Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Rockpocket block of Giano II/Discussion to address Kittybrewster's use of alternate accounts

Moved to subpage; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rockpocket block of Giano II. Horologium (talk)

Link to discussion dealing with Kittybrewster's use of alternate accounts Risker (talk)

Uncle uncle uncle and PouponOnToast

I recently came across the disruptive single-purpose account Uncle uncle uncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor who claimed to have 92 sockpuppets according to his userpage. His sole contributions to the project consisted of popping up in contentious discussions, and updating a "sock counter" on his userpage.

Looking at Uncle's early contributions, it's clear he's an alternate account of DepartedUser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), aka "Hipocrite"; Uncle's initial edits to the project were to articles DepartedUser had previously worked on, and Uncle started getting involved in Tor-related discussions right after DepartedUser announced he was leaving the project due to frustration at our policies on blocking open Tor exit nodes.

However, DepartedUser also returned to the project as PouponOnToast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (implicitly confirmed on his talk page). This user has also contributed to many of the same areas of contentious discussions as Uncle; PouponOnToast has also recently admitted to sockpuppetry on his userpage, where he says "Obviously, I'll keep using the sock that I'm certain the checkusers found to go right on rvving and creating isoteric articles on things I find out about in my daily travails - and I'll use that sock as opposed to some other one so that the next time I find myself tempted to edit anything controversial at all, I'll be gone in a flash." (He also ends with the cryptic, trollish comment, "LAWL I DO IT AGAIN!")

It seems clear to me based on this evidence that User:DepartedUser == User:Uncle uncle uncle == User:PouponOnToast. If true, not only have they been engaging in long-term bad hand sockpuppetry, they have also been double-voting (e.g. in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MONGO 2). I have thus blocked Uncle and Poupon indefinitely. I welcome any further review or community input into this matter. krimpet✽ 04:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

As per the discussion below, I've personally unblocked Uncle, as new, solid evidence suggests he is indeed unrelated to DepartedUser/Hipocrite/PouponOnToast. Investigation into DepartedUser's sockpuppetry is, however, still continuing. krimpet✽ 06:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, an arbitrator emeritus and experienced checkuser confirmed to me some time ago in confidence that Hipocrite/PouponOnToast was "trolling with socks" for an extended period of time, but declined to identify any accounts. east.718 at 04:37, July 2, 2008

Support Block. Krimpet has a pretty solid case here. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

We should definitely consider what he's saying here, but it's a far cry from a solid case. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I still support block of PouponToast, there is still some abusive socking going on here. --Dragon695 (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad block. I don't see sufficient evidence to indef block User:Uncle uncle uncle, only suspicions, nor do I see the account doing anything disruptive. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have questions over the alleged connection between PouponOnToast (talk · contribs) and Uncle uncle uncle (talk · contribs). While I have no comment on PouponOnToast and his own possible sockery, myself and a number of other checkusers are examining all the data right now. More later - Alison ^❤ 06:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... based on this and other evidence I've received, I'm going to agree that Uncle uncle uncle is probably unrelated, and though his conduct has still been problematic, not worth an indefinite block, so I will remove it. However, evidence still seems strong that DepartedUser/PouponOnToast has been sockpuppeting - hopefully the checkuser evidence will shed light on this. krimpet✽ 06:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Krimpet. Ok, this checkuser says that PouponOnToast (talk · contribs) and Uncle uncle uncle (talk · contribs) are  Unrelated to each other. More on Poupon later ... - Alison ^❤ 06:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I did some checking as well, probably not as extensive as Ally's, and the most I could come up with was "possible but not all that likely" based on technical. Could have missed something but I didn't see the strong link. So I concur with Alison. ++Lar: t/c 12:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Uncle uncle uncle has asked that a link be placed to his talk page so people can see his response to the sockpuppet accusation. It starts at about User talk:Uncle uncle uncle#Yow! and includes a few other sections below that. -- Ned Scott 06:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have received a message from PouponOnToast, and have been asked to repost it here;

Thanks - Alison ^❤ 07:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that at least one of his socks was created for self protection. I also have to agree that while his style left something to be desired at times, he got it correct more times than most and I love it when editors cut through the bullshit like this guy.--MONGO 10:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It was fairly common knowledge that PouponOnToast was Hipocrite. I have found PoT to be a constructive, good faith editor. Hipocrite/User:DepartedUser was never banned, rather he chose to leave under that name and return under another subsequently. If the only remaining reason for this block is that PoT and Hipocrite are one and the same, the block needs undoing. However, if Poupon/Hipocrite is using other accounts, still, then that's different. I guess we wait got the Checkuser stuff to come back. Neıl 龱 10:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I did find evidence of other accounts being used by PoT. The sock policy does not absolutely forbid use of other accounts, it only forbids their use to evade or confuse matters or disrupt. More extensive research into contributions would be needed to see for sure. ++Lar: t/c 12:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Usually, such research is done BEFORE deciding whether a block is placed, not after placing the block. Unless evidence is forthcoming that PoT has abused multiple accounts fairly soon, suggest an unblock until and unless that evidence is provided. Neıl 龱 12:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Uncle created the userbox saying he had 92 sockpuppets just because he thought such a userbox should exist, so people can say how many accounts they have, as at the time no such box existed, he told me this himself and it will be written somewhere so you can see our exchange. I think I said 'do you really have 92 accounts?:)' as it was obvious most people would only say that as a joke. I doubt he has and think it was just a test of the box and an unrealistic number he didn't think anyone would take seriously. Of course, someone could checkuser him to get some proof before saying such things. At the time I became aware of this userbox it was the User:!! debacle, a lot of us including !! as you can see from his userpage were being ironic about sockpuppet paranoia, and you can see it says on my user page I have 9000 accounts in accordance with policy:) Sticky Parkin 13:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Except neither UUU nor PoT are anything like User:!!, PoT being mostly here to cause trouble and hassle those who oppose the WP:TE of WikiProject ID. PoT has even felt the need to reignite the long-since-dead WP:BADSITES debate by keeping a naughty log of comments individuals make on Wikipedia Review. PoT is at best a gadfly like myself and DanT, at worst he is socking to cause trouble. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I was saying, I was saying Uncle says he has that many as a joke, as I do. I didn't see any prob with Uncle's edits in the brief time I was chatting and if you look in his contribs he advises people to look at his contribs further back, rather than making assumptions based on his more recent ones. But I don't know enough to comment on Uncle's actions any further than that- I was just commenting on his being called an admitted sockpuppet based on that box being absolutely daft. I mean he may have socks for all I know but they can't be assumed from that. As for Poupy I don't know enough to comment but believe his recent actions have been trouble-making, take that or leave it though as I don't know the details of what he's been doing. Sticky Parkin 17:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have redacted my misunderstanding. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

