Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

*If you cannot edit this page, it may be protected. Please leave a message here instead.

Proposed topic ban - User:MickMacNee regarding User:Betacommand

I'd like to propose a topic ban by MickMacNee (talk · contribs) in regards to actions by Betacommand (talk · contribs). It's apparent that Mick has a real animus toward Betacommand, as demonstrated by comments in the recently-archived massive thread about Betacommand and in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Betacommand/Edit count, as well as all of its predecessor threads in various forums. I'm not saying that Mick's concerns are without basis, but his obvious animosity, forum-shopping, and refusal to heed the advice of others is disruptive. Betacommand is under close community scrutiny, and I don't think that Mick's particular close attention on Betacommand's contribs is required. I, and others (including Until 1==2 and AuburnPilot) have tried to discuss this with him (most recently here) but I'm afraid the advice is falling on deaf ears. Would appreciate the community's opinion on this. Kelly ^hi! 16:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support My patience has been exhausted, as has a lot of peoples I suspect at that MFD. It is clear that Mick is blinded when it comes to Beta. Perhaps a forced withdrawal will help. Woody ([[User talk:Woody|tal16:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support a topic ban on MickMacNee towards issues relating to Betacommand. In my past experience with Mick I have noticed 3 things: 1) He perceives people disagreeing with him as a form of attack, 2) He will never stand down when he is sure he is right and 3) He has his own way of interpreting policy and no amount of consensus to the contrary will change that.

I think it is in the interest of the community to ask Mick to not deal with Betacommand. Other people who don't have an ax to grind can handle that situation. _{1 != 2} 16:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support a topic ban. --Conti|✉ 16:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - seems to always be around alleging conspiracy. —TreasuryTag—t | c 16:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not forum shopped. Please expand this claim if you want it to stand. And it is demonstrably clear that that an Mfd of that page was the next logical step (and only valid step), as identified by many other editors who followed the events surrounding that page. As for 1==2, 1) is wrong, please prove, 2) and you would? 3) Again wrong, please prove. Yes, other people are dealing with the larger situation (you will note I had no hand in the initiation or voting on that solution), so please demonstrate what you hope to achieve going forward by this action? (bar plain censorship of legitimate actions such as commenting at an Mfd) MickMacNee (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

proof for 1 and 3(your behavior on this page), and proof for 2. _{1 != 2} 16:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Please show exactly where "I perceive people who disaree with me as a personal attack". Please show an exact diff where I accuse someone of a personal attack without justification. A link to an entire page is frankly insufficient if you want to make such claims, and shows this issue for what it is. MickMacNee (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I am tired of arguing with you, I never get anywhere because you don't seem to take anyone else's opinion into account. I will let others decide if my links are enough or not. _{1 != 2} 17:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop wikilawyering. It's really annoying and part of the reason why we're discussing a topic ban. Maxim_(talk) 17:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You want the truth then? 1==2 and Kelly can't accept that an Mfd of a page owned by Beta is acceptable, despite numerous independant calls for one, so they come here, because they can't convince me that what happens at an Mfd in user space overrides what happens in wikispace, and they think they don't have to argue their point because my past history with Beta is enough for their views to count by default, because they can't reconcile the fact that the highlighted inconsistencies in their arguments go against the accepted principles of how wikipedia works. MickMacNee (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would we resort to conspiracy and backended attacks when it is clear that the MfD is not going to have any effect? Pretty much nobody agrees with the MfD and it will be closed as Kept. No this is about the way you are presenting yourself, and it goes well beyond just the MfD a quick look at your talk page shows that this is about you going after Beta for anything you can find. _{1 != 2} 17:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

As if you even know what the last issue was about (or would even take a side that doesn't support your current one). MickMacNee (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"He perceives people disagreeing with him as a form of attack"... I actually did follow the original discussion and I do know what it was about. It was about something unrelated, yet there you were going after beta. _{1 != 2} 17:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, Beta cannot be wrong in two separate issues. Impossible. MickMacNee (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support the topic ban as proposed above, Alex Muller 17:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT springs to mind. EJF (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but 21 keep voter in an Mfd does not override the stated wishes of 31 editors in wikispace, whether they were made a day ago, or in this case a few months ago. MickMacNee (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you asked for more proof, "has his own way of interpreting policy and no amount of consensus to the contrary will change that" describes that last post of yours very well. _{1 != 2} 17:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

God was this response ever ironic... Resolute 17:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

To 1==2, You are incessantly backflipping, one minute you think 21 keep votes is consensus, now you don't. It is obvious that the Mfd is not the place to discuss a previous wikispace arrangement, despite the fact you really want it to because the diversion and subversion suits the current agenda. You haven't got the balls or the integrity to take the issue to the correct venue. MickMacNee (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I never said anything about the MfD not having consensus, it clearly does. "He will never stand down when he is sure he is right"... You are actually re-enacting each of the reasons I supported this topic ban. This is tragic. _{1 != 2} 17:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• yes, I fully support this proposal. We clearly have issues to sort out with Beta's behaviour but we aren't going to be able to do it in the background of constant harping on about previous events from MickMacNee. I personally feel that this is a sanction that should be used more frequently to take the heat out of other disputes that are fuelled by personal animus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support - A definite need for this. asenine ^{say what?} 17:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• I've blocked MickMacNee for 24 hours for incivility, provocation and personal attacks. I've, with a note, listed three examples of such in the last 2-3 hours on his talkpage. Maxim_(talk) 17:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Extended to 48 hours for repeating the same behaviour on his talkpage. Maxim_(talk) 18:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Sceptre ^(talk) 17:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support: Just becaue he's sometimes right about Betacommand doesn't mean he's allowed to act the way he does. --Carnildo (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• My point of view precisely. —TreasuryTag—t | c 18:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support - (ec) There are definite issues regarding BetaCommand's behaviour. However, constantly prodding and poking involved parties and then attacking them when they reply is probably the worst way of going about resolving them. He is complaining about BC's incivility, and then goes around doing the same [and arguably worse] things himself. The words kettle, pot and black spring to mind! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:06, May 25, 2008 (UTC)
• Support - if there's any evidence to support it, a reciprocal ban would be appropriate... however every incident in which the two came to blows that I've experienced has been precipitated by MickMackNee. Happy‑melon 18:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support I sympathize with some of Mack's views, but I think he has gotten so burnt out and frustrated on Beta related topics that he can't effectively contribute to discussion surrounding it. Maybe he is right in how upset he is with the community's actions on these issues, but simply acting upset time and time again over it in a incivil manner isn't helping his cause, only disrupting things. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support - MMN is entirely unable to stay civil in matters related to Betacommand. His participation in discussions almost always has the effect of inflaming the dispute and increasing the drama. However, given the combative attitude he often displays, I'm unsure how effective this will be in avoiding more drama and blocks. Mr.Z-man 18:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with this, if anything, I imagine banning Mack on this will result in him just leaving the project, where, outside of a lot of this drama, he does good work. Of course, this is not to say that topic/ban or a block of incivility shouldn't happen if the community demands it. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say that barring any sudden influx of contrary opinions that it has been decided that MickMackNee is banned from topics related to Betacommand due to past behavior. _{1 != 2} 18:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose MickMacNee has been a much needed balance to the "BetaCommand Can Do No Wrong Cabal". - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 18:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"1) He perceives people disagreeing with him as a form of attack, 2) He will never stand down when he is sure he is right and 3) He has his own way of interpreting policy and no amount of consensus to the contrary will change that" would apply at least as well to Betacommand. If MickMacNee has become burnt out because of the ongoing problems with BC, then perhaps those who have done so much to defend BC from criticism should examine their consciences. DuncanHill (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

While I certainly agree that Betacommand needs attention, I don't think what Mick brings is "balance". _{1 != 2} 19:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The protection of his talk page just looks vindictive, in my opinion. DuncanHill (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I would support unprotecting his talk page and making some kind of transclusion so his comments there can be seen here. Kelly ^hi! 19:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

To be completely frank I think that unprotecting his talk page will lead to him saying something that will get him in more trouble, see [1]. Give a guy enough rope... But I don't oppose the unprotection because he may surprise me and act appropriately. _{1 != 2} 19:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I am by no means a member of the "BetaCommand Can Do No Wrong Cabal" (as Allstarecho put it), but MickMackNee's actions are bordering on harassment. It's time we force a separation between these two editors. - auburnpilot talk 20:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support The way MMN is making his points has been more than unhelpful, and his argumentative behavior only make it harder for everyone to take seriously the other "BC opponents". -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Especially after the latest 48 hour block. Will also support a reciprocal ban, if needed. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. The 34 comments Mick made on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Betacommand/Edit count were excessive and, IMO, badgering. Couple that with the 30+ comments that he made about BC on this page the other day, and it's clear he just can't stop at this point. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. About time too. MMN's hounding of Betacommand, pushing BC beyond human endurance and then shouting loudly when BC snaps has been some of the worst behaviour I've seen on Wikipedia. MMN's trolling and similar behaviour toward anyone who speaks up for BC or takes issue with him (MMN) is also appaling. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 21:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• This has been a long time coming. naerii - talk 21:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support I think this is an appropriate restriction. MBisanz ^talk 21:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• I have no problem with this proposed topic-ban. MickMacNee has gone far beyond the bounds of acceptable decorum and is simply inflaming an already inflammable situation. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Very strong oppose Whilst I also get irritated by the number of people who bring up complaints regarding Betacommand and his bots, I am absolutely against the principle of silencing them by topic banning. Topic banning a complainant is not going to encourage anyone else with a legitimate (or even nor so legitimate - but something that can be resolved) issue with BC to use the admin boards as resolution process, and may permit BC to believe that they can continue in the contentious style as they have previously. Betacommand has serious issues regarding his communication skills with both the use of his bots and his reaction to criticism of them. If we wish to reduce the number and variety of complainants in respect of BC I suggest that BC is the party that needs to be actioned. If MickMacNee has violated WP policy/guidelines then pursue that avenue, but lets not sanction the malcontent for simply bringing up the issue. If exasperation and irritation were the basis of considering sanction then Betacommand would not now be editing WP. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, Betacommand has already been sanctioned. --Conti|✉ 23:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I am aware of that. However, my point is that removing the critic is not the way to deal with the issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
      • If this were a case of somebody "simply bringing up the issue," that would be perfectly fine, but Mick has taken his opposition to Beta to a level that can only be described as stalking and harassment. Mick doesn't just bring up the issue, but badgers Beta and anyone else who disagrees with his (Mick's) stance on the issue. Civil discourse is fantastic; Mick's obsession is not. - auburnpilot talk 00:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support: This has been a long time coming; there are enough issues dealing with Betacommand already; MMN doesn't help things and has a tendency to make things a lot worse. I feel that taking him out of the picture will help the overall situation. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• This situation needs to deescalate, and Beta has enough critics to keep him sober. I'm not convinced MMN's presence here helps, and I'm quite certain it hinders. --Haemo (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose BC has been out of control forever and if he'd displayed half a lick of sense or self control over the past year the reaction to him wouldn't be so extreme. He's slipped the noose more times than he deserves and there needs to be critics on him and challenging his supporters. I'm looking forward to seeing if sanctions on BC actually stick. Wiggy! (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Mick made several excellent points during the previous discussion and although he could have presented them better, he was more civil than Betacommand. Why do Betacommand supporters single Mick out, while failing to acknowledge Betacommand's misconduct and communication problems? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Mild support. MickMacNee's frequent and relentless criticisms of Betacommand often seem to hold back productive discussion. Yes, Betacommand has earned the criticism in many ways, but MickMacNee has the tendency to keep hounding Betacommand about something long after the point has been made. Mick has been quite adept at finding problems, but now we all know about the problems and need to find solutions. That said, it will be a shame if a topic ban is successfully applied to MickMacNee but Betacommand's sanctions fail to stick, just because Betacommand has more friends in high places than MickMacNee. So it is very important that community consensus works both ways. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. When the way in which a user expresses his very very good points, and the frequency with which he expresses them, begins to annoy people more than the original problem he was attempting to solve, then the "solution" has become a separate, yet equally vexatious, problem. Mick has been asked repeatedly to slow down, to cool off, to disengage, and to back away from Betacommand--in fact, he's been asked, begged, cajoled, warned, and threatened (and topic-banned once before, IIRC)--and yet he persists in the behaviors the community has requested to end. A topic-ban would allow the Beta conversations to continue with a little less heat and a little more light, and would free Mick up to contribute to the encyclopedia--which is the whole point of this endeavor, after all. I find myself in agreement with Mick more than otherwise, but if he can't moderate his own modes of expression (and regrettably, that seems to be the case) then a topic ban will have to serve the same purpose. Sorry, Mick. Well, I was regretful, until I read this; now all I am is curious, as to why people insist on shooting themselves in the feet. Jeebus. Gladys J Cortez 03:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. User's contributions in regard to this area have become unhelpful to the point of disruption. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support, Mick left us no other choice. Whenever I see him posting here or to ANI, I know it will be about Betacommand or bots in general. He had been disuptive in this topic for the last half year. Several blocks din't help, so another measure needs to be taken. Topic ban is the kind of restriction that allows the user to concentrate on contributing to encyclopedia, instead of harassing Betacommand. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 04:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support, per all above. Note that Mick is on a 48-hour ban for incivility and might not be back here to respond for a while. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, fails to address the cause of the disruption, which is the behaviour of BC - all of the behaviours criticized in Mick are directly comparable to behaviours of BC, which certain editors and admins have been enabling and even encouraging for a long time. Smacks of "shoot the messenger", and may have a "chilling effect" on other editors seeking to raise concerns about the behaviour of prominent editors. DuncanHill (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• He's been over-the-top sometimes. However, BC's behavior is an ongoing problem that has yet to be solved. Someone pointing this out isn't a bad thing, and Mick (sometimes) makes valid points. Friday (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose This is a blatant attempt to silence someone who has done possibly more than anyone else to bring Betacommand's misbehaviour and bad conduct to the attention of the community. The fact that some people are even talking about bans for him clearly proves this. Jtrainor (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Whenever an issue regarding Betacommand crops up, Mick has to throw in his two cents. We all understand that he doesn't like BC, but his dislike is rather extreme and often crosses the boundary of WP:NPA. Horologium (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose While I agree he can be excessive in his commentary, he performs a useful role in keeping the thing honest and I really don't feel censorship is the answer here, especially given Betacommand's woeful standard of conduct and a certain very loud section of the community's willingness to let him away with anything on principle. Orderinchaos 08:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Point of order: Can admins issue topic bans?

I'm having trouble finding mention that the creation of a topic ban is something which Administrators should do. At the top of this page is stated Administrators are not referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. Wikipedia has a dispute resolution procedure editors should follow where possible. Assorted Administrator instructions do not mention topic bans except as enforcement of ArbCom decisions. -- SEWilco (talk) 06:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrators acting alone can't issue topic bans unless an arbitration remedy allows them to (eg. the remedy in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia), but the support of community consensus can. See the bottom section of Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editing restrictions only states that ArbCom can issue topic bans, and at the bottom is tacked on a list of non-ArbCom restrictions. There is no explanation there of the authority under which Admins can impose restrictions. Have the dispute resolution procedures been followed? -- 03:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on this specific case, and responding solely to this "point of order," it's been done before. The community is able to completely ban a user from the project, should consensus emerge to do so; it stands to reason that lighter but similar remedies fall within that remit and will sometimes be preferred. If need be, treat the partial ban as a community declaration of a final line that will trigger a ban or block with teeth if crossed. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you'd really like to see it in black and white, Wikipedia:Banning policy contains some relevant text. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It would seem entirely bizarre, and even a bit irrational, if admins can impose a full prohibition from the wiki without expiration (an indef block) but cannot impose a prohibition from a single area of the wiki (a topic ban). Just a thought. Vassyana (talk) 07:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as one is not attacking content pages or deleting people's comments , I don't see that any of us has a right to silence him in the discussion space . Our decision ( which , judging from some of the content on this page , is not assured ) that BetacommandBot performs in a perfectly reasonable fashion does not void the opposition's right to expression . As long as the language is not abusive or threatening or specifically engineered for the suppression of others' expression , I don't think that we ought to have any right to limit a person's posts on talk pages . --Frank.trampe (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Exact wording re topic ban of User:MickMacNee regarding User:Betacommand

I propose:

MickMacNee shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Betacommand, on any page in Wikipedia. Should MickMacNee do so, he may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week.

