERIOUSLY--why do some people seem to cut soooo much slack for vicous racists when the targets are Jews? Enquiring minds want to know. Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comments here have crossed the line from helpful to unhelpful. Please stop. --B (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, speaking AS a jew, I love it best when people are free to shoot of their mouths, and by opening, prove they're the idiots we suspected them to be, to paraphrase an old adage. (Speaking in general terms about free speech, not taking potshots as EA.) So long as they're just spouting bullshit, let them prove they're idiots. If it hurts the project, or could be liberally interpreted as incitement (or other legal crimes), then I'm all for community bans or calls to the police. Otherwise, free speech means distasteful speech too. (And remember, the sooner a Jew hears organized Nazism gaining a toe-hold in society, the sooner they can loudly protest, and move out of the area.) ThuranX (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So WP:TALK is meaningless, and we should allow racists to rant all over Talk Pages? Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Are we here to defend a group of people or to defend knowledge! We are here to promote NPOV not to take sides of history. Igor Berger (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point here, this user is repeating a pattern of ethnic-based soapboxing, a pattern that has led to at least one user being banned, and he is doing so knowing that it will inflame the situation further. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that Blood is not innocent here as he doesn't help to deescalate the situation. --Veritas (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the point that Blood makes apparent by his reaction is that certain comments can be disruptive to the project due to their divisiveness. I think that mediation is called for here in which EA agrees not to discuss personal opinions on ethnic groups. --Veritas (talk) 06:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm still confused as to why anti-Semitic rants are described as "personal opinions." Are Jews fair game for rants, without censure, in the name of "free speech"? Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree - if he wants to discuss his personal opinions on ethnic groups, there are plenty of outlets for him to do so - Wikipedia is not among them. A topic ban would be my first choice. --B (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If those opinions are relevent to the article and can be referenced with notability he would have a right to quote them, but if they are targeting an editor on a talk page than he has not right to be abusive. Igor Berger (talk) 06:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a message board. I can't imagine any serious encyclopedia having an editor on race topics who holds views that could only be described as racism. If he participates in stormfront and agrees with their views on life, I probably have a poor imagination, but I can't imagine him being a serious contributor here in that topic area. --B (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's been established that he actually agrees with stormfront. --Veritas (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What does it matter--he posts volumes of anti-Semitic rants on Wikipedia talk pages. Is that or is that not unacceptable? Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Very true, he would have to walk a fine line if he is serious about contributing. Igor Berger (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to bed - On that note, I support a topic ban, temporary or indefinite. --Veritas (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not having looked into this user, her's what I have to say... Per WP:NPA there is no justification for preventing him/her from editing articles just because his/her views are disgusting. If his/her edits to a particular set of articles are continually unhelpful then there may be justification for a topic ban, but not just because of his/her views. Indeed, dismissing someone because of their views is a violation of NPA. If he/she disrupts talk pages by continually posting OT diatrabes or quotes then there is probably justification for a block after an inappropriate warning. Even more so if those OT comments are likely to be offensive and it doesn't matter whether the target is Jewish people, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Arabs, Africans, African Americans, Asians, Americans, Europeans, women, men, homosexuals, heterosexuals ... And I've seen a lot of disgusting irrelevant comments on talk pages, Jewish people are by no means the only target or even the most common target from what I've seen Nil Einne (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice, Boodles, who I'm sure isstill rading, if not editing: As I said above, let a person open their mouth enough and they prove other folks' suspicions. EliasAlucard's long list of offenses at the WQA shows the problems. had we tried to block him immediately, there would've been lots of argument that it was a one-off affair or some such. Instead, let him dig that hole big, deep and dark, and then hes' stuck in it. that's why I don't mind letting any fool run at the mouth long. In such cases, be the pig in the argument. (you know that adage about arguing with a pig? 'Never argue with a pig. You're not gonna win and the pig doesn't care anyways'?) that's why some people think it's better to NOT overreact. Hope this helps you understand it. (And it's not that I thoroughly ignore such stuff, but instead, just wait, watch, and never forget - Old German truism "We get too soon old, and too late smart") another case of being worth the learning. ThuranX (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you read, Boodles? This is getting ridiculous. I told you in no uncertain terms to shut up and take the dispute off the wiki about 30 hours ago. Since then, you've been attacking and forum shopping on countless talk and user talk pages to get him blocked, using WP:TALK and Elias' political viewpoints as defence. This is getting tedious. Stop it. Will ^(talk) 09:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you read, Sceptre (Will)? a quick perusal of your talk page shows that at least three editors told you that your "Shut the hell up" response to Boodles was way out of line. Let this be the fourth. I think this edit of yours more than warrants some admin attention. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And just as many thought it was an adequate response. Will ^(talk) 12:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, though it was relatively restrained, given Boodles's troublemaking and self-control problems. Sometimes you need a two-by-four to get someone's attention. --Calton | Talk 13:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked by Coren

(e/c) (undent) For what it's worth, given the fuss, I've spend some time walking backwards in EliasAlucard's contribs to see if I had been too heavy handed. What I see is a long time pattern of offensive racism of varying subtlety, and such a pattern is highly undesirable— even if we presume those are beliefs held sincerely, they were nonetheless presented to offend or bait reactions. I stand by my block. — Coren ^(talk) 13:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Boodles may or may not end up getting blocked as well if he doesn't leave the soapboxing and ranting to other sites, but Elias's block was appropriate. Neıl ☎ 13:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse Coren's block, and future actions in this same vein if disruptive behavior from EliasAlucard continues. There are standards here, even for personal opinions, and relentless disparaging attacks against an ethnicity (rather than, say, a policy of a particular government) have no place. Having said that, if Boodlesthecat can't keep a lid on his reactions then he may find himself in a similar situation. Avruch ^T 15:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse per the three above. We're supposed to have a welcoming environment here, and hostility toward any ethnic group is inimical to that. At the same time Boodles needs to learn when enough is enough. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

with all due respect, I'm at this point more than confused and disturbed that I am repeatedly threatened with being blocked for the crime of reporting the incessant racist rants and anti-Semitic personal attacks of another editor. I am equally confused and disturbed at accusations of "soapboxing" "forum shopping" and the are leveled at me, especially since my valid (and subsequently confirmed) complaint about anti-Semitic ranting was met with a response of "Shut the hell up" by a sorta maybe admin who shut the case. and I am as well confused and disturbed by the insinuations that I am somehow stampeding on this rabid anti-Semite's "free speech" by filing this complaint. The first, bold faced instruction on WP:TALK is that talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. Does this somehow not apply if those personal views are anti-Semitic, Jew bashing racist personal attacks? Is that an exception to WP:TALK? I am simply not getting it here, and I am tired of the threats I am receiving, as well as the open season style nasty attacks by other editors and admins who don't even bother to read the case I've compiled. Please explain. Boodlesthecat (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? You two have done nothing but bait each other and disrupted Wiki and dragged most of AN/I into your personal feud. Your comments have been mostly unhelpful and nothing less than inflammatory. You have accused established editors of Neo-Nazi sympathy and been largely uncivil. Not to mention your constant messages on people's talk pages about their comments on this discussion rather than engaging them here - not like your messages were even relevant anyway to the discussion of whether or not EA is disruptive. --Veritas (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

BoodlesTheCat blocked by Nandesuka

I have blocked BoodlesTheCat for 24 hours continuing to insinuate that the admins and editors discussing this issue at AN/I are challenging him out of some latent or patent antisemitism, even after being asked, by multiple parties, to stop. I have left the block of EliasAlucard in place. Nandesuka (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. Going over the top in the way he did is right out of line. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Huzzah. --Veritas (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oy ve - It sounds like someone in this discussion is trying to do their best to portray (and maintain) a certain Jewish stereotype... they're doing a bang up job at it too! --WebHamster 16:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be a squabble based on off-Wiki activity, and I suggest when Boodles and Elias's blocks expire, they stay out of each other's way on-Wiki, as any further antagonism or baiting from Boodles, or anti-Semitism from Elias, and further, longer blocks would be necessary. Support 24h block for BoodlesTheCat, he was warned. I don't understand WebHamster's comment; it seems like he's suggesting Boodles is a stereotypical Jewish editor, but I'm sure it isn't - perhaps he could explain it? Neıl ☎ 16:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: "Jewish stereotype" not "stereotypical Jewish editor". No mention of "editor" in my comment. Likewise please note the inclusion of "portray" as opposed to "is an". --WebHamster 16:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Requesting an extension of Boodles' ban. It took him ten edits after his block ended to come right back here and push the issue more. He can't let it go, and I really think he needs another block to get that we don't need him agitating more here right after he gets back (see the indef block section below.ThuranX (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm with ThuranX, it seems every time someone tells Boodles to take it easy, he goes crazy and shouts "zomg secret nazi". JuJube (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

EliasAlucard indef blocked by Will Beback

Based on comments here, on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#anti-Semitic rants by EliasAlucard, on the user's talk page, as well as the user's long block record, I've extended EliasAlucard's block duration to indefinite. If any admin thinks that's excesive I'd be willing to talk. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly endorse this block (though I'm not an admin). Unrepentant Holocaust deniers and anti-semites are one step above pedophiles. Bellwether ^B_C 01:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That's not actually a reason to block someone. The disruption that normally comes with it is. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 02:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    • If acknowledged pedophiles are blocked, then so should acknowledged Holocaust-deniers. Bellwether ^B_C 02:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Sam is correct. We don't block people for being pedophiles. We do block people when they push a POV in a disruptive, aggressive manner, or are uncivil towards those who don't share their POV. That was the case here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Just to make it clear, I believe that the mere act of self-identification as a paedophile is disruptive. While I find anti-Semitism and Holocaust-denial revolting, self-alignment with this kind of thought is not per se disruptive in the same way. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 08:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse I was alarmed that the block was only 72 hours. This user is not worth the grief, nor the potential loss of editors who could not work with an editor who was unpunished or lightly punished for horrific behavior. IronDuke 02:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse; in view of the venom expressed in the unblock requests. In fact, I've blanked an pp'ed the talk page as it was used to spew further racist rants about the "zionized" administrators. — Coren ^(talk) 02:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse this block as per the above. Anti-Semistic and holocaust rants as well as personal attacks are not acceptable here on Wikipedia. Greg Jones II 02:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I as Jewish person having my father lose all his 7 siblings and his mother in Auschwitz oppose this indef block because we are being vindictive because the person does not agree with our views. He has not been disruptive and has not personal attacked an editor but stated his point of view on the talk pages. While Wikipedia is not the place to promote one’s point of view this does not justify an indef block to an editor who has been editing for a number of years. This should go to ArbCom at a least and if anything he should get a community ban of 30 days at the most but not an indef block. Also the provocateurs are just to blame of incivility as much as he is. Igor Berger (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  If permited I would like to submit an email that I received from EliasAlucard that will show that he is not a racisit and he cares about our community. Please let me know and I can post it here or forward it to an admin. I personally do not know him and just met him on this post and offer my defence for him just because of WP:NPOV. Igor Berger (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse In my opinion, this is not as much about anti-Semitism (even though I agree that his anti-Semitic remarks -- especially those in his unblock requests -- deserve a block on their own), but about an editor who has a tendency to attack other editors personally, and to talk about and to other editors in a condescending way, and has continued to do so after numerous warnings and blocks. Be it on the topic of neo-Nazism, anti-Semitism, or the Syriac people, this user has been uncivil incessantly. Also it should be noted that the user has been blocked indefinitely from the Swedish Wikipedia, for pretty much the same reasons. Personally, I believe anti-Semitic ideology in itself should not be a reason to block someone, lack of civility and a tendency not to comply with WP guidelines however is. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 10:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Again, it seems that he has been blocked for expressing a POV on a talk page rater than being "disruptive" (hardly more disruptive than many unblocked editors, and he more than makes up for it with positive edits), which is unfortunate. I say block him for 72 hours, and see what happens afterwards. He was already told that it was his final warning, so let it be so. Funkynusayri (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." - see WP:TALK. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Blocking both was clearly appropriate, but I am not convinced that indefinite blocking is necessary for EliasAlucard, for all that his POV is unappreciated by most of us, and his actions to support that POV have undoubtedly crossed the line in this case. He is right that he has created and worked on a number of decent articles. I'd suggest this might be an appropriate candidate for probation. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I respect your opinion and would support any strong editor who is willing to take a menoring position with his editor. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse this block as well - if Wikipedia is considered unreliable by someone who believes the Holocaust is a fraud, then so be it and I can't say it doesn't make me happy. (Previous edit was crossposting endorse comment from talkpage directed at EliasAlucard). Elias has demonstrated, in depth, that he holds opinions which are incompatible with the goals of Wikipedia and the principle of collaborative editing. Based on this, I support the indef block. Avruch ^T 17:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I haven't looked at this in depth, but it seems he has been editing since 2004. Had he just avoided behaving like this previously? Does this behaviour cast doubt on his previous edits? I note Guy said that he has created and worked on a number of decent articles. Carcharoth (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  I've deactivated the category on the indefblock, as even if the block sticks there is no need to have lots of signature links turn red. This is not a throwaway account, but one with history. Carcharoth (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: A month ago, I started a thread here regarding this editor's edits to AfDs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse based on his charming comments such as "in time, this Holocaust disease will disappear from peoples minds", "People are eventually going to realise and wake up that much of the so called Holocaust is a complete fraud", and "These are all pathetic Judaized admins". [53] We can do without that sort of racist nonsense, thanks, and trying to defend it in a cloak of "free speech" is enablement. Neıl ☎ 21:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Here's an an example of an article he started, where he accuses a Jewish author of "promoting miscegenation" (a phrase usually used by Nazis, segregationists and KKK-type racists.) Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: Perhaps if it didn't appear as though half the people invoved weren't wringing their hands and snickering in glee with this ban, I might change my mind, but this looks like outright vindictiveness: 'We don't like your opinion, so fuck off.' HalfShadow (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: I know the user on a personal level, and I am pretty sure he is not Anti-Semetic (is ironic calling him that since he himself is Semetic.) I think what he said was clearly wrong and does deserve punishment. But a ban I think is too much. Give him a long vacation to think about what he said, but he would be too big of a loss for Wikipedia:WikiProject Assyria, since he has carried the project on his back. I urge people to please take a look at his hard work before voting. His opinions on talkpages have bothered me previously as well, but it his opinion never gets in the way of his work (ie he makes sure things are neutral, etc.) His comments here [[54]] explains what I mean. An example of his work;Bahira. The guy's intentions are good, but he goes off on talk pages sometimes. He needs to learn to stop that, and perhaps a long suspension is a good thing for him, but just don't completely ban the guy. Chaldean (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - while I can't comment on Elias' actions pre-dispute, I find it hard to believe you've blocked the person who was at least trying to restrain himself in this dispute. Block the guy who's using his viewpoints as a platform for attacking him, and we'll talk. Will ^(talk) 00:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Neil, again, freedom of speech is important on Wikipedia talk pages, and even in articles Wikipedia includes content which offends millions (pictures in Muhammad article, so on), and no one has been indefinitely blocked for denying the Armenian or Assyrian genocides on talk pages either, which happens frequently. So unless it is actual Wikipedia policy to ban people who deny certain genocides and offend people through their POV, Elias shouldn't be banned. An indef block of Elias is a blow to Wikipedia's neutrality, more so than it would be if he wasn't blocked. Funkynusayri (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Commment: and no one has been indefinitely blocked for denying the Armenian or Assyrian genocides on talk pages either - Case in point [[55]]. If your going to ban him, ban everyone that denies the Assyrian genocide. Chaldean (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I endorse the block for two reasons. First, editors who promote ethnic or misogynist hatred can only serve to be divisive. Secondly, someone who truly believes there's insufficient evidence to show that the Holocaust occurred more or less as mainstream historians say it did, and who feels compelled to call it the "Holohoax," is unlikely to be of much use to an encyclopedia project. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse While I respect his rights to have his beliefs and opinions, I believe this editor has proven that he cannot do so in a non-disruptive manner. However, I strongly urge a similar block be given to boodles since he also seems to be a hostile disruptive editor continuously baiting others and forum shopping. --Veritas (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• I'd endorse this only if Boodles gets the same treatment. Having someone accusing everyone "against" him of being secret Zionists/Nazis is not productive at all. JuJube (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Huh? That made a lot of sense. Boodlesthecat (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: While I do not approve of EliasAlucard's views or edits in question, he has also made some positive contributions to Assyria-related topics, so perhaps he should be given a second chance. --07fan (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment EliasAlucard has made a number of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim comments too (see here for example.) Strange that his ire extends to all Semites. Strange too, that he's only blocked after supposedly questioning the Holocaust. I guess anti-Arab/anti-Muslim rhetoric is A-OK, eh? Tiamut^talk 02:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Exactly, it doesn't seem to be policy to block people indefinitely for questioning other genocides, or for being critical of for example Muslims. Funkynusayri (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. His many comments go beyond the pale. Tiamut's and Funkynusayri's comments confuse me; they indicate all the moreso that the banning is justified. The fact that those who do not edit the same articles as Tiamut might not have noticed his anti-Arab or anti-Muslim comments is unsurprising, and does not seem to justify Tiamut's bad faith question. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As I've stated before, I do not think having certain POVs should be bannable offenses, whatever group they might be directed against, and I've already pointed out that it doesn't seem to be policy. Funkynusayri (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

However, the issue isn't with "having certain POVs", but rather, as has been clearly explained by any number of people, with inappropriate behavior - which is against policy. Can I assume you will therefore now endorse the ban? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose indef. Wikipedia ought to be upholding the general principle of freedom of speech, and block not for having reprehensible views, but for disruption. And he has been disruptive here, yes, so a finite block and probation is what's called for now, not an immediate reach for the banhammer. --Calton | Talk 03:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, Calton, I'd agree if we could fill that position. Let's say that "indef" means pending a strong editor to enforce a probation. Who's that person? Probation requires enorcement, we've learned that much. In this case, several admins have had to block this user again and again. We've gone from reeated blows of the blockhammer to using the banhammer. If you've got a more effective tool then please use it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Maybe the user and actually both of them can use mentors. I have been going to Durova and Jehochman since I joined Wikipedia and that helped me a lot to adjust and learn about Wikipedia community. We all need guidance and a friend to turn to when something is bothering us. This way the two can avoid the cat and dog type of fights. Igor Berger (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose indef but support a one month block. Blocks are supposed to be corrective. Give the account a chance to correct the behavior. While you're at it, give Boodlesthecat a two week block for baiting Elias. Cla68 (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Exactly! It was i that made him spew hatred across Wikipedia for the past year, right down to his lambasting all you Judacicized "pathetic intolerant dipshits"--because i guess I have those magic Jew mind control powers! Boodlesthecat (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I have blocked Boodlesthecat for 48 hours for this comment, coming as it does on the heels of a 24 hour block for the exact same sort of innuendo and character assassination. I have informed him that I will consider an unblock if he apologizes to Cla68. Nandesuka (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Uncertain I need to get sleep, and this isn't time critical. Someone ping me if I'm not back here with an opinion in 48 hours (assuming this remains with an indefinite block.) GRBerry 05:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: You know, I only wrote what I wrote based on what Elias has said wrong. But now I'm starting to read some of User:Boodlesthecat provocative comments. I think this was just a bad battle between 2 guys that went to the extreme. Banning one or both, just doesn't seem right. Teach these guys a lesson, and emphisize to them that talkpages are NOT forums. I appeal to all again to please just take a look at some of his work. He is professional when it comes to Wiki pages, but just very opinionated on talkpages. Its obvious why they are at each others throat, and I will make it more clear now; in my time on Wiki (and forum sites), it is not the first time for me to see this Jewish-Assyrian youth battles. This new generation are perpously at each others throats, with Assyrian youths thinking Israel is reason from blocking independence, while some Jewish youths are still bitter about the past (backround of the story one two). I think it would be a great punishment for the two to force them to create something like this. Just a thought. Chaldean (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  I agree! What message are we sending to Israeli and Palestinian kids if we are to take one side over another? We need to be open minded and help bridge the two cultures back together and not isolate them through walls and barriers. Hatred creats more hatred and creates wars in real world. Wikipedia should help stop that hatred and give people a chance to come together and learn from each other. Blocks are ment to be preventive not punitive. I trully believe we need to help all sides with this and not slam the doors shot on these people and editors. Igor Berger (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse I've been aware of Elias Alucard as a tendentious editor for a long time (on various topics, not just Jewish ones) and he has acquired an extensive block log to prove it. He would have been banned sooner or later anyway so I don't see why we shouldn't do it now. I think the encyclopaedia will benefit. --Folantin (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. Not that I think adding the word string will treble my opinion count. But it does reflect my opinion of Elias, who has tirelessly contributed to numerous wikipedia articles. I won't let my friendship with him affect my professional opinion, so I agree that he should be "punished" - but into doing what? Thats just the thing, whatever punishment you wish to impose on Elias, he has already taken up that burden in his professional editting of wikipedia, which has been unfortunately tainted from time to time with strong opinions. Tourskin (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - I agree with Slim's assessment that anyone with such a loose grasp on historical facts is pretty much a lost cause; and if his bigotry extends to any other group, this only strengthens the case against him. --Leifern (talk) 03:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Indef is way too draconian for this. Holding a particular POV, no matter how distasteful some may find it, is not in itself disruptive. Tarc (talk) 03:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse I am temporarily interrupting a long wikibreak to respond here. I highly have a problem with (and am opposed to) racist/antisemitic editors, and think they need to be banned for the betterment of the community. I had no idea of this users antisemitism, and would have opposed this block any time, until I read through the diffs, which show clear antisemitism, violations of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and certainly justify a block. It also seems somebody may be canvassing for Elias, as all Elias' friends showed up here, as well as many of the editors who hold anti-Zionist views. Yahel Guhan 03:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  Are we supposed to believe that you interrupted your long wikibreak without being canvassed yourself? I don't find that at all credible. GRBerry 03:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• ^ Thanks for the bad faith. Funkynusayri (talk) 03:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What more do I have to say? [56] Yahel Guhan 03:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have to say what that has to do with this. If I reply to his talk page, I can see that he is blocked, so of course I investigate it further. Funkynusayri (talk) 03:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse per evidence at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#anti-Semitic_rants_by_EliasAlucard ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Could anyone explain to me why it isn't policy to ban people denying the Armenian and Assyrian genocides, which happens frequently on those talk-pages, while denial of the Jewish genocide is a bannable offense? Funkynusayri (talk) 04:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I can explain it. Read his talk page before it got blanked. An intemperate rant in which he calls editors dipshits and suggests they have "Judaized?" My God, he didn't even bother to fake an apology for his actions. And still there are people supporting him. I honestly wonder if all the "Endorsers" have seen the entire record of this user's appalling behavior. I find myself hoping they've not taken the time, which is sad in its own way. IronDuke 05:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're not answering my question. As for his record, I'd say the good outweighs the bad. But that's not the sole reason why I'm "supporting" him, I do not think people should be banned for their POV, whatever it is. Funkynusayri (talk) 05:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse based on what I see at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#anti-Semitic_rants_by_EliasAlucard. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"White people are cannibal vampires"

• Adnanmuf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 75.72.88.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Well, the headline says it all. (Actual diff: [57])

This diff ([58]) confirms the IP and the account are the same person (although it is obvious anyway.)