[1] honestly, irony seems to be lacking here:) Oh it was via email but this is when I asked him User_talk:Uncle_uncle_uncle#email. Sticky Parkin 13:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, PoT has definitely been using multiple accounts abusively. No question. I hope to have an answer shortly re. checkuser, and he's already 'fessed up to some of them off-wiki. He should definitely remain blocked for the moment - Alison ^❤ 16:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• And while Uncle is probably mostly trolling, there are some throwaway accounts on his IP such as Versaversa (talk · contribs) which seem more along the lines of silly buggers accounts as opposed to dedicated disruptive accounts. This is complex and still under investigation. Krimpet erred in blocking Uncle and Poupon as socks of each other, but neither account is lily-white. Thatcher 16:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Prod, prod, prod - anything on this, yet? Neıl 龱 10:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser

The following accounts are  Confirmed either through checkuser or directly, as being sock-puppets of PouponOnToast (talk · contribs). There are some other, older accounts, which had all been previously blocked:

1. LegitAltAccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Archfailure (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - actually pre-dating the unrelated banned account, Archtransit (talk · contribs)
3. Throwawayarb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. MusingsOfAPrivateNature (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. MOASPN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

- Alison ^❤ 17:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at their contribution, I think trolling is an accurate description of the behavior of many of them. Combined with POT's contributions under his own account, this is an editor I think that we are better off without. Heck, even the contributions of these reveal more puppets, such as Semiprivatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Does anyone think we should do more paperwork to memorialize a community ban? GRBerry 18:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's up to the community, of course. But I'd like to point out that the guy apologized to me in full for this incident. It should also be pointed out that for all his trolling and disruption, this was relegated to projectspace talk and user talk and he never once, AFAIK, vandalised an article - Alison ^❤ 22:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Recognising that he never vandalised an article, or ever abused anyone, I would like to see Poupon unblocked, and asked to restrict himself to a single account on pain of a ban. I would be willing to mentor him if he'd accept me. Neıl 龱 08:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

We've been at least that generous to accounts much worse than Poupon, so why not? MastCell ^Talk 00:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note, please see User_talk:Lar#Mentorship (permlink) where, prior to recent events, PouponOnToast and I were discussing parameters of my mentoring him. I'm still willing if he is, and if the community decides that is an appropriate course of action. ++Lar: t/c 19:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Because if we let him comment further, he might tell it as it is and plain talk jus aint allowed around these here parts nomore. If I had a dollar for all the spurious accounts that come to some areas and troll about the virtues of nonvirtuous websites, I could finally afford to fill up may gas tank every week. But nah...we need not make a fuss about them, they are surely here for the benefit of this website. I'd be happy to mentor Poupon...my advice up front is to simply stick to one account and keep sticking it to those that seem to relish in demanding we link to garbage websites that are as notable as my pet rock. Nay, only anti-WR and anti-ED folks are disruptive...the opposite could never be the case.--MONGO 06:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Climb off the Reichstag, MONGO, considering one of the folks that post regularly on WR is the one who's pointed out that while PoT's other accounts have disrupted Wikipedia's processes (specifically the Attack Sites ArbCom case, amongst others), they've never vandalized a Wikipedia ARTICLE. Even considering my past history with him, I am also willing to see PoT unblocked, as long as he's restricted to one account, without even a topic ban. And to be quite blunt, I think having you as a mentor would not be at all a good idea. When you look for someone to be a mentor, you look for someone who is reasonable, and moderate, not an echo chamber for his own ideas, "turned up to 11", as you would be. SirFozzie (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

In my view and in this case Neil/SirFozzie's proposal has merit. Orderinchaos 16:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sir Fozzie, indeed you are so correct once again...the BEST mentoring would surely come from someone that uses offsite venues to post links to userpage vandalism that happens here and call it "funny". Poupon, in his way, tried to encourage yourself and at least one other to not feed the offsite trolls by giving them an audience or sounding board and to not collaborate in furthering axe grinding via such participation. The question is though as to why this matter IS being discussed offsite and if any decision making is happening based on these discussions, what power do such offsite venues have in formatting decision making here. When we start bowing to the drivel posted at forums that have a history of being anti-Wikipedia and or its editors, then we have a serious problem.--MONGO 16:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If no one listened to "the drivel posted at forums that have a history of being anti-Wikipedia or its editors", then Mantanmoreland's serial socking would still be "a WordBomb false theory spread by trolls and meatpppets". There are times when they are wrong. Spectacularly so. But they have been right, almost as much as they've been wrong. I know you have a history of issues (and I understand why you would, considering what happened) with off-site attacks upon you. And as for why its being discussed, gee, I wonder why.. Someone who accuses others of socking, disruption and bad faith is caught disrupting, socking, and acting in bad faith. The irony is so delicious, I expect it to be a dish on Iron Chef. PoT had moderated his activities in the last few weeks, which is why I'm calling for an unblock. SirFozzie (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

While I have no particular problem with unblocking and restricting, I'd like to point out that disruption isn't limited entirely to article-space. One can disrupt the encyclopedia just as effective from other namespaces as from article space, so I'm not really sure that the delimiter "he's never vandallized a wikipedia ARTICLE..." is important. It takes no less time for us to clean it up if it's in another namespace. - Philippe 16:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes and disruption doesn't have to be simple vandalism. However I would like to see Lar as the mentor. Would not want MONGO to take the job for the same reason as Foz gave. Viridae^Talk 22:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Somebody trying to hack my password

Resolved

 – Par for the course, unfortunately - make sure you have a decent password and ignore them.