Taken from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WLU-Mystar and various other cases. Daniel (talk) 07:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I would propose a caveat; that MickMacNee may contact an admin in instances of policy violations against themselves where the above wording might otherwise restrict their ability to bring such notice. If it is to be a topic ban, let it be a topic ban and not a shooting gallery for any individual(s) with a score to settle. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's needed. If something's bad enough, another user will take it up. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I second LHVU's suggestion; as rspeer noted above he has been good as spotting problems, not so good as helping to solve them though. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Dreadful. Should at the very least add "Nothing in this sanction is to be taken as in any way implying that BC's behaviour is acceptable, nor may it be taken as in any way dismissing the substance of Mick's (or any other editor's) concerns about BC's behaviour", as well as adding LHvU's suggestion. DuncanHill (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If we're to do this, a caveat to the caveat: one of the topic ban's functions is to try to wean MMN off from closely watching BC's every move to find small errors and blow them up. The topic ban will work less well if he can keep doing this by reporting every small error to a passing admin. Thus I would add that he only make such reports where the perceived error impacts directly upon him (ie, his image uploads or articles where he has made significant contributions). Although actually I agree with Stifle: if it's serious, others will notice. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 11:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree; I specified that it would be for policy violations against himself relating to BC, not policy violations by BC generally. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, agree it should only apply to stuff directly affecting him. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This proviso sounds good to me. Kelly ^hi! 17:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The wording is fine. If Beta needs attention then he will get it, we don't need Mick to point it out to us. _{1 != 2} 18:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I am going to have to be blunt; if, during this topic ban, MickMacNee get BC related related harassment from anyone, then he should be able to contact an admin without fear of the consequences and without anyone needing to dog MMN's contribution history. As much as MMN is judged oversensitive about BC's actions, there is also an element within BC's supporters that are more intolerant of BC related criticism than may be considered as being appropriate. I should love to AGF to all parties in this recent series of events, but I am unable to do so for a small minority under certain circumstances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this topic ban notice going to be on MMN's talk page? If so, then it should also prohibit other users from discussing BC or BC-related issues on MMN's talk page. MMN should also be allowed to contact an admin if he notices uncivil comments about himself re:BC elsewhere on wikipedia. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 20:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent cuz I can't keep track of how many ":"s to type) LHvU, your bluntness is apparently falling on a yet-blunter object, to wit: my head today, because I still feel the need to ask this question: does this caveat also cover baiting from BC himself? IIRC most offenses on BC's part have been in response to things started by MMN, but in this conflict, as you said, I've seen so little good faith on all sides as to send AGF flying squarely out the window, and necessitating an explicit wording for even the most common-sense notions. Mick should have recourse if Beta chooses to interact with him. Mick may be irritating, but he's irritating about legitimate concerns, and we shouldn't lose sight of that as we attempt to influence his future behavior. Thanks...Gladys J Cortez 21:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It goes without saying that, when MMN is topic-banned from the whole BC subject, anybody - anybody - who uses that ban to taunt MMN will be subject to sanctions to protect Wikipedia from such behaviour. The topic ban is not an endorsement of either side and is certainly not a weapon for anyone to use against anyone else. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 21:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

We are not planning on putting common sense on the shelf. This is a measure to diffuse the situation, and if someone tries to twist that to a contrary end then that can be dealt with as we always do. _{1 != 2} 03:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Gladys j cortez) By, or on behalf of, BC. I suspect that it is the latter parties that need reminding - since BC is already on a civility parole and even a civil appearance on MMN's would raise eyebrows. In reply to Redvers and Until, it is not the appropriate response to any taunting, which is assumed, but that the editor concerned may bring it to an admins attention without violating the terms of the topic ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay that makes sense. So barring any objection I am going to post to Mick's page "MickMacNee shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Betacommand, on any page in Wikipedia. Should MickMacNee do so, he may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week." as well as add "If you feel you are being taunted, baited, or otherwise placed in a position where such sanctions would create an unreasonable position, you can make a report of the situation to an admin you trust and let that admin handle the situation without being in violation of the terms of this ban". _{1 != 2} 15:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, this meets my concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Was a limit suggested? I don't like open-ended bans, as sometimes just a period of quiet is all that is needed. Open-ended stuff can get dragged up years later, even when some of the people are no longer around. It also wastes time when people insist years later that an appeal is needed to overturn the stale topic ban. The length can still be appealed of course, but not setting a length is sometimes just being lazy on the part of those imposing the topic ban (this would apply to whatever topic ban was imposed on Betacommand as well - I was just leaving when that started, and was mildly surprised to come back and find a consensus had been reached). Carcharoth (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree that a limit seems to be needed, for any remedy of this nature. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well we can continue this discussion to determine any duration. I agree leaving it forever is not productive. _{1 != 2} 16:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Duration

I suggest 2 months as a duration to start with, we can re-apply the ban if it is needed again after that. I don't think leaving the topic ban in place forever is the best idea. Any other opinions? _{1 != 2} 16:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Two months sounds fine. I looked up the Betacommand one and saw that it says "These restrictions are in place until the community decide that the remedies are no longer appropriate." That doesn't seem entirely right to me, but I'm not really prepared to start that up again. Betacommand is perfectly capable of appealing at the right time himself, though I must admit that limits of blocks, bans and suchlike are rather arbitrary. There is a well-known civility restriction of a year, and other lengths of various bans and blocks seem rather arbitrary as well. I just normally like to see a specific length mentioned if at all possible. Makes thing simpler at the other end. Carcharoth (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as a point of clarification - of course Betacommand can appeal the restrictions himself, the wording simply says that the community has to agree, and until they do, they stay in place. Nothing in that wording states that he's banned from appealing. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Postlethwaite, have the dispute resolution procedures been followed? -- SEWilco (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, for who? Ryan Postlethwaite 10:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Two months is a funny period, the block templated tariffs go from one to three months and - since one month might be considered too short - I would suggest three months. Again, the period is not written in stone and MMN would be free to appeal a lifting within that time frame. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that three months would be a sensible duration - two seems too short and four too long - hopefully after that MMN will have improved and we won't have to be back here discussing extending it. Of course he could appeal it, although I don't think it would be a good idea to appeal within at least the next few weeks (as consensus is unlikely to change in a short timeframe). I'm glad that we reached consensus for a topic ban without too much mudslinging and drama. I like Until's wording too. As two days have passed without objection to the duration, can we assume there is consensus for that also? naerii - talk 22:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Three months sounds good to me. _{1 != 2} 16:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully by then the community will have assumed a more productive approach towards Betacommand's excesses and MMN's commentary will not be necessary. I have seen some positive signs in that direction in recent weeks. Orderinchaos 08:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Community ban discussion - Jovin Lambton

I'd like to propose a community ban of Jovin Lambton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). After going through his contributions, I found some quite significant pro-pedophilia POV pushing. In fact, a quick look through his mainspace constributions shows the majority are simply reverts of other users. In the Wikipedia space, his edits show large amounts of wikilawyering and attempt to turn the project into a battleground. Add to that using an IP to get other users sanctioned and I've come to the conclusion that the project is better off without his edits. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Support I support a community ban. He's certainly POV pushing, and he seems to only be working in inflame the situation here, on WP:PedMen, and other various places. hmwithτ 01:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? That is exactly the charge that I would aim at the other users on WP:PedMen. Can you please take a better look at who made the initial accusations in these arguments? J-Lambton ^T/_C 01:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want inflammatory, just look at PetraSchelm's behaviour on WP:PedMen. I have a right to defend myself against that kind of bile. J-Lambton ^T/_C 01:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, this isn't saying that anyone else is faultless. However, this specific section is currently discussing your actions. hmwithτ 01:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Very strong support. Ever thus to people who threaten me, however veiled and indirect. Googie man (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Very strong support Not here to build an encyclopedia; adds nothing to articles. Only here to troll, upset people, and cause conflict. Strong concerns that he uses socks. Cannot improve because he never takes responsibility for his actions--he is always the victim, and everything is someone else's fault. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I never threatened you. I instructed another user that encouraging you to edit is legally risky, as you accused another editor of being a pedophile. J-Lambton ^T/_C 01:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Jovin - I can assure you this isn't the only community sanction request I'll be making this week. There's some very questionable behaviour on these pages that needs to stop now. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes you did. You told me that if I keep up my behavior, I'm putting myself in legal and PERSONAL jeopard. If that's not a threat I don't know what is. In 4 years of editing Wikipedia, I certainly have never been discussed on an Administrator's noticeboard, nor have my edits alarmed independent watchdog groups who track Wikipedia edits. You threatened me - now deal with it. Googie man (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Googie - you accused another editor of being a pedophile. This may put you in legal or personal trouble (just an observation, based on the seriousness of the charge, not a threat from me). J-Lambton ^T/_C 01:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

How altruistic of you to be so concerned with my legal and personal welfare. I'm ready for you to stop worrying about my legal and personal welfare, OK? I simply asked a question and made a joke. If you or anyone else here asked me the same question, I wouldn't care, at all. Anyone can ask me any question, at any time. They can imply or come out and say that I'm a murderer, rapist, pedophile, genocidist, tax evador, all of the above, anything, *I don't care.* I'm none of those so why should I care? I'm a grown man, and I don't go to my attorney's office every time someone says something on Wikipedia I don't like. So my advice to people who get bent out of shape for me asking a question is to grow a thicker skin. Let's talk about you now Lambton. All the while you insist leaving messages on my talk page when I tell you to stop, you address me on Wikipedia when you say you're not interested in my ideas, and you threaten me. The day I'm discussed on the Admistrators Board, then let me have it with my bad behavior. Otherwise, I'll paraphrase your words - I'm not interested in you at all, The only thing that interests me is that you leave me, and the friends I've made here, alone. Now one thing I am very interested in is real life, and not wasting one more second of it on this incosequential drek. Googie man (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Support I have noted a decided lack of constructive contributions, and the user's tone to be generally argumentative rather than collaborative. Indeed, his counters are rarely relevant or even address a question directed at him. I have yet to witness a single instance of compromise. His edit records are exclusively restricted to articles relating to pedophilia and similar, and noticeboards to file complaints, with few exceptions. While it is fine to disagree with someone, one should at least have the decency to state why they disagree, not simply "No, you're wrong, I'm right." I cannot speak for this user's motivations, of which there could be many. But his actions serve to bolster a harmful platform whether he intends it or not. If that is enough for you, then it is enough for me.Legitimus (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I support all efforts to stop incivility and the promotion on tiny minority views on wikipedia. If a topic ban or ban is the best way to do this, then I back this. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I am always involved in arguments because others have goaded me. I have a right to defend myself, and respond to attacks that others have made against me.

My counters are always directed towards defending myself, or asserting logic over lack of understanding. Can you provide evidence for your claims, please?

"No, you're wrong, I'm right." is not my language. I challenge you to find any evidence of this. This perception may come from exactly this kind of response - asking someone to back up an allegation. I am not here to be accused.

Why are you expressing support for a ban that you have shown absolutely no will to push through, after conversing civilly and sensibly with me in the past? J-Lambton ^T/_C 02:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You asked my opinion, so I gave it. While your more argumentative statements tended to be directed at specific users (who granted could be argumentative back), such statements are not helpful at all to constructive editing. Further, while users such as PetraSchelm were also being pushy, they at least had intellectual material and frankly the general consensus of medicine to support their stance. I think you fail to realize how harmful the platform you are supporting could be. I do not necessarily support an permanent block. If you were to give up editing these articles, that's fine. Take them out of your watchlist and resist temptation to read them. I did this myself for a week to see what it would be like, and it can be something of a relief.Legitimus (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. User:Jovin Lambton has caused significant ongoing disruption, with incivility and tendentious editing from the moment the account was created. It's been a single purpose account from the start, engaging in rudeness, sarcasm, baiting, trolling, edit warring, and inserting pro-pedophile fringe theories with undue weight in many articles; and as has been pointed out already, adding nothing of value to the text of any article. The disruption caused by Jovin Lambton has wasted many hours for many editors; created a generally unpleasant, contentious and unwelcoming atmosphere on every page he's edited; and shows no sign of improvement on the horizon.

User:Jovin Lambton has caused so much trouble and so much waste of editing hours, that he inspired me to start collecting diffs of his behavior to send to ArbCom, since they have requested that pedophilia-related editing problems be directed to them privately. However, now that this discussion is already in process, that information is directly relevant, so I have posted it in a new section:

• disruption and incivility diffs list on the pedophile topic mentorship page.

Maybe all those diffs aren't even needed. Clear illustration of User:Jovin Lambton's methods can be found right here in his comments in this report. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Lambton is one of the very few editors willing to risk their reputation by countering POV in paedophilia articles, and his continued participation is vital. PetraSchelm and SqueakBox, probably the most active editors on these topics, both supported a revision of Pro-paedophile activism stating that pro-paed activists wish to legalize child porn "in order to deliberately humiliate publicly the children they sexually abuse for the rest of the child's life."[2] [3] Let's not give these people more proportional power, please. I'll comment more extensively later but now I have to go. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 03:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In after non-arbcom member bans Jovin because...: "Contact Arbcom for further appeals / information." --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This topic is one that is particularly sensitive, and subject to longstanding established special policy. Those who appear to be advocating pedophilia are subject to immediate and indefinite blocking by administrators. Arbcom is the direct route for appeals of these blocks.