This user has a history of pushing original-research theories of genetics, etc, with an unpleasant and somewhat hysterical tone, but I didn't realize how far off the wagon he really is. I propose a community ban of Adnanmuf and any sock puppets.

Support ban, but I might just be an Infidel Zombie, so my opinion may not have equal weight. ThuranX (talk) 06:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the account for a year and the IP (which seems stable) for a month. By the way, weren't there suspicions Adnanmuf is himself a sock of a banned user anyway? Feel free to up to indef if anybody thinks it makes a difference. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A community ban needs more formal structure than this, and it needs to be formatted properly. Please consider this if you intend to propose such a ban upon the user. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. A community ban requires that no admin be willing to unblock the editor. Are you willing to unblock him? Thatcher 12:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No I am not. However, in WP:BAN, it is stated that due community consideration is needed. Personally, I do not think one ANI section of numerous others is adequate, but that's just me. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Further: Perhaps a separate section proposing the ban itself would be a good first step? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that "the white europpeans intolerance for lactose made them drink blood"[[59] when soy-based milk alternatives are so widely available. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Strange - I thought they were one of the most lactose-tolerant groups, and the whole blood-drinkingeating thing was just for the fun of it. Guettarda (talk) 05:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a notice: I deliberately didn't declare my block a ban in whatever formal sense that has. It's a simple block for disruption. Its length is calculated according to my estimate of the likelihood that this user will mend his ways after returning. Which is, well, close to zero. If anybody wants to question this or else give it a further backing through a more formal community decision, go ahead. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Abuse by User:Tvarkytojas User:T_bullshider PLEASE PLEASE HELP

This user account lay mostly unused for months, anad then suddenly has made hundreds of edits in a few days, in bouts lasting for a few hours with many edits within a single minute. There is concerne it's a sockpuppet but I don't know how to measure that effectively. Cleaning of the categorization mess is going to take a while. Many of the edits are identical to ones tried by ZZcon earlier this week. I don't know the procedures, and I'd rather work on cleaning it up than tracking down the procedures. Can you (all) DTRT? Tb (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lokyz&diff=192815984&oldid=192688463. Tb (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Again today, acting under what seems to be an IP address sockpuppet, he reverted the sock-puppet warnings on his user page. He is back again, every day, with his wild recategorizations. Can some admin please at least look at this and let me know? Tb (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Now there is a personal attack against me: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tb&diff=194632004&oldid=194553392. Tb (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And User:T_bullshider seems to be connected: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tb&diff=194633125&oldid=194632728. Tb (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Will SOMEONE at least REPLY? I don't know the proper procedure, and the abuse is only likely to get worse. Tb (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: This guy could really use some assistance. Everything I looked at looks like he's getting hit pretty hard for no real reason by these two guys and some anons. I'm uninvolved in this situation. CredoFromStart ^talk 17:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Social networking?

The following all appeared in, essentially, one big lump on New Pages:

• 21:18, February 26, 2008 User:Bbenjamin100 (hist) [12 bytes] Bbenjamin100 (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
• 21:18, February 26, 2008 User:Ro1109 (hist) [0 bytes] Ro1109 (Talk | contribs) (Created page with 'hello ==yes== we already know that')
• 21:17, February 26, 2008 User:2diefor (hist) [10 bytes] 2diefor (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '[[/sandbox]')
• 21:15, February 26, 2008 User:Lianar86 (hist) [12 bytes] Lianar86 (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
• 21:15, February 26, 2008 User:Bensy1745 (hist) [12 bytes] Bensy1745 (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
• 21:15, February 26, 2008 User:Amushib1 (hist) [12 bytes] Amushib1 (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
• 21:15, February 26, 2008 User:Jnl91986 (hist) [12 bytes] Jnl91986 (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '{[/sandbox}]')
• 21:14, February 26, 2008 User:Jibarra27 (hist) [12 bytes] Jibarra27 (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
• 21:14, February 26, 2008 User:Sozlem (hist) [12 bytes] Sozlem (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
• 21:14, February 26, 2008 User:Ashah103 (hist) [12 bytes] Ashah103 (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
• 21:14, February 26, 2008 User:Jrivera103 (hist) [12 bytes] Jrivera103 (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
• 21:14, February 26, 2008 User:Jachiappetta (hist) [12 bytes] Jachiappetta (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
• 21:14, February 26, 2008 User:Rebeccamiriam (hist) [12 bytes] Rebeccamiriam (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
• 21:14, February 26, 2008 User:Noromaxp (hist) [12 bytes] Noromaxp (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
• 21:14, February 26, 2008 User:Janegrace (hist) [12 bytes] Janegrace (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
• 21:14, February 26, 2008 User:Dingdongdingdong123414 (hist) [12 bytes] Dingdongdingdong123414 (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
• 21:14, February 26, 2008 User:SJBacchus (hist) [12 bytes] SJBacchus (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')
• 21:14, February 26, 2008 User:Seliuk (hist) [12 bytes] Seliuk (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '/Sandbox')

Any idea what's going on? The few edits I see are not exactly encouraging. --Calton | Talk 01:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like all sockpuppet accounts. Just indef block them all. Igor Berger (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No, don't block them all. Probably kids in a community college "How to edit Wikipedia" class. No harm done yet, they're just editing their sandboxes. That's what sandboxes are for... --barneca (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Barneca, you're completely right. They're all editing their sandboxes. This is cool. Darkspots (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

We should have agreed on a strategy there, Darkspots - I start at the bottom and you at the top, As it was our {{welcome}} templates collided in the middle of the list somewhere ☺ Tonywalton ^Talk 01:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I only welcomed a couple at random--some of those kids looked like any distraction would rattle 'em even more. Except the totally bored "hello ==yes== we already know that" guy who ignored the whole exercise and blanked his page. Darkspots (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You want to really rattle 'em? Technically, we should notify them of this thread... :) --barneca (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And block their teacher for meatpuppetry! Seriously, I'm hoping that the links in the welcome template may interest at least some of them and we may end up with a worthwhile contributor or two. Even the guy who already knows it may (if he attends Wikipedia 102) wonder why he's suddenly got an orange bar when he logs in and think "Heyyy...". On the other hand [[CAT:CSD]] may see ome activity... Tonywalton ^Talk 01:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Barneca good call. I thought they were all sockpuppets..:) Igor Berger (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

How come I never got to take a Wikipedia class? Useight (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking a history class (which fulfills the history major's computing requirement) that requires students to edit wikipedia articles about specific American abolitionists. Which will require 32 other students create accounts to edit articles so they can prove to the professor that they did the edits. I don't think these people are in my class because the professor hasn't told us to create sandboxes. But keep an open mind about it, because you will probably see mass editing on Thursday before 3:00 PM Eastern, and probably pages with uncited material and improper wiki markups. I myself will be editing the Samuel Cornish article sooner or later. I'd say it would definitely rattle the students to be warned about this thread, but they can't help it if professors give stupid assignments like this, classes that require a student to edit Wikipedia. They should edit if they want. Rebelyell2006 (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If I ever have a class like that (which is a possibility), my professor will have lots of fun going through my 12,000+ undeleted edits. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps it is time for Wikipedia to develop a formal policy in reference to class assignments. We have had several good experiences with such projects, and a number of less-positive ones. (I especially remember the conflict-resolution assignment, which had new editors wading into minefields such as Waterboarding.) The best assignments are the ones where the instructor lets the project know of the assignment, and where the new editors discuss possibly contentious changes before making them. Be Bold can be perceived as vandalism coming from a brand-new account. Rattling new editors is a very bad idea (Don't Bite the Newbies), and I'm a bit disappointed that some of the editors above suggested it after the likely reason had been identified. Horologium (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If you re-read the thread, I don't think you'll find anyone seriously suggesting we intentionally rattle new editors. --barneca (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking over all of this, isn't it possible to create some kind of wikiproject that could welcome such classes and, more importantly, give pointers to the teachers assigning them? Sethie (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

We already have Wikipedia:School and university projects and Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination. Graham87 08:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Amarrg

Evidenced from this editor's recent edits and remarks, one can note that this editor fails to assume good faith and has issues with regards to civility.

This editor has left an edit summary that is deliberately in bad taste evidenced here. Another editor felt the same and advised him to be more civil here. I am requesting administrator intervention in taking the appropriate course of action to delete/modify the editor's edit summary in the first diff or completely deleting that contribution.

It was only recently that I advised the editor to cool off here as he was appearing incivil on an occasion prior to this incident. He responded here with a clear assumption of bad faith against me, and deliberately chose to ignore the advice. It is perhaps as a result of the several times User:Sarvagnya has gamed the system successfully, that this editor felt that he could get away with the same. In any case, I also request that an appropriate course of action be taken against this editor (whether this be a temporary block or a warning of some sort) for his recent assumption of bad faith and incivility towards articles, myself, and User talk:John Carter - where the same is evidenced here.

Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

sheesh.. Amarrg is one of the best and most prolific editors en.wikipedia and WP:INDIA in particular, has seen in some time. When did ANI become a whineboard for the likes of ncmv to carry out malicioius smear campaigns with cherry-picked-twisted-out-of-context diffs against some of our best? And jftr, unless ncmv can substantiate/elaborate/explain/justify "...as a result of the several times User:Sarvagnya has gamed the system successfully, that this editor felt that he could get away with the same...", I demand that he retract his tripe. Sarvagnya 20:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

sheesh...an editor's past or even present contributions do not justify violating behavioural policies and guidelines. This sort of interaction cannot be condoned. And as for your demands, please feel free to make such demands during the Rfc (when it is opened asap), where I'm sure you'll make more pathetic excuses and justifications. Then once Wikipedia stops casting a blind eye to your pathetic excuses for gaming the system, I wonder if you will still be this smug in making such demands from others who are not in any way bound by them. Hmmm!

Still, what a coincidence it must have been for User:Amarrg to come to my talk page and issue several notices of him templating 'speedy deletion' on several articles relevant to Carnatic music, which I, among few other editors, have actually made any positive contributions towards. But lo! When we look at his history of contributions...wow...these are the only articles he has pushed for the deletion of...articles that I happened to have contributed to, however little or great. With the articles being deleted prior to a hang on notice being issued, it looks like he got what he wanted. And how strange that this is his only response to date for having an ANI filed against him.

In any case, twisted out of context and cherry picked? I can't help but note the trouble he goes to bring up the past of an editor in order to use it as a sole reason for rejecting behavioural advice here. Or the same can be seen here in reply to another editor who offered similar advice to him. There is nothing twisted out of context, or cherry picked about it, so again, stop trying to distract people from the issue - Amarrg's recent edits clearly show that he has deliberately failed to assume good faith in his dealings with me, as well as others. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also suggest that the administrator looks through the editor's edits and comments within the last 24 or even 48 hours, as he has been harassing me. However, I did give him a final comment asking him not to continue with the harassment, and in the last 12 hours or so, it has paused. If it does continue, this is an active record where I am requesting that an administrator intervenes to stop such harassment if it continues. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Odd editing

I noticed user Mangostar [[60]] has been on a page creation flurry, creating pages about US relations with other countries, while adding in a POV tag, as he created the pages?

All the material appears to just be copied from a US Gov website.

I wanted some heads up from people with more wiki experience then I to look at this.Sethie (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, American government publications are public domain - one can copy them freely. I'd expect they have POV problems though. Have you tried asking Mangostar what she's up to? WilyD 21:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I did - Revolving Bugbear 21:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is from http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/, and it is in the public domain. Prodego ^talk 21:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

My question is more about policy on cut and pasting pages? I don't know the whole thing just seems a bit off. Sethie (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Cutting and pasting public domain material, so long as it's sourced, is perfectly proper. A lot of our articles started that way, when the data was copied and pasted from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Brittanica. Corvus cornix_talk 21:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to a question on the POV tags on my talk page, I'm adding them because obviously as an interested policy not everything the US says is entirely neutral, but I think there's a lot of good factual material in there and I don't have the expertise to judge what's a neutral assessment and what's not. (Hopefully others that know more will simply remove them if they think the articles look okay.) I think it's certainly good to be cutting and pasting this because these are great starting points for research and wikification, and wiki should be more aggressive in my opinion about making good use of the mountains of PD information free for the taking that's created by the US government. Mangostar (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. — Coren ^(talk) 22:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to add a blurb on the articles' Talk pages about why you put the pov tag on the article. POV tags without explanations on Talk pages tend to get removed unilaterally. Even if it's just a canned template or something. Corvus cornix_talk 22:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for others input and Mango- it all makes sense now. Sethie (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Except that the POV tag says that the neutrality of the article is "disputed" - but there is no dispute about these pages, as Mangostar makes clear in the notice that's been placed. Mangostar questions that they might not be neutral, but there is no genuine dispute. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

But many of them are blatantly non-neutral, and I'm sure many others are more subtly so. I'm not sure of a better tag, there's the nominating for neutrality check one but I'm not sure I actually want to nominate anything. Mangostar (talk) 05:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What about a bolded heading at the top of the page that says something on the order of "The following material comes from a United States government website, and may not represent a neutral point of view"? Even if someone goes through these articles and vouches for their accuracy, it's still worthwhile having them labelled as government-produced material. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It already says that at the bottom of the article, which (along with the POV tag until it's reviewed) I think is fine. Mangostar (talk) 08:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Arsenic 99

People who deny the Holocaust are indef blocked. But its perfectly OK to deny and delete anything related to Armenian Genocide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_22#Category:Armenian_Genocide_deniers

Please point to anyone who has been indef blocked for "denying the Holocaust". Tendentious editing is a reason for blocking, but not beliefs. Corvus cornix_talk 22:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Um... HalfShadow (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, try again. Corvus cornix_talk 22:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone should defiantly investigate the canvassing and the spa accounts showing up for the vote. Not to mention the personal attacks. VartanM (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• This is the same VartanM who wrote to Arsenic99, the person about whom he now complains

"Comment I don't know what they teach you in the Turkish schools, but in civilized count[r]ies ... VartanM (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)"[61]

VartanM owes an entire nation of people an apology for shamelessly promoting the idea of ethnic superiority and expressly setting forth his own contempt for an entire nation of people--and, meanwhile he so vociferously condemns genocide deniers-people who commit crimes against humanity based on the same sociopathic sense of racial/ethnic supremacy. To the Admin this is nothing more than a spurious witch hunt by a gang that has done everything it can to provoke the user they now complain about because he had the "audacity" to suggest a topic they are enamored of be deleted, and in the process they, specifically VartanM, impuged the integrity of everyone who posted an opinion contrary to his own. If any behavior requires investigating, it's that engaged in by VartanM. Pebblicious (talk) 02:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• See the Hrant Dink article to see what happens when a citizen of your country talks about the Armenian Genocide in your nation. Can you show me one diff of Arsenic99 being provoked. Take a look at his contributions, see how many times he insulted users, based on their nationality. VartanM (talk) 06:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Hrant Dink was killed by a 17 year old, maybe someone didn't like him or whatever, maybe he was assassinated maybe the kid did not like him, but also remember that Armenians use to criticize him as well. Once he died, they now use him as a reference for whenever they wanna talk about how "uncivilized the Turks are", which you so shamelessly used again. Why don't you talk about how THOUSANDS of Turks marched the streets with "We are all Hrant Dink" "We are all Armenian" posters to protest how he was murdered. Why don't you wanna talk about the ethnic cleansing of Armenia from anyone that isn't Christian which is why Armenia is 99% ethnic Armenian Christian. You pick and choose what things to talk about, and you pick and choose what citatations to use and you use them to promote an Armenian POV and in the side promote how Turks are "bad". Your comments have personally attacked me and even though I even left you a nice message on your talk page complimenting you, you continue to stalk me and persecute me for disagreeing with your "infallible" opinions. Admins will see through you, and your continuous edits of Armenian Genocide related articles will be seen for what it is, Propaganda. Tell me, were you in the Armenian Revolutionary Federation youth groups, be honest (it doesn't mean you're bad, I'm just curious, so WP:AGF)? — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 06:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• VartanM is totally one sided and closed minded, he is also attacked me in personal level and deleted my posts in a discussion board. These sort of actions should not be tolerated. In the end as Wiki contributors we are trying to share the information to build the most accurate resources for our users to get information. otavilog (talk)
  • Otavilog, since you contributed very little outside of İstemihan Taviloğlu article. Can you tell me how you learned about the category discussion. Thanks for your honesty. VartanM (talk) 06:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Everything should be investigated defiantly. Definitely. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious editing you say?

Just as a separate note, but long unorganized complaints tend to be ignored fairly quickly. Personally, I'm not going to read all that nor really respond to it. It would be helpful if you focused and gave specific arguments (pointing to "deleting a section here", "removing this here", etc. are really complicated to review). If you think an article should be deleted, head to WP:AFD and make your point. If it is really complicated (not that AN/I tends to archive within a few days), follow the dispute resolution procedures. Now, if you have a focused point or two, I would be willing to review here. Otherwise, I'd say that saying "people who are against my view should all be blocked" isn't going to work particularly well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

When I made the complaint, a user was blocked because he made anti-semitic comments and denied the Holocaust. And I found odd that there was nothing being done not only to Arsenic99, but also to a number of other users that have systematically made anti-Armenian remarks and were genocide deniers. Corvus cornix pointed out that the user was blocked for making tendentious editing is a reason for blocking, but not beliefs. So I just showed him the tendentious editing of Arsenic99, who has called for the Armenian Genocide article to be deleted because its POV, removed categories and links to the article. Removed entire sections from articles. Radically changed the Taner Akcam article, the same kind of change that got him arrested before. Personally attacked users based on their nationality. Nominated the category to be deleted, then canvassed about it to other Turkish members and then SPA accounts appeared out of nowhere to support the delete vote. His POV and purpose here in wikipedia is clear, is to delete anything Armenian genocide related. So far he made very few edits outside of the Armenian Genocide topic and most of those edits have been reverted because of the strong POV by Armenian or third party users alike. Click around his contribution list and you'll see what I mean. VartanM (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree, that is why anti-semitic users and especially anti-Armenian users should IMMEDIATELY be banned and blocked. But I have never ever been anti-Armenian, I simply do not want POV in articles that shouldn't have POV which usually push an Armenian nationalistic agenda.

If you follow through the list of "Tendentious Edits" you'll find that they are usually me presenting opinions in talk pages, and sometimes removing one or two point of view statements from an article not related to the Armenian Genocide. They are all very justifiable, and VartanM is exaggerating it like as if I committed a crime for presenting an opinion.

I can also follow VartanM's contributions and find that he's added Armenian-Genocide related comments to almost any article that even remotely deals with Armenians or Armenia. If it's a Turkish author, there is a comment about the Armenian Genocide, if it's an American who doesn't support the Armenian Genocide, such as Dr. Justin McCarthy then a magical "criticism of his work" appears on his biography violating many policies. I have never personally attacked you, and you may look at VartanM's talk page to see how nice I am to him. Many reverts by me are very justifiable because I deleted Armenian POVs. However, many reverts against me are usually by known Armenian editors. VartanM has a long list of incidents of harrassment against me and disputes with other Turks as well, and his contribution list of POV edits, is much longer than mine. He finds me a threat to his recognition of the Armenian Genocide POV so he has always been watching me and following me around wikipedia re-adding POV points. I removed some edits where he had citations but were unreliable sources or unrelated comments about the article. Such as in Murad Gumen's article, VartanM insists on adding a "TallArmenianTale.com" section, because some guy in America said that TallArmenianTale's writer is probably Murad Gumen, and he put this there with citations to that guy, and basically ruined Murad Gumen's (a Walt Disney cartoonist btw) biography. Since when did declaring someone as a possible author of a website become a fact that wikipedia required? I have mentioned that I wanted the Armenian Genocide article to be deleted yes, but things don't always go the way I want. I know that since there is much dispute on the issue, I cannot simply say "delete" or nominate it for deletion, since it is an article that many nationals watch. In that article, I've simply made 2-3 edits, which were always removed, and unsourced, unverifiable POV sentences were re-added and my edits reverted by nationalists. I don't think VartanM is a nationalist, but I think he is obsessively trying his best to prevent anyone from disagreeing with his point of view. I think he's a smart guy, but can sometimes be wrong about certain things, and sometimes doesn't realize his own POV edits, and that's understandable, I have my own POV edits as well, I use talk pages a lot before editing or maybe never editing (such as in the Nagorno-Karabakh article) but blocking me is just a little extreme. VartanM is also known for canvassing, but secretly using IMs and emails, and the SPA accounts that he mentions in the CfD, is an exaggeration, I only noticed 1, and don't know who it is, but if you suspect me, please check IPs or do whatever you can to prove it. But I don't think I should be blocked based on suspicion. Why was [94] deleted but this [95] is kept? Are they both not political labeling of people of differing views? If you said publicly well I think there is a God, and someone slapped a "Atheism Denier" or "Anti-Atheist" label on your wikipedia page, would you enjoy this? This is like me going up to John Edwards page and slapping a "liberal" category on his page, while it may be true, this is the danger of speculation and political labeling. This Category of "Armenian Genocide Deniers" was violating: Wikipedia:BLP, WP:Categorization of people,WP:OC#OPINION, and WP:NPOV, and yet people just fall over themselves and play it safe to appease the Armenians in wikipedia, why? It seems that the wikipedia I love is continuously falling under the power of nationalism and becoming a place where differing views are rejected simply because of seeking the truth. I admit I am new, and I admit I sometimes have made mistakes, but to label me away as a denier or a minority is simply un-Democratic. All one has to do is take a look at this page, VartanM User Page and scan around the history to see the nationalistic views and his primary focus on adding Armenian Genocide related comments on any article in wikipedia. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 20:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh and, denying the holocaust is wrong (because it's proven by Nazi archives unlike the Armenian Genocide, where Turkish archives contradict the genocide thesis), but apparently VartanM doesn't think so, he seems to think the Armenian Genocide is the only genocide in the planet:

::*Comment Whats your opinion about Category:Holocaust deniers. VartanM (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

and it is apparent, that he is simply trying to compare the Holocaust and the Armenian Massacres, when there are Holocaust victims (or sons of) who denounce the Armenian Genocide label. Such as Guenter Lewy and Bernard Lewis, labeling respected historians and citizens of the world as deniers for something that is yet to be proven is simply wrong. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 20:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not going to answer this, sine its pretty much self explanatory. VartanM (talk) 05:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes it is self-explanatory, but if you aren't going to answer, why leave a comment? — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 07:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't indefinitely block or restrict the voice of people, when at least one country, with 70 million population, disagrees with one-sided branding of these massacres (unlike Germany which unilaterally accepts the definition of Holocaust). I am not sure why it has been so difficult to conduct an international tribunal alike Nuremberg and review all historical accounts on this heated issue, used and overused for political purposes across the world. But I don't believe it's up to Wikipedia to determine right or wrong in this controversial and serious issue. Considering that many hundreds of thousands of civilian Turks and Muslims perished on that same front at hands of Armenian and Russian units as well, perhaps, both sides stories need to be listened to. Massacre as much as accusation of it, is a very complicated issue which has to do with dignity and spiritual healing of descendants. So only understanding of that will help to bring about recognition and solution, not just blocking one side's voice and imposing outside decisions. Atabek (talk) 02:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Who told you that I want him indef blocked? Indef blocking someone with 0 blocks is a little harsh don't you think. Now to your point, I don't see your name mentioned anywhere on this page, so why are you stalking me? And unlike Arsenic99 here, who still doesn't know the rules, you were a veteran user when you did this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive282#Armenian_Genocide_being_removed You didn't forget about this did you? Also your above comment is nothing more then one big WP:SOAPbox. VartanM (talk) 05:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment You sure act like it, and I wouldn't be surprised with the amount of edit wars you've attacked me with. What rules, I haven't violated anything that might be considered violation o Wikipedia Policies (you even dared to claim I was canvassing, after-which I read the WP:Canvass and found out that I can contact Turkish editors that might be interested in a CfD, since them and Armenians are usually the only ones ever interested in this issue)... You on the other hand, your whole contrib list is a WP:SOAPBOX of how indisputable and undeniable the fact of the Armenian Genocide is, with minor exceptions here and there, so please don't take offense, you've done some significant work in other places as well, I hope as have I, but you do primarily edit articles and push an Armenian POV and no one can deny this. You're acting like I violated a rule by nominating a biased POV category for discussion.
  • On the one hand, I have tried discussing issues with you and even complimented you by using your talk page, but you on the other hand, have led a campaign to keep the Category, made incident reports about me for simply expressing some facts of which the interpretation did not agree with your opinion, and didn't even have the courtesy to warn me about this ANI. I really haven't seen anyone break so many wikipedia policies and get away with it so easily. Since you seem to be in good relations with many many wikipedians that think like you and have been a member for a while, I guess it's realistic for you to be so bold, sadly I don't have such an advantage. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 07:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Beyond Aston/Beyond Austin; Dopefish/Doopefish

I am really not sure where to go with this one. User:Dopefish is the webmaster for Black Sabbath drummer Bill Ward's site. Dopefish got fairly upset about the deltion of that artist's unreleased album Beyond Aston[96] (much more was on the article's talk page.