I just got an e-mail from Wikimedia that someone with the IP address 71.115.153.71 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) (apparently in Reston, Virginia) tried to reset my password...should this be reported to anyone? Kelly ^hi! 00:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I must have received over 100 of these emails. I have always ignored them, no harm seems to have come from it. Is the IP one you have interacted with? Kevin (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. Once you start getting those, in an odd osrt of way, it means you're doing good work for Wikipedia. (I've gotten a couple myself) Wizardman 00:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Doh, you caught me redhanded! :-p Angrymansr (talk)

for future refernece, what does that mean when someone tried to resetr your password? That doesnt seem like something that might be important or dangeorus so could someone epxlain what that means please??? Smith Jones (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It means someone/something may have tried to steal her password. The only person who should be resetting your password is you. You should not receive e-mails for password resets if you didn't do it. That means someone else is trying to tinker with your account. Angrymansr (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it means someone clicked the "I forgot my password" button on the login screen, and nothing more. It's absolutely impossible to break into someone's account by doing this. --Carnildo (talk) 04:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty narrow view of the possibilities. While most of these attempts may be harmless, this issue goes far beyond Wikipedia. There's something called Social Engineering which may allow hackers to gain entry to your e-mail without changing any passwords, and then they can come here and click e-mail new password and the account has been breached. Sounds far fetched? It happens all of the time. I don't think blowing it off as "impossible" is the right answer. The U.S. Gov't can't avoid being hacked, but somehow Wikipedia has it figured out? The right answer would be to ensure that you have full control of your e-mail and wiki account, and to change your passwords if you deem it necessary to a strong password scheme. Also advise not to use the same passwords for your e-mail and wiki account. Angrymansr (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with the techniques of social engineering, and asking for new passwords has nothing to do with it. For more information, visit this site and log in with your Wikipedia username and password. --Carnildo (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, if the user's e-mail has been hacked via social engineering or by any other means then their wikipedia account can easily be breached using this tool. It's not impossible. Angrymansr (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh...shouldn't those attempts be reported somewhere, or are they beneath notice? Kelly ^hi! 01:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

cant people who do that be blocked? I mean, I dont want to come back one day and fidn someone else vandalized WIkipedia on my account or come back and find my account locked with some strange Nordic-Swaihili code or something! I would lose la my of my contributions have to find all of hte articles that I have worked on before in the past. I thinkt hat there should be a way to stop people from freel being able to reset someone elses password without their knowledge and/or consent. Smith Jones (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Just have a very strong password and you will be fine. You can try to reset anyones password by trying to log in as them. It will only reset though if you click the link in your email. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 01:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying...so basically we ignore the hacking attempts? Doing something like that seems at least as serious as vandalism. Kelly ^hi! 01:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

i agree. Maybe the Hackers haven't not founded a way to compromise the our security failguards yet but they shall some day and if we dont find a way to knock them out now we will come in one day and find that a admins' account has been stolen and the entire encyclopedia has been horriblie vandalized. Smith Jones (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's really someone trying to "hack" your account but rather someone just trying to annoy you by having the emails sent to you. I get them on a regular basis and have done for at least a couple of years and I've always assumed it was some vandal I blocked who was trying to piss me off. The emails aren't of any use in "hacking" your account unless they also know your email address and are able to access it to be able to get the link in the email. Best thing is to make sure both your email and account passwords are strong and then just ignore them or even filter them to junk mail so you don't even have to deal with them. It's much better now that they have set a limit on one email per day as a couple of years ago some of us were receiving dozens a day and I seem to recall someone who got over 100 in one day and that was what eventually led to the developers setting the limit at one request per day. Sarah 02:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I got 60 in a ten minute period back in the Great Password Reset Flood :) Daniel (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

tank you for all your help. so I guesss we editors in good standing will have to put uwp with attempts to violate the intereigity of our accounts from these nutcases, right? Well, i guess its not that a big of a deal since the amount is limited! Smith Jones (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering they can't actually do anything by sending these requests, it's nothing to worry about. --Carnildo (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I get these almost every day. Usually, the IP responsible has made no edits. It's not a big deal, although if you start getting them, make sure you have a decent strong password. Marked as resolved. Neıl 龱 10:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I get these e-mails too, and I've been avoiding anything remotely contentious on Wikipedia, so I don't think it has to do with editing disputes spilling over into retribution through hacking, or even a deliberate attempt to annoy. I notice that Neil, Kelly, Sarah, and Daniel all have common first names as user names. It would not be surprising if new editors registering accounts for the first time often try to choose these same user names, without knowing that they are already taken. When that doesn't work, the software presents several options, one of which is a password reset over e-mail. And the most universal approach to solving computer problems is to try every available option and see what happens. They may click on the button without really understanding what it means. Rather than malice or hacking, I think a simpler explanation is a bit of confusion in signing up for an account. So I don't worry about it. --Reuben (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Repeat vandalism of Afds

A few editors have been engaging in some problematic edits on certain pages.

User 194.126.21.5 has vandalized Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Riachi [2] and vandalized the Afd tag on Jean Riachi [3] They have also vandalized Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emile Riachi twice [4] [5]. They blanked Emile Riachi twice [6] [7], then vandalized the Afd tag [8], then vandalized the page. [9]. This user has also made personal attacks agains Damien.rf in an edit summary. [10]

User 206.53.154.135 has also vandalized Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Riachi [11] [12] They have also vandalized Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emile Riachi four times. [13] [14] [15] [16] and vandalized Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism in a way to falsely accuse user Damien.rf of vandalism. [17]

User 83.229.109.156 deleted the Afd tag from Jean Riachi [18], then blanked the page [19], then deleted the Afd tag again [20] They also blanked Emile Riachi [21], then blanked everything but the Afd tag [22], then blanked it again [23], then removed the Afd tag [24]

User Lebprofiler has vandalized Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emile Riachi [25]. He also made personal attacks against user Damiens.rf in comments [26] [27] [28] [29] and in an edit summary. [30].