I don't particularly want to be seen as supporting Squeakbox' behavior of late, but having gone back and looked at hundreds of Jovin Lambton edits over the last few months, back to the accounts' creation, it clearly is a problem. The edits go beyond merely attempting to find NPOV on the articles, though they are playing it smart and have found discrete issues and specific edits by others which were were unreasonably biased the other direction. Other editors have successfully pushed back against extremism in anti-pedophilia editing here without appearing themselves to be supporting it. My independent and uninvolved review of the edit history finds apparent advocacy. With apparent advocacy, both in specific edits and in a consistent overall pattern, and a focus only on that one topic for several months now, the special rules apply. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. There's been plenty of heat on both sides of the ongoing pedophilia brawl. Jovin's behavior must be considered in the context of constant inflammation from others. Given his willingness to depart from this terrain completely, I don't think a ban would be the best option right now. If the combative demeanor continues we can reevaluate later, but I suspect it will change for the better if he and the other WP:PAW editors are isolated. Disclosure -- I found my way here through an email from Jovin. I don't blame him for (hopefully) minor canvassing given the circumstances, but I thought I ought to mention it. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I oppose this process, nobody should have a community ban on this subject without specific arbcom sanction. Ryan's comments to propose further bans would be even worse and the policing of this subject needs to be left to the arbcom, we can each and all of us address them. I propose we delete the mentorship page for the same reason. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This seems sensible in the sense it would take the 'grudges against SqueakBox' factor out of things. John Nevard (talk) 09:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose to any process or discussion that does not take in account the whole situation and all involved editors. I'm seeing a lot of incivility on this group of users -hostility, harassment, disruptive editing etc. pro-pedophilia POV pushing damages wikipedia, and so does a spanish-inquisition-POV pushing. I agree however that this case requires urgent attention, as both sides are damaging wikipedia and probably keeping other neutral editors away from contributing Iunaw 18:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I find language like "spanish-inquisition-POV pushing" to be such absurd and insulting hyperbole directed at the people who have been working hard to improve and neutralize some articles with zero support that it doesn't even merit a response-- all I'll say is that it's distressing for the sake of Wikipedia and the neutrality of the PAW articles that anyone could possibly even think that; it bears no resemblance to the reality of the articles or how they've been edited. For example, for this first time in its history, Wikipedia now has a halfway decent article on child pornography. (The prior version had to be salted because it contained a search term for child porn). It's gone from this [4] to this: [5]. The wiki article on pro-pedophile activism, which gets 14,000 page views a month and has had a history as magnet for pedophile activists and a totally disputed tag for more than a year, recently went from this [6] to this: [7]. A great deal of work went into improving these articles, and the motive was to upgrade both their quality and neutrality (not that those can really be totally separated). What I personally experienced while doing a lot of this work was constant harassment from someone who contributed absolutely nothing + more than 20 sockpuppet/trolls, and that any attempt to get help with a disruptive editor and socks was met with knee-jerk accusations of, well, if you are complaining, therefore you are an anti-pedophile activist, a purveyor of moral panic, a hysteric, the spanish inquisition--no insult too absurd. And nobody even bothers to look at the articles. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have never said that these users (including you) do not do improve wikipedia in any way, but what i'm actually seeing is a dynamic of good/bad-edit-bundle-packs of say 50% good job, 40% extreme POV pushing, warring, hostility and disruption and 10% forum shopping and wikidrama- from extremely biased editors on both sides. I understand it is frustrating to deal with a endless sock-puppets army, but that is no excuse and does not address my concerns in any way. Iunaw 22:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

? You haven't addressed my concerns in any way; and your percentages are pure fiction. 1) What to do when a group of editors are improving articles, and one is not 2) what to do when complaints about a disruptive/nonproductive editor (and a sock army) are met with knee-jerk accusations towards the productive editors/just being ignored until the situation blows up. This is only tangentially about pedophilia (but the fact that it is tangentially about pedophilia meant no one wanted to touch it with their eleven foot pole, as Travis said). And no one has been home at the mentorship page or the PAW project (both of those should be MfD'd--they give the illusion that pedophilia-related issues are dealt with in a special ghetto, but they are not). The way things are now, any of the banned pro-pedophile editors know they can reincarnate, merrily troll and disrupt, and just scream "anti-pedophile hysteria! I'm being persecuted!" for behavior that would see them quickly blocked in any other topic, and most people will say nothing because they don't want to be involved at all, and the ones who do speak up will implausibly agree that "the spanish inquisiton" is on, for no reason that makes any sense to me. (Could you explain why you said that?) -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are only fiction, an estimate of the bundle contents. And just to give an obvious example, i would call this a spanish-inquisition-POV/censoring. Do you think that this photo(public domain, U.S. federal government work) is child-porn? And the Virgin Killer cover that sparked a moral panic recently, and that is present on a lot of websites? And this image, made by a photographer and available from the United States Library of Congress's Prints and Photographs Division,removed from two articles, giving on one of them the misleading edit summary "fix"? I see a coordinated POV-pushing by both teams. I'll be happy to discuss all this in detail, but this is not the appropriate place. Iunaw 01:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I get it--I see from your userpage that you are "anti-censorship," and hence you interpret Squeakbox's objection to the photos in the now merged Nudity and Children article as the "Spanish Inquisition." While I don't agree with him that those pics were porn, your response is pretty silly hyperbole. None of those pictures were deleted, either. So I guess that makes Squeakbox a pretty powerless Inquisitor. :-) (And that has absolutely nothing to do with the recent upgrades to PAW articles in general, Jovin Lambton, sockpuppet trolling--nothing). -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm it was just an example of an editing pattern and it's not just objection to a photo/content and a discussion about it, it's actually removing systematically content from articles, edit-warring, trying to game the system, failure to get the point, disruption.. But as i said, i'm waiting for a discussion at the appropriate venue, as i'm seeing that other editors have similar concerns and the AN in not the right place. Iunaw 21:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't find that any of those accusations hold up--first of all, the Nudity and Children article was Afd'd for being well, really bad and full of OR. When it was merged into Nudity, all the pics that were in the article were merged too.( I notice that someone else moved the pic that I thought didn't illustrate its topic to a more appropriate place after the merge: [8]) . And Jack-A-Roe, Squeakbox, I-nobody moved any of those pictures after they were merged into the "Children and nudity" section of the Nudity article. The three of us barely touched that article at all after the merge, (I don't even have it watchlisted, Jack did some minor clean-up, I don't see a Squeak edit) because the merge was such as hassle, in spite of the AfD being closed as merge, and general agreement that it was so bad and so full of OR that very little of the content should be merged. I wouldn't go so far as to make accusations that the editors who were involved in resisting the post-AfD merge were "edit warring, trying to game the system, failing to get the point, and disrupting," but I did have to post on AN/I "Very weird post AfD merge" before it was finally merged; because it did appear that there were editors who weren't happy with the AfD result and didn't want to enact consensus or have it enacted. -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Support ban. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Fret no more

You will not see me editing WP:PAW articles again. I've decided that fighting anti-pedophile bias and hysteria and displaying any knowledge of the pro-pedophile movement is dangerous and likely to be misunderstood, in light of others' support of anti-pedophile hysteria.

I will continue to defend myself here, and welcome others to defend me against those who cannot properly read WP:NPOV, clinical and critical literature on CSA related topics or my contributions history.

This account has been an utter disaster for me. I have been accused of pedophilia and of being multiple puppeteer by unrepentant POV warrior, hysteric and sock-puppeteer, SqueakBox - who'se latest CU puts beyond doubt that he owns one of the accounts he is using to poison me - creating it during a ban of his, long ago.

I have been harassed, had my IP shown around for all to see by PetraSchelm, a provocative, manipulative anti-pedophile POV pusher who falsely accuses others of incivility frequently, yet on far less occasions than she actually engages in it herself.

I have seen the ludicrous arguments of editors such as Jack-A-Roe who use civility to hide blindness to other perspectives, bias that reaches as far as absolute adherence to only one medical-pathological model of phenomena related to children, sexuality, trauma and pedophiles. This user actually believes that we need a source to describe arguments espoused by pro-pedophile activists as "perspectives", "opinions" or whatnot. Enough said.

I see articles on any number of these subjects descending into prejudicial, ethnocentric, tabloid bullshit under the protected pedophile-obsessive condemnation of advocacy editors who would rather forget that WP:NPOV ever existed. What good is there in doing this? In a year's time when any semblance of neutrality has been pushed out of WP:PAW, we should go about comparing some of these articles to any mainstream encyclopedia of sexuality, sociology or medicine. And with that grand revelation, we will know exactly why we were wrong in banning endless users - some of them not even preoccupied with WP:PAW articles - who were brave enough to enforce an editing pattern, that in its opposition to moral-bias, could be seen as being radical - even a display of advocacy. J-Lambton ^T/_C 03:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Now, let's hold on a second: the latest checkuser request on SqueakBox (talk · contribs) does not put it "beyond doubt" that he is utilising secondary accounts for abusive purposes. The currently pending checkuser request (it has evidently yet to be handled on requests for checkuser) has not yet received a response, and all previous checks came up negative. I'd suggest that you revoke and/or rephrase that section of your statement: it is somewhat inaccurate, and casts an unfair light on that editor. We go by "innocent until proven guilty" on here, if you please; not vica versa.

Anthøny 08:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Further to my Case

That the majority (but by no means all) of my edits go against the tone of certain others does not make them POV pushing. An extremely disruptive core of editors has taken to making disgusting accusations towards others, betraying an unhealthy bias that is shown in their editing (SqueakBox on Child Porn and Pro-pedophile activism, PetraSchelm's crazy argument about Ethical Models on the latter's talk page are just a couple of examples). In this environment, the push towards a more neutral article naturally consists of NPOV edits and sources/adjustments that the editor may not actually value as opinions. That is certainly the case with myself, and I urge all other users to check my contributions before coming to a conclusion.

Thus my behaviour would only be suspect, if the articles and general tone of editing were neutral in the first place. But analysis reveals that both are often ridden with hysteria, bias and misinformation.

The accusation of attempting to turn the project into a battleground is extremely biased on the part of Ryan Postlethwaite. I challenge him to provide diffs that clearly show that I have started arguments. I have been extremely thorough and vociferous in defending some of the most awful and incredible accusations and goading aimed towards myself, but I have always urged other editors not to fight with one another. J-Lambton ^T/_C 00:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ryan is incorrect, when he says that a majority of my article edits are reverts. Editors will also have to assess the content of the reverts. In my opinion, they are all valid - mainly NPOV or consensus type edits. J-Lambton ^T/_C 00:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Accusation of Socking

Here

This is also false - based upon my failure to log on at the start of sessions. Before any link between myself and the IPs was publicly suggested, I disowned one IP by telling editors (on its talk page) to ignore me, as I was failing to log on. With the other IP (which I thought was the other as well), I simply overwrote my mistaken edit. I did not want to reveal my IP on pedophile articles, so I made my admission subtle, but by no means untraceable. If I was socking, this would have been self defeating and suicidal behaviour. Not to mention that I didn't reset my IP - something that is possible with my ISP (again, suicidal, unrealistic). J-Lambton ^T/_C 00:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What we should be focusing on: PetraSchelm

This user was told by Swatjester that she would be indef blocked if she continued in her disrespectful and disruptive behaviour. The admin concerned disappeared from the scene, Schelm escalated her behaviour with a series of unfounded attacks in all kinds of fora - including the contrivance of legal threats from normal discourse, and she still remains unblocked.

Another user, SqueakBox, known for accusing other editors of harbouring pro-pedophile agandas and pedophilic fantasies is getting away with murder right now - with what appears to be an almost certain sockpuppet:

Requests for checkuser/Case/SqueakBox J-Lambton ^T/_C 01:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This thread isn't about these users, but don't worry, I'll be proposing sanctions for others later this week. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Per prior enforcement policy and precedent, I have blocked Jovin Lambton. There seem to be no non-pedophilia related edits in some time, and there are a number of edits which move beyond NPOV into at least noticable if not strident activism.

This is enthusiastically not support for edits or actions of Squeakbox, PetraSchelm, or others of late - I suggest other administrators review those.

While I am sympathetic to the complex issues involved with maintaining NPOV on pedophilia related articles in the face of strident anti-child-abuse editors, the situation as a whole picture paints a picture of another subtle POV pusher not a neutral editor. Wikipedia has a recurring problem with pedophile activists attempting to slant these articles. They are most specifically not welcome and subject to ban on credible detection as such.

I filed a brief incident note with Arbcom via email. Per prior precedent, appeals should go to Arbcom. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

George, this seems like a poor move to me. You've blocked an editor for a narrowly-defined behavior pattern immediately after he pledged to stop editing in the "problem areas" entirely. Doing so in the midst of a very young community discussion seems especially unbefitting.

To date there has been no real arbitration proceeding; arbitrator actions in these matters have not really been committee operations, but individual ones. There's quite an extensive history involving questionable blocks, unanswered emails and so forth. Referring back to Fred's very old statement as inviolable "precedent" does not seem wise given past experiences. I suggest you reconsider both the hasty block and your statement regarding ArbCom. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Given its sensitive nature, having ArbCom handle things quietly is the opposite of hasty. What do you hope to achieve by blowing things up publicly? --Calton | Talk 07:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Note an unblock here would not have to go through arbcom; just because George says it does, does not make it so. Terrible block, strongly recommend unblocking. Neıl 龱 07:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What concerns me is that if this editor wishes to return, even respecting the self-imposed topic ban and editing elsewhere, he is still technically in defiance of a block - it seems a little pointless to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Relata refero (talk • contribs) 08:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the status quo for editors who are perceived to edit in a fashion that promotes pedophilia. They are blocked and told to contact the arbitration committee if they wish to appeal their block.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Neil, what is unclear about this series of diffs indicating the Arbcom has asserted full jurisdiction over conflicts related to this field [9], [10], [11], [12]? MBisanz ^talk 08:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova, in particular "Responsibility" and "Prior approval", may be of interest. From my understanding of prior events, only pro-pedophilia-related blocks enacted by current and former members of the Arbitration Committee were given the status of only being reversable after discussion privately on arbcom-l. I may be wrong, but I somehow doubt they'd want to delegate the authority to block without public discussion to simply any administrator. Remember that the context of the blocks made where Fred made this statement was that there was previous discussion on arbcom-l before the block happened (to the best of my knowledge). Daniel (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

On a more general note, considering that --

• there have been no formal ArbCom proceedings regarding these matters, only individual promulgations from editors who were members of the committee, and
• the arbitrators making these promulgations are for the most part long gone from the committee, and
• past experiences have shown that the process advanced by these promulgations plainly didn't work out as intended, and
• our banning policy has always maintained that ArbCom-sanctioned bans are to follow from arbitration requests (as opposed to informal decisions from arbitrators), and the arbitration policy creates no exceptions to this

-- I think it is reasonable to resume standard procedure unless the current committee clearly and formally tells us otherwise. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 08:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If Lambton stops editing in the "problem areas", where is he going to edit? I don't think the MinGW Developers Studio pages can really do with his kind of help. Personally, I think if this issue has to be discussed publicly in order to get the pedophilia articles the extra committed attention they deserve from editors without a fringe point of view on the subject, the Wikipedia community would prefer that any reporting took the form of 'for the past four years, pedophiles have successfully disrupted the Wikipedia articles on their crimes... parents should remember that Wikipedia can be...' than 'pedophiles continue to disrupt the Wikipedia articles on their crimes...Wikipedia is known for being a haven for...'. John Nevard (talk) 09:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The only people who say that anymore are the extremist critics of Wikipedia. The mainstream media has moved on from this, as recent non-scandal scandals clearly demonstrate. The public is tired of fear and nobody gives a damn as long as they follow our rules. Blocks are not punitive or done in response to fear mongering. Daniel has it right, there is no justification for an indef block here based on poorly made Arbcom statements. --Dragon695 (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason pedophilia advocates are not allowed to disrupt Wikipedia is because of the particularly offensive nature of their article destruction as seen by the general public. You have read Jimbo's comments on the kiddie-fiddler userbox debacle, haven't you? John Nevard (talk) 02:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as there is some confusion, let me quote Mr. Bauder on behalf of the Arbcom

Please direct all communication regarding blocking of pedophilia advocates directly to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org Fred Bauder 12:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC) for the Arbitration Committee.