Now, along comes new User:Doopfish, supposedly the webmaster for "White Sabbath" drummer "Dollar Bill" and his album Beyond Austin.[97]

Is this a sock of Dopefish mocking wikipedia or someone else mocking Dopefish? Either way, Doopefish must go. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

... and gone. I've also speedied the hoaxalicious article. — Coren ^(talk) 22:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if a word about possible misuse of alternate accounts, and the potential for sanction toward the originating account wouldn't go amiss on Dopefish's talkpage? Unless similar accounts start similar hoax articles I doubt there is enough to go to WP:SSP with - so nipping it in the bud may be most effective. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I find the possibility of an impersonator to be roughly equally likely to that of a sock at this time. If more pop up, a CU might be worthwhile; but at this time a simple BRI seems to be sufficient. — Coren ^(talk) 23:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Adding User:Dopyfish to this, this time the article was titled Beyond Astor. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Clem32 and User:Mario scolas

User:Clem32 is an account clearly opened with the aim to create a confusion with the account User:Clem23 (sysop on :fr as fr:Utilisateur:Clem23), who has been for several months if not more a favourite target of a disruptive and obstinate user known (among other accounts) as "Mario Scolas". See m:Vandalism reports/BogaertB for details. If you read French, see also detailed comments about recent developments on this week sysop's bulletin on :fr.

This week, we have got numerous attempts on :fr, by the use of false quotations, to try to discredit Clem23 as a racist (see for instance [98], in French -among many others). The only intervention of "Clem32" here on :en is obviously part of the same game, and the speedy reaction of User:Mario Scolas is not suprising and typical of his several personae play.

Certainly User:Clem32, only created as a disruptive account, should be immediately blocked Has been done through a parallel request on WP:UAA, while an administrative inquiry should be launched about User:Mario scolas who, though careful here on :en, has been disruptive enough on :fr and :nl to justify a strong treatment here also. French Tourist (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC) (sysop on :fr as fr:User:Touriste)

As noted, I've blocked the account for a Username violation. It's interesting that the account's two edits were to add a comment in favor of deletion of Boubaker polynomials, and then to reinsert the comment when Mario scolas (talk · contribs) removed it (calling it harassment). I've also warned Mario Scolas for removing the comment, and would not object to a block if disruption continues. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

We are currently facing some really serious issues on fr:, related to Mario Scolas AND to the Boubaker polynomials. A summary of the issues can be found here in French :

In short, the community decided to delete Boubaker polynomials, and as a result, several sock puppets and IPs spammed articles and user pages of admins and entourage of Clem23 (40+ and counting), insulting Clem23, and related sysops and users, mostly claiming that the deleting was a consequence of racist behavior. (Boubaker is Tunisian) Legal threats were raised, the number of affected pages is impressive : We are taking this problem very seriously.

There are no proved links between Mario Scolas and these issues, but a fact is that Mario Scolas immediately backed up on en: the boubaker controversy.

Now, about the situation here, I'll bring these diffs to your attention :

• (very bad English to French translation :) [Clem23's full name] [...] you'll eventually end up with slaps in your Nazi face
• [99] & [100] : it will be the first slap in your racist face
• Mario Scolas is reverting Clem32 : Please don't get fooled : Drama and disputes between two of his sock-puppets is definitely part of the modus operandi of Mario Scolas, as stated on the meta page (Creating conflict with 2 of his accounts)
• The AfD page of Boubaker polynomials is a mess : sock-puppetry, canvassing, and so on.
• Please take a look at the en: contributions of the French vandal IPs : they are all related to Boubaker polynomials.

We are currently investigatins IP ranges, as 196.203.x.x, 41.224.x.x and 41.226.x.x might also be involved in some related but undetected yet vandalism, but we'd really appreciate some help down here...

Thanks...

NicDumZ ~ 22:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, and my apologies for this intervention out of the blue.

About that last part, to clarify, in The IP list, 196.203.x.x, 41.224.x.x and 41.226.x.x belongs to the true Boubaker (193.95.x.x does too, likely), whereas 70.85.16.16 & 64.131.83.138 are impersonations (supposedly Scolas), as I kinka doubt Boubaker know how to use proxies.

A Dual CU on en: and fr: (comparing with IP history) might help putting things to light, but this will be heavy ; really heavy to do.

Darkoneko (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Update : a few minutes ago, three new disruptive impersonations playing with Boubaker polynomials : User:Tonton Bradipus, User:Pere Cormier, User:Olmec23. Don't hope things to settle by themselves without strong sysop interventions ! French Tourist (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A bit of clarity, again :

• the names refers to fr:user:Bradipus, fr:User:Hégésippe Cormier, fr:user:Olmec & fr:User:Clem23 respectivly, which are all frwiki sysops.
• The edits of all accounts were made straight at AfD/Boubaker's polynomials at random places of the page. He also took liberty to delete some comemnts statings which other votes were likely to be sock (see diff). I took the liberty to revert them "en masse".

Darkoneko (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Shell Kinney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has hit them all with {{usernamehardblock}}. Lara❤Love 14:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. But what about the (99% sure) main account ?

Darkoneko (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Just as I was writing this, another (pretty obvious) sock appread : user:ClemClem32 [101]

As Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boubaker polynomials (2nd nomination) is becoming a war zone due to all that commotion & sock-puppetry, does enwiki's policy allows to put the page protection at "autoconfirmed" level in that kind of cases ? (ever since the creation of the page 3 days ago, every single non-confirmed account & IP edits have been pov-pushing from Boubaker, and socks) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkoneko (talk • contribs) 17:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Darkoneko (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's usually just tolerated on AFDs themselves. As has been my frequent observation, single purpose accounts never actually affect the outcome of the debate, and 95% of them never edit again once the article is deleted. As such, admins here usually don't consider page protection necessary. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the answer :) Darkoneko (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mario scolas has been a very painful issue for fr:WP (260 socks) and nl:WP (over 30). I hope the vandalism does not spread too much here, at this time he is mostly focused on fr: admins (see the history of my talk page) but knowing him I doubt he'll restrict his vandalisms in the future. I hope you can do something about that, at this time he is only gaming the system, playing with his socks and proxies while trying to play the victim with his main account. Clem23 (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Last time the m:Vandalism reports/BogaertB case was really noticed here, as far as I know, can be seen in this noticeboard section (death threats and the like). Bradipus (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, of course User:Tonton Bradipus is a direct reference to me. Interesting links between User:Tonton Bradipus and User:Mario scolas:

• Post in a french spreaking chat signed Tonton Bradipus and linking to a blog of Mario Scolas (his signature i all over the page)
• Post of Mario Scolas in a chat starting with a texte referring to Tonton Bradipus. Bradipus (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Kaizer13

This editor has been rude on a regular basis. He's been blocked 5 times, since October 2007 for personal attacks and being uncivil. His recent behavior shows he has no plans to stop: [102] and [103], also see his talk page. He thinks it's alright to attack people that vandalize. Vandals or not, being rude in edit summaries isn't the correct thing to do. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Advice left; user has been blocked previously for abuse and as far as I'm concerned, he's on a "one-strike and you're out". --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

His response to your advice wasn't very nice. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Sarah777

I request an uninvolved admin take a look at this. I blocked Sarah777. She persisted in removing my post which was relevant to her unblock request and answers a significant accusation she has made against me. As an emergency measure I protected the page. Her unblock has been declined. No doubt she will appeal again and will again remove my post. Tyrenius (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ty, I'm not uninvolved here, but I seriously think you should have asked another admin to block that time. Because it came from you and because both of you have a certain history, well ... You could have kinda predicted how this was going to go, too. Note to others: I blocked Sarah777 for 24 hours, just three days ago - Alison ^❤ 00:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no history with Sarah777 to speak of. The only significant contact is at Wikipedia:TER#User:Sarah777, and I think it's established there we do not let people violating policy establish "no go" zones by making accusations aganst admins. (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm no admin, but it certainly looks as if that block was justified. It doesn't matter how much an editor contributes or how good those contributions are, if they can't deal with problems civilly, they should face sanctions. --clpo13_(talk) 00:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. Incivility is bad. Don't do it. If you need to do it, join an unmoderated forum like Usenet or the like. Simple. --John (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Aye, nothing wrong with the block, though Alison is right that it'd probably have been better for someone else to do it. I don't think you'd have found a shortage of takers. Black Kite 01:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason why another admin should have done it. I am not in any editing dispute with the user. I have no history with the user, apart from warning her not to make abusive posts. The precedent otherwise is that an admin warns a user, a user makes some accusation against the admin, and the admin is then not allowed to interact with the user any more. This is asking for abuse and gaming the system. Tyrenius (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but she was blocked a few days back for telling you to "sod off" [104]. You're right though, I don't think it's a big deal to be honest. Black Kite 01:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'd like to see this block lifted. Sarah777 was commenting on the block of another user that she felt was unfair. She said something like "trust the fascists to come up with an excuse" (not a quote, but words to that effect), and was blocked for it. That seems like overkill. There are far worse things said every day by people (including admins) whom no one would think to block for them. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• A quick look at User:Sarah777's contributions reveals that the exact quote is "Admin-power abusing fascists like friend Ty". That looks like a clearly unacceptable comment to me. --Conti|✉ 02:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think that comment was after the block, Conti. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I just noticed that, too. Did you mean another comment by her, then? Either way, that comment isn't really a good argument for the removal of the block. --Conti|✉ 02:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if there is a legitimate problem, it should be handled civilly. Name-calling exacerbates the problem. --clpo13_(talk) 02:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• (EC) - I'm not necessarily "uninvolved" as I declined the unblock request for this user, however, I believe that the block needs to remain. This user has a clear civility problem, as evident from prior blocks, and this comment that she left today while blocked. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think this was the comment that attracted the block:

• "This is getting more and more like some institution run by a cult of abusers. 40k edits in "main"; not a single cross word ever uttered - and you get blocked. At least I put myself about as they say; there is simply NO valid excuse for blocking you no matter what self-serving rationalisation the fascists come up with. Plus, the block is totally illegitimate as you are using an undeleted system of categorisation." Sarah777 (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• It was inappropriate, for sure, but I can't see that it was worth a block in itself. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You might like to check out Sarah777's long term history of abuse. Wikipedia:TER#User:Sarah777 is a good starting point. Editors should not be subjected to her insults. Tyrenius (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If we were routinely blocking users for those kinds of comments, it'd be fair enough, but we're not, which is the problem here. This seems to have become something of a self-perpetuating thing, whereby she makes an inappropriate comment, gets blocked, is pissed off, makes a snide remark, is blocked, gets even more pissed off, says something else, and on and on -- where each comment in itself wouldn't normally attract a block. I recommend an unblock as a show of good faith, which might turn things around a little. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

We do (or at least have been recently) routinely blocking for those sorts of comments in this particular subject area. The problem with Sarah, is that when an admin makes a decision not to her liking, it is always an example of fascist abuse, Anti-Irish abuse, Anglo-American abuse, and she is not shy in telling anyone who will listen. In the already politically fraught subject areas she occasionally edits in, her comments are particularly inflammatory. Its difficult enough to keep editors working together on the Irish/British issue, but when editors regularly throw accusations around like that, it quickly degenerates into edit-warring, sock and meat puppetry, legal threats, off-wiki threats of violence and we all end up at ArbCom again. I'm being a little dramatic, of course, but all those things listed have happened by editors in this subject area over the last year. Most of the participants put their actions down to being insulted or goaded. Hence the zero tolerance policy on civility and personal attacks on this subject, especially since everyone has been warned countless times already.

Now, Sarah is certainly not among those who have indulged in the worst behaviour I have listed above, but she does, for want of a better phrase, "have a mouth on her". We can continue to discuss issues with her (as I have done many times before) and ask her time and again to stop calling people offensive names, but she resolutely refuses to stop. If asking doesn't help, perhaps blocks will. Though I doubt it, to be honest. Rockpocket 03:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarah777 made the comment above, was warned by Rockpocket that is was likely to get a block and then endorsed her comment:

Sarah, please don't refer to other editors, named or implied, as "fascists". In addition to being wholly incorrect, it is also gratuitously offensive and likely to earn you a block yourself for WP:NPA before too long. How many times do you need to be asked - make your point without resorting to name-calling, please. Rockpocket 23:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd have thought it was a pretty good description. Don't you? And if some goon can block Ardfern then we should all be proud to be blocked, don't you think? And I reckon we'd be rather more interested in your take on the Ardfern block than on my civility (yaaaaaawn!) Sarah777 (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

She continues to insult editors whenever it suits her. Fine, if she states she will desist from making abusive personal comments, I don't object to an unblock, but in the past she has stated quite the opposite intention and there is no sign of her attitude changing.

Tyrenius (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Per this comment, and per lack of a clear consensus to endorse this block, I have left a comment on her talk page suggesting I will unblock if she states she willd desist from making personal comments. See how it goes ... - Alison ^❤ 03:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No, there is a clear consensus to endorse the block, but I'm prepared to show good will. Tyrenius (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My comment is in the below section- basically, a slightly longer block, but don't go mad and block for long, or we would have to block numerous individuals. Special Random (Merkinsmum) 03:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If there are numerous individuals with long term incivility problems, then that needs to be addressed. ArbCom rulings show that it is not acceptable. Tyrenius (talk) 03:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Tyrenius, please see my comments below at #Sarah777:_there.27s_more_to_this_than_meets_the_eye. But I note from your comment above that you even think it was a blockable offence for her to call the admin who blocked Ardfern a "goon". Sorry, but I think that given the outrageousness of that block of a highly productive and respected editor, an expression of outrage was well-justified. "Fascist" and "goon" are not exactly parliamentary terms, but nor are they a completely unjustified or disproportionate response to a very bad block.

In effect, Sarah was blocked for objecting to another block, and that's a form of victimisation. If you can't see it that way, please recuse yourself from further use of your admin powers towards Sarah. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No, she was blocked for how she said it, and other ways she expressed herself- swearing etc. Special Random (Merkinsmum) 12:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Community ban

Initiating this straw poll as a neutral party. Sarah's conduct is way over the line. The whole "Brilliant means block" section and the edit summary "get off my page you twat" is just the latest I can see in a row of gross incivility, and I think enough is enough. We don't need this, especially in such a contentious area. Ramp the block up to indef community ban. Will ^(talk) 03:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I certainly won't endorse that and I feel you're "ramping up" the issue here just a bit - Alison ^❤ 03:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this really acceptable? Will ^(talk) 03:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this, please stop rocking the boat all over AN/I. David D. (Talk) 06:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No, but neither is a community ban. If I show you an admin that called someone a "cunt", will you campaign to have them community banned? - Alison ^❤ 03:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Was in a contentious area such as The Troubles or Eastern Europe, where opinions don't need to be more inflamed then they already are? Will ^(talk) 03:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Strongest oppose. Look at her block log- they've all been short, she could be given a slightly longer one, say a fortnight, to reflect. I agree with SV on the other issues- I think there should be a block, but not a ban, because there are plenty of others who swear etc. on site and they haven't been banned.Special Random (Merkinsmum) 03:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The word "twat" is used much more lightly than "cunt". However, there is a long term problem with her incivility, not just an occasional mishap. Community ban would be an answer. If not, then there needs to be some other arrangement in place to contain it, and to prevent her from excluding any admin who tries to address the issue. Tyrenius (talk) 03:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A longer block would make her consider her actions more. In that regard, an analogous case would be User:TharkunColl, who after a two week (I think) block and warning that he would next face one of 3 months, has been comparatively well-behaved. :) Special Random (Merkinsmum) 03:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ty, there are also cultural differences to be recognized here, too. Profanity in Ireland (where myself and Sarah are from) is treated a lot more lightly than in, say, the United States. Thus in her own view, her transgression may not have the same weight as it does to others. Seriously - Alison ^❤ 03:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Incivility is a problem on Wikipedia these days, but I don't think that community banning everyone who's uncivil is remotely the right answer. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

We'd only be left with about 5 editors. Nandesuka (talk) 05:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think there's been any gross profanity as such. It's the ongoing ad hominem posts like "Stop talking complete arrogant bull. YOU have imposed "criteria" that nobody bar your pompous self accepts. You abuse of power is passing the point of annoyance and becoming nauseous".[105] That needs to stop. The only question is how it can be stopped. Tyrenius (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think Merkinsmum's suggestion is sound. Sarah is a productive editor with a volatile temper. A period of disengagement might help defuse some of the recent drama, and drive home the point that wikipedia is a collaborative effort, which means sometimes agreeing to disagree without launching into nationalistic attacks. Horologium (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

From an observers view - she seems to carry a big chip on her shoulder, and grudges against certain admins. I agree with Will (talk) in that somethings need to be dealt with firmly, and not just swept under the rug with a wink and a nod, and don't let it happen again. Its gonna happen again. Modernist (talk) 04:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to remain in the middle ground here; no community ban and no unblock - sit out this block, and we'll go from there. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with User:Rjd0060. If we're going to community ban for this level/frequency of incivility, there are a lot more bans to be given out, including some to admins. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree that a more comprehensive approach is needed. I think the proposed actions, e.g. long-term blocks or bans, are not in line with the way we have approached similar issues of late. Such actions would be viewed, correctly, as capricious, and the consequences of this might be worse than the problem we are trying to correct. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree a ban is excessive at this stage. My concern is that the issue is addressed and not just ignored. As Rockpocket has pointed out, such behaviour impacts considerably in an area where there has been a lot of trouble. It would be a good start if Sarah777 were to recognise that attacks on others are not the way to address differences. To date she has asserted that she is justified in making them. Tyrenius (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A ban is way to harsh at this stage, especially considering the leeway we have given to other editors for incivility. Rockpocket 04:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think I see a clear consensus against a ban. Including by one of the admins that has previously blocked her. For the record, having reviewed this, I agree with the consensus above that a ban is inappropriate. If we were going to issue bans for incivility, there are multiple admins we'd need to ban before we got down to Sarah's level of incivility; I've seen so much worse from others. GRBerry 05:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarah has agreed to make a "supreme effort" not to repeat this if at all possible and has also apologized to Rockpocket. Per discussion above (esp. per blocking admin) I have unblocked her. I'll try to mediate over the next few days and try to address everyone's concerns here. I think BHG makes some excellent comments below and I'm largely in agreement. There is a lot more to this than meets the eye and I think amongst all of us us who are familiar with the situation here, we'll work something out. Unblocking - Alison ^❤ 11:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That's great, as long as Sarah777 delivers on her promise to make that effort. We have to assume good faith and I would love to see Sarah continue to edit - yet it seems her incivility has been increasing in both frequency and magnitude of late, and there is simply no place for that kind of behaviour on this kind of project. Hopefully there will never be the need to block Sarah777 again, but should that need arise, I don't think a short term block would prevent any future occurrences. I'm against a community ban at this stage, but if Sarah's behaviour does not change, that stance will. Waggers (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarah777: there's more to this than meets the eye

The suggestion of a ban is a terrible proposal, and I'm glad to see that there is a consensus against it. Yes, Sarah does have an ongoing problem with her short fuse, and her responses exacerbate the situation. However, the latest block was a very bad one, by an involved admin whose objection was to the removal of his comment from her talk page, and traditionally we have given editors a lot of leeway in removing stuff from their own talkpages.

Furthermore, the issue that triggered Sarah's outburst was the rapid and unjustified blocking for alleged "disruption" of Ardfern (talk · contribs)}, who is an incredibly productive and uncontroversial editor who has no history of trouble, by an admin who had made a dodgy closure of a related DRV. I was shocked at Ardfern's block and had intended to raise the issue here later today, but while I don't use her colourful language I fully share Sarah's dismay at that block. I happen to be a lot better at biting my tongue, but I am starting to get very concerned at the way that Sarah now feels that she is be being "targeted" by a group of admins who were involved in "The Troubles" arbcom. The issues here have very little to do with that arbcom case, but some of the admins (notably John (talk · contribs) and Tyrenius (talk · contribs) who were involved in that case now appear to be running into regular conflict with Sarah, and I think it's time to ask them to step right back from dealings with Sarah, because whatever their intentions (and I assume good faith), they are not helping to calm things, and on the contrary they are consistently provoking the worst reactions from Sarah; they have become part of the problem. I would like to contrast this with the calm and balanced approaches of Alison (talk · contribs), who as usual seems to remain calm and to retain the trust of all involved; the contrast is important, but it demonstrates that this is not simply a case of any admin who confronts a miscreant being demonised.