User 85.195.139.202 has vandalized Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emile Riachi. [31], claimed ownership of an associated page in his edit summary [32] [33] and made personal attacks against Damien.rf [34]

User Nabuchodonozor has not assumed good faith about Damiens.rf’s edits and has called for that user to be banned. [35] Edward321 (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• The vandalism has continued unabated since last night. Just on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emile Riachi User 85.195.139.202 has vandalized [36] [v] , User Vikser has pretended to be User Vickser and vandalized [37] [38] [39]. User Teresa knott has pretended to be User Theresa knott and vandalized [40] . Edward321 (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • And it doesn't stop. User Lebprofiler has removed the Afd message from Emile Riachi as has user 194.126.21.5, falsely staing in the edit summary that the article closed as keep. [41]. Edward321 (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    • User Lebprofiler has also falsely listed the Emile Riachi article as Keep on its talk page. [42]. Edward321 (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

As a further update, User Lebprofiler has claimed ownership of Emile Riachi [43], vandalized the page while falsely stating the Afd is closed [44], falsely accused Damiens.rf of being a vandal [45] [46], and engaged in personal attacks against Damiens.rf in comments [47] and edit summaries. [48]

User Nabuchodonozor has vandalized Emile Riachi by removing the Afd tag again [49], falsely accused Damien.rf of vandalism and made personal attacks [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]

So we’ve got multiple nicks (possibly sock or meatpuppets) vandalizing articles, Afds, and the associated talk pages; harassing, insulting, impersonating, and making personal attacks against other users. And this has been going on for several days. Edward321 (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Another user, Melkart1 (talk · contribs), created a page that has been nominated for deletion, and now requests deletion himself, accusing Damiens.rf: [59]. The user also removed links to the same article: [60], and a few hours after this a similar edit was made by Nabuchodonozor (talk · contribs): [61]. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 02:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Repeated deletions by User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog and User:Folantin

Over the past two days I saw in front of my eyes how all of my contribution to Chechen people disappear by the two editors with clear WP:MEATpuppetry engaged. Neither has provided any real explanation, and reverted to a heavy POV version that was semi-plagiarised from an amateurish source. Despite my attempts ([62],[63]) to get a discussion going, both editors have clearly expressed ([64],[65])their non-willingness in doing so. After the [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], sixth revert of my work, which included removal of disputed tags and the like, I have no option but to raise the issue here and request admin intervention and to explain to these users the principle of WP:OWN.
On a separate note, if one checks the history of the article or other articles the former user is editing, one can clearly see an attempt to have an edit stack. I do hope that if he chooses to have an RfA in the near future this record is kept for refrence. --Kuban Cossack 08:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

BAM, did not have time to finish writing this already a SEVENTH revert. --Kuban Cossack 08:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats true. He aslo had a revert war yestarday on the Russians page, and here you can see he started a discussion which he turned into a political debate and started arguing about things not even in the article. For a few times he was explained Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum, explanations he have ignored. Log in, log out (talk) 08:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(Referring exclusively to the Chechen people page): User:Kuban kazak is a soapboxing nightmare. I watchlisted the Chechen people page because I had made some contributions to the etymology section, including adding a valid reference. Then, last week, KK arrived and slapped a "citation needed" tag on my contribution, which was quite clearly referenced at the end of the paragraph, while adding a load of tendentious material of his own completely lacking in sources [71]. When he finally added references for his material (mostly in Russian), I checked out one of them and it did not contain any reference to the fact it was supposed to verify (see talk page for details [72]). Moreover, the whole tenor of the source he used said exactly the opposite of what he was claiming in the article (i.e. the Chechens collaborated en masse with the Germans in World War Two). When challenged about this misuse of sources, he tried to change the subject, then offered another source in Russian which again failed to back the fact cited. He has refused to give any explanation for his behaviour, finally telling me to clean up his mess myself: "So correct that part, after all you are interested in the article to be full and detailed and correct? Are you not?". I reverted him and began to source the previous version of the article, adding a reference from a reliable source in English to a fact he had marked as "dubious" [73]. This morning, he completely reverted this and reinstated his own material, including the completely unverified "facts" I had challenged on the talk page [74]. It's pretty obvious that this editor is pushing some kind of agenda (see his user page) and is completely untrustworthy as far as following WP:V and WP:RS are concerned. He probably thought he could get away with inserting some vague references in the Russian language and nobody would be able to check up on him. He should be topic-banned from editing this page and other Chechen-related articles. I'm neither Chechen nor Russian. I merely want a factually accurate page. As it happens I've also challenged User:Captain Obvious about material he added [[75]], so we're hardly "meat puppets" (and I haven't been involved in any of the disputes on the other pages). --Folantin (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all I am not a soapbox! You are! Second, what right have you got to remove the whole edit? Yes I admit that I've made a mistake on a small segment of it, and yes I encouraged Folantin to correct the parts he deemed incorrect, or re-write that particular part affected in light of his "better" refrences. Also the version he has reverted to five times now (slipping away from a 3rr by a very small margin) included material based on an non-professional source, parts of which were clearly copypasted and plagiarised! Once again I remind him that he does not WP:OWN the article, and that wikipedia goes by consensus not by reverts, so far he has made NO attempt at bridging our disagreements. Yet he already is demanding that I am banned. Talk about being agressive I've not even tried to ask for a sanction on the user. --Kuban Cossack 09:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

And you've provided no explanation for your flagrant abuse of referencing, your reinstatement of challenged material (which you know is dubious), your adding "citation needed" templates to referenced material (I had to spell this out to you at least twice in edit summaries) and your deletion of cited content. I do not have time to waste on national chauvinist POV-pushers. You are clearly untrustworthy and I have no faith in any content you might add. --Folantin (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all how dare you insult me? I hope the admin are watching this personal attack and will react, I've not set a word of your personal habit and views and opinions yet you are biting away aleady. Second I now know its dubious because you've pointed it out to me, ok a section is wrong, in a normal case you settle down on it and work at it improving it and expanding it, no you instead revert everything along with other parts that you did not challenge, and with the tags as well. FYI I did not remove the material that was there before but incorporated it into my large edit. Yet as you said above you have no interest in even looking for consensus, which means you have got a lesson to learn in manners and good faith and etiquette. --Kuban Cossack 09:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You've already referred to me as "arrogant" on an admin's talk page behind my back yesterday[76], so it's a bit late to be talking about "personal attacks". All of which is a sidetrack anyway. --Folantin (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes and your refusal to seek consensus, and persistant reverting is exactly the reason why I called you arrogant. Or is the culprit of the problem that the original text was heavily POVed which you endorsed now give times, particularly relating to the post-1956 events and the events of 1800-1930s, copied from a very dubious and no-reknown publisher Joana Nichols, and it suited your version to make WP:POINT that the Chechens for the past 2 centuries have been nothing but victims to the evil evil Russians (despite ethnically cleansing 250 thousand of them in 1990-1994). --Kuban Cossack 09:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Joanna Nichols is a professor at Berkeley. She's published an English-Ingush dictionary. I even replaced the reference sourced to her with one from Jaimoukha's book, which said exactly the same thing. Now are you going to explain your abuse of sources? --Folantin (talk) 09:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