I see that as a statement by a member of the arbcom, acting on behalf of the arbcom, telling all people that any communications related to blocks of pedophilia advocates should be sent to the arbcom. In the past, such as with NSLE and JoshuaZ, the arbcom has acted without formal public proceedings and has never indicated that past arbcoms should be given less wait merely due to the retirement of their members. MBisanz ^talk 08:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to delve this deep into the lawyerificness, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova was more recent. It stated that unless the person was undertaking an "official task as authorised by the Arbitration Committee", that they "must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their actions in a timely manner", and "[i]f a user feels that they cannot justify their actions in public, they are obliged to refrain from that action altogether or to bring the matter before the Arbitration Committee". The Durova case was both more recent and a case where a majority of arbitrators publically approved of the principle I quoted above. The Committee is not bound by its own decisions, and can repeal them by a contradicting decision (as they did in Durova), especially when this is contradicting a statement made by one arbitrator in a specific dispute, which wasn't alluding to establishing itself as a general principle (unlike "Responsibility" in Durova, which was passed as a "priniple"). Daniel (talk) 09:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am going to be brief here, for once. Firstly, I'm not convinced that this block is necessary, and indeed, it seems rather penal to me. Blocks should be preventative. Secondly, an unblock request would not, under normal circumstances, be handled by the Arbitration Committee (there's a finding in the Durova case, which may be relevant). Anthøny 09:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This is all a bit silly. You are treating pedophilia as if it's any other controversy, like US politics or pseudoscience. You'll get nowhere trying to debate the policy of of something that does not exist in writing anyway. The purpose of the many past instances in which appeals of bans of this type—by arbitrators or non-arbitrators—have been directed to the arbitration mailing list is identical here. All the public drama here and inane arguing over who is allowed to do what when is exactly what appeals ArbCom avoid, and exactly when we need to avoid it, for sensitive topics like pedophilia. Let's all direct any reasonable appeals we have to ArbCom's mailing list (arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org) and close and archive this thread, before ArbCom does it for us. Dmcdevit·t 13:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. It may not be a controversy, but we do have an obligation to not insert feelings into these articles, even if they are mainstream feelings. Our articles should be factual and accurate, with no appeals to emotion. No, the community has a right to have a discussion about this in the open, since some editors have been shopping for a block. Supression of discussion because of panic is not good for wikipedia. --Dragon695 (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And neither is dismissing others' arguments as "panic" when they are no such thing. If you can't tell the difference between appealing to emotion and recognizing the sensitivity of issues regarding pedophilia and treating it with the propriety it deserves, then I am not sure you are likely to help. Dmcdevit·t 14:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Calling it a sensitive issue that cannot be discussed in the open is the definition of a moral panic. All I want to see is that he receives the exact same treatment as any other "problem" editor. Policy should be applied without regard to one's status as a sinner or saint. The editor made a good-faith promise to avoid problematic articles. This is about fairness and discussions in private does not invoke the idea of fairness. How do we know you are giving him a fair hearing? How do we know you are even considering it at all? Only transparency can make sure that you are giving sound decisions based on policy and not your personal feelings. I'm with Carnildo and others who say that we cannot discriminate based on what someone's personal life situation is. --Dragon695 (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. And transparency is needed for another reason that I shouldn't even have to bring up. Anywhere where there is a lack of transparency, there is always the chance, however small, that bad things happen because of that lack of transparency - the exact opposite of what people expect to see happen. Stop and think for a moment about what I am implying here, and look at what has happened elsewhere in the past, and where the unforeseen problems sometimes come from. The only way to guard against that is complete transparency. Speaking more generally, there is both a "content" problem here and "social networking" problem. Wikipedia can only realistically deal with the former, but shouldn't enable the latter by keeping things in secret and saying "everything is under control". Wikipedia can never be entirely (or even partially) safer than anywhere else on the internet and people (of whatever age) editing Wikipedia pseudononymously shouldn't think it is safe. Carcharoth (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"I have blocked Jovin Lambton. There seem to be no non-pedophilia related edits in some time, and there are a number of edits which move beyond NPOV into at least noticable if not strident activism." - This is your reasoning? "I reckon that mabye some of his edits could reflect a particular personal bias, but I'm not actually going to give any specific examples of edits that have violated policy. So I'm going to unilaterally block him, and I'm not going to go through ARBCOM."? Now I realise that ARBCOM likes to make disappear any editor remotely associated with promoting NPOV on any WP:PAW article, but this administrator did not even bother to hand it to them so that they could pretend to review it fairly. Unbelievable. Gonelegit (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be somewhat confused. Of course I handed it to Arbcom. They received a notification email immediately after the block and prior to my posting here. This process is what Arbcom has indicated they want followed, and what I and other administrators have done in the past. They have asked that if experienced administrators spot clear examples of such behavior, we are to act preventively, and hand the ball to them for review and appeals. That's exactly what happened. The specific established process for this particular topic is different than other abuse matters and types. It is sensitive enough to require special handling. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"It is sensitive enough to require special handling." Exactly. Well done Georgewilliamherbert. It took the creation of a new policy to get editors here to start treating living humans beings like living human beings and not some building that they could treat with cold unemotional indifference to pain and harm. I would hope the community has learned its lesson and we will not be forced to again make the obvious into a written policy. Sensitive claims requires sensitive treatment. "Do no harm", while not our only concern is indeed an important concern. We must not be indifferent to the harm an article can cause that lightly dismisses potential significant psychological or physical damage. It is better to err on one side of this NPOV than the other side. "Better safe than sorry" the old expression goes. What is encyclopedic and known for sure we must present clearly and without censorship, including certain images that SqueakBox and I differ on; but when it comes to disputed claims that can cause significant harm if we get it wrong, we must err on the safe side. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that the results of the Arbcom discussions and any appeals are made known. If there is silence, how are we supposed to know that the whole matter was not just ignored? No need to say what was discussed, just that discussion did take place. Given other silences, it is difficult to distinguish between silences due to inaction, overload, or lack of communication. Keeping channels of communication open is still the key to any organisation that deals with appeals and blocks and bans, and letting people know when such communications will, of necessity, be limited or kept brief and to the point (as opposed to nothing being recorded anywhere). Carcharoth (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom never made a case decision to block pedophiles on sight. Rather, it was Fred Bauder who made the statement, based on an arbcom case about a pro-pedophile userbox. Jimbo supported it, and other arbs went along with it, all swept under the radar. -- Ned Scott 23:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, WAS, this seems impertinent given Lambton's statements above. Lambton can't do harm to articles that he's stopped editing. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 07:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose no matter how repulsive we might think it is, trying to ban a user because of their personal beliefs (which is what I believe this comes down to) is wrong. Arbcom does not have, nor has it ever had, the authority to ban editors like this, nor do they have the right to demand that we can't talk about it on the wiki. All editors take note, if Arbcom or Jimbo feels that associating with you makes them look bad, they will ban you, even if you've never done anything wrong legally or on Wikipedia. I challenged Arbcom six months ago about a user (who not only was far tamer than the editor in question today, but was even given as an example of a good editor by multiple Wikipedians in good standing) this was Fred Bauder's responce:

  It's more a public relations thing. Hosting him damages Wikipedia reputation.
  
  Fred

  The community needs to be aware of this, and to take back the power to decide these matters for themselves. It's certainly not cool to violate the Foundation's No discrimination policy. Someone prod me when this discussion is actually about the user's activities, rather than what they personally believe. -- Ned Scott 23:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This aint just about POV pushing. I've stated here my reason for thinking we're better off without Jovin - there's more to this. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • You are being far more fair about this, Ryan, by focusing on his actions rather than his personal beliefs, and I thank you for it. Consider my oppose and above rant to be directed more at the general discussion here and in the past. -- Ned Scott 23:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom Decisions

Since it is apparent that Arbcom has usurped this, I think it only fair that Arbcom make an official statement on the outcome and the exact rationale for an indef block as opposed to a topic-ban. The perception is that you ignore any appeals and so these editors are disappeared from Wikipedia. If other TE editors only get topic bans, as per the remedies in the 9/11 et al., I see no reason why similar remedies cannot apply here. There is no policy page that states we must indef block based on what we think about their personal life. What we do have is policy that allows us to topic ban those who are perceived to be TE editors. Blocks are not punitive, no matter how vile we find the personal behavior of the individual. Again, if it is good enough for 9/11, an issue I would say is 10x more sensitive and emotional, then it should be good enough for these editors. --Dragon695 (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that last week Arbcom/Jimbo overturned a block done by myself and another admin following an individual who sockpuppeted their own RFA that had three different admins decline the unblock and eventually protect the page. The arbcom/Jimbo did this apparently after discussing the the matter in private and deciding to give the individual one final chance. So they certainly do not ignore appeals. MBisanz ^talk 19:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

They have ignored several appeals related to this matter. -- Ned Scott 23:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If they have not responded to you if you emailed them after the block, then "not responded" does not equal "ignored". Please consider that this is a sensitive topic and that, even if you make your concerns known to them, they may not involve you in any following discussions.

I have not received any followup from Arbcom since I issued the block. I take this to be that A) they're busy and/or B) it's a sensitive topic they talk about internally and not externally (which we already know). I doubt very much that they're ignoring the notification or anyone's appeals. Please AGF - the Arbcom members take their jobs seriously, and are entirely willing to overturn administrator mistakes if they find them. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

George, I'm comfortable assuming good faith; I even assume that Jovin is acting in good faith, however misguided his actions may appear. However, if every email I've sent to ArbCom about this sort of situation has met with no meaningful response, if none of these user blocks based on perceived beliefs have ever been reversed by ArbCom, and if we're not even allowed to discuss the problem openly, then the assumption of good faith is sorely tested, if not completely overcome by evidence to the contrary. When all I see or hear is silence, then that silence is all I can judge these actions by.

It really looks to me like we've decided to sanction editors based on their disreputable beliefs rather than their conduct as editors. Much as I disagree with Jovin's beliefs referenced here (If accurately ascribed), I'd rather edit with him than with other of the editors (and admins) collaborating on this topic area. When we start judging editors by our perception of their motivations, we set a dangerous precedent. When we do so via a Star Chamber proceeding, we cement that precedent in place without ever supporting it with facts. --SSBohio 03:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I am usually pretty proud of my ability to go through a discussion and synthesise developments and facts, but here, my brain is really returning a mush of "there are no useful facts here", and tl;dr. I think it may be useful to throw all of this over to a subpage, and start over, this time with our sensible hats on, and with the guiding hands of a few experienced administrators (clearly, that wasn't a resource available when the thread was new and didn't have the 'publicity' it currently has). Thoughts on doing this? Anthøny 16:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent idea. I don't know how to do it except as a cut & paste, and I hesitate to do that. While we decide, here are the user's contributions, including their most recent diffs, sorted by article:

Edit count for Edit count for User:Jovin Lambton, 14:28, Thursday 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: Copying this will copy its wikimarkup, not the text itself.

Article namespace: 150

Automatic (rollback/script/tool) reverts: 1

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1

Removals: 2

XfD deletion-related tagging: 1

Unknown abbreviation (≤4 characters): 9

Unrecognised edit summary: 109

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 20

No edit summary: 7

Talk namespace: 276

Manual reverts not marked as vandalism reverts: 1

Unrecognised edit summary: 16

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 252

No edit summary: 7

User talk namespace: 88

Unrecognised edit summary: 7

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 71

No edit summary: 10

Wikipedia namespace: 129

XfD deletion-related tagging: 1

Deletion-related edit summaries: 1

Unrecognised edit summary: 4

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 120

No edit summary: 3

Wikipedia talk namespace: 13

Unrecognised edit summary: 2

Edits to sections, with no further summary: 11

Image talk namespace: 1

No edit summary: 1

Total: 657

Contribution breakdown for User:Jovin Lambton

• Talk:Pro-pedophile activism: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]... (138 edit(s))
• Talk:Child sexual abuse: [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]... (65 edit(s))
• Talk:Pedophilia: [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]... (43 edit(s))
• Pro-pedophile activism: [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]... (42 edit(s))
• Wikipedia:Pedophile topic mentorship: [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]... (40 edit(s))
• User talk:AnotherSolipsist: [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72]... (32 edit(s))
• Pedophilia: [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82]... (28 edit(s))
• Child sexual abuse: [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92]... (23 edit(s))
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard subpages: [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102]... (20 edit(s))
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion subpages: [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112]... (19 edit(s))
• User talk:Swatjester: [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122]... (18 edit(s))
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser subpages: [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132]... (18 edit(s))
• Talk:Child pornography: [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142]... (18 edit(s))
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152]... (14 edit(s))
• Wikipedia:Fringe theories subpages: [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162]... (12 edit(s))
• Child pornography: [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] (10 edit(s))
• Anti-pedophile activism: [173] [174] [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] (9 edit(s))
• User talk:PetraSchelm: [182] [183] [184] [185] [186] [187] [188] [189] (8 edit(s))
• User talk:Googie man: [190] [191] [192] [193] [194] [195] [196] (7 edit(s))
• Talk:Pederasty: [197] [198] [199] [200] [201] [202] [203] (7 edit(s))
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch: [204] [205] [206] [207] [208] [209] (6 edit(s))
• Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard: [210] [211] [212] [213] [214] (5 edit(s))
• Pederasty: [215] [216] [217] [218] [219] (5 edit(s))
• Others in namespace User talk: [220] [221] [222] [223] [224] [225] [226] [227] [228] [229]... (23 edit(s))
• Others in namespace Wikipedia: [230] [231] [232] [233] [234] [235] (6 edit(s))
• Others in namespace (main): [236] [237] [238] [239] [240] [241] [242] [243] [244] [245]... (33 edit(s))
• Others in namespace Talk: [246] [247] [248] [249] [250] (5 edit(s))

Presented to inform the discussion with facts. --SSBohio 19:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Got a sock, looking for a drawer

[251] Hm? Ring any bells? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Spotchecking random edits...I don't see any that are wrong (other than missing a parameter on the template). Is it possible that this isn't someone here to disrupt, but just wants to mess around with gnomework apart from their main account? --Onorem♠Dil 01:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Nakon 02:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(EC with nakon above) Well, except that all they are doing is creating userpages for blocked users, many of which have been blocked for weeks or months, with the indefblock tag... Which adds them to the "temporary userpage" category, which means, guess what, is a deletion category. All he is doing is creating work for admins by creating userpages with a template that asks for them to be deleted. Its exactly like creating new articles with nothing but db- templates. Plus, I found another of his socks. User:Gnomewiki. Plus, I have seen this guy before. I just can't place him now. Its more than just a feeling. I know the face, but I can't place the name, if you know what I mean... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just asking. I'd forgotten about the temp user category. --Onorem♠Dil 02:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... you might wish to take a look at this regarding Gnomewiki - he was blocked indef but since had the block lifted per AGF. Oh well, I'd rather be mistaken in applying AGF than be mistaken by not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Easy for you to say, you're already an admin. :)--Relata refero (disp.) 21:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Acts of Union 1707

A couple of users are engaging in original research by using quotes from English MPs to support the statement that there were "many concerns that England was using the Union to dominate Scotland". This conclusion is not supported by any references that are given - the argument is synthesising material and coming to a conclusion itself. This is, of course, orignal research, and I thus placed a tag on the section. However, this tag is keep being removed. Can someone please have a look at this and deal with the people involved? 213.131.125.34 (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

there are also cited references to some standard histories to that effect, so I see no reason to exclude accurate contemporary quotations. DGG (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm, that's not the point. The point is that those quotations are being used to infer a further statement that is not supported by any other source given. This is original research. It has stopped now anyway: the tag has remained. 88.107.18.5 (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Community ban for Jvolkblum (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – Rudget (Help?) 10:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

After the eigth SSP case and countless requests for checkuser to determine sockpuppets, we have found out that after the original blocking of Jvolkblum, he has gone on to create more than 35 sockpuppets, all of which have been confirmed by similar editing patterns, similar creation times and the rest (most of them) by checkuser. He is continually disrupting pages about various places in New York (mainly New Rochelle) and is starting to become a problem whilst waiting for results to be confirmed that they are still continuing to remove or insert whatever they like. I've been involved and researched near-most of the SSP cases, and the effect on those who are reporting the users is showing. With 39 confirmed socks and a continual use of proxies to get around blocks on account creation, a ban would help if we could revert these users edit on sight. Rudget (Help?) 15:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Here are the relevant links to the cases:

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (2nd)
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (3rd)
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (4th)
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (5th)
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (6th)
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (7th)
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (8th)
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jvolkblum

With a history like that it's almost pointless asking for a community ban to be formally confirmed - but whatever, 'support' and all that. naerii - talk 15:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, just go ahead and do it. MastCell ^Talk 15:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. I'm somewhat familiar with this SSP case (I've been contacted by some of the socks), and I see no reason for holding back on a ban. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I've seen prolific sockfarms before, but this is right up there on the top. Agree with Naerii that something like this hardly needs to be formally approved, but yeah, Support. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Total support ban. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• It seems there is sufficient consensus for a ban, so I will now go on to place the template on the userpage and note the motion in the block log. Rudget (Help?) 10:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Pokrajac (talk · contribs)