There are several serious issue behind all this. The most visible cloud is the set of issues considered at The Troubles Arbcom case, a huge and long-running mess which still rumbles on 4 months after it was closed, and which now turns out to have been in significant part to have been underpinned by a bunch of sockpuppets of a banned far-right British politician (as well as the antics of Vintagekits (talk · contribs), whose misconduct continued after more "last chances" than North Korea has been given over its nuclear weapons). That arbcom was supposed to draw a line under everything, and to say "no more misconduct", but that didn't really happen: the far-right sockpuppets were only recently uncovered, and Vintagekits eventually turned out to have been sockpuppeteering too. So there is a long history of trouble here, and considerable post-arbcom evidence of some nasty stirring by banned editors.

One of the ongoing problems is cultural difference in what constitutes civility. I have lived in England for over years and understand how more of English people conduct themselves and can play by those rules, but as Alison (another Irish exile) pointed out above, social norms in Ireland are very different: raucous outspokenness and swearing are much more acceptable.

And one of the reasons that this comes to the surface so often is that Irish editors routinely find themselves outnumbered by British editors, and end up at a severe disadvantage in the formation of consensus. I have watched too many instances where Irish editors and British editors polarise on different sides of a dispute, and where there is no shortage of British admins ready to condemn the culturally different conduct of Irish editors, and thereby exacerbate a difficult situation.

It's far too simplistic in this mess to simply condemn the "wild" Irish editors; there's a lot more going on here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind me saying, in the words of Ali G, "is it because I is black?" :) (joke). There are English, American, all sorts of people that swear, and people can't have licence to swear at other people and in other ways be incivil, just because of their country of origin. You do the irish a disservice if you say they don't have it in them to be as well-mannered as the English- any one I've met has been, more so if anything as they have a reputation for being friendly. On the other hand, it did seem weird to me that people were discussing a 'community ban.' Special Random (Merkinsmum) 12:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

May I offer the following poem by a pal of mine from Dublin, by way of explanation?

"Terms of Endearment"

Two Irishmen meet.
They like one another.
They are friends.
"There ye are ye bollix."
"Fair play to you you cunt."
"Ask me arse you tit."

Very shortly they will be best friends.
God alone knows how they will express
This extra closeness.

— Pat Ingoldsby, "Terms of Endearment"[106]

- Alison ^❤ 12:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

But as the poem said, they are friends already. It would be like me calling TharkunColl a drunken old c**t.:) I'm allowed because I'm his mate lol but people don't tend to in a formal situation such as wiki. Also Sarah777 wasn't talking to a friend, but to one of her wiki 'rivals', so her words weren't meant in a joshing way, you big !*^!er.:) (joke) :) Special Random (Merkinsmum) 14:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice try BHG and I appreciate you for sticking up for her. I am from an Irish family, and have spent a lot time in Ireland, North and South. Any contention that Irish people are unable to follow conventional rules of formal civility, though, is laughably inaccurate. Yes, in the pub, old friends will use terms to each other that would make a maiden aunt blush. We Scots are the same. However Wikipedia is not the pub and Sarah's ongoing incivility does need to be addressed. I did not (yet) support the idea of a ban, but that is the way this needs to head if Sarah demonstrates that she is unable to follow our norms, and we need to be clear about that and not make excuses for her on the basis of her nationality. She is not stupid and knows very well what she is doing. --John (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Point I'm trying to make here is that there is a certain cultural aspect to this, and that I feel people may be focussing on her language and delivery rather than looking behind it and seeing the frustration it stems from. Thus the root of the problem never gets fixed and she remains ignored (or worse, reprimanded). I've stated this a few times already - she may indeed have genuine grievances here about certain matters, so let's try to find out what's behind it all so we can all move on and get back to editing - Alison ^❤ 20:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. It's a fine line between cutting people slack and allowing for cultural differences, and making it carte blanche for certain users to be abusive. Let's hope Sarah takes all the advice she has been given on board as I do value her contributions. I approve the unblock but it needs to be clear to this editor that we cannot accept abuse from anyone here. --John (talk) 02:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Response to BrownHaired Girl

You were in the minority in opposing this block, which was endorsed by clpo13, John, Black Kite, Conti, Rjd0060, Rockpocket and Special Random. I haven't mentioned or alluded to the word "goon", and I wasn't even aware Sarah had used it. Sarah was not blocked for objecting to another block, something she is quite entitled to do through the proper channels. She was blocked for a personal attack, namely calling someone a "fascist". Several of those who endorsed the block have no prior connection with the situation.

You state that I am an "involved" admin. The attack by Sarah wasn't made against me, and I wasn't involved in the conversation about it. I have had very little to do with Sarah777 previously, apart from very recently, when my only involvement was to address her incivility at Wikipedia:TER#User:Sarah777 and remove offending comments about John, which Alison said she was just about to remove,[107] which Sarah then reinserted and which I removed again.[108] In the meantime Alison, not I, blocked her for her response to my warning about that removal. That is the extent of my supposed involvement. According to your rationale, if an admin warns a user and the user is uncivil in return, the admin should then refrain from dealing with that user over any other issue.

You say I am running into "regular conflict" with Sarah. I have only had dealings with her for 5 days, since removing the posts mentioned above. Apart from John, I note she also objected to Fram, Ioeth and SirFozzie, all of whom she wished to see de-sysopped.[109]

You have also got your facts wrong, when you state my objection was the removal of material from her talk page. That happened after the block and was not the cause of it. She was not entitled to remove this, as it responded to a statement she made concerning the unblock which was incorrect, though that was an understandable mistake: removal of my correction was not.[110]

You have previously said the accusation that John is partisan "is not without some reasonable basis",[111] failed to provide any evidence, then apologised, [112] but still thought John should not intervene, because he had been accused of partisanship, regardless of whether it was just or not.[113] (In that post SirFozzie was one of the acceptable "calming" editors, but it seems he as now lost that status.) User:Lar said, "what I see as an outsider is John trying very hard to be helpful in the face of others applying the bias label unjustly."[114]

Your assertion that this is a nationalist issue is inappropriate, objectionable and false. Regarding "British admins ready to condemn the culturally different conduct of Irish editors", I have not stated my nationality, so you should not presume, Fram is Belgian, Ioeth is American, and SirFozzie is, if I recall correctly, of Irish extraction in America. You have also said Rockpocket (American) should not intervene because of what you perceive as "victimisation" and being "trigger-happy" (although he has never blocked Sarah),[115] and no doubt the "fascist" Fram is not welcome, so with John and myself, we are now up to 7 admins. It strikes me they cannot all be the problem.

Most "Irish editors" are not uncivil, and editors of any nationality can be.[116] Nationality is not the issue: WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are the issues, for which I have previously blocked "British" editors, David Lauder,[117], Astrotrain,[118] (twice, as well as lengthening a block for continued incivility while blocked), and Counter-revolutionary,[119] (for "Derogatory implication based on another user's nationality"). In the Troubles ArbCom Astrotrain accused me of "bias and harassment" on behalf of "Irish" editors.[120]

The only admin that is allying themselves nationalistically is you:

Yes, once again, Irish editors have been stitched up, and wikipedia's coverage of Irish history has been impeded, but ... big but it's really important to remember that however much we are provoked, incivility or pparent WP:POINT violations won't help us undo the damage.[121]

I am surprised that you take this stance, as I have not noticed it previously, but it indicates that you are the one who should recuse yourself from this issue. I see no reason to recuse myself.

Tyrenius (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Point of information: I'm not American (though I live there). Neither I am Scottish, English, Irish (though I have lived in all three countries) or Welsh. I find the fact that we are even discussing the nationality of our admins utterly depressing and demonstrative of how much the false accusations of problem editors have influenced us. It doesn't matter what nationality you are from to recognize POV pushing, personal attacks and name calling.

I too take exception at BHG's accusation that I am involved in "victimisation" of Sarah by being "trigger-happy." My relationship with Sarah, from my own POV, is entirely cordial. I have never blocked her and I very much enjoy interacting with her. I don't think Sarah would dispute that either (though I could be wrong). If you have an issue with an unfair block, then I suggest you address that through the proper channels, BHG, but leave me out of it. All I did was ask an editor to stop calling another offensive names, which is about the least "trigger-happy" response I can imagine. Rockpocket 18:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The last time I remember the "Its ok to call people cunts if you're Irish" defence being used was after an (admitted) drunken tirade by User:Vintagekits against an admin, where threats were made. It didn't wash then, it doesn't wash now. Anyone who disagrees with Sarah777 ends up being accused of being anti-Irish Anflo-American-centricism - no matter where they're from or what their politics - even the likes of User:OneNightInHackney, for God's sake! The bottom line is Sarah777 needs to accept that WP:NPA is a policy that applies to everyone on WP, including her. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to add my ha'penny-worth, but here it is anyway: (1) there is now a general mood to tighten up perceived incivility, and if that means hauling people up for what would have been allowed in the past, so be it. Sarah777 certainly wasn't the worst offender; she's now promised to calm down; a line has been drawn and we all know now where it lies. She, or anyone else, will cross that line now at their own peril. (2) I notice that David Lauder is described as 'a banned far-right British politician', which, as I understand it, is an assumption rather than a fact. Even if correct, it's a (pejorative) description of him rather than his editing interests, which lay in medieval Scottish history rather than overtly political subjects, and he, by-and-large, kept his nose clean in the issues surrounding 'the Troubles'. Whilst I certainly don't approve of the foolish politicking through sock-puppets, his contribution to WP deserves more respect than the casual reference to his politics and lumping him in with another editor with a considerably worse record.

A propos of posting here, it's my belief that posting on WP:AN/I, or even reading it, reduces your intelligence rapidly. A warning, similar to those printed on cigarette cartons, should be posted at the top of the page and someone should draw up a User box for everyone to 'lead us from temptation'. --Major Bonkers (talk) 02:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandals flooding RfB with self-noms!

Vandals have flooded RfB with self-noms! They appear to have taken a cue from WT:RFA, and look what has happened:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Ryan_Postlethwaite
• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/RyanGerbil10 3
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Riana
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Mr.Z-man
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Maxim
• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Majorly 3
• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Wizardman
• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Neil
• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Acalamari
• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/The Rambling Man
• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham

Come watch the inevitable fireworks? Avruch ^T 03:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• "This is MADNESS!" нмŵוτнτ 03:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  Open season! seicer | talk | contribs 03:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  Sorry, Seicer, you still have about 70 minutes more to wait before you can join in. Ronnotel (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  My gun fell out of the holster. seicer | talk | contribs 03:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Madness? THIS IS WIKIPEDIA! Rebelyell2006 (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Never rains but it pours. Ban 'em all!!!! :D - Alison ^❤ 03:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least some mandatory checkusers? You never know, might be a troll trying to slip through ;) Ronnotel (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Suggest rangeblock on 0.0.0.0/0 until checkuser results are in. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously all one user.... :P Tiptoety ^talk 04:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggest mandatory mentorship from stewards and that they are required to add themselves to Category:Bureaucrats open to recall. MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I consider this canvassing. x42bn6 Talk Mess 04:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That Neil guy waited for the Ryans to fall by the wayside before diving in for the win and great justice. I don't like him. Proto (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I'm fond of his alter-ego, Proto either. Especially since that guy quite possibly has a worse username than Neil. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Loathe as I am to spoil the party, my application was forced upon me by Dweller and Andonico. No dirty self-nom for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

:D I'm not one for abbreviations, but laught out loud. Rudget. 21:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Palestine Children's Relief Fund

Sockpuppets vandalizing article by blanking cited section after multiple editors have worked to make an acceptable version. See the article edit history. Some include: Redprince (talk · contribs) 66.65.113.244 (talk · contribs) 128.59.167.218 (talk · contribs) 160.39.243.150 (talk · contribs) Gimmephive (talk · contribs) User:160.39.244.29. The IPs are all in NYC and all except one are at Columbia University. Everytime it gets to the point of a 3rr vio or final vandal warning he shifts computers or alternates between registered names. It's driving me batshit trying to keep up. They're clearly all connected - see the edit summaries. Many of them have even edited the same articles in the past. --Veritas (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, sorry. I moved this to AIV. This may not have been the correct forum. --Veritas (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd consider semi-protection of the article if it's needed. At least it will make wait it out for the usernames and blocks will be more effective. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I requested semi protection and it was denied (not enough activity apparently??) No one has been blocked either. The AIV report has been sitting there for a long time now and no one has bothered with it. I'm about to give up. I have also gone to 3RR and Checkuser. --Veritas (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The semi-protection denial actually makes some sense. There's only been two days of vandalism, and fairly slow and blatant as well. The blocks are more annoying though. Since it's a series of rotating IP addresses, blocking would be pointless (and would have be in short durations anyways). I've added some more information (all sourced, but probably won't be popular) to the article, and am now watching it. If it gets serious again, message me and I'll personally keep watch. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Lack of asian diversity vandal

This is a reoccuring problem on the article Talk:ER (TV series). A persistent soapbox pontificating vandal returns every couple of days, sometimes longer, to disparage all of the editors by labeling them as "dirty racist pigs" and insist on pushing a POV of the apparent lack of asian diversity on medical dramas. Below are some of the most recent IPs the anon has been using to promote his/her agenda. Each time myself and others attempt to combat the user through reversion, userpages are usually vandalized persistently and maliciously. A report is usually filed to WP:AIV, but it usually goes unanswered for abit due to backlogging. I'm just wondering what the best course of action is. Is a range block necessary? I usually try to avoid such a course of action, but sometimes it gets really out of hand. Should the IPs just be handled one at a time as they come? I know it is unusual for IPs to be indefinitely blocked, but is this an option? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• user:71.156.32.249
• user:71.156.32.249
• user:75.2.218.235
• user:71.156.40.220

I think it would be a bad idea to place an infinite block. Perhaps a range block is the more suitable remedy. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. I would need an admin to make a judgment call on this - regarding the appropriate range that is. Also, bear in mind that the incident is not restricted to only those IPs listed above. It's been going on for sometime if one takes the time to check the history. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

IINM, I dealt with a similar vandal on Grey's Anatomy (TV series) last year, sometime before just after my promotion. Is it possible that the vandal you're dealing with now and the vandal I dealt with then are one and the same? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 19:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Also User:75.3.192.32‎ ➪HiDrNick! 20:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  Blocked for a short while. I added a welcome template just in case they weren't aware of our practices and needed some light reading while not able to edit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The vandals are most definitely one in the same - While he/she was perpetrating vandalism and WP:SOAP on Grey's Anatomy, they were simultaneously raising the same "objection" on the ER article. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is this edit similar to some of the ones he's doing on ER right now? If so, I smell a semi for ER, since I have a feeling he's going to use another IP. I also have an IP from my TP who approached me on the prot I gave Grey's Anatomy in October: 75.2.219.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (diff). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 02:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that's the same individual. Exact same edits drenched in WP:POINT, WP:SOAP, and WP:CIVIL (lack). In fact, this is starting to get a little ridiculous. I had to request page protection for ER (TV series), and Talk:ER (TV series). The latter was disheartening. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Block review: Eleemosynary

Eleemosynary (talk · contribs). This request is procedural since the block ends fairly shortly, but since he intends to post a complaint against me here when it ends (by which point I'll be asleep and unable to respond), I believe I should get my word in before I go.

3RR violation

Eleemosynary is claiming that I "admin abuse"-d him by blocking him for WP:3RR violation on Matt Sanchez. First of all, please note that the article is subject to an article probation, and all of the article's consistent editors, including Eleemosynary, are aware of this. My block message was as follows: You've been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three revert rule on Matt Sanchez. Your reverts were as follows: [122], [123], [124], [125]. You were warned of your pending 3RR violation here and referred to it as "officiousness", and you are aware of the 3RR as you have been blocked 4 times before for it. Continual disruptive editing will not be tolerated.

Eleemosynary contends that his edits were not 4 reverts, which even if it were correct is irrelevant because the 3 revert rule does not entitle users to revert 3 times per day. From the policy: Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.. However, his edits were indeed 4 reverts. A revert, per the policy, "means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content..."

His first revert, [126] was a removal of this edit made on the 21st. His second revert again removed the text "writer". His third revert removed the text "writer" from a different place in the article. Eleemosynary contends that this is not a revert, however, clearly states A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time so in fact it is. Revert 4 is clear.

Note, that he was warned after his 4th revert that he violated 3RR. He deleted the warning as "officiousness." I then blocked him for 24 hours for the violation.

tendentious editing

As I have shown above, there were 4 reverts within 24 hours, a violation of the 3RR. Even were there not to have been, Eleemosynary was clearly edit warring on the article. Just a few days before that, he had edit warred over the bad faith removal of images of Matt Sanchez, justifying his removal of a freely licensed picture under the assumption of bad faith that "Matt Sanchez had lied before about the ownership of pictures, he must have lied about this one too."

You may note from Eleemosynary's extensive block log that he has been blocked 7 times for violating the 3RR, or edit warring. He's also been blocked for legal threats, and blocked twice for violating WP:OFFICE. Eleemosynary should know better than to edit war on an article, but even after being blocked, he insists that he was right, the blocking admin was wrong, and this is harassment against him, and that I have a grudge against him (more on that later).

Furthermore, given the article probation that affected the page (and he was well aware of such probation) he should have been on notice not to edit tendentiously on the article. Therefore even if his block was not for 3RR violations, it would have been appropriate for disruptive editing.

allegations that I have harassed him

Until this block, I have not dealt with Eleemosynary in months. I've blocked him once before, in August 2007 if memory serves right, for another 3RR violation. Just a week later, some of you may remember, was User:Crockspot's RFA. I don't remember the exact details, but it was disrupted by allegations that he was a racist, showed some off wiki forum posts of an off-wiki user with the same name saying racist things. At that time, a Digg user named Eleemosynary made a digg post about Crockspots RFA to try and disrupt it. It naturally failed. Our User:Eleemosynary was just coming off of his block from me. I can't remember exactly what it was for, but the block log says "multiple 3RR vios". He was blocked for a month by Isotope, which was later overturned by Theresa Knott. Eleemosynary here (who is a vocal opponent of Crockspots) maintains his innocence that he is not the Eleemosynary from Digg. I did not and still do not believe this, and at the time I wrote a post on my blog about it. Eleemosynary believes this to be my "harassment" of him. It should be very clear, however, after reading it that it is nothing of the sort.

His responses to this latest block are snarky, claiming that I have a grudge against him, and that I have harassed him and continue to harass him. This conveniently ignores that I have had no contact in months with him, and that a 16-entry long block log would imply that perhaps he is the one doing the harassing. As evidence of his hostile behavior, please see these diffs: "remove impotent rantings of utter disgrace" (referring to Matt Sanchez...yes there's evidence that he had good intentions for that article), [index.php?title=User_talk:Eleemosynary&diff=next&oldid=194538800 Well, this dishonesty isn't surprising, coming from "Swat."], (in that same diff accusing me of admin abuse, accusing me of lying, etc.) accusing me of editing on behalf of a banned editor, and again, and again, accusing me of working on behalf of a banned editor, harassment, and abusing my admin privileges, alleges that I've threatened him off wiki (!)(?), while maintaining that he has not been hostile at all, etc., alleges that I am interpreting policy "tortuously", which apparently means "deceitfully",

I've warned Eleemosynary that if he continues to make these allegations against me, I will block him for gross incivility, and that here is the appropriate place for him to bring any complaints he has against me. Since I expect to be asleep by the time his block expires, I wanted to post this now, before any facts get distorted. I believe that Eleemosynary should be article banned from Matt Sanchez, this is a remedy that any administrator can enforce since the page is already under article probation. I further would like to see this block endorsed, and possibly a community ban on Eleemosynary. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

My recollection of the "Digg-post" and Crockspot's RfA: I remember the Crockspot nom, and when the Digg posting went down. At the time the only evidence that they were the same person was that it was the same name, and I think a trivial bit of location info, which I was able to find --on wiki. At the time of Eleemosynary's block, I sent an email to Administrator Isotope, inquiring as to whether there was any off-wiki evidence that he was privy to, but not available to the average wikipedian. He said there was none. It was my impression at the time that someone used his name to stir up extra drama here. And I believe that before he left (?) Crockspot and Eleemosynary were behaving civilly with each other. This lack of acrimony between the 2 of them led me to believe that, at some point, Crockspot decided that Eleemosynary did not make the Digg post either. R. Baley (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly right, R. Baley. Crockspot and I had a very contentious relationship here. But, after contacting me, and (as I recall) checking the timestamps of the posts in question, Crockspot dropped the issue of the fake off-site posting in my Wiki name. The only person who kept that canard going was Swatjester, here, on his off-site blog. (Swatjester could never get away with such an unfounded personal attack on Wikipedia.) I never even voted on Crockspot's RFA because 1) Swatjester blocked me during most of it, and 2) there was no way I could render a neutral judgment.

During that RFA, a number of admins came to my defense when talk of extending my block -- based, again, on no evidence whatsoever -- came up. However, Swatjester pressed for a significantly longer block, evidence be damned. Thankfully, cooler heads and good faith prevailed, and the block was quickly reversed. But I have to wonder if Swatjester's activities over the past few days are "spillover" from several months ago.

--Eleemosynary (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Eleemosynary has demonstrated aggression on this page before and I remember warning him about incivility. I think Eleemosynary generally means well, but I think he has trouble controlling his temper. Ronnotel (talk) 11:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably true. However, I think the same could be said of Swatjester. --Eleemosynary (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to support that statement with evidence? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a troubling example. I would also point anyone interested to your recent fight with Guettarda, which resulted in your being blocked. But as this isn't an arbcomm case, I'm not going to compile an evidence list just yet. --Eleemosynary (talk) 01:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A non-neutral summary from SwatJester?

It seems to me that the principal question in issue here is not the block itself, because SwatJester is not really asking for a review of the block. If SwatJester really wanted a block review, he wouldn't have waited until shortly before the block is to expire to ask. Further, the blcok has already been endorsed by John Vandenberg in a post on Eleemosynary's talk page. What is in issue here is SwatJester's actions, and I am concerned by the summary with SwatJester has offered. Some things I find worrying:

The block was not contested until shortly before it expired. As well, one endorse is hardly a general opinion. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your action was questioned by a third editor 19 minutes after you notified Eleemosynary of the block. You chose not to post here until near the end of the block, when it seemed likely that Eleemosynary would post here at AN/I about your actions. I understand that you wanted to pre-empt - which is ok - but to present that pre-emption as a request for a review is dubious, in my view. And, for the record, I think Eleemosynary did technically breach 3RR, and I told him so when he dropped by my talk page. Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

1. SwatJester stated that Note, that he was warned after his 4th revert that he violated 3RR. He deleted the warning as "officiousness." I then blocked him for 24 hours for the violation. It is interesting to note that no diff was provided. I wonder if that is because the warning was not that Eleemosynary had already violated 3RR, but that he was in danger of doing so. Now, the full discussion between Eleemosynary and Philippe is not all that constructive (it is preserved on Philippe's talk page), but it does make clear that Philippe believed that Eleemosynary's "next action may result in blocking". SwatJester is correct that Philippe's post was removed as "officiousness" from Eleemosynary's talk page, but I find SwatJester's mischaracterisation of the warning interesting.