She published a dictionary. Great. That still doesnt mean she knows history. And just for the record, there are proffesors who deny Gas Chambers at Nazi territores, and...? She's not enough known, she's not neutral, she's biased. You need a completely neutral reference of an author who doesn't try to make a point. Log in, log out (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, she is a linguist not a historian and on that paper in the intro she states black on white that this is not a professional history refrence but more of a public outcry to side her opinion. For example the post 1956 events with Chechens being repressed is pure bullshit, considering that by 1970s the whole administration of the republic was made entirely of Chechens who held all key cabinet roles. The original passage implies some colonial/labour camp administration. I have no idea what your Jaimoukha said, but I for one try not to limit myself to one source. --Kuban Cossack 10:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Had a look at the preview of Jaimoukha's book at google, on the whole can't say I am impressed with it, again same one-sided history written from a clear non-neutral perspective. For example it ignores the savegery of the Chechen attacks on Cossack stanitsas as documented by a wide scale of international historians such as Peter Hopkirk's book "The Great Game". Of course it does not even mention what happened to the Russian minority at the hands of the Chechens in early 90s nor will it bother to mention the even the name of the insurgent leaders. So in short good for political propaganda of like minders, but for encyclopedia... :( --Kuban Cossack 10:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Folantin, Do you know that if the source is not reliable you can delete it and out a citation needed? Your sources were not reliable, thats why Kuban Cossack challenged them. Bring references from nutral sources who dont have i bias. And you cant denie this user Captian loves edit wars. He came to the Russians page, started a revert war with a few users, then started a political discussion not having to do anything with the article. Log in, log out (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

My source was The Chechens: A Handbook, by Amjad Jaimoukha, London, New York: Routledge, 2005. In other words, a book in English from a renowned academic publisher, not some Russian source off the Net. --Folantin (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Jaimouka is not excepted by anyone but Chechen Nationalists. He's known primary for using more imagination then truth. Log in, log out (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

He's obviously not acceptable to National Bolsheviks, of which you are a supporter. Check their flag [77] - what a great way to combine Nazi and Soviet imagery. --Folantin (talk) 09:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I remind Folantin to Comment on content, not on the contributor. I could not care less what you stand for and here you go insulting a user who is not even involved in our dispute. --Kuban Cossack 09:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've not come across Folantin, but from the tone of his comments I can clearly see who is in the wrong here. I had a look at the edits and reverts, and although Kuban kazak's is far from perfect the old version that Folantin and Captain Obvious are sterily reverting to is much worse in terms of neutrality and accuracy. Some parts of Kuban's additions are clearly correct. I would recommend you to follow a WP:DR process, and Folantin to cease reverting. Log in, log out (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You can tell that just by tone, can you? What an amazing gift. But here's another explanation: Folantin is an editor who is sick to the back teeth with rampant national and ethnic POV-pushing on Wikipedia, which might account for the note of frustration and weariness at yet another attempt to mess with content. Obviously, your sympathy for Kuban Kazak has nothing to do with the fact you are Russian. --Folantin (talk) 09:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well Folantin the fact that you are not Russian is not something that bothers me, I deal every day on wikipedia with people of different scope. In other words no only do you have problems with political views you now have problems with nationlities of the editors. Well I do apologise for us resisting the invasions of Napoleon and Hitler and other times when Russia fought for her independence, obviously it made your life a lot difficult. --Kuban Cossack 09:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats funny, because that's what you, Folantin, were doing in the Chechens article. Pushing Nationalist and biased authors. Kuban Cossack, unlike you, brought links which are nutral and simply name facts. Simple facts, not more not less. No POV. Log in, log out (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep sidetracking. --Folantin (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You were brought certain claims. You were brought certain facts. You ignore them and go into personal. That doesnt work in your favour here. Log in, log out (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You haven't read a word I've said. Jaimoukha is a reliable source (he's published by Routledge). Your friend KK wanted to add material which claimed " In some areas up to 80% of the [Chechen] populations backed the [pro-German] insurgency [during World War Two]". He referenced it to this online source [78]. No such "fact" occurs in the article. Moreover, the page is written by Alexander Uralov, who's kind of pro-Chechen, and is entitled "Murder of the Chechen-Ingush People. Genocide in the USSR". Uralov completely rejects the idea of mass Chechen-German collaboration, citing "two decisive facts": "1) During the Second World War, German soldiers did not once set foot in the territory of the Chechen-Ingush Republic, unless you count the short-lived occupation of Malgobek, inhabited by Russians; (2) it was physically impossible for Chechens and Ingush to link up with German formations...[and so on]". In other words, it makes the exact opposite point from the one KK wanted to push. I had to spend my available free time yesterday afternoon reading that page in my rusty Russian. I doubt if KK even bothered read it in the first place. You could have checked up on this by following the links I provided in my first statement here. You obviously couldn't be bothered either. This is why I object to wasting my time checking up on obviously untrustworthy POV-pushers. --Folantin (talk) 10:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I admit that I trusted the article 1940-1944 Insurgency in Chechnya, however the original version of the Chechen people article did not even cite that as the reason for the deportation, only the POV statement: Moscow's repressions reached the apogee. Now how is that not being biased. Whether or not the scale of insurgency was as large as claimed is not of my concern, there is evidence for it (fact one; Khasan Israilov did exist) and there is evidence that Germans dropped paratroopers into Chechnya (fact two). That is of course sidetrack and maybe WP:UNDUE for the article, but omitting compleately along with other parts such as the post-war and pre-war events that I have added is worse. Maybe if Folantin and his meat puppet did not engage in reverts I would agreed to remove that particular passage, but whose fault is it that no consensus was reached? --Kuban Cossack 11:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know, it's all my fault. You've got a nerve. I'll give you that.--Folantin (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