This user is reverting English-language naming of tennis player biographies and names despite being informed about Wikipedia policy concerning those names. The relevant diffs showing his or her edits are here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. This user's rather incivil posts to my discussion page can be found here. Tennis expert (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, all Serbs, (also Croats, Bosniaks...) in this encyclopedia are listed whit original names whit Serbian (Croatian) latin letters š, đ, č, ć, and ž. There is no reason that tennis players be exeption. If somebody want double standards, I can't "fight" against strog inequitably power. --Pockey (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

New instances of this user's disruptive editing: 14, 15, 16. Tennis expert (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing illiterately. --Pockey (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive edit #17. Tennis expert (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that if all of the appropriate redirects are available, it will be a matter of indifference to most of our readers which spelling holds the actual article. - Jmabel | Talk 15:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. But that's not established Wikipedia policy. What we're talking about here is a user who has been informed of the policy, has a personal disagreement with it, and is disruptively editing based on those personal feelings. Tennis expert (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not only my disagreement. Everyone who knows what is correct spelling of Serbian names can not accept this so called policy. Have you consulted Serbian and Croatian speaking users when you decided to make double standards about tennis players? Almost all people whit those leters in this encyclopedia are listed correctly and some so called proficients of Serbo-Croatian language can't tell over night what we must do whit tennis players. I will always be high-class user of this Wikipedia, and i will always correcting illiterately names. --Pockey (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I can see now that User:Tennis expert have produced big number of edit wars all over Wikipedia, because he think he is a lecturer of Serbian and Czech languages. Similar situation we have on article Radek Štěpánek, where he can't be tolerate for standardised Czech language. --Pockey (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Same thing whit article Daniela Hantuchová. This user speaks Slovak as well! :) --Pockey (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

More disruptive edits by User:Pokrajac: 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. Tennis expert (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to give my full support for User:Pokrajac and other users with brain on the right place and with the feeling of the common sense. This so-called "policy" is nothing else than a silent consensus reached by several like-minded users of WPP Tennis, their "consensus" goes against the common sense and the Wikipedia precedence and general consensus policies. Their fresh ruthless policies should be changed and reverted back, otherwise we will have double standards here. - Darwinek (talk) 07:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for my brain apparently being misplaced lately, for having no conception of common sense, and for imposing "fresh ruthless policies." By the way, why did you say in response to the arguments that Redux made on your discussion page "I see your points" if those arguments were full of double standards and represent a mere "silent consensus reached by several like-minded users of WPP Tennis"? I have noted with interest your reversion of three renames of tennis articles after your dialogue with Redux: 1, 2, 3. Tennis expert (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

All should be moved back to their proper names. Several stubborn users can't stop the whole community and the common sense of decent Wikipedianz. - Darwinek (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you're calling me "stubborn." What have I done to deserve being called names? That's very un-administrator of you. Tennis expert (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but if you don't see a problem with calling user "disruptive" for correcting article titles and report him for that at WP:AN/I, it is sad. This is no more, no less than a content dispute and should be dealt with as such. There would be 500 threads each day here if everyone would be dropping in with similar "issues" as you do. --Darwinek (talk) 09:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This was the exact procedure that Redux said should be followed: make reports to this noticeboard. If you have a problem with that, maybe you should talk to him and direct your name calling (e.g., stubborn, brain in the wrong place, no common sense, ruthless, disruptive, lacking decency, double standards imposing) in his direction. Besides, I thought you were supposed to avoid this kind of thing. Tennis expert (talk) 09:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

My civility parole ended two months ago, my record is clear now, therefore I say to you, "No comment, this discussion is completely useless. I quit." - Darwinek (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Darwinek - although he should be aware Tennis expert is not the party at fault here, I've established after a conversation with him that he was not part of the original disputes nor was he aware of them. The articles should not be moved, just as we don't rename places because poor Anglos (of which I am proudly one, by the way) can't read foreign characters, and in general we don't name biographies, we shouldn't be creating a culture of exceptionalism where one WikiProject decides to violate norms elsewhere in the encyclopaedia for no apparent reason but that some other organisation thinks it necessary to drop diacritics. Orderinchaos 10:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Assistance required 2

Resolved

 – Conversation being continued in later thread: #Al-Azhar University vandal --Elonka 04:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There's this one really persistent anonymous vandal on the Al-Azhar University page. He keeps trying to insert a potentially inflammatory phrase into the article, but for the longest wouldn't even bother providing a source to back it up. Another wiki editor promptly reverted his first edit. But he was right back at it, so I started removing that unsourced statement myself, and explained to him that he would have to provide a reference for it if he intended to reinsert it. He came back with what he claimed were five legitimate references. I looked into each one of these sources, and not one of them supported his statement. I explained to him on the talk page in some detail why none of his sources were relevant and why his edit was therefore inadmissible. To make a long story short, he has been trying to salvage a slightly modified version of that same assertion, but he's still trying to back it up with those same irrelevant sources. We've been in an editing war since. The guy doesn't even bother justifying his edits anymore and has gotten pretty belligerent ("you're pushing it"; "get a life", that sort of thing). As I write, his bogus unsourced edit still stands. Can someone please have a look? Causteau (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've checked this one out and all I will say is that you shouldn't believe the registered user simply because they have an account.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.189.142.44 (talk • contribs) 19:26, May 30, 2008 (UTC)

There's an old saying... something about glass houses... — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment The Hand That Feeds You and for exposing user 195.189.142.44. I've just re-edited the Al-Azhar University page. The vandal is bound to return, and I want him to know that he can't just post any 'ol thing with a bunch of unrelated sources, insult fellow editors, and get away with it just because Al-Azhar is a small page that not many editors visit. I forgot to mention that there were edits to the Al-Azhar Shia Fatwa by yet another anonymous IP that bear a striking resemblance to this user's handiwork. I suspect it's the same person because the edits are virtually identical and because he also edited the Al-Azhar University page during the same period under this other IP. Causteau (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This thread is being continued at #Al-Azhar University vandal. --Elonka 04:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for unbanning by User:Iamandrewrice

From Jimbo's talk page, moved here as a more appropriate venue. George The Dragon (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I made an effort here but with the opposition and concerns raised by George The Dragon I'm reverting to back to my initial opposition to this. Sorry but this is exactly what I was afraid of. Can we instead discuss a time limit on the ban, to be reset whenever he is caught socking? EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already been waiting 6 months... :( I don't understand why I'm still being banned. I am on medication for my disorder now; if you were going to be at all fair, you would at least give me a trial. 78.149.186.121 (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest replacing the indef ban with a six-month ban. Lifting the ban and just using a block wouldn't be appropriate as he could then use any other account, etc. If this user was capable of being more discrete and not going after exactly the same articles as usual, they could have been back editing by now and we'd not know the difference. However, I do feel that if this user's presence will attract others to disrupt the project, especially give the level of disruption we have seen before, we may have to take all steps necessary to protect the project. May I also suggest admins convers with admins in Simple English? I know it's not standard practice, but it may save hassle down the line George The Dragon (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely this is now a punishing ban, rather than a preventative one, since I'm now on medication? 78.149.186.121 (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Let's see. 61 listed confirmed socks. 64 listed suspected socks. Threatening Wikipedia with "far worse disruption". I don't see how this is a person we want here. Your mental health problems are not our concern. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"Threatening Wikipedia with "far worse disruption"" - That is taken out of context. I asked User:Yamla why my friends were labelled as sockpuppets of me, and he said that it meant we were all banned. However, I said that if this was so, their sockpuppet tags should be changed to reflect this, and he said that they would continue to be labelled as me because of the ease of distinguishing anyone who was involved as being banned. So then I said that my friends regarded it to mean that they werent banned, since I am the only one who is listed as banned, and that I advise Yamla to put them into the ban list, otherwise they could cause "far worse disruption", and then this was taken out of context when he wrote it down on wikipedia.

And I no-longer have any mental health problems since I'm treated.

And not all of those sockpuppets were me. Thanks 78.149.186.121 (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If they aren't you, why did the checkuser say they were from the same IP address? — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.delanoy (talk • contribs)

This has already been discussed. We all attend the same school; one of the other users stayed in my house for a time period while his mother was in a hospice; and some of the checkuser results said some of the accounts weren't linked to me, but they were grouped with me anyway according, to what I can only presume, as WP:DUCK. 78.149.186.121 (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it needs to be pointed out that he wasn't "banned for psychological illness", but banned for being a serious disruptive sock-puppeteer. I can remember spending 4 or 5 hours on a single checkuser case. I'm not passing any comment regarding unbanning, but just pointing to the damage and timewasting that occurred before - Alison ^❤ 18:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm an administrator on the Simple English Wikipedia that dealt with him a lot - he has been given a LOT of second chances. You can read his appeal to us a few months ago after his "cure" here. There have been several incidents at SE Wikipedia since then which have been attributed to him (can't remember how many were conclusively proved), but it included cross-wiki harassment of simple:User:Gwib, and a massive amount of sockpuppets. I (personally) strongly suspect him to be behind the massive creation of accounts with usernames attacking Gwib over the past two or three days - Gwib was an admin that dealt with him a lot. Benniguy/Iamandrewrice claims to know the person that did it, but it wasn't him - it just doesn't seem right at all. The "cure" seemed to happen overnight, but I didn't see much change in behaviour from what I could see. I believe that problems would recur. Our CheckUsers will probably be able to explain things a little better, I'll see if they have anything to add. Archer7 (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence whatsoever to assume that I am connected to the recent hash of accounts at Simple. If need be, I have a physical written letter from my doctor to show that I am certified of being cured of my disorder. And no it did not happen overnight; where are you getting that from? 78.149.186.121 (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason I created so many sockpuppets was because of the psychological problems my disorder caused me. And please remember Alison, not all those accounts were me. 78.149.186.121 (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I can sympathize with someone who claims they created disruptive sockpuppets because of a psychological illness. I did that myself last year.

There's a question of degree here. I didn't waste checkusers' time, I didn't wind up on the requests for arbitration page, I didn't badger Jimbo, I didn't create more than 100 sockpuppet accounts (I think there were seven or eight), and I didn't drag my friends into this. I'm not quite seeing on what basis Andrew should be reinstated. I am inclined to defer to Josh Gordon. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You refer to "Andrew" but, from early posts, that is actually the name of someone he knows IRL, and not him, incidentally. So the username is arguably against policy anyway George The Dragon (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I did not create that many accounts. And it was not me who dragged my friends into it. It was actually some of my friends who impersonated my account which caused most of the original situation. Thanks 78.149.186.121 (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"So the username is arguably against policy anyway" If I was unbanned, I think its certainly evident that the name Iamandrewrice would not be suitable. 78.149.186.121 (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[252] Can I just comment to Eptalon. The question was not whether or not the accounts here were me (we already know they are). The question is whether or not the recent rash of accounts on Simple is the same as me. Thanks 78.149.186.121 (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry everyone. This is what happens when I try to assume good faith. Next time Jimbo's hypnotizing words about letting bygones be bygones and focus on the future gives me ideas please just block me until I snap out of it! EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. You're openly admiting the ban is now as a punishment for my past rather than as a prevention for the future. 78.149.186.121 (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

←No, we are protecting the project from an incredibly disruptive user who has cost the project a significant amount of wasted time and stress to fix the disruption. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's prevention. We don't trust you. It's entirely personal. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That is being bias, based on my past. I am completely different now that I have been cured of my disorder; suggesting otherwise would only be an incorrect thing to suggest, based on lack of understanding of my disorder. I am not asking for a full unban; simply a trial, with restrictions. If I mess up, then just re-block/ban me straight away; it's not hard. 78.149.186.121 (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

May I just point out, [253], that the checkuser has showed that I do not have a connection to the recent mass of account creations on simple wikipedia. Thanks 78.149.186.121 (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

NO WAY. One of the most prolific puppetmasters ever. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I predict you'll be unblocked at about the same time Wizards of the Coast lifts the tournament-ban on this card. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 00:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That's probably about right. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Question: Is there a reason we are still allowing the IP address 78.149.186.121 to edit, since it is patently the IP of a banned user. We do not normally allow IPs of banned users to edit for any reason. Why is he an exception to this rule? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, blocked for 48 hours. I'm with Jpgordon--there's no place here for such an account. Blueboy96 00:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I was one of the victims of Iamandrewrice - I am not unbiassed. The problem here is that we have two possible scenarios that are indistinguishable a'priori:

1. Iamandrewrice is trying yet another trick to get back here and start being disruptive.
2. The story about mental illness and medication is true and someone who has suffered needs mend bridges.

The old Iamandrewrice was utterly untrustworthy and would be perfectly capable of claiming what is now being claimed in order to have another chance at disruption and to get attention once more. We have absolutely no way to tell the difference between these two situations other than by allowing Iamandrewrice to prove, through actions (not words), which of these is the case.

In case (1), unbanning this user would allow more (albeit exceedingly brief) disruptions since there would initially be dozens of people checking edit history and performing checkuser's. A step of even a tiniest bit out of line would result in a banning from which no recovery would ever be possible. Refusing to unban would have more or less the same result.

In case (2), unbanning would be the fair and caring thing to do - not unbanning would be cruel and heartless.

On balance, I'm inclined to WP:AGF and offer an extremely tightly monitored unbanning - wrapped with bands of steel and enforced with absolutely zero tolerance. We would need to nominate a arbitrator and to make it clear that rebanning would be instant, total and without any hope of appeal at any time in the future at any level or in any manner or circumstances.

HOWEVER: IMHO - if Iamandrewrice is telling the truth - I think it would be wise for (s)he (I never did find out his/her true gender) to think very carefully about this. If this new story is true - then medication may take time to settle down - it hasn't been that long since we last saw awful behavior. There is no such thing as an instant and perfect cure for these kinds of mental problem. What happens if you miss a pill? What if the dosage isn't quite right yet? You should find out what your doctor advises? Rmember that you'll NEVER have any hope whatever of getting another last-last-chance. If you have a "slip" then no amount of pleading that this was a one-off medication-malfunction would convince even the most soft-hearted admin. So, it might be wise to follow the advice that I and others have given you via eMail and wait a few more months before taking advantage of any last-ever Wiki-reprieve. Editing Wikipedia is something we can all manage without doing - there are other things to do - other places to be - and it might just be more healthy to stay away for a while longer and come back when you KNOW you'll do it right.

SteveBaker (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you support a time limit on the ban so that he is banned for 6 more months, to be reset everytime he is caught socking? In 6 months we can then reconsider the matter and work out a set of restrictions including a condition that he can be rebanned without the usual tiresome and slow paperwork. This would give the medication time to work. Those who were actually affected by his disruption should be able to veto an unbanning if they don't feel safe letting him back here. This would be in the spirit of what Jimbo wrote on his talk page and caused me to consider an unbanning. EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) simple:User:Creol has just confirmed that the creation of massive socks over on the Simple English Wikipedia was indeed simple:User:IuseRosary (one of his friends) and User:Benniguy (which is Iamandrewrice after a rename). The link to the page is here. Both of them used a total of nearly 100 sockpuppets to create usernames that were personal attacks to both simple:User:Gwib and myself on the Simple English Wikipedia. This has only strengthened my resolve to have him not unblocked. His continued disruption on the Simple English Wikipedia, even after an indefinite block should point to a decline of his unblock. He is a seriously disruptive user who loves to create sockpuppets, and we have had to add a ton of regexes to the Username blacklist over on the Simple English Wikipedia because of the scale of the amount of sockpuppets that were created over there. Some of the sockpuppets, however, were not linked to them at all, but the majority of them pointed directly to some of the addresses in both IuseRosary and Benniguy's ranges. Cheers, Razorflame 02:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify a point. Checkuser results could not confirm seven of 48 proxy checks were tied to IPs which were either used by the named accounts (IuseRosary - unblocked account) or self-identified (Benniguy/IamAndrewRice - blocked account) because the proxies used did not provide direct information (CU isn't a magic wand). Edit patterns (mainly names choses as this is primarily a username creation abuse issue) and targets of the abuse from the unidentified proxies matches those of the indentified proxies. The Checkuser list has been informed further on the matter. Creol (talk) 03:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No the checkusers have not shown any such thing on simple wikipedia, razorflame. Both Eptalon and Creol have stated this now.