   As I understand it, the warning was that he had already violated WP:3RR. Regardless, it's even more damning if he had been warned before violating 3RR. This is a semantical point. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Your understanding is in error - look at the diffs. "Please be sure to not revert the same content 3 times in a 24 hour period" is not a statement that 3RR had been breached. Nor is "<shrug> OK, but... well, you've been warned. The next action may result in blocking." Since a technical breach had already occurred, this would be semantics as you suggest, had you not relied on the warning in justifying the block. Your suggestion now that the warning was before the breach - which you must know to be false - makes your objectivity in this matter appear very doubtful. Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

2. My concern is heightened by that fact that SwatJester knew that no action was taken after the warning. His block notification states that Eleemosynary was "warned of [his] pending 3RR violation". R. Baley pointed out shortly after that Eleemosynary had not edited after the warning, which Swatjester dismissed as irrelevant. SwatJester also noted that Eleemosynary "should have been using the talk page".

   I dismissed it as irrelevant because it was. Either Eleemosynary violated 3RR, was then warned, dismissed it as officiousness, and was subsequently blocked for it by me, or he came within 1 revert of violating the rule, was warned, continued, and then was blocked for it by me. Either way, it is a non-issue: he still violated the rule, undeniably. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   You know that the second option is not true, and trying to use it to bolster your position is questionable. As for the former, an objective response would be that the rule breach justifies a block. Nothing further needed saying - yet you keep bringing up a response to a warning which you state is irrelevant. I suggest you ask yourself "Why?". Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

3. Looking at the talk page for the Matt Sanchez article, there is a thread on the issue, started by Eleemosynary here.

   Which he did not actively participate in until after the 4th revert, as was noted on his talk page. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   He began the relevant thread - and you only noted anything about using the talk page in your dismissal as 'irrelevant' of R. Baley's concern that no edit was done after the warning. Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

4. It takes at least two to make an edit war, and in this case the two parties are Eleemosynary and SatyrTN. As noted by SwatJester, the material on Matt Sanchez as a writer was added around 21 Feb, so either adding or removing it is part of edit warring. Here are the diffs, times, and edit summaries:

   Eleemosynary - 2323 26Feb - [127] - Changed "writer" to "blogger." He's not a writer in the traditionally accepted use of the term (as in, published by something other than a vanity press)

   SatyrTN - 0211 27Feb - [128] - The New Republic isn't a blog, therefore he's also a writer.

   SatyrTN - 0212 27Feb - [129] - +writer

   Eleemosynary - 0428 27Feb - [130] - He's never written for The New Republic. Beauchamp did. Check your facts before you revert.

   Eleemosynary - 0428 27Feb - [131] - fix info box

   SatyrTN - 0436 27Feb - [132] - Sorry - I meant NY Post. Writer.

   Eleemosynary - 0440 27Feb - [133] - He wrote one, single guest column in the New York Post. That does not meet the threshold of a "writing" profession. Please take this to the talk page.

   SatyrTN - 0530 27Feb - [134] - per talk page, please reach consensus

   Note that the edit summaries show an on-going discussion - not in the correct forum - but nonetheless a discussion. If Eleemosynary deserved a block for vilating 3RR, surely SatyrTN violated the same rule. Note also that Eleemosynary initiated the talk page discussion at 0442 27Feb - 2 minutes after editing requesting to take the discussion to the talk page. SatyrTN performed a final revert 48 minutes later, in the same minute as joining the talk page discussion. In such a circumstance, wasn't that reversion provocative?

   Perhaps it is. But that's not relevant to the block of Eleemosynary. You are more than welcome to request a block of SatyrTN on WP:AN3 if you'd like. I'll even make the block myself, if another admin recommends it.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   The point is not whether there was a 3RR violation, it is that there were two of them - and you sanctioned only one editor. Again, is this consistent with the action of an objective, unbiased, and uninvolved admin? Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

5. Did SwatJester simply not notice the other side of the edit war? It seems unlikely in collecting diffs that he would have missed this fact. SwatJester commented immediately after SatyrTN in the talk page discussion, announcing the block. SatyrTN then thanked SwatJester for acting, and SwatJester didn't even mention SatyrTN's own 3RR violation. It is interesting that SatyrTN asked "Please let me know if I a) overstep or b) understep - I feel like I might be getting too close sometimes, and I feel like I'm too new with the mop to know what and when to clean up. SatyrTN has been editing the Sanchez article, debating sources (on user talk:Benjiboi, for example), and using his admin tools: [135] - a full protection that ended less than a day before this edit war was up and going. Even if SwatJester didn't notice SatyrTN's role in the edit war, shouldn't he have responded to SatyrTN's request with advice to not use admin tools when he has been editing the article? His actual response was an offer to help if needed.

   My response was an offer to help teach SatyrTN how to properly use the admin tools. I'm not convinced that SatyrTN has done anything wrong, and even if he has, he's certainly in better standing than Eleemosynary, who has been blocked multiple times for 3RR. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Are you serious? SatyrTN, an admin, has been actively editing the page, discussing changes on its talk page, and debating issues in other areas of WP; he fully protected the page and then become involved in edit warring within a day of it coming off protection and violated 3RR with 4 reverts in 3 h 19 min. And you are still not convinced he has done anything wrong? Your judgement is way off here. Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

6. In the above discussion SwatJester, cites as evidence of hostility that he removed a talk page comment from Matt Sanchez as "remove impotent rantings of utter disgrace". Note that the comments from Matt are abusive - he has called Eleemosynary "a crappy editor", described him as "a total sham masquerading as a legitimate editor", "pathetic", and "a worthless whore", called him "a rabid idiot" contributing "nothing but supercillious commentary" and with "a gay-hate agenda", and stated that he will "probably commit suicide once they throw you off of the article. What else would you have to live for?". All of this is in the last four days. "[I]mpotent rantings of utter disgrace" doesn't seem that unreasonable a summary to me - although I should admit a bias in that Matt called me "unprofessional and childish" and a "fellow traveller" of "homosexuals and sodomites". SwatJester's evidence of Eleemosynary's hostility towards Matt Sanchez based on his decision to remove abuse from his own talk page is pretty thin.

   The comments by Matt are indeed abusive, and uncalled for. Matt Sanchez is a banned editor because of it. That does not give anyone permission to personally attack him. Do not feed the trolls. Civility does not cease to apply to interactions with banned editors. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   Eleemosynary's comment was in the edit summary on his talk page edit removing abuse from a banned editor. Which of the words Eleemosynary used are untrue? Given the blocking of IPs everytime he pops up, Matt is (metaphorically) impotent, his comments are rants, and they are utterly disgraceful. WP:CIVIL is absurdly overused on WP, and this is a good example - Eleemosynary was calling a spade a spade, and acting having been subjected to homophobia again. Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

7. SwatJester notes that Eleemosynary accused him of editing on behalf of Matt (a banned editor) but interestingly chooses not to mention that Matt asked for help on SwatJester's talk page, nor that Matt asked for Eleemosynary's topic ban: [136] [137]. Since the Sanchez posts were removed by Benjiboi, I can't prove that SwatJester read them - but I can show he edited 10 minutes after Matt's second post was made to SwatJester's talk page, and that benjiboi didn't remove the comments until nearly two hours later. Isn't this a relevant fact given SwatJester is calling for a topic ban?

   It's relevant how that an IP has edited my talk page? One that, you may note, I did not respond to. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   It's relevant because that IP editor is Matt Sanchez. The diffs make that absolutely clear. The IP was blocked as a Matt Sanchez sock, and this is recorded on the Bluemarine ArbCom page. Matt asked you to topic ban Eleemosynary - he even did so civilly, which is unusaul for him. You are now asking on this thread for that topic ban. I find that highly relevant. I also find it interesting that you state that you did not respond to him (which is true) but don't deny having read the requests. You would have got a big orange bar around your either before making this edit or after pressing the submit button. Are you denying having read the requests from Matt? Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

8. In the SwatJester / Eleemosynary talk page interactions during Eleemosynary's talk page, SwatJester states: "If you want to allege harassment, you need to do it in the appropriate forum, which is AN/I" - which is difficult for him to do when he is blocked by SwatJester.

   His block expired within an hour or two of that edit. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

   True. But, before coming to AN/I, aren't you supposed to discuss concerns with the admin? Where else was he supposed to discuss them whilst blocked? Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

9. This is SwatJester's last post on Eleemosynary's talk page. Wasn't SwatJester required to post a notification of this thread for Eleemosynary?

Eleemosynary was aware of it here, as I had directed him to take his complaints to AN/I, and he indicated that he would do so.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you have apologised to Eleemosynary for not notifying him: [138] This would surely have been a better response here, wouldn't it - to say "yes, I should have notified him". Also, I find it interesting that you posted the above comment at 1809, and made the apology on Eleemosynary's talk page at 1947. Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that SwatJester's summary is seriously slanted and leaves out important facts; some of this actions (notably around SatyrTN) are also questionable. Are other admins really comfortable accepting that SwatJester has acted objectively in this matter? Jay*Jay (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My summary is entirely factual, aside for a couple debatable points which are irrelevant to the broader issue that the block was valid for a 3RR violation. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your summary here is incomplete, with significant omissions. The tone of your responses is defensive, in my opinion. I have serious doubts about your ability to act with objectivity with regard to Eleemosynary - and that, not the 3RR violation - is the issue here. Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• The only issue I see here may be a conflict of interest with SwatJester (blocking admin) and John Vandenberg (endorsing admin) per this at Commons and maybe SwatJester's own involvement at the Matt Sanchez article including a previous revert and warning of Eleemosynary. There's other edits at Matt Sanchez as well per SwatJester's contribs. It's just highly unusual that they somehow both seem to be watching Eleemosynary here on WP too. That being said, I don't see any harassment per say by SwatJester but he isn't an "uninvolved" admin and probably shouldn't have been the one to block for 3RR. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 15:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  My edit to that picture on Commons was a result of an OTRS ticket, as was the edits involving the removal of the pictures. I've no idea who John Vandenberg is, nor if he is even an admin. That's hardly an evidence of a conflict of interest.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't have a lot to add to Jay's excellent work above. I hope admins will look at the whole story, and respond accordingly. I would like to add that, judging from Swatjester's final paragraph, what he's after is getting me permanently banned from Wikipedia. He'd also like me banned from the Sanchez article, even though my edits have been constructive. (Despite the reverting between SatyrTN and me, I think one will find I've improved the article.) To lobby for these bans, Swatjester has constructed arguments on this page of half-truths (again, many thanks to Jay for providing the full story.) I would ask that, in the future, Swatjester defer to other, neutral admins if he has a problem with my edits. I think the guy has the capacity to be a good admin, but he's been very contentious of late, and I don't think he's capable of neutrality when it comes to me. --Eleemosynary (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  You think an edit war is exemplifying constructive editing? Again, I object to your characterization of my summary as half-truths. Calling people liars in any shape and form is simply uncivil, especially when it's not true.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, I think my many edits to the Sanchez page that were not part of the exchange between SatyrTN and me were constructive editing. And it is true that your summary is rife with half-truths. Further evidence posted above has shown that. Pointing out half-truths in not incivility, and I wish you would stop claiming "incivility" whenever your tactics are criticized. You were also wrong yesterday, when you threatened to block me for making my case. "Incivility" does not translate to "anything you don't agree with." --Eleemosynary (talk) 01:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

My intentions with regards to this editor

As has been rightly pointed out above, I issued a warning to this editor. Because the editor is a "regular", rather than using a templated warning, I chose to personally write a warning, which this editor seems to believe was "officious". As I said before, I regret that response from him.

I initially intended to block him for 3RR. Given that Satyr and he were engaged in what might tentatively be called an edit war, and I didn't know the facts of the situation well enough to judge "writer" versus "non-writer", I chose, instead, to warn Eleemosynary, who has had some brushes with 3RR in the past. At that point, my intent became simply to warn him away in hopes that we wouldn't need to issue any blocks.

Frankly, I was annoyed by his response to me and decided to walk away, because I didn't want my temper to get the best of me. Actually, I chose to (for real!) go brew a cup of tea.

It is my belief that Eleemosynary is one of those rare editors who, because of natural disposition, chooses to push buttons to see how far he can stretch the system. I think that Eleemosynary thought I'd block him and he could raise a stink. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that SwatJester fell into the trap that was set for me.

I find Eleemosynary's attitude to be abrasive and abusive. In my opinion, the Wiki was not a worse place when he was blocked. I endorse SwatJester's actions, but not for the reasons he stated. My poorly worded personal warning did, in fact, say that Eleemosynary could be blocked after the "next" action. I should have stated that the article was on article probation and he was already on thin ice. However, since that's at the top of the article talk page, I didn't do so. I regret that.

SwatJester did the right thing by blocking Eleemosynary. I probably would have done it for violating article probation and not 3RR, but since I chose in my clumsy warning to reference 3RR and not article probation, SwatJester probably felt that he needed to act on that. Regardless of the wording, SwatJester's actions protected the wiki. - Philippe | Talk 19:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

At the time of the exchange between Philippe and myself, Philippe had actively taken sides about the article in question. I don't believe his warning to me came out of good faith, but was a slight way of bullying. (And, yes, an officious one.) Had the warning come from a disinterested editor, I would not have dismissed it so readily.

I also note that, like Swatjester, Philippe issued no warning to SatyrTN, who was just as deserved of one as I was. I haven't checked the policy pages in a while, but I doubt that 3RRs are only be issued to editors with opposing viewpoints from the admin. --Eleemosynary (talk) 01:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Dismissing warnings because they are "officious" is never a good approach. As for your last para, this is about you, not anyone else, and "But he did it too." usually doesn't fly as a defense. It's something worth looking into perhaps, but doesn't get you off the hook. ++Lar: t/c 02:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking to be let "off the hook." Nor am using "he did it too" as a defense. I'm pointing out that two separate admins -- I'm assuming Philippe is an admin -- actively involved in a contentious article, both issued 3RR warnings to only the editor whose edits they disagreed with. As a matter of fact, Philippe left a very supportive message on SatyrTn's page, which I linked to above. Indeed, that bears looking into.

And no, your statement "this is about you, not anyone else" is incorrect. This is also about Swatjester, who chose to come here pre-emptively during my block, and not notify me until almost a full day later, and who I feel has a serious conflict of interest here. It's equally about Swatjester. --Eleemosynary (talk) 03:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, I took sides in a BLP dispute on this article unrelated to the one you were involved in. The BLP issue in question was around the word "escort", which did not involve the writer/non-writer dispute. I was un-involved in that dispute. I do not apologize for taking sides on a BLP issue. I also DID NOT block you; in other words, I did not take administrator action against an editor that could even - by the BROADEST reading of policy - have not been a neutral action. I remind you that I issued you a polite warning. I do not appreciate your attempts to create a straw-man argument. For the record, I will no longer engage in this discussion because I have presented all the arguments that I have to present. Should new information be required, I will happily do so, but it is very clear to me that this editor is attempting to bait me, and I choose not to engage in that. The editor is welcome to open an RFC should he so desire. My actions are defensible, and I stand by them. - Philippe | Talk 06:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Outside view

This matter came up for discussion on the CU mailing list. 3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. Endorse block on those grounds. The article is on probation. Endorse block on those grounds as well even if the block itself was mistagged. I don't always agree with Swatjester about everything but his action here seems eminently reasonable to me. Eleemosynary seems to be a bit disruptive in his apparently tendentious challenge of this matter. Further, this [139] revert ascribes the reverted edit to Matt Sanchez himself. I can see why someone might conclude that, but it's almost certaintly not correct, and I think the record should show that, as it may have bearing on future matters relating to Matt. ++Lar: t/c 20:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Within the limitations of the privacy of that list, would you be able to expound upon why this is a checkuser matter? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Another checkuser ran a check, for what I consider good and valid reasons, to determine what the story of the IP was, and asked the list for advice about how best to handle what he discovered. We are trying hard to reveal the minimum about the IP possible here, and yet not unjustly let an accusation of Matt stand for something it seems almost certain he did not do. That's all I would prefer to say. ++Lar: t/c 21:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Lar, leaving aside the block itself, are you saying that none of what has been presented above raises concerns? Not SatyrTN violating 3RR? Not SatyrTN using admin tools on a page he is editing? Not SwatJester continuing to characterise a warning not to violate 3RR as a notification that 3RR had already been violated? Not describing a block as uncontested when it was challenged by a third editor 19 minutes after it was announced on Eleemosynary's talk page? Not SwatJester apparently not noticing the 3RR violation of the other side of the reversion war? Not SwatJester still maintaining that his presentation here was balanced?
I have no idea what the CU issues are here, and I understand that you must be circumspect in that area - but is that really the only issue here? Jay*Jay (talk) 00:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Lar commented on SatyrTN, but he has endorsed the block in question on two grounds. Given that he endorses the block, the description in later discussion of a warning given prior to the endorsed block seems irrelevant. As to the rest, I'm not sure what you're asking Lar or anyone else to do. If you agree that the block was warranted, on the grounds given as justification by the blocking admin, then all the other problems are secondary. Do you think that the block should have been reversed, or a notation about it entered into Eleemosynary's talkpage? Do you think that, long after the fact, SatyrTN should be blocked as well? Lar commented on the CU issue because he is a CU, and the relevance of CU is that an edit in question that was apparently ascribed to Matt Sanchez was not actually made by him. What I'm asking, basically, is for you to explain what you are looking for with this discussion. I agree that SwatJester's summary and conduct is not entirely above reproach, but the action itself was justified and the relevance of the rest is questionable. Avruch ^T 00:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That pretty much sums it up, thanks Avruch. Jay*Jay ... "all the other problems" or at least a lot of them, seem like you're complaining the paperwork wasn't executed properly. Sorry, that doesn't fly here, this isn't a moot court. I'll add this, if SatyrTN was edit warring as well, then yes, some sort of action may need to have been taken regarding that as well. (c.f. my comments in the IRC RfAR where I took Phil Sandifer to task for singling out one editor for edit warring while ignoring all the rest) But it is not necessary that the action taken be exactly the same. If we have one editor who has a long and checkered block log including multiple 3RR blocks, and another editor who has never been blocked at all except once in error, it seems to me that blocking one and merely warning the other is not an unreasonable action. Should Swatjester maybe have found someone else? Maybe. But I also don't buy the "as soon as an editor voices any sort of opinion once, they're no longer able to take any admin action at all in any remotely related case" theory that some subscribe to. ++Lar: t/c 02:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps all the admins involved in the blocking and supporting of such could be encouraged to enlist outside/uninvolved editors next time around. It seems like the block was warranted but given they were all involved parties it smacks of less than impartial handling especially given the contentiousness between Swatjester and Eleemosynary. Benjiboi 02:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

How many months of no interaction would be enough, in your view? Again, I don't buy the "only previously uninvolved people can say anything" angle. ++Lar: t/c 02:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That's an exaggeration of the "angle." How about we limit it to admins who don't have off-site blogs attacking the editors they're trying to block? --Eleemosynary (talk) 03:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Amending my statement. I'm not convinced the block was warranted at this point and to me seems quite troubling that Swatjester was involved at all. In my understanding we're aiming to be impartial and that includes admins who by all accounts should know better. Although I don't agree with Eleemosynary on the issue that was being revert-warred I've found them to be pretty spot-on on most issues and frankly someone who's contributions far outweigh snarkiness. I think Eleemosynary would have done much better to simply engage the very active talk page on this and would have quickly realized there was little support, however, this does not also excuse and admin blocking them for what easily can be seen as a personal conflict. Benjiboi 03:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Rynort returns

A while back User:RYNORT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was indefinitely banned for multiple incidents of massive incivility, personal attacks, and generally reprehensible behavior. A coordinated effort came from 69.244.181.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which was also banned by several admins for the same sorts of behavior. I filed this ANI report back in January regarding some malice from RYNORT, and in this earlier ANI report I pretty much laid out the idiosyncratic behavior that linked the two. This IP has been trolling and making personal attacks, most recently on my talk page. RFCU may be appropriate, but based on the IP's own gross incivility I think the case is made for blocking the IP entirely. Thanks for the help. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Slow-motion vandal

138.32.32.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP address is a slow-motion (i.e. not now) vandal with a thing for Gino Vanelli, along with several other articles. There have been multiple warnings, including two level-4s, since a 3-hour block in October, and the IP has recently vandalized again at Vannelli and, two days ago, Barnsdall, Oklahoma. Perhaps a block extending over several days would be noticed and prevent further abuse—unlikely, I know, but obviously the continuing warnings aren't helping to curb the behavior and simply posting more and more level-3 or level-4 warnings starts to become a little silly. (WHOIS shows it in a range owned by ConocoPhillips). -- Michael Devore (talk) 07:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Jumping IP Editor

This editor 76.1.244.185 has been doing some minor disruptive edits to Republican Party (United States) presidential debates, 2008 for some time. He keeps changing the order of the candidates in the list, and does not offer any explanation, even when asked. His IP address varies from day to day. That is the current one. I just gave him another warning. If he is blocked, he'll probably show up tomorrow with a new IP. He does make good, non-vandalism edits to other articles. I don't think it would be beneficial to semi-protect the page, as other unregistered users regularly make good edits to the page. How is this type of thing normally dealt with? Would it be possible for someone to set up a bot that automatically reverts this edit every time it is made? I reported this to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and was referred here, as this is "not a case of obvious vandalism." JBFrenchhorn (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

When you say IP changes do you mean the last 3 digist 76.1.244.*** or completely new IP range? If the last 3 digits change the IP range can be blocked from editing and I would think a topic ban can be instituted the same way. If an editor does good edits to other articles but vandalizes one article or one topic that may be POV problem and we should try to help the editor adjust to our community and become a productive member. Try to incurage the editor to regester an account so they can become a true member of our community. Igor Berger (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess it is a range. The last four digits change. Here are some:

• 76.1.244.185
• 76.1.240.184
• 76.1.244.86
• 76.1.247.99
• 76.1.244.240
• 76.1.243.221

I will follow your suggestion and try to talk to the editor and encourage him to register. From what I have seen so far, it may be hard to get him to talk. But we'll see. Thanks for your help. I'll bring it up again here if I can't resolve it with him. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 10:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does look like it is all coming from the same place. But best to try to encourage the person to become part of community rather than using bans and blocks. Punitive does not really win trust and just creates hatred. Igor Berger (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

BQ

Request full protection of the page until the editors fixation with the self promotion of his user name, and the associated theatrics and melodrama is resolved. 70.19.125.82 (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:RFPP--Jac16888 (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is pure harassment from a permanently blocked user: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TomPhan. — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Robertkamau85 single-purpose spamming account

Perhaps someone should let him know that Wikipedia links are nofollow? At any rate, a block seems in order, but it's not strictly vandalism, so I brought it here instead of AIV. Thanks! Jouster  (whisper) 11:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