And he did it again. Look. It was deleted and he recived a second warning. There won't be a third. Log in, log out (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"He" being "Captain Obvious". --Folantin (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Kuban kazak has been engaged in a slow-scale nationalist edit war with User:Riwnodennyk on European ethnic groups. WP editors have clear problems if they reject as recognized sources books written by reputed academics and published by long-established publishing houses. Johanna Nichols and Amjad Jaimoukha have respectable academic credentials. She is Professor of slavic languages and literatures at the University of California, Berkeley, in charge of a Chechen project partially funded by the NSF. He was educated in England, and is now Assistant President of the Royal Scientific Society in Jordan and member of the Central Eurasian Studies Society at Harvard University. Mathsci (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was not nationalistic edit warring, but more of fixing the incorrectly drawn map. WRT editors, again there are professors funded by most reputable organisations that deny Holocaust, I take it most of them never even set foot in Chechnya. Nichols srticle is out of date by more than a decade. Yes I reject that as reliable source, Jaimoukha's can pass wrt culture and tradition, history reject again because its laden with opinions, that were copied into the article. --Kuban Cossack 11:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"I don't like it" obviously trumps reliable sources. --Folantin (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem is they are not reliable in presense of contradicting material awailable and the POV the authors carry. --Kuban Cossack 11:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Evaluations of writers cannot be made in this way on WP; academic book reviews can of course be cited when relevant. Some details of Nichols' field trips to Chechnya can be found on her home page. Mathsci (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

We've already established Kuban Kazak's "reliability" as a source anyway, so I don't think we can have him going round dismissing scholars who don't fit in with his POV. --Folantin (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Those scholars are controversial and push their POV in their text. I'll give you an example. If a scholar, and there are many like that, will write that the Germans haven't built gas chembers, would you belive him even thought he's a scholar? I really hope not. The sources shouldn't be just of a "dud with a deploma", but from someone known as nutral. Log in, log out (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those credentialed scholars are clearly just like Neo-Nazis - and this is coming from someone who sports imagery derived from the Third Reich on his user page. --Folantin (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You know going into personal will get you blocked. You ignored a claim by going into personal. Thats a behaviour of someone who lost an argument. Log in, log out (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Violating WP:BLP by libelling accredited scholars by comparing them to Holocaust deniers will get you blocked a lot sooner. As for the "Third Reich imagery", Compare [79] and contrast [80]. Your user page as of this writing contains the latter image [81]. We've already had trouble with one notorious "National Bolshevik" editor (User:M.V.E.i.). We don't need another. --Folantin (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Action required

Appeal: could an uninvolved admin please deal with the essential issues here to stop this discussion sliding into irrelevance and obfuscation. --Folantin (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Johanna Nichols' work involves compiling Chechen and Ingush dictionaries. There seems to be no direct link with the Third Reich. There is a direct link with the NSF which has funded some of her projects. Mathsci (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"There seems to be no direct link with the Third Reich". Well, I don't think any ever expected there would be. It was just User:Log In Log Out engaging in diversionary smear tactics. More importantly, the question of User:Kuban Kazak and his abuse of sources and tendentious editing has not been dealt with. Yet again he's removed sourced content and added unsourced material of his own [82]. I really want some action to stop this, please. --Folantin (talk) 14:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've had enough of this. I'm simply going to revert this guy's edits as vandalism from now on. --Folantin (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Good luck explaining this to the 3RR patrol. --Kuban Cossack 15:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Gaming the system as a last resort (without issuing warnings for behaviour you are guilty of yourself). Any admins on the 3RR patrol would have to explain why they weren't aware of this incident which has been on ANI for seven hours or so now. --Folantin (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no last resorts, don't think that I am just going to abandon the article by your revert war efforts, I'll be here tomorrow the day after that and the year after that. But you are right the admin do have to explain for the lack of attention this problem gained. --Kuban Cossack 15:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, time for a response