They did say that a couple of proxies that I used crossed over with a couple of proxies used by some of them, but that is obviously going to be so, since the proxies are different each time, and of course there are going to be at least some picked at random which share similar IP strings.

The checkuser finishes with this summary:

"Benniguy - 10 self-identified proxies, 5 unconfirmed"

So we are talking about the 10 proxies I used (constructively, and you can ask AmericanEagle about that) and I openly said who I was, and then 5 unconfirmed proxies which people think might have something to do with me. I am sorry but that is a ridiculous assumption to make, and no one has made it but you Razorflame.

And why here [254] is someone called "PetraSchelm" suggesting I have been making pro-pedophile accounts?? And that I have apparently confirmed these by email? For a start, I am 16, so I don't understand how I could have a pro-pedophile account, and secondly, I've never even heard of any of the users. However, I just noticed something. I think the user first encountered me at User talk:Jimbo Wales, where there was both my thread, and some pedophile one (which he was on). He would have seen me there. However, I am unsure as to why he is suggesting those accounts are mine; perhaps they have something to do with him? Their editing patterns all seem to revolve quite finely around pedophilia... but then again, I forgot, my word can't be trusted on anything, so I guess they must be mine.

I would somewhat support a 6 month ban, but I'm still worried, because by the end of it, people are still going to be bringing up the same issues and refusing to let them go, so those that are holding a grudge are still not going to let me be unbanned. 89.243.181.115 (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It was established back in January by Creol himself I believe that Iamandrewrice and IuseRosary are two different people. Since there is no checkuser evidence to prove any connection with the accounts created on Simple recently I fail to see how this debate belongs here to begin with. Is this a new trend? This thread was created to see what opposition there would be to an unbanning or reworking of the community ban. There is substantial opposition to an unbanning but there appears to be some willingness among those affected bu his past disruption to consider a time limit and agreement on what should happen then. Do you have any actual proof of Iamandrewrice creating these accounts or is it simply an example of blaming the usual suspect and then taking it here for additional drama? Sorry for being blunt but this is derailing this debate the same way it derailed the debate on Jimbo's talk page. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Actual proof such as him self-identifying as using two specific proxies to answer a question by User:American Eagle (both self-identified in the message and he states right above that he did this) and that the proxies show the underlying IP address; one of which was used to create 10 accounts using other proxies and the other created 25? Yep, got it. How about another IP he has admitted to which was used to revert the removal of a disruptive RfA (created by IuseRosary no less) and then vote on it? Got that proof also. Edit patterns and the fact that before he showed up we had virtually zero traffic from this IP range and now we get literly hundreds of edits each week from through proxies (the range has been soft-blocked for months) just helps round out the picture of the sitution, but direct ties between the vandalism and him do exist. I did state that they are two seperate people, but given their activities and personal statements as being friends, there is little doubt to me that they are working in conjuction playing their little game. Creol (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay and I assume that you have e-mailed our resident Iamandrewrice expert Alison about this? If this is true then he isn't on any medication (I notice from the WR thread about him that he was on meds some 2 months ago also...). I would still like to note that this thread is not about his behaviour on your wiki and that detailed discussion about this should take place on your own wiki. This thread is a community discussion about his ban here which was not imposed on him due to any behaviour outside this wiki. He is banned for what he did here and although your evidence can establish character it should not be the main focus of this debate. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The Checkuser list was informed of the basic underlying information of his proxy use (so all en: CU's are aware) and Allison as a complete listing of the data confirming everything I stated listed. As he is indef blocked on our wiki (and we don't realy differenciate between indef and banned) there is little for us to discuss on this matter (until his next unblock attempt). His character is what is important here; he is requesting to be unbanned because he has changed due to changes in a pyschological condition. His actions show this to be a false statement. For the most part, I am simply clarifying and correcting points made by him and others about the situation. IaAR stated "10 proxies (that I used constructively...)". This is blatantly false. Two of those were used constructively and yes he has admitted they were him. Unfortunately the other 8 were used to cause disruption and are tied directly to the two he claims. Creol (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. His character is very much the subject of this debate and the use of proxies to evade what I can only assume is a far wider and longer lasting set of rangeblocks than we would ever get away with certainly isn't good news. If those have been used here also we can close this ban discussion without the need for any more discussion about the duration of his ban here. I notice he stopped editing here after the debate below this morning. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As for Iamandrewrice posting here I urge you to stop doing that. You are evading your ban and aggrevating people. None of that is helpful nor is the continuation of your constant debating. Let others do this for you in accordance with our banning policy. This is a community debate and you are not welcome to participate in that onwiki per your ban. You are not helping. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I would comment that by arguing here Iamandrewrice is demonstrating that the statement that the medication is controlling whatever condition they are suffering from is perhaps not as valid as they might declare; perhaps not as disruptive as previously, but still prepared to violate WP policy by both block evading and by forum shopping. I see no acknowledgement that their actions are contrary to WP policy, but rather a distinct campaign in having the validity of their actions accepted. As I remember, this was the basic premise of the banned account. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with EconomicsGuy and LessHeard. Here's my proposal. If he wants to be unbanned, he has to go to his one username, he remains 'banned' on a technical level but he can converse from his talk page. For now, he uses that talkpage to converse with us. Later, if he uses {{helpme}} to indicate positive edits on some articles for a short period (I'd suggest a month) that do not indicate any potential arguments, I can live with unblocking him then (and only on the one account). From there, I would suggest he get a second account (publicize it) for his use on public computers (which would be blocked along with his main if abused even once), and if another user abuses on his computer, he's proven that his computer is compromised and not worth allowing. I think this would work towards a middle ground where editors aren't allowed back into article space but are allowed to be productive if they wish to be. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is with the epidemic of people trying to get sockmasters unbanned lately? Jtrainor (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I find this diff particularly disturbing; the phraseology, threats and general nature don't indicate a user who wants to participate constructively. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

For a start, we are dealing with now, after IM on medication, and secondly, that account wasn't mine anyway. There were two main users originally, but we all got bundled together among with many others into one big list of sockpuppets of "me". Do a checkuser - I never even logged on to that account. 89.243.181.115 (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look at the rest of the account contributions, I realize that account was mine. But anyway, as I said, that was left during the original series of events, and this whole thing is about unbanning me due to me now being treated for my disorder. 89.243.181.115 (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Motion to amend the ban and close

Per the above discussion, the evidence of continued disruptive behaviour on Simple and this evasion of his ban after being told again not to I propose the following amendment to the ban:

Though community banned, Iamandrewrice and friends must appeal the ban directly to ArbCom.

I don't see the need for any paper work here. The evidence speaks for itself and this was the very very last chance for an appeal. This effectively makes this a community imposed ArbCom ban. I know he will retaliate but we will just need to deal with that and there is still the possibility of informing his ISP. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Why?? I was told to go to my user page to talk, by Ricky81682 above, so i havn't done anything wrong. I am NOT a pedophile. And I am not the one behind those accounts on simple, as Eptalon originally stated. The girl behind them is Natasha Supple Turnham, the sister of User:IuseRosary on Simple Wikipedia. I have not done anything I was not instructed to do. (I am editing here now however, in response to what you just said, since you seem to be jumping to conclusions). 89.243.181.115 (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You are not allowed to edit here. Why the hell is that so hard to understand. You are 16 - don't you have anything better to do than this? EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I just did what I was told to do! And you reverted it! Why??

Oh, hang on, let me get this straight, I'm 16, but I'm a pedophile. Hmmm... yeah, sounds just about right. 89.243.181.115 (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's summarize this. I was told to stop posting on the AN, so I did. I was then told to go to the talk page of Iamandrewrice and talk to you from there, which I did. EconomicsGuy then goes and reverts what I did there, and tells me I have not done as asked, and the ban should now not be lifted. I don't understand. I just did what I was asked to do. And can you make up your mind. This is currently the 5th time you have switched your views on my unbanning. 89.243.181.115 (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's summarize this. I was told to stop posting on the AN, so I did... Double take. Let's summarize this. I was told to stop posting on the AN, so I did... Boggle. Durova^Charge! 16:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ow, yeah, you were told to stop posting on the AN, so you did... Yet we see this post. Eh? MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 16:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the statement is perfectly correct, as it is in the past tense. Rather than trying to pick me up (incorrectly) on my grammar, it might be more useful if you read the meaning of the discussion, which is that I was told to go do write something (at the talk page of Iamandrewrice), and when I did, I was told off for it. 89.243.181.115 (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You are still banned. You have no standing to post here. You know that, you articulate your knowledge of that, yet you still post here and expect any other result than a continuance of your siteban? Strong support for continued siteban. Good grief. Next time, hang out for six months without socking and present your case at your own user talk page. Durova^Charge! 17:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As I have already said, I did stop posting here, and I went to my old talk page (which is allowed, remember) as instructed by another user. At this point (even though I was doing nothing wrong), another user then told me off for going and writing something on my old talk page, even though I was supposed to, as instructed by another admin. Anyway, that is when I came back here. If that was not allowed, then perhaps the admins should have decided amongst themselves whether they wanted me to write on that page or not.

I have been accused of being a pedophile, even though I am 16

I have been accused of making hundreds of sockpuppets at Simple Wikipedia, even though the checkuser showed they were nothing to do with me

I have been told off for going and doing something another admin told me to do.

I'm sorry, but I'm certainly not doing anything unreasonable here. If you don't want me to post on the AN, fine, but at least tell me one thing, not a multitude of different things from different admins who tell me off for doing what the other one told me to do. 89.243.181.115 (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

An indefinite ban, such as the one you have been given, means you, as a human being, are not allowed to post on EN:WP ever again. So if you really want to appeal, do it via email to the Arbcom. George The Dragon (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I stopped. As I have already said, I then went to my old talk page (as I was both instructed and allowed to do), and did what I was asked to.

So far, no one has commented on what Ricky81682 said. What he suggested seems like a workable suggestion, and it allows you to ensure I'm not a harm to the community at any time

89.243.181.115 (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No you haven't stopped, and each time you continue to post here in violation of that ban, and in full knowledge that you aren't supposed to post here, makes that grave you're digging for yourself a little deeper. Take some serious advice: quit while you're behind. Durova^Charge! 17:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've spent some time examining and re-reading the checkuser evidence, both from our own wiki and from seWP (thanks, Creol) and have to say that I am strongly opposed to unbanning at this time. Given that he's been socking up to three weeks ago and given his behaviour over on sewiki, unbanning would definitely not be in the interests of this project - Alison ^❤ 18:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That was a constructive account, and anyway, it brings nothing new to the table than we already have - everyone already knew about that account.

And anyway, if there was a time limit on my ban, and it was reset everytime I sockpuppeted, there would actually be some inspiration for me not to make any other accounts, but the way it is, I'm "indefinitely banned", meaning that people are in effect saying I am never allowed back anyway, so you're saying that my only means of ever editing is through sockpuppets. 89.243.181.115 (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

While I'm deeply opposed to all bans for reasons I've stated repeatedly at other places, this conversation has go on way too effing long. Here's what you do, 1 go get a new account, 2 refrain from editing any of the same pages or topics you used to edit, 3 change your behavior to prevent any suspicion. 4 rise in prominence and notability from within. 5 hatch an evil scheme of revenge, and finally either 6a build some super useful bot that wikipedia 'can not live without' and proceed to act like a dick under diplomatic immunity (known here as the betacommand rule) or 6b keep your agenda secret slowly changing the pedia to shape your will. Why I remember one such user, but perhaps I shouldn't go there... --Lemmey talk 18:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's how I handle this: as of now you get my standard offer--refrain from evading the ban for six months (plus a couple of other obvious things: please don't bash Wikipedia offsite and please promise to refrain from the behavior that led to your ban in the first place). If you do those things then six months from today I will support your return. There's a twist, though: from this moment forward until your legitimate return, each post you make in violation your siteban adds one week to the time frame. So if you respond to this post, that's six months plus one week from the moment you respond. You could add a seventh month just by posting four more times. And if you waited four weeks and posted once more, that would reset the clock to seven months plus one week from the date of that post. This is why we call the block indefinite: it could end whenever the community believes that you can adapt to site standards, but as you demonstrate otherwise the duration lengthens of its own accord. I express this numerically because it's easy to communicate, but a lot of people go by a similar basic rationale. Durova^Charge! 18:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like "unban me or I'll sock anyway". And from what I can see, you're still socking right now on sewiki, and using the "sister/brother vandal" excuse. *sigh* - Alison ^❤ 19:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that the user PetraSchelm on SE Wikipedia was an impersonator of en:User:PetraSchelm. This was the user that was claiming that Iamandrewrice/Benniguy was creating pro-paedophilia accounts. I don't believe there was any connection between him and the pro-paedophilia accounts. Archer7 (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support the proposal re ArbCom appeal per Alison. How much more time do we need to waste on this? --Rodhullandemu 18:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support and I resent the fact that my proposal at to how this user should conduct themself has become an excuse to post here that they will no longer be posting here. Again, use your talkpage, {{helpme}} and go to Arbcom. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support If this is the evidence of someone who is in control of their condition... plus, there are Featured Articles with a smaller word count than this discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support, I'm a user on Simple and have seen the damage and then never-ending stress and wasted time brought about by his sockpuppets. This debate needs to come to an end. FusionMix 11:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson talk page archives - BLP violations

I left a message on the BLP noticeboard which got no reaction so im bringing it here instead. A number of the earlier MJ talk page archives have a lot of BLP violations. The more recent ones are clean thanx to a small army of editers that watch over them. Can some of the earlier ones be purged or something. They dont hold anything of any importance, half of it is a war over having the "King of Pop" or "Wacko Jacko" in the lead, theres nothing of any importance there. Alternatively someone could read through all of the 18 archives removing the offending pieces but that is time consuming. Thoughts. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 19:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could "sanitize" the archive pages, then one of us admins could delete the earlier revisions to remove the offending comments. Any other ideas from admins? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, english isnt my first language, could you clarify what your suggesting by "Sanitize" the archives, sorry i cant understand. Please dont take offense Jayron ;-) --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 23:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think he means to just remove the BLP violations from the archives (as in, blank them, replace them with "((BLP vio removed))", or whatever), and then leave a note here so the pages can be deleted and selectively restored (removing the vios from the page history). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My watery friend has it correct there. Just go through the archives, remove the BLP vios (with a note explaining you have done so) and then an admin such as myself, or someone else, can go through and remove the old versions from the history, so they are no longer accessable to the general public. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, i understand, sorry for being a retard, ill get to it and show you my handy work when done. I just have to read through all those archives lol. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 00:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ive done 3 archives, it takes a long time to read each one, when i have finshed all 18 ill bring all links to Jayron, cheers. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 02:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

A friendly word of warning; the MJ talk page is too big for a normal admin to remove content through deletion and selective restore. You will crash wikipedia if you try it. I know because I have done it. Please ask an oversight to handle this because they have the ability to do selective history deletion which doesn;t crash the wikipedia database. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep a close eye on User:Lemmey

A note was posted at Portal talk:Current events#User Lemmey , its more appropriate here. Gosh I sure hope I'm learning. --Lemmey talk 22:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on this area, but I'm fairly sure you're misinterpreting the policy - the setting the context simply refers to the introduction to a piece. For example, on yesterday's entry the context being set for the opening of the first entry is

• 2008 Sichuan earthquake:

Just that. Nothing to do with the context in the sentence. The policy states nothing about removing wikilinks in the text on the subject, regardless of whether they're on the context or not. The wikilinks are fine being included. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 01:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yesterdays entry is fine, I'm talking about links on todays crane collapse and Kentucky murder stories that had links to crane and convenience store. The policy is listed under context on Wikipedia:How the Current events page works --Lemmey talk 01:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You missed my point -- I'm pretty sure you've misunderstood what the context is in the policy. It's not talking about the context of the sentence, it's talking about the context of the entry -- as it calls it, the context string -- which is the introduction to each individual piece. Not all of them have it. On the example the policy page gives, it's this bit:

• Saskatchewan general election, 2003: The NDP government of Lorne Calvert is returned to power with a majority government.