David Shankbone

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
David Shankbone's attitude toward authors who don't like the photos he's taken of them is bossy and bullying. He takes disastrous photos of authors. Taking more unflattering photos could hardly be possible (See Edmund White, A.M. Homes, Francine Prose, Kathryn Harrison, Mary Gaitskill). It's gotten to the point that authors he hasn't assaulted yet with his camera are afraid to go to readings for fear he'll be there, waiting for them. I don't spend much time on Wikipedia, but when I come upon an author's page with a terrible photo, I now know it's been taken by David Shankbone. I became curious about how these authors felt about the photos he'd taken of them, so I went and looked back in the history of a couple of them. First I checked in the history of A.M. Homes, and sure enough, someone tried to take down the Shankbone photo (possibly even A.M. Homes herself or someone close to her), saying it was not a good photo, and he repeatedly put it back. I also looked in the history of Sharyn November, and she herself had an exchange with him on one of their talk pages saying she preferred another photo of herself instead, but he would not let her have her way, and I don't remember the details, but his attitude was unpleasant and bossy. She quickly backed down sweetly. A few days ago I came upon yet another disastrous author photo by David Shankbone and decided to Google his name, because I've been thinking that sooner or later an article will inevitably come out in the print media about authors' frustrations with this offensive photographer. I wanted to see if any articles had been published yet about it. I didn't dig very deeply but did find that on February 18th, 2008, lots of Wikipedia editors wrote about their frustrations with David Shankbone (in a section called: Does Wikipedia want David Shankbone or should we just tell him to leave?), to the point that he promised he'd leave Wikipedia (he shouldn't make promises he won't keep-he didn't even leave for one day, as far as I can see from his list of contributions). All those posts from upset people have been deleted from Wikipedia, but I was able to find them by going into the history of the page: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Authors are not the only celebrities Shankbone has upset. I came upon discussions (on Wikipedia) about the actor Mike Farrell, who was upset by the photo Shankbone took of him, but Shankbone insisted his photo stay up on Farrell's page (it has now been replaced by a much better photo taken by someone else). And I'm sure it's happened to countless other “notables”. Many notable authors who are distressed by their photo will just remain quiet and try not to look at their Wikipedia pages, either because they don't know how to take down photos and post messages on Wikipedia, or because they fear that fighting David Shankbone will be futile and will only increase their distress. Authors are often shy and insecure about their physical appearance. Why make it worse? And why be stubborn and nasty about it to the few authors who do muster up the courage to request that an unflattering photo be taken down? As with any contributor to Wikipedia, David Shankbone should have no right to assert that his photos take precedence over the photos of others, especially when more appropriate pictures are available and copyright free. He claims that he has allowed better pictures to take the place of his, but this is clearly not true in many instances, given the way he fights to retain his pictures even in instances when any reasonable third party observer would agree that another picture is either better or more appropriate for the article. David Shankbone might be using Wikipedia to try and make a career for himself, and maybe that's okay, but he's hurting a lot of people along the way. I am an author, with a few published books, and there is a page on me on Wikipedia. That's why I care about this issue. I'm appalled at what David Shankbone is doing to authors. As I don't know the best place to post this message, I'm posting it in three places: David Shankbone's talk page, Jimbo Wales' talk page, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Anonymous 374 (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Long personal attack multiple-posted (from an editor hiding behind a different account) compressed. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 12:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything of substance to the statement? --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've certainly encountered situations where David edited vigorously to keep an image of his that was, on even casual inspection, markedly inferior to the alternatives into an article (most recent example I'm aware of: [140] [141]). Extending good faith to David, there are also times when he has reverted to his images when they are superior (eg, here). My experiences with him in this regard -- well documented here on AN/I -- is that he is not terribly detached when it comes to evaluating his own work, and is fairly quick to attribute bad faith to editors who are simply trying to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. I can certainly see how a less tenacious editor might be intimidated by this. I have no comment on the issue of authors being unhappy with photos taken of them by him, because I haven't been involved in any of those discussions. David is a valuable contributor with thousands of high quality photos here, but I don't think that those contributions entitle him to any presumption of quality for any specific photo, any more than those of us who have written thousands of words deserve to have our words protected from good faith editing by others. Nandesuka (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Harassment of DS continues, multiple postings to multiple forums, disparaging and insulting subheaders, nothing new here. This thread should be nuked, it's really getting tiresome. R. Baley (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I hate to find myself agreeing with a SPA account, but I do see a kernel of valid complaint in there among the hyperbole and ranting. The accusation that authors are "afraid to go to readings for fear he'll be there, waiting for them" is ridiculous, and there's no cause to assume Shankbone's contibutions aren't wholly in good faith: as has been pointed out, he's contributed many, many quality images. But some of those cited above are unflattering past any bounds of reasonability. Compare our Francine Prose with an official portait (and yes, I know we can't use it): it's barely recognisable as the same person, and in "our" picture she's clearly distracted and caught offguard. Compare our Kathryn Harrison and a press photo. Again, barely recognisable, seems annoyed and/or startled. Our Mary Gaitskill vs. press photo. Again, I stress that I don't consider any of these to be bad-faith contributions, but I feel extremely unflattering portraits, especially of BLPs, can be worse than having no photo at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's probably quite difficult to get a good picture of an author at a reading. They don't really have the time to pose if they're busy signing autographs or speaking about their book. --clpo13_(talk) 21:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Plus, if any subject doesn't care for the best "free use" photo that Wikipedia has, they can always freely supply one that is better. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Been there, done that, printed the crap photos 'cause they were all I had. It's not really easy to compare a photo shot under studio lights with great makeup and perfect conditions to one shot under fluorescents after the subject has been signing books or talking for some time. Most of the time, people don't look like they do on TV or in the magazines, and these pictures reflect that. As Agne27 says, if the subjects want to supply a free use image to work with, they're free to do so. I can't really speak on the accusations that David Shankbone is scaring people off (though I doubt that's the case without firm documentation of it), but the level of hyperbole involved in these continuing complaints seems to be really overboard at times. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Studio photos are quite often virtually unrecognisable as the person you meet in the street, it's a bit srtange to suggest that the everyday loko is somehow less correct than the studio portrait. The repeated insertion of the baseless Michael Lucas dispute doesn't help, either, especially since the anon ios block evading to do it. I searched OTRS and found four threads that might be construed as complaints about David Shankbone. Two were people who sent in better pictures to replace ones they didn't like, one was a fact-free rant about some editing dispute on Wikinews, and one appears to be a complaint from a PR firm that David Shankbone wouldn't let them whitewash the article on a client (my heart bleeds). If the problem were anything like as it is being made out here, I think we'd have seen a lot more than this. Guy (Help!) 08:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Actually this SPA IP admits to being the same person who posted obscene and graphic insults against David Shankbone in the recent past.[142] I know this person has been blocked before on previous roving IPs. When the person approached me, I found myself assuming good faith and supposing there might be meritorious concerns and a little trouble adjusting to site standards. Then I saw the personal attacks. Intolerable. If the behavior doesn't cool down then a community ban might be in order. Durova^Charge! 21:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If any specific individual has a problem with what photo we are using there is an easy solution; release a better photo under the GFDL or appropriate creative commons. Can we move on? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Might I also point out that the title of this thread is rather unfair to David and somewhat inflammatory--especially since it is so unsubstantiated. I know we wouldn't tolerate a similar claim in a BLP article and I see no reason why we should in an AN/I thread about a fellow Wikipedian. At the very least the title should be refractored and shortened to just David Shankbone. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Done. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• it makes a discussion rather hard to follow when sections get blanked. DuncanHill (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support ban as proposed by Durova — It seems that every two or three days, the same IP editor posts incessant personal attacks against one of our best contributors. This has happened on the administrators boards, on WT:JIMBO, and on just about every other page this attacker can think of. I don't see why we should continue to put up with this and I think this individual should be regarded as having exhausted our patience and be banned by the Wikipedia community. *** Crotalus *** 02:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • To give examples of how bad the problem is, see these diffs.[143][144][145][146][147][148] The article talk page has been semiprotected ever since then. Durova^Charge! 02:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban as proposed by Durova et al. Bearian (talk) 02:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban as an effective deodorant for Durova et al. Move ova Durova. Charge! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.115.156 (talk) 04:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban per Durova. seicer | talk | contribs 04:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban against said IP editor continuing to harass one of Wikipedias best editors. Lets help David out here, he has done little to deserve this... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban - This is starting to get ridiculous. Even though I haven't actively participated in the related discussions, my patience is exhausted just from following them. --jonny-mt 05:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban. It gets tiresome really. R. Baley (talk) 05:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record: I posted the original post in this thread and I am not any of these other IP addresses or people I'm being accused of being, and I don’t know any of them. I am an individual who has never before written anything about David Shankbone. The topic of his awful author photos is the first time I’ve written about him. I’d been thinking about it for a long time, but kept trying to talk myself out of it, not wanting to waste the time. The urge became too strong when I saw yet another awful author photo taken by David Shankbone. I’m sorry that he seems to coincidentally be having problems with other IP addresses. I have now seen some of the insults that were directed at him (I hadn’t seen the insults over the topic of the porn star when I wrote my first post) and I completely disapprove. But even though I am sorry he is going through this stress, I feel even more sorry for all the authors he is hurting, many of whom will probably never even speak up about it. But you can be sure they’re not pleased about what he’s done. As I mentioned in my original post, I witnessed two of them on Wikipedia object to photos he insisted to put on their pages (and I wouldn’t be surprised if many more authors objected, too, to his photos of them, but I didn’t dig very deep). He acts like a tyrant. He should be a little more sensitive, a little more human, and not ruthlessly use the following arguments I’ve seen him use: but my photo is bigger, my photo is more recent, my photo is better than your photo, the fact that you are even writing here is questionable regarding neutral point of view so don’t you dare object to the photo I took of you or you may not be allowed to write at all (I’m paraphrasing this from memory, but he gave this kind of argument to Sharyn November (she's an editor at Viking and has a Wikipedia page on her), which seemed to scare her because she immediately backed down). Perhaps his arguments are valid according to Wikipedia rules, but if an author prefers a more flattering photo, or no photo, rather than a hideous photo that Shankbone took of them, it seems right that their feelings be taken into account. These are living people, and they are being made miserable when they are told: no you cannot use your preferred photo, I will use my hideous photo of you because it’s a little bigger, or a little sharper when blown up to gigantic size, or a little more recent, or whatever… Thank you to the people who have posted message here or on my talk page saying they agree with me. I hope I will not feel compelled to keep writing about this because I didn’t intend to spend much time on this (I also didn’t realize I wouldn’t have free-speech on Wikipedia and that my posts would be erased (as it was on Jimbo’s page, and as it was here, partially) or altered (as my title was) as soon as I’d posted them). But if I keep seeing terrible author photos popping up, I may be unable to resist voicing my distress again. I know many of these authors personally. Perhaps that’s why I feel sorry for them. It pains me to see them portrayed at their absolute worse. But most of all I’m sad about how it makes them feel.Anonymous 374 (talk) 08:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Disregard for blocking policy

Resolved

On the 28th of January, I was blocked [149] by William M. Connolley, with whom I was involved in a content dispute at the time. I pointed out [150] that he had breached blocking policy, specifically:

"Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved."

On the 5th of February, I asked for an undertaking that this breach would not be repeated, and then on the 8th I asked again. I'm still waiting. This is the second time I've become involved in a content dispute with a block-happy administrator, and it's not getting any more pleasant.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want it to happen again, I suggest you cease inserting content without sourcing, and heed administrator warnings. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

William M. Connolley did not breach the blocking policy and was not involved in a content dispute with you. Just because an admin reverts you does not automatically make you untouchable. You were blocked because you continued to repeatedly revert and insert unreferenced text despite having been warned several times. Nothing wrong here. Shell ^babelfish 13:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. This request is ridiculous. Shell ^babelfish 13:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's see... block expired a month ago. No one is seeing a blocking policy violation here. I don't see a need for urgent administrative intervention, and as the red type at the top says, "This is not the Wikipedia complaints department." I'm going to mark this resolved. MastCell ^Talk 20:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Althought the block happened a month ago, as stated by the respondent, this notice was posted only a short while ago-- an hour?. Since I have been blocked by this admin myself, the claim is not intrinsically absurd to me, and I would have wanted to look at it. So I object to summarily marking it resolved. Pete St.John (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Melon ?

greetings. This is totally unrelated to Scolas, but :

I just remarked a bunch of accounts created pretty closely : user:F MELON, user:THE DELETER MELON, User:VandalMelon, User:Free as a melon, all created within 15 minutes. They've not been used yet.

If you have a multiaccount vandal using that kindof names, it's your man.

Darkoneko (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User:EPIC MASTER maybe? He likes using lots of themed vandal accounts created at once. Hut 8.5 17:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Racist fork

Resolved

- deleted by KillerChihuahua Shell ^babelfish 13:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Pratul19 has created a racist fork of Andrew Symonds at Monkey symonds. Symonds was racially abused under the name, can someone quickly flush this disgusting piece of trash (and BLP hotspot) and show our racist friend the door? --Fredrick day (talk) 13:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

SPA User: Anthon01 and similar accounts on homeopathy and WP:FRINGE alternative medicine articles

A long standing discussion on the homeopathy talk page about the meaning of WP:NPOV has now spilled over to the talk page of Neutral Point of View itself: [151], for example. I went there to try to explain further NPOV as requested: [152], as best as I understand it. However, part of the difficulty is that these SPAs (or near-SPAs): User:Anthon01, User:Whig and User: Levine2112 have become adept at gaming the system and wikilawyering and charging that any disagreement with them is violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, so techniques that could have been used in the past, like disagreement and confrontation, are no longer useful and in fact quite dangerous. So after realizing that I could not explain NPOV to them (after trying for 6 months or more and dozens if not hundreds of times), I gave up and told them I would not further oppose them or disagree with them (given the current environment on Wikipedia where disagreement over such issues with WP:FRINGE elements is discouraged): [153][154] I repeatedly invited them to suggest new wording for NPOV or the homeopathy related documents as they saw fit: [155].

I did this since disagreeing with these SPAs is used as an excuse by these SPAs to charge an editor with violations of all kinds of WP policy. However, even when I said I would no longer disagree, I was still charged with violations of WP policy. User: Anthon01 and the related SPAs involved have now accused me of violating WP:COI, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL: [156][157]. It would be helpful if someone would offer some advice, since we are no longer allowed to disagree, even politely, with POV pushers and WP:FRINGE elements. And now even declining to continue to disagree is viewed as a violation of WP policy by these SPAs. So what are we supposed to do?--Filll (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also include User:DanaUllman as another of the SPAs, although this is highly dangerous to suggest since he is under administrative protection from any and all charges of misbehavior, although he has engaged in some outrageously disruptive behavior on these articles over and over and over.--Filll (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I might also include User: Arion 3x3 and User: Area69 and several others. It is highly likely that we are entertaining a few sockpuppets and meat puppets on the page, as User: JzG has previously suggested.-Filll (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your frustration with civility seeming to be valued over NPOV contributions - and I admit that I don't have the solution to that - but I have to say that you're not really telling the whole story, here. Your repeated response of "Unfortunately we have to abide by the principles of NPOV. I am afraid some of what I am reading here on this talk page is in direct opposition to the rules and principles of Wikipedia. Please realize that there must be a good strong dose of mainstream content in this article, whether some like it or not. Thanks." could probably be seen as stonewalling. Aside from that, I don't see any problems with your activity on the talk page. I do think some of your comments are a little melodramatic, though; are you aware of any editors being sanctioned for civil disagreement?

As a more general warning to the community, I have to say that we need to somehow make sure that WP:NPOV is being valued on as high a level as WP:CIVIL, because the actions of the editors to whom Filll refers above and others like them - all of whom I believe are acting in good faith - are presenting a very real threat to the quality of Wikipedia's articles on pseudoscience. I think we need to take notice of that before too many more contributors are driven off. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I repeated myself by cutting and pasting because it became too tedious to rephrase the answer after answering the 500th time in slightly different wording. With all due respect, what I take from your response is that we should abandon NPOV. Ok, fair enough. I should expect to see the policy pages rewritten accordingly then?--Filll (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What you should take from my response is that I am in wholehearted agreement with you that we need to make it harder for SPAs to attack NPOV in a good faith manner, but that I'm frankly bereft of useful proposals in this regard. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you feel you have to say 10 or more times this is dangerous? I don't see any reason why you have to repeat what you have said more than once or twice? Anthon01 (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The situation is, an SPA like User:Anthon01 is allowed to ask the same question 500 times over 6 months and keep asking if he does not like the answer and venue shop until the cows come home, but he now charges someone who gives him the same answer more than once with uncivility. Does anyone notice this? He is allowed to of course since he is an SPA with few edits and a newbie and a FRINGE promoter so of course we have to be fair blah blah blah. Ok so be it... We are creating a hellish environment because we have to cater to SPAs like Anthon01 at the cost of reducing productivity. DanaUllman also has spammed the page with the same material hundreds of times over and over and over, ignoring the discussion before and rebuttals of his arguments and then spamming again and again and again with the same material since we have to be fair to the FRINGE and avoid WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. --Filll (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't ask the same question 500 times. I'm sorry but you are grossly misrepresenting what has gone on here. Anthon01 (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

are you aware of any editors being sanctioned for civil disagreement? The slightest disagreement or hint of problem is used as an excuse from these SPAs and POV pushers to charge someone with a violation. Some days ago, even calling someone a "homepathy promoter" was used as an excuse to demand administrative sanctions against some editors (more than once) and this received considerable support including from admimistrators. It was only though extraordinary means that this complaint was thwarted otherwise there would have been administrative sanctions for using the foul uncivil curse of "homeopathy promoter". And since then, things have escalated where even milder affronts have lead to charges of uncivility and violations of WP:AGF. What is happening is that in the frantic efforts of the community to remove all disagreement and incivility, you are handing an immense set of weapons to POV pushers and socks and SPAs and trolls. So be it. You want this, you got it.--Filll (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

But no actual sanctions were handed out, correct? This is why I find your assertions that answering people's questions is "dangerous" a little hollow: nobody's been sanctioned for civil disagreement.

That aside, though, I agree with you that we need to find a way to enforce WP:NPOV as diligently as we enforce WP:CIVIL. Unfortunately, enforcement is done by uninvolved admins, and, while it's really easy for an uninvolved admin to swoop in and recognize civility violations, it's much more difficult for one to recognize POV-pushing, especially good faith POV-pushing as is going on there.

I hung around Talk:Homeopathy for a while some time ago, in the hopes of finding a core of moderates on both sides who could work out content disputes while isolating the extremists on each side. I found several such moderates on the science side. I found none on the pseudoscience side. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

One problem is that uninvolved admins are not a renewable resource. Consider this: If I notice an edit conflict, I will read the arguments and form an opinion. I can then either hand out blocks out of the blue sky, or I explain my opinion and warn the parties - ups...now I'm suddenly an involved party. In many of these discussions, especially on the science/pseudoscience border, most educated and sane neutral observers will choose a side and stop being uninvolved. For an excellent example, see talk: Waterboarding, where one editor has complained (paraphrased) that "all admins who come to this page support one side! We need a neutral admin to handle the issue!"--Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am acutely aware of that problem, and indeed it's more or less why I'm not handing out any article bans. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see what you mean. Yes User: Whig has been sanctioned more than once. User: Anthon01 as well I believe. User: DanaUllman has as well. Some others have as well. Some others are listed here. --Filll (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

These spurious accusations of incivility are a serious problem. Anthon01 has hit me with these several times. When called to account he apologizes[158] but the sincerity of his apology is undermined by the fact that he keeps on doing it.

This behavior is damaging in several ways. It inhibits debate because (as Filll says) one never knows when honest and civil disagreement will bring a charge of incivility. Even if there ultimately is no sanction, it's draining to have to respond to the accusations. But far more importantly it undermines respect for WP:CIV as a policy when people see it being used speciously as a way to hound others. Editors have learned that flinging meritless accusations of WP:CIV wears down their opponent and carries no cost to themselves. We need to stop that.

Again, this is not about civil behavior, which I fully support. It's about gaming WP:CIV through a constant drip-drip-drip of empty accusations. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am gaming WP:CIV? I believe this happen twice between us and I apologized soon after without any reservation. I even invited you back to the discussion. IMO, I don't think two mistakes make the case that you are trying to make. Anthon01 (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Those are only the two examples where I was the target. There are lots of other examples involving other editors. I'll leave it to those involved to supply diffs. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not receive any mention on my talk page that I am being discussed. I will make comments later. Anthon01 (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is not about you personally but asking for general advice for how to handle a group of which you are just one member allegedly. Of course, clearly I am at fault. And perhaps my account should be deleted and I should be permanently banned from Wikipedia? I will volunteer to leave immediately since I have offended so many and violated so many rules by suggesting we follow WP:NPOV which of course is a deprecated policy and I was stupid to think we should follow it.--Filll (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You've made it personal by placing my name at the top and mischaracterizing some of my statements. Anthon01 (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this another ad-hoc invented rule that we now have to follow? "No using people's names in subheadings on discussion pages?" I have never heard of such a rule. Does this apply to all the spurious civility complaints you and your compatriots have opened against me? Can I complain about how you "made it personal" when you placed several baseless "civility warnings" on my page? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Filll insist that his POV on NPOV and minority subjects is the right POV. I went to NPOV to get feedback from univolved editors. The key term here is interpretation. Does anyone here believe that there is only one interpretation of NPOV and minority subjects? Anthon01 (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

His interpretation includes, that the article could be 98% criticism! Would anyone like to vouch for that? Anthon01 (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Filll. What did you mean here[159] and here.[160] I think you should respond. You accused me of quite a bit here (without notice), and now are afraid to respond to my defense? Anthon01 (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Raymond suggested you back off a little. You responded Nothing succeeds like excess.[161] What did you mean by that? And why did you delete that suggestion and statement from your talk page? Anthon01 (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a prime example of what we've been talking about. I suggested that Filll tone it down a bit; he responded with a good-humored remark that maybe he was being excessive. And now Anthon01 wants to take him to task for it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I made no assumptions. I asked him what he meant? You took it as a joke which is fine. I don't know that it was. He quickly deleted your suggestion and his response that you call a joke. Another editor considered his involvement on the NPOV page in this issue to be melodramatic and possible stonewalling. Anthon01 (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is one big pile of unrelated users with similar POVs on the subject of homeopathy in particular and alt med in general: Whig (talk · contribs), Anthon01 (talk · contribs), Peter morrell (talk · contribs), DanaUllman (talk · contribs), and so on. Going further afield, we find more users with eccentric beliefs as far as science is concerned, such as Martinphi (talk · contribs).