I've been very slightly involved here, but this has gone on long enough so I'll take temporary admin action to stabilise the situation until an uninvolved admin can take over. Most of this is a content dispute, focused on reliability of sources. Consider options for dispute resolution instead of arguing about content here. Per WP:PROTECT and WP:EW, I will temporarily fully protect the page to stop the reverts, revert it to the last stable version and investigate whether any 3RR violations have taken place. Papa November (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• User:Kuban kazak and User:Folantin both blocked by User:Scarian for edit warring after Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Folantin reported by User:Kuban kazak (Result: 2x 12 hour blocks) Papa November (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have unblocked User:Folantin, after his request, as the disputed article is protected. However, I have warned him that any further edit warring or incivility will lead to a new, longer block. Papa November (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have declined User:Kuban kazak's unblock request, as he has received several blocks for similar behaviour previously, and is engaging in similar behaviour in other articles. Note that this does not imply any endorsement of User:Folantin's side of the content dispute. Papa November (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a serious problem with nationalist editing, or 'cultural and ethnic edit wars'. I've not been very involved and don't plan to be, but I would be very much surprised if Folantin has not been acting in good faith in this or any other dispute. What I see happening (and this is a very personal observation over a small number of articles so may not be represenative) is a very small number of people trying to stop nationalism from prevailing on a number of articles, and a large number of nationalists either taking over articles or edit warring on articles. Right now its a losing battle and it is pretty bad if any of the casualties are those trying to solve the problem. Doug Weller (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What Doug said. I've effectively been blocked for adding properly referenced material in line with Wikipedia policy and removing blatantly bad faith content. That's my reward after 10,000 edits and two years here. For five months I have been asking for a report from the working group on national, ethnic and cultural edit wars which is supposed to deal with this sort of thing. Look at the talk page for my requests and the answers I got. The only member of the group who's actually done anything in response is User:Elonka. It's extremely easy for agenda-driven tag teams to bulldoze through dubious content in the face of lone users trying to follow policy. Admins are supposed to stop this. This is an encyclopaedia. The only thing people judge us by is our content. I've long harboured the suspicion that certain "national" editors have been playing fast and loose with references in foreign languages, effectively using them to hoodwink anglophone editors. I have given an example of this in this thread and tomorrow I will try to offer a translation of the Russian material Kuban Kazak used as his source so others can judge for themselves. I'm forced to conclude from today's proceedings that Wikipedia is badly broken. Admins need to stop hiding their heads in the sand and start trying to fix it. --Folantin (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Folantin, although I know it's frustrating that so few admins are getting involved here, this is a huge task, and rather daunting for admins. It's hard for us, as non-experts on the content to judge what is nationalistic propaganda and what is good encyclopaedic content. It's unfortunate that you were blocked for a 3RR violation, but the complex circumstances make it very difficult for admins to decide who, if anyone, is breaking the rules here. You're right that Wikipedia isn't perfect, but it's a work in progress and your suggestion of forming a purpose made working group may be a good way of improving things. Why not put together a draft policy page, and take it to WP:VPP? Papa November (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There are 1500 of you. You had eight hours for one of you to do something about this. You have failed to enforce basic policies WP:V and WP:RS. The content I added was referenced to reliable sources. The content Kuban Kazak added was mostly unsourced and demonstrably falsified in at least one instance. I did the research (including reading Russian) to prove this and presented the evidence here. Nothing happened. I was then blocked for reinstating referenced material. I had no warning and the blocking admin couldn't even be bothered to do the most basic research into the issue or distinguish between me, a user in good faith with over 10,000 edits and a clean block log, and a user with a reputation for agenda-driven editing. I've spent a good deal of my time checking up on sources - I busted a hoax article on Illyrian mythology written by an Albanian nationalist which had been allowed to remain unchallenged on Wikipedia for two whole years [83]. In return, I expect to see admin support for such efforts to ensure content is reliable. If you admins can't enforce core policies then we might as well all go home now. --Folantin (talk) 06:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, it's true that it's sometimes difficult to judge the quality of source if you're not familiar with a topic, and that can make it hard to see who's working to make the encyclopedia better. However, I would think that when editors suggest that the work of a a tenured professor at UC Berkeley isn't a good source because "there are professors" who are Holocaust deniers, and reject sources published by prominent academic presses as "biased", that suggests that one "side" of the dispute has a severely deficient understanding of how we're supposed to use sources on Wikipedia. Sadly, this is the kind of thing that gets defined as a "content dispute" rather than being seen as a case of tendentious editing. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Or shunted off to "civility", something the kid admins can understand. There's always been something suspect about the Russian articles with regard to Chechnya. Get this: the main History of Russia article was passed for FA when it contained three longish paragraphs about post-Soviet Russia with not one single reference to the Chechen Wars of the 1990s. Would you trust a History of the USA article with no mention of the Vietnam War? (Actually, the Russian example is far, far worse than that). --Folantin (talk) 07:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be a red flag when someone is calling academic sources 'biased'. It may be that it has a POV and other sources with different POVs need to be added, but a clearly reliable source should never be removed simply because an editor thinks it's wrong. I've had a similar problem, a quote from an academic press book was deleted because the editor didn't believe it and insisted on another citation backing that one. As for FA articles, that isn't the only one that has been passed where I couldn't understand the rationale for it being FA.

One of the problems with nationalist editors is that their motivations are often extremely strong, and it only takes one or two such editors on a page to tire anyone else out, and you end up with a 'no-go' article. Something needs to be done, perhaps at a pretty high level, to stop this from happening. Doug Weller (talk) 07:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You know what the funniest thing about this affair is? Kuban Kazak was the one who insisted on re-adding material by a well-known Chechen nationalist. I'm referring to an author who used the pseudonym Aleksandr Uralov, though his real name was Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov. We even have a page on him on Wikipedia (reliability uncertain). Of course, Uralov's article did not support the claim Kuban Kazak said it did. I will try to provide a translation later on so you can judge for yourselves. This makes total nonsense of User:Log In Log Out's claim: "what you, Folantin, were doing in the Chechens article. Pushing Nationalist and biased authors. Kuban Cossack, unlike you, brought links which are nutral and simply name facts. Simple facts, not more not less. No POV". Turns out KK was adding the "Chechen nationalist" source! Of course, had he bothered to read the page (in his own native language, I presume) he might have noticed that. Instead he kept edit-warring to reinsert it. And I'm expected to waste my time on such nonsense? --Folantin (talk) 08:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If recently arrived editor Kuban kazak is consistently dismissing sources which easily meet WP:V and WP:RS and consistently adding material from sources which fail these tests, he is editing tendentiously as Akhilleus has said. His editing should be examined more closely. From comments on his talk page, this kind of tendentious editing/ edit warring is not restricted to one article. Mathsci (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look, and someone seriously needs to mentor the guy. EE is bad enough without this. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, can I offer a personal apology to Folantin for a lack of courage on my part. I did read this thread yesterday, and even went and looked at the unblock requests, but decided that I did not want to get involved. It seemed to me that Folantin, an editor in good standing, was indeed fighting a lonely battle on Wikipedia's behalf and had been blocked only due to his frustration at getting no help. However, I bottled out - as a relatively new admin, I was unsure of my assessment, and frankly was not hugely enamoured of diving into a nationalist POV dispute and making things worse. However, given my acceptance of the mop in the first place, that was no excuse. Sorry Folantin, and thank you for your efforts to keep POV under control.

Secondly, I agree that mentoring at the very least would be a good idea, though it's not a task I personally would relish. I think we should be showing far less tolerance of POV pushers than we currently seem to. KK does seem to be on a mission; perhaps the blurb on his user page re 'avenging thousands of ethnic Russian victims' should have set the warning bells ringing. EyeSerene^talk 09:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, don't take it personally, it's a system failure. Frankly, I'm not surprised hardly anybody wants to get involved in these problem pages given the endless grief involved. On the other hand, I'm far from impressed by the conduct of the blocking admin. I'd expect a little more background research before that kind of action. I was not even issued a warning. --Folantin (talk) 10:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW This is my rough (and, no doubt, imperfect) translation of the Russian source Kuban Kazak claimed backed his additions (with some commentary by me). It didn't and he didn't even realise it was by a pro-Chechen author who accuses the Soviets of genocide. Just one example of how foreign-language sources have been used to hoodwink anglophone editors. --Folantin (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Administrators, you missed the whole case

You ignored the facts that Captain obvious did have revert wars, and not only that, he provocated political discussions on talk pages which are not connected with the article. Ask user Papa November, who is an administrator who warned him about that.