It has nothing to do with the context of the sentence itself. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 01:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of the policy, I followed it. Either address the edits I made or don't but please refrain from repeating yourself when your not exactly saying anything at all. You're just giving me non relevant examples of the introduction. I'm not talking about the introduction, I'm talking about the rest of the sentence. Current Events is over linked and as a result of the ITN trail it acts as a sole nesting bed for ITN candidates. Events may only exist for a short while before posing to the main page, with little or no review from other users. As such the links in current events will be links posted on the main page. There is no reason for the article convenience store to appear in a blurb for a article on a double murder / suicide. --Lemmey talk 01:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I addressed the edits in my first response: the links should be included, according to the policy you're citing, but I'm not going to revert as I don't want to involve myself in what is a borderline edit war and is based on a poorly-worded piece of policy. I agree that convenience store is too trivial to need mentioning, but a link to location is entirely relevent.

The policy states:

• It is customary, if possible, to indicate the context for a story at the start of the line.

It does not mention anything about removing wikilinks in the blurb for the story.

I can't explain it any better than I have in the previous two replies, but I'm certain you've misunderstood the point the policy is making... Could someone more eloquent than me try and explain the point I'm trying to make? AllynJ (talk | contribs) 01:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Lemmey blocked

I have blocked Lemmey (talk · contribs) for one week given a pattern (with history, first edit was February, blocked almost 48 hours later) of very uncivil, editwar-like, pointy (very pointy...and just to prove a point), offensive, disruptive, offtopic, pointless and POV comments across the board. Having been warned several occasions (by more than one user, and on 3RR), it is clear that he is not willing to tone down his behavior and act civilly with other editors. I am open to comment on this block.

I have specifically not blocked LemmeyBOT (talk · contribs), as it has been doing good work in and of itself as far as I can tell. As long as the bot's edits remain bot-related only, I am planning to leave this unblocked.

Finally, I also open the discussion of a topic ban for this user. His primary point of conflict seems to be around the ITN entries. Given his heated statements and oftentimes offensive comments, I believe a 3-6 month enforced break from ITN might help him calm down.^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection for the execution of the block, although I am uncertain what 7 days will achieve that 3 wouldn't, given the diffs provided. I would suggest, however, that the discussion regarding a topic ban should be held until the effect of this block is known. If the block provides the impetus for Lemmey to generally re-appraise their relationship to WP positively then the topic ban might be superfluous (and its existence when the block expires counter productive). LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

And now for something from the clear blue... Lemmey is a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user, and continues to abuse multiple accounts. I've known this for some time, but intentionally neglected to bring it to light because of the good work they've been doing, but it appears that Lemmey's been sliding back into disruption. Lemmey is a pretty transparent reincarnation of Mitrebox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom I indefinitely blocked in February for running a vandalbot against a new user, who apparently became so shellshocked that they've rarely edited since. Immediately, he came back with several disruptive sockpuppets, which earned a lockdown of their user talk page. I first noticed Lemmey, who started editing as soon as Mitrebox's unblocks got declined, when they began inserting themselves into conversations about me in a snide manner and referencing Mitrebox's block; they also edit the same topics (cf. the results of Betacommand's tool). Here's the ace though: Lemmey's IP address is 68.209.2.187 - this is not particularly private as he logs on to Wikimedia IRC channels without a hostmask - and he's used it in the past to evade blocks and is still logging out to avoid scrutiny of their main account(s) with edits such as these. (Apologies for the dense run-on comment, but I need sleep. :]) east.718 at 23:29, May 31, 2008

Vandal bot you say? And why is Lemmey Bot not blocked? —Wknight94 (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well... support upping block to indef, per East718's evidence. Kudos also to East for staying quiet about Lemmey's past while they were contributing positively; as this account did eventually slip into old habits I would suggest, however, that the next sock is tagged before it gets the opportunity to go sour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose. OTOH, it would have been more above board to have the original MitreBox account request an unblock instead. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Based on the above info, I would endorse an indefinite block. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• About bloody time, endorse current block, care not about indefinite block, do it if the evidence is there, but either way, it'll be nice to not have his stench steaming up WT:ITN for a while. (OMG COMMAS) But also, additional kudos to east718; redemption is available for all, and there's no reason to bump a good editor simply because they used to be a bad editor on another account. But, if they then become a bad editor, it just bodes the worse for them and lessens future chances. I suggest that, if the link is proven, that any future accounts be exposed immediately. --Golbez (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

While I frequently get sick of Lemmey's comments, i feel that what you've said here isn't really fair. As a "regular" at ITN, I disagree with him more often than not, but despite his acerbic and sarcastic commentary, he does help get stuff done, if you avoid taking his bait. Since he apparently does good work in other areas as well, I would suggest a mid-length topic ban from ITN instead of a full block. As long as his behaviour this time around is ok, I don't see the relevance of his previous actions. Random89 06:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that it was the rest of the community's duty to avoid taking the bait; I thought it was the individual's responsibility not to dangle it. Furthermore, the evidence is far more than simple acerbic editing; responding to a civil statement with "You might want to avoid gay people in California. They might compliment on your 'perrty mouth'" is good grounds for a civility block. --Golbez (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I too don't agree with a full block. He does help get things done. I cannot speak for any other page, but he is one of ITN's best contributors. I think what good he does outweighs the bad. A small topic-ban on ITN would be sufficient, as that seems to be where he gets into trouble. --PlasmaTwa2 06:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I too would like to endorse the view that Lemmey is more of a positive influence than a negative one. I strongly disagree with his more caustic comments, but most of what he says is harmless comic relief. When he crosses the line there are more than enough reasonable people to put him back in step with the rules for him to cause too much trouble. I can't speak to his other contributions or the socking allegations, but for what I've known of him he is a mostly harmless contributor to ITN/C that keeps things lively and helps make positive contributions when he gets around to them. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the bot

I don't know if the operator could use it or not while blocked but I didn't want to take the chance. I also have no idea what now happens to the bot. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ayup. Keegan^talk 07:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good block. I am also concerned, about the previously having run a vandalbot, and, presently being flagged so that it's contribs are hidden from recentchanges. However, the bot's edits thusfar have been normal and good. I suppose my concerns are, "If he's going back to his old ways on his main account, will this happen with the bot too?". This is compounded by the fact that the bot's edits are presently hidden from the RC. SQL^{Query me!} 08:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we should take away the bot flag... no harm in keeping it since it's blocked, but at the same time it's not doing any good (and he could abuse it by flooding his talk page, I guess...). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Although the block says indef, I presume it will be unblocked when the main account is. The bot was doing something useful; we should support users trying to turn around and make positive contributions. There is one issue I see with its operation that might need correcting. If there are other concerns, the task doesn't need to run fast and it could run without the bot flag so everyone can see what it's doing. Gimmetrow 01:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Since I couldn't know the conclusion of the Lemmey situation I indef'd while it was being resolved. If the operator is unblocked, with bot privileges intact, then they should request unblocking. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Constellation Brands Redux

A couple weeks ago I reported to WP:AN a lingering problem on the Constellation Brands article (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive146#Bizarre slow-speed revert war at Constellation Brands. A person with no apparent understanding of wiki markup language is repeatedly deleting some relevant sourced content and adding a whole bunch of, well, stuff that seems to relate to legal claims against the company.

Each time the editor creates a new account - not exactly sockpuppetry, but odd. So far we have:

1. crazybeer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[255]
2. Newsupdates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[256]
3. Newsreports (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[257]
4. Webbchecker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[258]
5. Omanras (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[259]
6. Americanchick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[260],
7. Kingstorm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[261]
8. Wikitester01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[262][263]
9. Wikitester02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[264][265]
10. Wikitester03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[266]
11. Winebrand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[267][268][269]

The same editor has also used IP addresses, which I think include:

1. 207.218.231.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)[270]
2. 217.20.127.248 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)[271]
3. 125.215.81.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)[272]
4. 202.76.189.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)[273]
5. 124.219.0.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)[274]

Locked out by page semi-protection the user is now adding the entire previous version of the article to the talk page three times in the past hour. I left a warning[275], which the editor has read and responded with "all edits are accurate, reliable sourced, constructive and of crtical importance to readers.!!!!!!!)"[276]

Page protection won't work - they're now attacking the talk page. Account deletion / blocking is fine for a cleanup but it won't stop the editor from continuing to create new accounts. Will the editor listen to an explanation? Help!!!! Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest a checkuser on the whole mess and short semi-protection on the talk page as well. It's been done before and I'd only put it for a short period (there aren't any useful IP addresses there but I'd put a note for them to use {{helpme}} or message me if they want to talk). I'm heading to sleep right now but if nobody else does anything, message me and I'll get to it in the morning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I also commented that, practically speaking, constantly changing usernames and IP addresses is a surefire way to get yourself ignored. It makes more sense to pick a single individual account and have a sensible discussion on it. Of course, this is assuming rationality on the other side. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and semi'd the talk page and deleted Talk:Constellation Brands/Comments‎. I'm willing to dole out any blocks for new accounts. Let's see how he responds (here or there). seicer | talk | contribs 15:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that Winebrand seems to be the only registered account that has edited in the last couple of days. He has made some responses on his own Talk page. Seicer has taken the proper actions, in my view. There is no immediate need for a checkuser, due to the lack of editing by the older accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a wise solution. Now the editor, if they have something to say about Constellation Brands, will have to either use a stable account to post to the talk page, or else bring the matter up at the help desk or some other page - meaning they will have to engage earnestly and meaningfully in a discussion, which is just what we want. Better to give them the option and encouragement to be sincere editors than to simply get rid of them. Thanks. Wikidemo (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

TTN and his buddies

User:TTN has made some edits that led to a revert war at List of extraterrestrials in Dragon Ball. See the history. User:Sesshomaru has enforced the changes with reverts, and is enlisting help with this. Here TTN explains that someone else will have to do the reverting for him. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 06:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Some pretty rough talk page discussion here. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Before someone thinks of eagerly pushing the block button or running to arbcom, he may also want to read up on one of the many merge discussions at the various character lists and e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Dragon Ball, which have been going on since at least January. To ultimately merge the lists (which TTN obviously can't and won't perform himself per his restriction), they have to be decruftified first. Quite a few established editors have already expressed their support for trimming. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(dedent) Swing and a miss. Nothing wrong here. --Lemmey talk 08:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Needs further review, per a couple of sections above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Purbo T

This account popped up on my watchlist and appears to be an unapproved bot with almost 50,000 edits that has been active since April, 2007. I have little familiarity with the ins and outs of bot policy, so I'm here to pass the buck.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Its manual, it does not require approval. Account is fine. --Lemmey talk 16:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Needs further review, per a couple of sections above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Double standards for tennis players

Administrators, tell me please, is this game whit so called policy, where we have rule to abolish Serbian and Croatian latin letters for tennis players, but on the other side we have huge serie of Serbian, Croatian and Bosnik people (politicians, football, basketball players) whit correctly spelling letters š, đ, č, ć, and ž? Why is Wikipedia tolerating double standards? And why are tennis players special spice? (Novak Đoković to Novak Djoković; Jelena Janković - Jelena Jankovic) --Pockey (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this something that project did on its own? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not a "double standard." See this on the tennis project discussion page, this on bureaucrat's Redux's talk page, and this on administrator Darwinek's talk page. See also this about Pockey's (Pokrajac's) disruptive edits on this very noticeboard. Tennis expert (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, see this and this. Tennis expert (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a fair point. This whole discussion has not been an edifying one, and has rumbled on for a very long time. Most of the "consensus" proposals on this issue have been stacked one way or another by two diametrically opposed sides. I don't see why we can't have diacritics in titles, as no policy anywhere on en.wikipedia precludes them. Orderinchaos 08:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You've called my page moves "disruptive" and threatened to block me. Isn't calling me "disruptive," threatening a block, and saying that I'm burdening administrators a little premature? Tennis expert (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Given the prominence of earlier discussions on the tennis arena I had incorrectly assumed you were appraised of them and had adopted a radical (and arguably ethnocentric) point of view held by some within them. I have already apologised in two different places for that assumption and my earlier remarks - it is becoming clear that the fragmentation of this discussion between different groups, each of which is unaware of the goings on at the other, is more to blame for this mess than any one editor, and in questioning your 68 moves today, I adopted a tone which was unduly harsh. WP:CSB, while definitely not policy, has always been a consideration in my editing and it pains me to see it being violated in ways which don't assist either our coverage or our editors' understanding, and which remove or designify valid information. Orderinchaos 16:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The FritzpollBot

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) about the User:FritzpollBot, which would automatically generate over 1 millon more articles on settlements across the world. I suppose this may be a better place to continue discussion. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 01:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been addressed specifically by the Bot Approvals Group here ->Wikipedia talk:BAG#FritzpollBot --Samuel Pepys (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

And yet several users (myself not included) wanted to continue to discuss the issue, and that is why I opened the thread. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 01:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The scope of this is big enough that the community in general should be involved, not just BAG. --Rory096 04:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It has also just appeared as a notice in the header of the watchlist. I assume everyone gets these. It would be better to centralize discussion at the village pump link provided, since people are being herded that direction. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Link for anyone using external editors. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It might actually be better to create a new place to discuss it (perhaps its own page), as a simple VP section is going to get rather unwieldy and difficult to edit. --Rory096 04:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Invite everyone to a tea party, don't be surprised when the girls get noisy. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Would help to let editors and wikiprojects dealing with settlements and geography know, too - I handle most of the geographic articles for my state, for example, and would be concerned if the bot started creating articles we couldn't fill. Also, what sources are being used for the information, will it create a massive cleanup task for wikiprojects? Orderinchaos 16:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Al-Azhar University vandal

The Al-Azhar University vandal is back, pushing his POV and bogus sources again. The guy just doesn't get it. Arbitration is definitely warranted; please have a look at the article. He is now in an editing war with both me and another editor. Causteau (talk) 06:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The most recent edit by the ip (made 2 hours after the above report) seems to be satisfactory as regards the other editors concerns. However, a review of the previous edits and the ip's contribution history does tend to indicate a partisan bias in relation to Sunni and Shia Muslim viewpoints. Can this account be related to other (blocked?) accounts? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't think this anonymous user has been blocked yet. However, administrators should definitely consider doing so because this is a guy with an agenda, if I've ever seen one. Here are some random examples of his handiwork:

1)Inserting inflammatory POV material without bothering to support it with any reference(s).

2)Tacking on a bunch of unrelated, dummy references behind a slanderous POV phrase to lend an air of credibility to said POV phrase (see my analysis on how I know those sources are bogus here).

3)Mocking fellow editors.

4)Altering sourced material so that it reads differently but still looks sourced, and reverting subsequent edits other editors have made to those initial changes -- all with no explanation.