I would suggest that the first batch of these are classic tendentious editors. I haven't looked at Martinphi's contributions recently, so no comment there. Singly, these chaps aren't too hard to cope with: their incessant POV-pushing is relatively harmless, as you can see by the result of Dana Ullman's brief attempts to insert homeopathy into Beethoven; as a group there is more of a problem. I actually don't have an easy solution here. Whig and Peter morrell should have been banned long ago, or at least topic-banned, but the truth is Wikipedia has no easy way of coping with the user who pushes one POV all the time in a civil manner. Moreschi (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so as a starter why not topic ban them both? Can we get a community consensus for that? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban who and for what? Anthon01 (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no cause for topic banning me whatsoever. —Whig (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would favor at least temporary community topic ban for both of these SPAs and maybe a couple of others. It would calm things down tremendously and allow several articles to be returned to productive editing after they have been mired in a slow decline for months on end. I have received even a private communication from a pro-homeopathy editor who is so disgusted with the antics of these SPAs that he wrote me "I don't think I will be doing any more edits to the homeopathy...there is very little wrong with it but folks just keep pounding away at minutiae...not happy with the direction it is heading in and have better things to do with my time <expletive deleted> it...its just a big waste of time and who cares wikipedia is not respected anyway..." (with permission). Now when not just the pro-science editors but the pro-homeopathy editors are losing heart, you know we have a problem.--Filll (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And what of your stonewalling and melodrama? Anthon01 (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree - not that I pretend to be an uninvolved admin (I'm about 90% uninvolved, but I realize that that's not sufficient). There are quite a few topic bans I'd like to hand out, and neither side would have a monopoly on them. But there are a few anti-homeopathy editors who aren't being totally intransigent; if things haven't changed since I was there (I've only taken a cursory look at most of the more recent stuff), the same can't be said of the pro-homeopathy types. No, wait, I think User:Smith Jones was interested in achieving a reasonable consensus, if memory serves. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

How does any of this have to do with a cause that I should be topic banned? Do you have a specific complaint with respect to my edits and will you provide diffs? —Whig (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please provide diffs if considering a topic ban. Anthon01 (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a similar problem with Wndl42, who apparently believes that disagreeing with him is automatically a violation of WP:CIVIL. Kww (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the consequence of deciding that WP:CIVIL is more important than any other policy on WP. As you sow, so you shall reap.--Filll (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Moreschi and JoshuaZ, if you want to topic ban them, my understanding is that you don't require any further community consensus, because the articles are under probation, and the editors in question have been notified. You probably would have to add your names to the list of admins here though. Addhoc (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Topic banned for what? Anthon01 (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm a friend of Anthon's and he mentioned this at my Talk. I totally disagree with him about the content issues (particularly, a central precept of homeopathy, dilution to zero percent, is definitely bad science. It's simplistic, however, to dismiss all homeopathy as currently practiced as mere fraud). However, it's important to me that we dispute ethically, even when we are in the right, and my experience (unsucessfully attempting to mediate some of the dispute at some of the contentious pages, e.g. Quackwatch) has been that the "pro-science" camp, perhaps out of frustration from experience longer than mine, is often distinctly uncivil. That is, I answer the above complaint "[t]his is a consequence of deciding that WPCIVIL is more important than [...Undue Weight]": CIVIL would not be such a problem if the pro-science camp could be more civil. For example, right here: "Sorry, I guess you do not understand that you have won and are therefore correct in all respects and are free to change NPOV policy as you would like and any articles as you see fit.--Filll (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)" (from the NPOV talk). I don't mind sarcasm, myself, but these reactions don't propel consensus. I don't doubt that Anthon has been pig-headed about some things, but his obstinacy is overwhelmed by the relentless incivility (such as calling him an SPA, which is worse than simplistic). Anthon may lean to PoV pushing, but the "pro-science" group pushes back quite hard, and relentlessly. To which I can attest, because they regard my attempts to seek consensus (unwelcome by either side, mostly) as hostile. Both sides stubbornly resist me, but to my great annoyance, the pro-science side is frequently uncivil. There is definitely more heat than light in this. Pete St.John (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was not being sarcastic. When I have explained NPOV repeatedly and my explanations are rejected, I have very little choice except to escalate, which is uncivil, or to give up. Rather than take the uncivil choice, I gave up. What is wrong with surrendering?--Filll (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You said Although the "in proportion" phrase gives us the right to make it 98% or more critical of homeopathy, I think that makes for a less useful article. You think because I don't agree with you farout interpretation of NPOV that I should be banned? What is going on here? Anthon01 (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with most of the above. I definitely favour continuing to take action against uncivil editors and, frankly, those seem to be more commonly found on the pro-science side than on the pro-homeopathy side. I don't think most of the pro-science editors even object to enforcement of WP:CIVIL. The concern is that people are being banned for incivility, while the friendly, good faith POV pushers (who are also found on both sides) get mostly a free ride. We're doing a good job of enforcing one Wikipedia policy, but a piss-poor job of enforcing the other. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason for that is extremely simple. 99% of people who care about pseudoscience, are True Believers. Which usually leaves the defenders of NPOV in the unenviable position of explaining policy to a never-ending succession of new (and often "new") users; couple with that the fact that the most determined proponents of [pseudoscience have learned to game the system by never-ending querulousness and you have a recipe for meltdown, eading to situations like the present hoeopathy problem where the article is repeatedly hijacked by people who apparently believe that concentrations of less than one molecule per bottle of a product somehow have an effect, an extraordinary claim if ever one were made. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Guy is completely correct. That is the reason we have a mess. And recently I have had people lecturing me about how 20% constitutes a majority, and something practiced by 2% of the people does not constitute a FRINGE practice etc. Oh well. We cannot do a thing about it because it would be unfair to tell someone that 20% does not constitute a majority..--Filll (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not accurate. —Whig (talk) 03:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Consider that this AN/I was sparked by a discussion yesterday on the NPOV page regarding the interpretation of NPOV in minority topics. Anthon01 (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A root part of the problem here is WP:COI, so maybe this should be taken up at the WP:COI noticeboard, Several of these editors are identified as professional homeopaths and are viewing this as an opportunity to promote their profession and whitewash any mainstream views or negative views of their profession. Now Peter Morrell is a world famous homeopath but is quite able to accommodate the rules such as NPOV and RS of WP. Others are less able to, and so their WP:COIs start to interfere with their editing of these articles.--Filll (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion at WT:NPOV was posed by Anthon01 "in order to get POVs that are not from pro or anti-homeopathic editors and not from the pseudoscience group", and quickly seemed to turn into a pile-on by pro homeopathy editors, accusing others of being anti-homeopathy and discussing Filll's reaction rather than focussing on the topic. It does look like forum shopping, trying to get outside support for disproportionately small representation of the mainstream medical view on the homeopathy article. There does seem to be an idea that NPOV can be treated in isolation, where as I see it the answer is in an integrated view of the relevant policies and guidance. If that can be clarified in principle it might help, but that requires restarting the NPOV discussion and avoiding getting into excess detail like the claimed percentage of Indians using homeopathy. Either way, the issue is going to have to be sorted out on the talk pages of the relevant articles, and that's a wearying process as has been said above. .. dave souza, talk 22:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a RS/N that helps editors flesh out RS. Like RS/N, my reason for asking the question at WT:NPOV was to get a more informed opinion besides the 60/40 formula proposed by some editors, including Filll. The use of word counts and percentages to reflect NPOV, although workable as a framework upon which development can proceed, seem too simplistic a method and may not effectively reflect NPOV, WP:STYLE, WP:LEAD and other guides and policies. Consider that in some cases one sentence can balance 10 others. I perhaps mistakenly expected expert feedback by editors not involved in homeopathy pages on the WT:NPOV talk page. On the Homeopathy talk page, Filll, has recently, on several occasions claimed to be an authority on NPOV. He would like me to accept his explanation of NPOV. Unfortunately, with the caveat that I might be misinterpreting his statements, he has made statements in the past that make me question his neutrality. Anthon01 (talk) 03:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

All suggestions made in response to questions from Anthon01 and other prohomeopathy editors, most of whom are SPAs, about what NPOV policy means, were summarily rejected by the pro-homeopathy editors. The pro-homeopathy editors seem to be sure they know better than experienced mainstream editors what NPOV means, what FRINGE means, what UNDUE means and so on. So I guess the question is now in their court; they have to tell us what NPOV means according to them, or at least propose some meaning of NPOV, because after 6 months of trying to explain, I and most of my fellow editors are basically repeating ourselves over and over, and all of our suggestions are being dismissed, often with extreme prejudice. So, I challenge any and all pro-homeopathy editors, why not write a document describing what you believe NPOV is, or what the policy means, that you feel would meet your needs, beliefs and biases, and present it? It is easy to just say no no no to everyone else, but why not present your own ideas and defend them? The ball is in your court.--Filll (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the above, I think there is another big problem in Talk:Homeopathy. It would not be appropriate to insert it here, but I will mention here that I have created a page on the issue HERE.

Feedback there would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 08:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Pegasus Speedy deletions

In fact he is deleting many articles, in this way. He should use speedy button more wisely. --- A. L. M. 15:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If an article cannot meet Wikipedia notability as set per guidelines it maybe deleted eventhough you contested the deletion request. Please read WP:notability and try making the article in your sandbox User:ALM_scientist/sanbox before atempting to take it live to mainspace. You may also want to consult an admin before bringing live in order to insure the article is ready for mainspace. Igor Berger (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Article has not been deleted as CSD#A7 has been withdrawn. Article needs fleshing out a bit, but notability is asserted. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have looked at the article you created Asad Abidi and I will recommend it for speedy deletion myself. Wikipedia is not a place to promote people or things. Igor Berger (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Rodhullandemu disagree with you and I think anyone who knows about what IEEE Fellow means will disagree too with you. You are welcome to nominate it for deletion but no need to be speedy (when under contest). --- A. L. M. 15:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Either you need to rewrite your WP:PROF or keep the article there. What IEEE fellow means is following.

The grade of Fellow recognizes unusual distinction in the profession, and is conferred by invitation of the Board of Directors to members of outstanding and extraordinary qualifications and experience in IEEE-designated fields, and who have made important individual contributions to one or more of these fields. Every year, less than 1 member in a thousand can be promoted to Fellow. On January 1, 2007 there were 5,777 IEEE Fellows [14] These members include Fellow candidates that are selected by the IEEE Fellow committee [15] In 2007, 268 "Senior Members" were promoted to Fellows ... --- A. L. M. 15:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It is deleted again speedily. This time they were fast. They even does not give time to contest. The tag appears only for 1 minutes. Wikipedia is improving. --- A. L. M. 15:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to make references to his work to meet the WP:PROF. Please try building an article in your sanbox to meet the WP:BLP and WP:PROF guidelines. Igor Berger (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not give a shit. Bye bye. -- A. L. M. 15:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

To be fair there was an assertion of notability that he is a Fellow of the IEEE an award which meets the WP:PROF criteria at point #2. There was also a reference which backed it up. --JD554 (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) If there was a contested speedy, and that speedy nom was withdrawn, and the original editor has stated he is working on it and notability has been asserted as per Rodhullandemu above, I don't think it is acceptable to re nom for speedy so hastily. DuncanHill (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree, Fellowship of the IEEE is an assertion of notability, see IEEE_Fellow#Fellow_Grade. The article is still there, however, and it should be PROD'ded if necessary. We should not be annoying decent editors with this misunderstanding of specialist notability. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the speedy deletion, per JD554's reasoning. Now it's up to A.L.M. to improve the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Surely it's up to the community to improve it, or are we conceding ownership? DuncanHill (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I also left a note to the editor to the effect of building the article process. Igor Berger (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, an AfD notice has now been added to the article by a third party. DuncanHill (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Suspicious sock activity

Hi guys, I have a quandary that I would like some opinions on. User:Creamy3, User:Creamy4 and User:Creamy11... Creamy4 was "creamed" ('Scuse the pun) for vandalism and personal attacks by User:Bearian (12 hour block) and Creamy3 made a wiki-project entitled "Creamy Army Wikiproject". Their userpages are all very similiar; they have the same set up of biographies about themselves and they all seem to be involved in the Wikiproject films. They all state to be from Oregon... are they different people or are they socks? I know Creamy4 is definitely on the road to be a vandalism only account... bah, I don't know... Any ideas? Thoughts? Scarian^{Call me Pat} 16:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If the Quacking's not loud enough for you, try WP:RFCU. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I left them all notes about being constructive, I doubt they are the same person. John Reaves 16:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

John Reaves seems right - they're probably a group of friends. Judging from User:Creamy3/Creamy Army, there's a bit of an issue with social networking that might be going on. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just warned Creamy3 for making a quip ([162]) at User:Scientizzle about that failed AfD. And yes, upon closer inspection they do look like just a bunch of friends... they're treading the line finely though... Scarian^{Call me Pat} 17:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This could most definitely (and quickly I might add) turn into a meatpuppet farm if the users start to participate in controversial editing. Advise someone keeping on eye on things for a while. I'm dubious about users referring themselves as an "Army". Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm watchin' it...these were the concerns I had a couple of days ago, but others didn't quite see it that way. Creamy3 (talk · contribs) is a marginally-productive editor (though civility-challenged), but the other have yet to demonstrate anything positive (and, in fact, some negative) in the way of contributions. Hopefully they prove my skepticism unfounded. — Scientizzle 21:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

I've done the bold thing and created Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, which was the last core/major policy whose implications seem to get fought over all the time and lead to no small number of edit wars. Lawrence § t/e 16:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems like the "in thing" is to create more and more noticeboards these days - is there enough volume that this can't be handled on one of the other noticeboards, or at WT:NPOV? —Random832 18:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally like the addition, it will help lower the case load here at AN/I and help direct requests to specific user who enjoy working with POV violations. Tiptoety ^talk 19:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I support its construction without a doubt, per Tiptoety. Also, it only stands to reason that, logically, we should have a noticeboard for all three core policies. However, it may need a fleshing out. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And the fringe board can probably be merged into the NPOV board. Lawrence § t/e 21:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a good idea. WP:FT/N also covers nonsense (== beyond fringe), where NPOV is irrelevant. rudra (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose What constitute NPOV violation? It is just going to make it confusing and hard to follow, being that we will have a complaintents running around from board to board. ANI is not Arbcom and we should not just dirrect users from one board to another but try to help diffuse the situation. Igor Berger (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI and AN specifically are not for content disputes. NPOV disputes can be very specific, and very intense, and often lead to (to my eyes) a disproportionate number of RFARs. This would lead to RFAR case deflection, making life easier for everyone. Lawrence § t/e 23:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well we all work hard on article talk pages and user talk pages to enlighten the community about NPOV. I do not know how comfortable will editors feel if they are sent to NPOV board. And also will the board achive enough attention to give full consensus to an issue at hand? Will their be enough editors looking at it to be able to adjudicate rationally? Will their be a enough community attention to resolve the problems at hand without making it look as one or two admins telling the editors how to behave. Igor Berger (talk) 00:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea. Issues of NPOV are properly handled through dispute resolution, not through a noticeboard which I strongly suspect (let's hope I'm proven wrong) will degenerate into a sniping ground for disagreeing editors and factions. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not that I think this is a bad thing, but I would think most of the issues would be taken care of at the COI notice board. I know there are other NPOV issues, but COI is the big one, and I'm not sure what's left over that can't be discussed/clarified on existing talk pages. -- Ned Scott 04:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly bogus/vandal edits

Could someone please check the contributions of the following:

• ArmadilloPadding (talk · contribs)
• LetsDoThisRight (talk · contribs)
• Spirikitik (talk · contribs)
• SeekFind (talk · contribs)
• Mfriedrich9 (talk · contribs)
• JMVanDyk (talk · contribs)
• Jimtrue (talk · contribs)

Thanks. Thatcher 18:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Marion Giant 1999

In the history section of the Marion, Indiana article, a passage describing lynchings that occurred in the 1930s has been repeatedly cut by User:Marion Giant 1999 on the grounds that it reflects badly on the community. I've mentioned on his talk page that, though I understand his concern, this isn't sufficient grounds for removing content, and have encouraged him to discuss the issue with other users on the town's talk page and see if some editing might satisfy his objections. Unfortunately he hasn't shown any willingness to cooperate — he deleted a request for comment from the town's talk page, and states here that he still considers that the section constitutes a smear against the town and intends to keep deleting it (presumably no matter what). Any suggestions on how to proceed? Thanks! Huwmanbeing ☀★ 18:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've left a warning. If he persists, I'll block for disruptive editing. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Since Sarcasticidealist beat me to the talk page, I reverted the improper deletion of the properly sourced and cited content in question. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed. User 74.225.XXX.XXX edits tendetiously and using multiple IPs to get around blocks

• 74.225.10.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 74.225.154.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 74.225.51.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There are likely several others. This person has been editing several articles about Orlando, Florida area attractions, making changes to the locations of the attractions. Other editors have repeatedly tried to get the user to discuss the changes on talk pages first, but he refuses, and continuously makes the changes against consensus and against the pleas of other editors to stop. Individual blocks of the IPs he uses are turning into a game of Whak-a-mole, and are not productive. I have no technical knowledge of how a rangeblock works, but if I did I would do it myself. Could anothr admin help look into this and help see what can be done in this regard? Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The rangeblock you need to block is 74.225.0.0/16 - unfortunately, this is quite a large range (65534 users), and care would probably have to be taken to minimize collateral damage. krimpet✽ 19:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the recent history of Magic Kingdom, he's actually hopping across several /16 ranges, so it might just be better to try briefly semiprotecting the affected articles first. I don't think we can really know yet how large a range he can operate in. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is apparently NOT a new problem: See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Miamiboyzinhere. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The user is up to his or her 14th sock puppet, each of which has an immediate edit history of disruptive reverts in defiance of previously established consensus or hostile personal attacks. Eight of those sock puppets began editing in the same day. &#151;Whoville (talk) 00:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the same user is being discussed elsewhere on this page. &#151;Whoville (talk) 01:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointint out that link, Whoville. I added a bunch of background info there that points out that attempts to discuss the issue on various talk pages did take place, only to be rebuffed and told we were idiots that couldn't read a map. We asked for some pages to be semi-protected earlier today, which happened, only to have another admin pull the protection off as being unnecessary in their mind. From the editors' viewpoint, we did what we have been told to do -- get the admins involved to help sort out the issue. which brings us to this discussion and the other one already pointed out.SpikeJones (talk) 03:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And in case it matters, while we're all here talking about it, another IP -- 74.225.163.175 -- has just now started reverting all the edits back to "Orange County", "Bay Lake", etc. SpikeJones (talk) 03:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Orlando-related pages protected. See thread below for details. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed sockpuppet User:Runreston still active

An earlier checkuser (see here) definitively confirmed that User:Xcstar and User:207.91.86.2 were sockpuppets of User:Racepacket, resulting in a permanent block of Xcstar. Xcstar had been used primarily to make false and defamatory edits to the Dane Rauschenberg article and other related articles. Shortly after the ban, User:Runreston was created, following the same path as Xcstar and the most recent sockpuppet check confirmed that Runreston was a likely sockpuppet of Racepacket. Runreston, in exactly the same disturbing obsession as Xcstar, has devoted nearly 90% of his edits to Dane Rauschenberg, following the same pattern of abusive edits and refusal to respect consensus. Given that Runreston is a confirmed sockpuppet, what is required to implement appropriate long-term blocks on both the sockpuppet and the puppetmaster User:Racepacket who created his newest sockpuppet almost immediately after the previous block. Alansohn (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Checkuser says likely. Runreston blocked. I suggest a final warning to Racepacket that any further such crap will likely result in a ban, not sure what others would think here. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• While Racepacket / Runreston seems to be laying low, the issue is still out there. Administrative intercession to address the continuing pattern of abuse is sorely needed. Alansohn (talk) 00:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm being impersonated...

Hello all, [163] this user appears to be making comments with my signature, notably at User_talk:Crystalclearchanges, a user I have filed a SSP for relating to banned vandal user:iamandrewrice. They have also been adding to and altering my comments at that SSP, notably here. Can someone take a quick look, as SSP has a backlog and I can be dealing with tracking down impersonators right now. Thanks Whitstable 21:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Who is it that "impersonated" you at my talk page then? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

IP:88.108.106.86 Whitstable 21:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What is your IP address then? How do I know it was not you?? I dont understand what is happening here. Will someone please explain this?Crystalclearchanges (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That IP has been blocked for 1 month. They are obviously not a new user, and thus deserve no quarter. If another IP address continues this, please let us know, and they will be blocked as well. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a dynamic IP so a month block will serve no useful purpose. Polly (Parrot) 21:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What does that mean?! Look it is me that is the victim here so why is no one explaining to me? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Can urgent action be taken here because we do not want the whole iamandrewrice farce starting again. Whitstable 21:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And oh no-one is still explaining to me what is happening. Can't you "scan" my IP address or something to make sure I'm not the same as the IP since apparently Whitstable thinks I was talking to myself between an IP and my account somehow? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Does anyone else see a similarity in MO here? --WebHamster 21:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do. It is very similar to the situation before. Whitstable 21:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure whether this situation would qualify for checkuser. Hasn't this already been resolved anyway? Rudget. 21:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If Crystalclearchanges is yet another sock of banned user iamandrewrice then it would seem they have managed to return. The edits are broadly similar, especially when iamandrewrice's Simple Wiki edits are looked at (before he was indef blocked from there, too!) and the disruption soon after I pointed that out - as mentioned on the SSP - suggests something is happening Whitstable 21:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the history of disruption from the Iamandrewrice account and the strong indication that the ban is being evaded at least through the IP a checkuser is entirely warranted. This needs to be dealt with early or we get in the same situation as last time. EconomicsGuy (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even going to bother asking anymore then, as apparently, Whitstable is not talking to me for some reason. I am just going to get back to my editing, and this time, please do not interrupt me with taunts of me talking to myself or whatever you come up with next. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I havent been doing anything! look at all my edits and not a single one has caused purposeful disruption. Why are you assuming bad faith on me? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

By your second edit, you all but admit you were previously banned, not just blocked, then you start working in ianandrewrice's pet areas - fashion, Malta, Latin Europe. So it's hard to AGF Whitstable 21:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

But have I actually done anything wrong? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are banned user iamandrewrice, and I take it as you are accepting you are, then clearly yes. Whitstable 22:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Please tell me what I have done that is "wrong"? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your second edit heavily suggests you are a banned user. In which case you should not be here. And I agree with EconomicsGuy (II) below Whitstable 22:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If anyone involved here is Iamandrewrice I have no problem with contacting Alison and making sure that we do as we threatened last time. Absolutely no hesitations about doing that. EconomicsGuy (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What am I doing that is wrong??? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What you MAY be doing wrong, and I am saying this to Crystalclearchanges so that it is clear I am talking to you, is that you may not create a new account and resume editing if you are a person who has edited under a different account which as since been blocked. The accusation is that you are a blocked user Iamandrewrice. Do you deny this? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Add to that, based on their contribs, it looks like WP:CANVAS is a possibility too. --WebHamster 22:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't even understand what the content of the email to EcoGuy was about so please do not assume any kind of canvassing here. I can assure you for one thing that it is not what you think, but he can tell you that if he chooses to afterwards. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Crystalclearchanges has denied being Iamandrewrice, and has also expressed a willingness to undergo checkuser. I think that is the next logical step to take. I shall be filing a request myself soon. Ayla (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

actually i was reffering to scanning my ip address to compare with that of the IP impersonator of Whitstable that was posting on my page. Buy yeah thats good too... Crystalclearchanges (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Strange how both iamandrewrice and Crystalclearchanges both spell consistency as consistancy, as a quick look at their edit summaries show, pure coincidence I'm sure... Polly (Parrot) 22:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If poor spelling were indicative of being the same person, there would be exactly two people on the Internet: me (along with my millions of sockpuppets), and the other guy (along with his millions of sockpuppets). "Consistancy" returns greater than one Google hit for every 30 Google hits for "consistency", an awful lot considering it is a patently incorrect spelling. CCC has indicated he is willing to undergo a checkuser -- let's wait for that before we start analyzing spelling and grammar. - Revolving Bugbear 22:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remind me why that user is banned anyway? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What happens with my IP address once you scan it though? Surely the person who sees it will then know my IP address and could go do anything (like fraud) with it. I will happily enter a user scan as long as it is automated and no human eyes see it at all... otherwise I refuse. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No, knowing your IP address does not mean that anyone could perform fraud. Every website you visit on the Internet "knows" your IP address. Every single one. And chances are good, every time you send an email to anyone, that person could know your IP address. --Yamla (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer it to be done by a machine... but if you can guarantee that no one will use it for bad purposes. Can I have some kind of written guarantee for it? (You may know more than me about IP addressi so please do not mock me if i am wrong) Crystalclearchanges (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be possible to use it for bad purposes. You are at no more risk by having a Wikipedia admin look at your IP address than you are every time you visit another website or any time you send an email via your ISP or via hotmail or the like. However, if it makes you happy, I can personally offer my guarantee that having a Wikipedia admin run a checkuser on you will absolutely not lead to fraud. --Yamla (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia has a very rigorous privacy policy [164] which is enforced by the Ombudsman [165] to ensure that the very few users permitted to access IP data do not use that data outside of the policy. MBisanz ^talk 00:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence posted at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Iamandrewrice. Ayla (talk) 00:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And the checkuser result is in thanks to Alison. As predicted this is Iamandrewrice evading his ban but no socking it appears. In response to Ayla, please see this. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked as user evading ban. Can post to talk page or email unblock list to properly appeal. MBisanz ^talk 08:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Per [166] this banned user did many page moves that will require an admin to move them back. I'm signing out for the night, so could someone else please tag this as done when they do it? MBisanz ^talk 08:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Need someone to delete/clean up an AFD naming - easy admin work

 Fixed Can someone move Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Shell (second nomination) to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Shell (2nd nomination) for me, so that the naming/list on the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Shell (3rd nomination) doesn't show an extra AFD? Thanks! Lawrence § t/e 22:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oo! Oo! Pick me! I like the easy stuff! Consider it done (because it is). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Can you solve the US Sub-prime financial crisis and NPOV issues with nationalism on Wikipedia next? :) Lawrence § t/e 22:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, that broke a number of links and transclusions...Someguy1221 (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I only found one broken link, and have since fixed it. Thanks for the heads up. As to the more important question posed by Mr. Cohen. Er, I don't know. The Sub-prime financial crisis and NPOV issues with nationalisim, if I'm being honest, are unfixable. Go buy a house, though, the market is friggin fantastic if you're looking. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Edison#Speaker_impedance

Resolved

Please see history? Don't know what to make of this. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForeverFreeSpeech (talk • contribs) 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have a concern that you feel needs admin attention, please take the time to actually tell us what that is, and what action you think you should be taken. "Please see history? Don't know what to make of this." is useless, particularly when the section you point to appears to be entirely innocuous. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don’t quite know what to make of ForeverFreeSpeech’s comment. Perhaps a confusion of impedance (in this case, electrical impedance) with speech impediment? Other than that, I haven’t a clue. —Travis^talk 00:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This looks like someone using Wikipedia as a message board - they're asking for help with wiring up speakers. The other half of the conversation is at NIRVANA2764's talk page; probably, User:NIRVANA2764 and User:Milkbreath should be warned about this behavior. M1rth (talk) 00:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Additional - it doesn't help to be dismissive of people who write in with a concern. That's not exactly WP:CIVIL. Thanks. M1rth (talk) 00:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Nevermind about warning, I think I see the issue - if you're looking at the small section and URL it's easy enough to think you're looking at talk:Thomas Edison rather than User:Edison's talk page. I guess this does qualify as "message board" talk but I take back my earlier idea that it warranted a warning, just two wikipedians sharing information. Someone can probably mark this case closed. M1rth (talk) 00:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not message boarding, just a spillover of the reference desks onto someone's talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I copied your note over to the user's talk page. Glad this one is solved. M1rth (talk) 00:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Ahh, well that explains it. The original comment didn’t leave me much to go on. Thanks —Travis^talk 00:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit war at Maddox

I don't quite understand what we're fighting about, but there's loads of incivility, sockpuppetry, lack of communication and general anti-constructiveness. --Saber^Excalibur! 22:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

NPA warning left with Servant Saber (talk · contribs). Who knows what's going on there, seems to be a couple of contributors fighting over who's going to fix the article the best... —αlεx•mullεr 23:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not what is going on. I did say that but I was kidding. User:Panelgets is edit warring and vandalising the page by reverting to an older version which is worse and has warning templates. I fixed it now. Panelgets is being disruptive. Saber has only protected the page. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Socks all over the place

I would like the edits of the obvious puppetry gang Panelgets, Arisedrink, Peapee and Amazing cow to be taken into consideration. --Saber^Excalibur! 00:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing and disruption at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael L. Vincent

Per this message on Gregg Potts (talk · contribs) talk page, it appears that outside users are being recruited to disrupt the AFD discussion referenced above. Their method appears to be blanking the talk pages of users who !vote delete. In addition, they are creating multiple copies of the article in question, mostly with extra periods. See Mi.ke L. Vin.cent‎, Mi.k e L. Vin.ce nt, and Mi.k e L. Vin.c.e n.t, all of which were copy-pasted. I and a couple of other users have tagged them as implausible redirects for speedy deletion, but I see this as disruptive meatpuppetry. Concerned users appear to be:

• Gregg Potts (talk · contribs)
• Mainquick1985 (talk · contribs)
• Unitdealt1987 (talk · contribs)
• Storyrates1987 (talk · contribs)

Since there is evidence of off-wiki canvassing, I wouldn't be surprised if more show up. Help please? // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 23:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps protect the AfD page, as Docg did on the Iseman AfD? Eusebeus (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There's been some other socks too:

• Yeargyro1987 (talk · contribs)
• Clubtaken1985 (talk · contribs)
• Wasfou514 (talk · contribs)

One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The following users:

1. Unitdealt1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Mainquick1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Clubtaken1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. Girlgirlgirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

have been indefblocked as confirmed sockpuppets of Storyrates1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Perhaps someone could do a checkuser on the others. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed - add the following as socks of the same editor:

1. Yeargyro1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Also, the main troublesome IPs have been blocked ACB, so that should help - Alison ^❤ 23:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User:David Fuchs

I've spent the last 24 hours trying to decide if I should really blackbox it and leave the project. I wrote this to be a summarry, but maybe someone else would like to examine it.

Having spent two months revamping the hulk article, and getting it up to Good Article status, to have another editor blank repeatedly what I and others had worked hard on, was frustrating. To be the third editor to revert his edits, and the first to invite him to use the talk page, I was shocked by his response, which attacked me for violating WP:OWN, and having failed the GA. The refusal of an admin to use the talk pages, and to continue to attack me is bad. That he's been dismissive of consensus is worse. When I offered a simple starting place for consensus, his reply was plain. I was no longer welcome on the article. As such, I delisted the article, and will be moving on. I am not sure where I went wrong, that after two others reverted him without comment, it was I who was attacked. I do care about the article, and given how much I put into it, I feel justified in watching over it. But it has been edited by others since (4K in added material), and I've been open to other improvements. I do feel that having hit GA, I was also justified in making sure newer edits added value, not just bytes and hype, to the article. To have all my work repudiated is bad enough, but to have it all come under a pile of attacks is enough for me to leave the project. When admins model that sort of behavior, it's not hard to understand why so many people leave.

Am I right that his actions were poor, if not outright wrong? ThuranX (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Um. Not a particularly impressive example of collaborative editing, at first glance. I need to look closer into this. Oh, and FWIW don't leave, we can't do without good editors like you. Black Kite 00:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

i agree. this other guy is acting like a rela prick but its important to assume good faith and continue to try to colelaborate with him. i have seen many instances of users who seem kind of unhelpful when they first join but grow to become incredible editors who later even become admins or even presidents. his behavior indicates that he is at least interested in editing the article Hulk so i would recomend that you back off him for a bit and wait here for an administrator to interveine. sometimes engaging someone can be helpful but toehr times disengaging and letting the soul struggle work itself out for the fate of your wikipedia editing careres to be a far more rsafer alternatronive. Smith Jones (talk) 00:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

David is an administrator, not a new user. Your comment "Acting like a rela prick" is a personal attack, and you should be warned that violating that policy on this page often leads to a block. Please - try to make your comments here constructive, and use "Preview" before you save in order to correct the other errors that have pointed out to you many, many times. Avruch ^T 00:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

74.225.169.82

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:74.225.169.82 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/74.225.169.82

I saw this user posted at AIV and someone had already posted a note that it was an AGF edit rather than vandalism, however a few other editors dogpiled the anon and he ended up in a 3RR situation. I realize he broke 3RR, but should the other editors have dogpiled him accusing him of vandalism when they appear to be attempting to simply add information that the "senior" editors don't want in the article? Perhaps asking him to come to the talk page would have been a better idea? Just because an established editor decides someone is a sock or a vandal without proof/checkuser it seems that newbies are getting trashed and that makes WP a bad place to hang out. Can someone uninvolved take a look? [[167]] [[168]] [[169]] Thanks Legotech·(t)·(c) 23:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

While Id like to assume good faith here, you may want to take a look at the conversation going on right up here regarding this sockpuppeter and the IP range his is using, which is very close to this IP. Wildthing61476 (talk) 00:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute as to whether to list Epcot Center as being in the City (Orlando, FL) or County (Orange County, FL). I'm unsure as to actual Wikipedia policy on locations (couldn't they compromise and list both?) but it looks like a really silly debate that both sides just want to blow out of proportion. And as a content dispute, I'm 100% sure this doesn't qualify as "vandalism."

As a side note, I agree that accusations of "sockpuppetry" and "vandalism" are thrown around far too often in what are simply content disputes, and blocks based on the accusations made too often with a very itchy trigger finger. M1rth (talk) 00:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocks were made because of a WP:3RR vio. and for evading said block. seicer | talk | contribs 00:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Coolies, I'm wrong, thanks for the info! Perhaps there should be more info on the block/users page? As it stands it looks like a bunch of editors dogpiled him because they didn't like his edits and then he got blocked because "senior" editors didn't like his edits. Look at it as a noob...there are a lot of complaints about WP being "run" as the playground of just a few editors and admins, if we aren't careful to fully document stuff like this, we give those people confirmation of their already biased attitude. I'm not horribly new, and I couldn't find the info that showed that this was anything more than a playground argument, enough so that I felt I should bring it here to find out whats up. Legotech·(t)·(c) 00:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Their edit warring was pretty obvious, but I had left a note on the respective talk page, and protected Epcot. The IP address has since migrated to another IP. seicer | talk | contribs 00:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The same editor is being discussed elsewhere on this page. I think it's inaccurate to dismiss this as a content dispute. The editor is hostile, abusive and rejects all appeals to consensus, policy and procedure. A close read of his or her edits from at least 15 different accounts or IP addresses shows an immediate pattern of personal attacks ("idiots" being the most frequent insult) and a refusal to abide by consensus. This is not someone acting in good faith (example, example, example, etc.). &#151;Whoville (talk) 01:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm not an admin, so I'm sorry if I'm butting in somewhere I shouldn't, but I've done a little research and found that this appears to be a pattern for this user. It seems like whenever a change he makes gets reverted, he gets personal, as shown here and here. To add gravity to the point, these are for an article completely unrelated to the current situation. I've attempted to start a discussion on consensus, only to be personally attacked. Other users have had the same experience. Nobody has disputed the content the editor is attempting to add, only that it goes against the consensus that has been established, with no explanation or attempt at a dialogue to explain them, or why consensus should change to support the edits. Thank you for your time. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 02:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Some background on the situation, for those who are merely looking at it from the outside. (and I apologize in advance for not providing all links here; they have been posted in various talk pages already, such as on the Disney's Hollywood Studios talk page). Back in 2007 the decision was made by consensus that the category "visitor attractions in orlando, florida" would be used to encompass the greater orlando area. In fact, the "visitor attractions in greater orlando" category was merged into it and then deleted. Last week, a user decided that the "orlando, florida" portion of the category meant that it was only applicable to the physical city limits of Orlando, rather than the general area that the category has come to represent. An attempt to discuss the matter took place on the DHStudios talk page, but it was ignored and those involved were told that we were idiots because we couldn't read a map. We asked for previous policy and examples (as that was what was being quoted to us) and none were provided. This user then proceeded to change all the Disney-related articles (both parks and individual ride articles) to say that those parks were in the city of Bay Lake and/or Orange County florida. (In reality, WDW covers two counties, and Bay Lake is not the parks' official mailing address or city of residence). The user became uncivil and posted rude comments in edit summaries and on people's talk pages, earning them a temp block... and that's when the sockpuppets began. We got admins involved to help monitor/maintain the situation, and this is where we are a week later. Today, when the category this editor created to replace the "attractions in orlando, florida" category he didn't like was officially deleted per CFD, the category was recreated and the edits and reverts started anew. So in a nutshell, aside from all the article edits and reverts, we also have an editor that is creating new categories, having those categories deleted per CFD, and then recreating them after consensus was already reached. It's obviously more than just a little content dispute, as all the regular editors are trying to do is maintain the article content -- we've even gone so far as to remove location information that shouldn't have existed in specific articles at all so there shouldn't be a reason to say the info is right or wrong, only to have the too-detailed and some say incorrect location info put back in. All in all, it's been a fun few days, but admins have been involved (on and off) all along the way so it's not been entirely the non-admin editors doing the work. SpikeJones (talk) 03:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you muchly for the history...I'm desperately trying to learn my way around here and appreciate being "read into" the history of this sock drawer. I'm sorry if I caused any trouble with my post here. Legotech·(t)·(c) 03:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The user appears to be at it again. To make matters worse, when asked politely to discuss, he blanks his page and replaces it, as shown here. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a royal mess. Until someone figures out a way to block this individual, I'll continue to revert changes as needed. I guess I can add a 30-60 day protection on these articles in the hopes that things will calm down. I am not following these discussions, so if you need to clue me in drop a link on my talk page. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not like we haven't tried, as indicated here. He just blanks the page and ignores the requests for an explanation or a discussion. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oy,I'm on the job as well....ick. Legotech·(t)·(c) 03:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have another question...will I be breaking 3RR if I'm fixing this stuffs? Legotech·(t)·(c) 03:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

My reading of 3RR says no, because you are reverting edits created by an account being used to bypass a block on another account (i.e., a sock puppet). Of course, the admins and higher-ups have final say. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of the articles have been page protected against IP addresses and new user accounts for one month. If there is one that is experiencing heavy IP vandalism or is protected for 3 days (I reset my original 3 day protection to 1 month to coincide with other protections), let me know. seicer | talk | contribs 04:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The contribution pages of the socks point mainly to the Walt Disney World and SeaWorld articles, even the individual attraction pages. I know that's a lot of pages to be protected. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

All relevent pages protected

Also see the related thread above. I hate to have had to do this, but it look slike we have had to protect all of the various orlando-related articles. Much thanks to Seicer and Vegaswikian, who apparently reached the same conclusion as I did at around the same time, as it looks like we kept running into each other. Anyways, since blocks were UTTERLY ineffecitive at stopping this person, who is a banned user using a drifting IP address to edit agains consensus see [170]), I think we had no other choice but to protect the whole lot of pages. Not sure what else to do. If any unprotected pages pop up on anyone's radar, let us know here, or on my talk page, and we'll add them to the list. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Not an admin solution, but maybe the Orlando participants should define a template which emits at least the desired category. Documentation of the template would explain when it is to be used (city or greater Orlando). Other editors would then have a chance to find that info. Orlando-editors might find some other info for an Orlando template, such as links to City and County articles. -- SEWilco (talk) 07:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat?

Might want to take a quick look at this [171].I must say, its borderline. Tiptoety ^talk 01:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's your basic troll. — Edokter • Talk • 01:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say an advance Troll. Igor Berger (talk) 02:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I blocked this IP for 24 hours to prevent further angst. Bearian (talk) 02:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Tom Bates consensus violation

Multiple IP addresses, most likely the same person, continues to violate consensus on page Tom Bates concerning sourcing of his military record. I'm not sure where to post this issue, so I've posted it here.User:calbear22 (talk) 01:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd try communicating on the various talk pages of the anons, or start a thread on the article's talk page. If that fails to get their/his/her attention, I'd attempt a dispute resolution starting with WP:RFC. If the POV pushing continues despite this, a temporary semi-protection on the page might be order - but approach this with caution. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I left another two messages on two of the user talk pages. I left another message on the talk:Tom Bates. This incident has been going on for some time now with a long history of exchanges on the article talk page. RFC has already occurred.User:calbear22 (talk) 05:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I took a closer look and noticed that. I'm not sure WP:RFPP would be appropriate as these users are actually constructively discussing things with you (more or less). This would effectively destroy their ability to edit the article. Are there blatant WP:3RR violations? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No. The back and forth has gone slowly. I counted about 23 back and forth. We had a constructive discussion early on when I added a second source, which was unnecessary but done to appease the IP contributor. But, the contributor has refused to budge since even after 3 editors joined me in consensus. Maybe if you were to weigh in on the article talk page, that would help. Thanks.User:calbear22 (talk) 08:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We're being used as a chalkboard for a professor in Australia, apparently - am I wrong to be cranky?

Resolved

 – deleted and SALTed, Tiptoety ^talk 03:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Talk:Agim Cura. User:Agim cura says he's a professor, and he's put this non-notable information on Wikipedia for his students to find, so please don't remove it. His edits to chronology for July 4 were reverted, in a very admirable assumption of good faith. Anybody want to haul out the cluebat?--Orange Mike | Talk 02:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Recreated again after the final warning. I've tagged for a speedy, can we get the user blocked and/or the page salted? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, my bad. Given final warning, page tagged for speedy. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone still needs to SALT though. Tiptoety ^talk 02:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, with two deletions today. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Deleted and salted. I notified the user of this topic... Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Super-spam?

On the Superman music page, a red-link editor has taken a fair amount of time to add track listings for an 8-volume CD collection of soundtracks from the Christopher Reeve films. I have several issues with this, and I would like for someone who understands the rules better than I do to comment on it:

• The editor is the producer of the CD as well as the author of the information he posted, as he made the point of saying and which started some frustrating dialoge: [172]
• Despite his denial of shameless self-promotion, he has made a point of it being a limited edition, so we had better order it before they run out. [173]
• It's not actually available yet, although it will be "imminently" and they are taking orders.
• It's not going to be in real stores at all.

So I'm seeing self-promotion as well as original research. What say y'all to this? Is this all proper, or should it be reverted? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

He added a great deal of valuable information, cleaning up the entire article. Any consideration of WP:COI problems, if found, should be careful to only pare dow nthat which is a true conflict ,and not the entire series of edits. ThuranX (talk) 03:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

To clear up a few issues with the above: 1) COI issues are for the sake of keeping it /neutral/, not keeping it off. 2) So, it's limited, so what? Countless items go in and out of print all the time. 3) It's available, and in fact has started shipping 4) What's a 'real' store? Again, countless items can't be bought offline. WHY does that matter? 5) It's NOT original research, it's research. Yes, the person who added it happened to do the 'original' research, but once it's been published, it's perfectly valid for use on WP (at least according to all rules I've read). It shouldn't make a difference who adds the info. Yes, any 'shameless self promotion' should be deleted, but if there's any, it's maybe a few unnessesary mentions of the set itself, and certainly not all the factual info. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up

Resolved

 – ahh, the clutter is gone

WP:UAA is kinda backlogged at the moment. Cheers. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Scott Brown?

Resolved

I am curious, ip claims to be some one named Scott Brown and being a prolific vandal in his random rants example of. I am just curious if anyone has even heard of him? By the way I think that is an admitted sockpuppet. I didn't read through it all but it seems to be what is being said. Rgoodermote  03:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind the cat has come back to life. Rgoodermote  03:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears you're correct. He was originally User:MrPhillyTV User:Spotteddogsdotorg. He's blocked now. Thanks. Evil saltine (talk) 03:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Funny nobody even had to answer this and I got my answer, well I am going to mark this as resolved because the IP was marked before an answer came to this thread. Rgoodermote  03:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User:71.156.32.232

Resolved

 – user blocked

71.156.32.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - please block this vandal and protect their Talk page. Corvus cornix_talk 04:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

block IP for linkspam: 75.85.30.124

This IP has been adding the same URL to several different pages. Can someone block him? [174] Tedder (talk) 04:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Every edit from this IP is either adding an inappropriate link or a test edit, but it's very slow motion and the talk page has only two warnings. I have left a final warning. Bovlb (talk) 06:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Independent Admin Review Requested

Resolved

 – nlocked the IP for 3RR--Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've come up with a problem on Eleanor Roosevelt. An IP removed a category without explaining, which I reverted and warned appropriately. They then removed it again. I researched the LGBT discussion about the category and posted a handwritten note on the talk page. They then posted a note to mine saying that my reverts were vandalism and I would be blocked. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Took care of it. I blocked the IP for edit warring on the article. They were warned, and refused to take it to the talk page. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

After blanking the block notice and replacing it with a trolling response, which was reverted by Jayron32, and done again, reverted by myself, I've semi-protected the talk page for 24 hours. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Self admited sockmaster needs additional eyes...

See User talk:Colleenthegreat. She admits to changing IPs and usernames to dodge a block. I have no idea where she has gone to, but one should check her contribs history carefully and block any relevent socks as needed. I am off to bed myself, but someone else should keep a close watch on this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I just reblocked with autoblock on IP addresses. I protected the talk page (she deserved it) for only a day (at least a little time off) so she can try another unblock tomorrow and see if someone else is interested then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, I think that should help. I'm going to bed, too. Useight (talk) 07:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

IP admits to being an open proxy

[175], looks like he just openly admitted to being an open proxy, looks like he may also be User:LBHS Cheerleader, and has recently been released from a block. Tiptoety ^talk 05:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)