And that's just the half of it. There's more info on this user's shenanigans on the Al-Azhar University talk page. The guy has gotta be stopped now because he edits literally all the time and under a ton of different IPs. The longer we wait, the more time it will take to undo all of the damage he has done. Causteau (talk) 03:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been taking a look at this, and I'm not seeing vandalism. There's definitely edit-warring, a content dispute, and incivility and personal attacks around. There also appears to be some POV pushing and possible misinterpretation of sources, but of course that's always a tougher call to make. I recommend that everyone calm down, since it looks like there's incivility going from both sides, which always complicates the situation. --Elonka 04:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a more serious issue at hand here. Via the several IP addresses, this user has been engaging in edits on articles relating to terrorism that are quite startling. The latest examples are removing known terrorists from categories relating to terrorism. While this might seem like a simple POV issue at first glance, as a graduate student in counter terrorist studies and coming from a family with a law enforcement and military background, I will say with no exaggeration that this could be dangerous for anyone who interacts with this user. Even something as small as edits like that on Wikipedia are a legitimate security concern; this should not be a platform to promote extremist and/or violent agendas. I don't think it's something that should be left as a content dispute. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there are problematic edits from the anon. However, just because someone may be pushing a POV on one set of articles, doesn't mean we should revert all their edits on all articles. For example, it's a common thing to see editors make vandalistic edits to history articles, but when they're editing videogame articles, they get very serious and thorough. If there are inappropriate edits being made to the terrorist articles, we can deal with them, and the accounts. But as far as the Al-Azhar University article, I am still not seeing vandalism. So the best bet is to focus on the most egregious edits by the anon, and do your best to assume good faith in some of the other topic areas. --Elonka 05:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user using anon to evade block

Spinoza1111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked indefinitely for evading a prior block [277] He has been edit-warring for some time on the Ayn Rand article and talk pages using anon IPs. Currently, he seems to be using a static IP: [278][279][280], so I believe that we may be able to indefinitely block that with minimum effect on other innocent users of that IP. Idag (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ran (film)

I placed a semi-protect on this article, despite being today's featured article, because of a spat of vandalism from a variety of IP addresses. If a consensus is reached to remove the protection, please feel free to do so. Brianga (talk) 08:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Resolved

 – Rudget (Help?) 12:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick thank you to the person who answered my question about Image Removed, that solved my problem. Many thanks Blueturtle01 (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Resolved

 – Restored. Rudget (Help?) 12:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Could an admin please undelete Image:HarringtonNSW.jpg per this note on my talk page? Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 12:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it. Thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 12:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate User talk page protection

User:The undertow left the project. But now he's back, and has been using his account, participating at RfA. I was happy to see him active again, so I clicked on the "talk" portion of his sig to leave him a message, only to discover that his talk page was blanked and protected, while his user page was deleted and salted.

If a user is here, then other users should be able to contact him on his talk page.

Otherwise, users are faced with the choice of foregoing contact, or posting off-topic to wherever the user happens to be participating.

That would be pretty awkward.

Please unprotect User talk:The undertow while he is active in the project.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    12:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the account is only participating in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3 (as ip accounts are not permitted to participate). I don't know if this is a full "return" to contributing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd request again after June 5th (ending date for DHMO's RfA). Rudget (Help?) 13:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What I get out of this is that sowing the seeds of discord is OK (and being able to hide after doing so is even better). It seems like a drive-by shooting ... ah, but maybe I'm bitter. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I unprotected the talk page since the account is no longer inactive. El_C 16:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Request For Deletion of Article Criticism Of Christianity

I wanted to bring this article to the attenion of the admins for not following NPOV rules. This article is very offensive to Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plyhmrp (talk • contribs) 13:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You are looking for Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion and almost certainly a very speedy keep. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and includes articles upon encyclopedia merit and not individual sensitivities. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

An administrator is needed to edit the sidebar

A consensus has been reached at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Move the search box directly beneath the puzzle globe.

It will take an administrator to make the change.

The Transhumanist    14:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

First, there doesn't appear to be consensus to do this. Second, I could be wrong, but I don't know that we (as in admins; not being sysadmins) can do this, technically. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I just missed it, but was this advertised anywhere? I would think a discussion about moving the search bar from its current location, where I believe it is located on all other projects, would need a wider audience. - auburnpilot talk 15:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If the change gathers consensus then it can be done in MediaWiki:Common.js, but I wasn't aware that a consensus had been reached. Happy‑melon 15:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Rereading the discussion it is abundantly clear to me that the only consensus is no consensus :D Happy‑melon 15:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Jaakko Sivonen

Last year, Jaakko Sivonen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefblocked after 12 distinct blocks for edit warring and personal attacks. Earlier today, he apologized and asked to be unblocked, promising to behave constructively. Given his history, I couldn't unblock him in good conscience, so I left {{2nd chance}} to see if he really was willing. Well, he's proposed substantial improvements to Finnish parliamentary election, 1907, and I have to say that his proposals would make it a Good Article in waiting. I would therefore ask that we extend a little good faith and unblock him, with the proviso that this is indeed his last chance to behave properly. Thoughts? Blueboy96 22:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but I think we should give him a second chance. Just make sure he knows that any further edit warring will be dealt with quickly and decisively. J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 22:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I might suggest that required adoption be in order, but that a 2nd chance be allowed. Bstone (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined just to let him back. He seems honestly abashed by his bad behavior, and perhaps is properly rehabilitated. It will be pretty obvious if he acts up again. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Bible tells us to forgive and forget. I'm not an administrator, but I say we should perhaps give him a second chance, but we do need to keep a very close eye on his actions. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's his clean block log from the Finnish WP: [281] (three blocks in 2006, can't tell why, but it hardly matters now). I think a second chance is in order. Darkspots (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Jpgordon may have forgotten to actually unblock, but I've done it.[282] - auburnpilot talk 02:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As a procedural note for those here who don't read Finnish, the block log on fiwiki reads "personal attacks", "personal attack, again" and "for repeated personal attacks". No idea about the circumstances beyond that. Oh, and I added "&uselang=en" to the link. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I would forgive and forget, if Jaakko hadn't been evading his block the entire year ([283], [284], [285], [286], [287], [288], [289]) He gave a convincing argument on his talk page, where he said "I have been civil and constructive in my edits in the Finnish Wikipedia" However, from looking at his IPs, I see edit summaries as recent as last month saying, "Reverting total bullshit. Finnish Karelians are Finns and it is offensive and wrong to talk of "slow integration". No one calls them "Livvi"., It wasn't "given"... It had been part of Finland continuosly for over a 100 years in 1917. Learn history., and Learn English too." Looking further back I see comments such as Your motive seems to be Swedish Nationalism. This makes me believe that Jaako still has the same battleground mentality that he was originally blocked for. Indeed, roughly half a day before he was unblocked I find him saying "I care deeply of the Karelian people, as you are our closest relatives ethnically, but it insults me that by your false claims you are trying to strike a wedge inside the Finnish people." At User talk:88.114.235.214, he says "I think I have more credibility than you do - at least I cite real sources while you edit war without them." If I had read his argument on his talk page without knowing all of this, I would indeed be convinced as well, but because I know he has been evading his block, edit warring on Karelians among many other pages, and still being incivil (all of these were the reasons he was originally blocked), I have to disagree with his unblocking. Khoikhoi 05:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• So if he acts up, it's easy enough to block him again. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 13:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:198.99.32.5

Resolved

 – SharedIP added --Rodhullandemu 00:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:198.99.32.5 is fully protected so that only administrators can edit it. I'm not going to challenge that; I really don't care whether it is protected or not, but I do want to add the sharedip template to it; the IP belongs to MedStar Health. Can someone add the sharedip template to the userpage? GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

MascotGuy

I don't really know this troll, but looking at his edits here, I feel like he is looking for fame and he practically edits his own sock list, I would like the admins to stop this from happening and completely DENY his existence, delete that list and don't give him what he wants or he'll keep coming back, this also applies to other "Big" vandals like Grawp as well, vandals aren't born, wikipedia makes them and the policy of Revert, block, Ignore should be given a higher priority in cases like these rather than socking one...--Cometstyles 02:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with that. -Pilotguy contact tower 03:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

MascotGuy isn't a vandal. He's just an autistic boy with nothing better to do than try and improve our articles in ways that end up doing more harm than good. The two situations are nothing alike.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the essay "E pluribus unum" in my sig links to. With Grawp, it's a damned-if-ya-do-damned-if-ya-don't thing. MascotGuy, on the other hand, is autistic and is more likely than not trying to be helpful by editing his own sock list. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 05:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin input needed to close discussion.

Can an admin, have a look at Template_talk:Infobox_Television#Proposal:_Flags_should_no_longer_be_used_in_Television_Infoboxes.2C_per_WP:FLAG please Gnevin (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

To expand: we need an admin to close this discussion and determin consensus - said admin should, if possible, be completely uninvolved in both Wikiproject Television and related matters, and the MoS Flag Guidlines. Thanks in advance. _TalkIslander 12:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Unblock Request

Resolved

 – All done. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 12:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I am a member of Dot Com Infoway and its hard to find that my IP was blocked from any usage on the website due to spam. I accept the mistake and request your help on the procedure that I have to follow to remove the ban.

Chrisdru (talk) 11:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Chris Drum

I've asked the user for further information on their talk page and we'll deal with it there. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 11:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And, having got the information (see User talk:59.145.89.17), I've declined the unblock. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 12:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with decline, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive133#Seeking_Community_ban_of_Dot_Com_Infoway_company_Adsense_marketing_and_Spamming. --Hu12 (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Unblock of User:Sarah777?

User:Sarah777 was blocked indefinitely for disruption (reverting a series of page merges which resulted from an AFD discussion). Following this, a series of discussions have taken place on her talk page, to find a remedy that would be acceptable to all parties and allow Sarah777 to edit again. The user has now accepted that there was a good reason for the block, and agreed not to continue with the disruptive behaviour she was blocked for. With that in mind, I suggest we unblock her.

Normally, of course, this conversation would take place on the talk page of the blocking admin (SirFozzie) but since there was a fair amount of discussion at WP:AN/I about this issue, I thought it would be better to bring this suggestion to everyone's attention. (I will of course notify SirFozzie of this thread). Waggers (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to endorse this, on the caveat of no more drama, please? :) Sarah has recognized her previous behavior was... less then stellar (I think she called it bolshie behavior on her page). So lesson learned, she has also stated that she was going to leave off editing the "(Year) In Ireland" articles, that caused this block, although I would definitely like to get her thoughts in an RfC on the whole thing down the road (articles on individual years, or if it would be better served to have them in decade long articles or century long articles.) So definitely, endorse an unblock with the caveats above, and hope that the community will give her another chance. SirFozzie (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I was initially in favour of mentorship for Sarah, but as the thread progressed (with her continuing to argue the problems are with anyone but herself) I change3d completely to be in favour of a block. I'm all for redemption and forgiveness, but this is just too soon to even consider an unblock under any restrictions. My advice to Sarah would be to wait a while, have a think about her actions and then consider asking again in 3 months time. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure I understand her reason for refusing to use the request-unblock template. I'm not gonna say yay or nay on this, because I am unsure, but is the community still OK with her not admitting what she did was edit warring? reviewing it, I'm not that nitpicky. She is de facto admitting to it. Reading everything on her talk, it seems like the only committment she is really making is that she won't be involved with those specific year articles. I thought we were looking for more than that. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

She also said that she'd abide by the ArbCom ruling (not that she can really stop herself from being blocked... but hopefully it means that she'll not engage in the disruptive editing in the first place). I agree with some of the above sentiments that she doesn't seem to place the same wrongness on what she did that the community does. However, if the discussion on her talk page is truthful (and I'm willing to assume good faith, at least now), she seems to be saying that she will not disrupt, even if she doesn't agree. We can't necessarily change what people think, and agreeing to not be disruptive seems like all we can ask for. -- Natalya 12:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why can't she use the unblock template at her page? Wouldn't that be simplier? GoodDay (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

She actually gives the reason that it will invite continued scrutiny of her that of course she is unable to defend because of being blocked. Thinking about that more, and giving the nature and scope of this block, that's actually not an untrue statement (despite saying above myself that I didnt understand it). Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarah should make the request though. It would be like asking for forgiveness & acknowledging mistakes. By other editors unblocking her (without her request)? it would be like other editors are admiting making a mistake. GoodDay (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be rubbing salt in the wound. WP:BLOCK doesn't require that an unblock request is made before a user is unblocked. Sarah777 has already admitted that she was edit warring and that this was "bolshie behaviour", which I think is as close to "I made a mistake, please forgive me" as we're going to get. Waggers (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

We need to stop wasting time on this. Bad editors can't generally be reformed. Yet, we never seem to run out of editors who want to be that miracle worker who reforms them. She's already adequately demonstrated that she has a temperament which is incompatible with a collaborative project. Time to let this one go, folks. Friday (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I support unblocking Sarah. PS- she can call me an Anglo-American Nationalist anytime she wants (it doesn't bug me; actually humours me). PS- Although, that's not why she was blocked. GoodDay (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Meaty Weenies is Bsrboy - advice requested

This CU result has confirmed that Meaty Weenies (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is the indefinitely blocked (or banned?) user Bsrboy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), as well as the fact that he has at least twice logged out to vandalize. That's the bad side. On the other hand he has done rather a lot of useful work on articles like Plymouth (history) and Ivybridge (history).

I'd appreciate some advice as to where the balance between these two sides of this teenager's presence here should lie. Do we just block him and lose any future useful contributions? Any comments appreciated. I'll let the user know of this discussion.  —SMALLJIM  12:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Indef means indef. Why should anyone get special treatment? Jtrainor (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's the consensus here, then I'd have no problem with that. It's just that it's clear that he's not completely evil and perhaps we shouldn't use a sledgehammer when a gavel might do the job better.  —SMALLJIM  13:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I had no experience with the old account, but I noticed the new one a week or two ago. He acts just like a kid. Such editors are not useful to the project and should be shown the door. I'd idly wondered where he'd gotten his "gaming the system" experience, and I guess now we know. Friday (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Operating good-hand/bad-hand accounts is one of the more destructive things that an editor can do here, and even this 'good' account has engaged in more than its fair share of borderline trolling. (Seriously, he was adding multiple copies of massively oversized images to the sandbox a couple days ago, as well as edit warring to keep a (low-res, large sized) goatse there. Had I been watching more closely at the time, this discussion would never have taken place.)

Given that he earned his last indef block for engaging in logged-out vandalism while maintaining a good-hand account, where is the evidence that this individual has learned anything? He took it upon himself to create a new account, and he used it for exactly the same childish behaviour that earned his first block. How many additional second chances are required for us to see a pattern? If he is a younger contributor, perhaps he can be invited to return in a couple of years — after he has a chance to mature. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• He was the cause of a recent /16 rangeblock, and I've seen rather too much of his goatse in various places recently, while this account has been active. I've only now connected the two. I support a block unless there is an immediate convincing undertaking about his future conduct. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What to do about Category:Copy to Wiktionary

CopyToWiktionaryBot has not been functioning for some time. The category includes articles tagged for transfer from at least as far back as May 10, here. (There may be older; I only looked at a couple.) I wrote to the bot's operator, User:Connel MacKenzie, about it on May 24th and got a prompt reply, but it wasn't really encouraging that the bot would be up and running again any time soon as there is evidently an issue with "false positives" in Special:Import. (Note: I am technologically pretty clueless. I am reporting it, but I don't know what he meant by it. :)) Currently there are 56 pages in the category. He suggested that an admin may be found on Wiktionary in the event of an emergency transfer; I don't know that there are any emergencies in this list, but am concerned that they are stacking up. Are there perhaps any admins here who also are admins on Wiktionary who might be able to help out with clearing this? Any other ideas? If not, I may wander over to find some AN noticeboard on Wiktionary and ask for ideas there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)