All Kuban Kazak wanted was real sources, reliable sources by nutral people. The sources Captain Obvious and Folantin supporte are maybe by people with a degree, but those people have a clear political agenda. For example. A man can denie a holocaust, and have a degree in History, would you use him as a reliable source? I hope not.

Folantin wasn't blocked even thought he violated the law when he atacked me a few times for being a National Bolshevik. Thats against the policy of not going to personal level, whatever more we weren't arguing about a National Bolshevik topic. Can a Wikipedian who once out of arguments goes to personal be here? Kuban Kazak had never went to personal level here.

Administrators, you can't decide who to block and who not to by the political standing of the editor. Kuban Cossack had a solo-war against people who clearly try to push a political agenda. That doesn't matter if the opinion meets with your western views, or not. While it's not nutral, it's wrong. Kuban Cossack haven't searched to insert his views, but to insert a referenced nutral view that can't be argued.

Lets say Folantin and Captain Obvious entered reliable sources, but Kuban had brought other sources which are reliable to, but contrast Folantin's and Captain Obvious's sources, why should Kuban be blocked? The administrators clearly failed in this case when they let Folantin to get unharmed after he went to personal level. Log in, log out (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please restrain yourself. We do not need a repetition of this.[84] Mathsci (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Uuu, threats. Scary. I admit i did a mistake by writting it, but once it was deleted once, i haven't returned it because i understood it. By the way, the one who reverted me was Kuban Cossack, who you blame for nationalism and being not nutral. I would better be explained why it was returned (do is mell provocation?). I understood i did a mistake there, and haven't repeated it. Your threat has nothing to do with what a wrote above. Log in, log out (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"Half of your [Ukrainian] lands are not yours by right (Crimea and Donbass, New Russia, were opened by Russia for Russia, Odessa to. Lviv and the whole West were Polish), and instead of thanking us you act like pigs". Unbelievable. I hadn't seen that link before. And this from a user whose page says he is a member of the National Bolsheviks, an extreme Russian nationalist party whose flag clearly shows totalitarian imagery (both Nazi and Soviet). This is the kind of editor we have to deal with on these problem pages. --Folantin (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You do it again. You try to move the discussion to an off-topic to make people forget what you were blamed in. Once Kuban Cossack deleted what i said there and explained me Wikipedia pages are not forums. i, unlike you and Captain, have never returned to it. Log in, log out (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Simple questions

Can we get a clear answer from a blocking amdmin, first of all, but from the users who studied the matter (including the concerned editors themselves):

1. Did Folatnin technically violate the letter of 3RR?
2. If yes, were his reverts exempt from 3RR rule because he was reverting vandalism or because there was sockpuppetry involved?
3. Did Kuban kazak technically violate the letter of 3RR?
4. If yes, were his reverts exempt from 3RR rule because he was reverting vandalism or because there was sockpuppetry involved?

These are basic questions and it is always helpful to get the facts straight before discussing anything further. --Irpen 21:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Response by User:Papa November

I was not the blocking admin, but I was the one who unblocked Folantin and declined the unblock request from Kuban kazak, so here's my view.

I've boiled the edit war of 3rd July down into the following edits. I've used "KK" for Kuban kazak, "F" for Folantin and "CO" for Captain Obvious.

1. KK adds fact tag to "defeated Russian soldiers in 1732", and adds large amount of text to history section
2. F reverts KK's fact tag, added NPOV tag to KK's history section (1st rv by F)
3. CO reverts KK's history section, does some copyedits (1st rv by CO)
4. KK reverts CO's removal of history section, CO's copyedits and his own fact tag (1st rv by KK)
5. CO reverts KK's last edit, adds categories, further copyedits (2nd rv by CO)
6. KK reverts CO's removal of history section (2nd rv by KK)
7. F reverts KK's addition of history section (2nd rv by F)
8. KK reverts F's removal of history section (3rd rv by KK)
9. F reverts KK's addition of history section (3rd rv by F)
10. KK reverts F's removal of history section (4th rv by KK)
11. CO reverts KK's addition of history section (3rd rv by CO)
12. F changes reference to English source
13. CO adds "Noah's people" claim, some more copyedits
14. F reverts CO's "Noah's people" claim (4th rv by F)
15. CO reverts CO's removal of "Noah's people claim (4th rv by CO)

Several editors have blamed the situation on the slow admin response. Although this is disappointing, it is no excuse for the edit warring that continued. A whole range of measures could have been taken by the three editors involved, rather than the blunt tool of reversion, including

• Addition of maintenance tags to the disputed section
• Dispute resolution
• Waiting patiently for an outcome here
• Waiting for another editor to revert the material

So, my conclusions are as follows:

• All three editors violated 3RR by performing 4 reverts within a 24 hour period.
• There was no simple and obvious vandalism, copyright violation, or WP:BLP violation, so there is no exemption from the 3RR rule for any of the three editors here. WP:3RR explicitly states that "Content changes, adding or removing tags, edits which are against consensus, and similar items are not exempt".
• There is nothing here to suggest sockpuppetry taking place.
• Folantin's 3RR violation was not simply a case of him cleaning up after KK, as he also reverted an edit by CO.
• The blocks against User:Folantin and User:Kuban kazak were both therefore justified.
• I unblocked F later, as his edit warring was limited to a single article, which is now protected.
• I declined KK's unblock request, as he was engaging in edit warring in multiple articles, including Holodomor.

My recommendation is to continue the temporary page protection at Chechen people, while things cool down a little and to keep an eye on the three editors for the time being. Papa November (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not check the diffs carefully but unless someone else did and find Papa's summary incorrect, both KK and Folantine violated 3RR and both were blocked within the blocking policy. Now, Folantin claims that he should not have been blocked because his edits were "better" than Kuban's. This just does not cut it. Stick to 2RR and you will never pass the 4th revert threshold even in the judgment of the most block happy admin. I make no comment on Papa's decision to unblock Folantine but not to unblock Kuban. Personally, I think if both users stated the intention to stop reverting on the said article, it is best to unblock them both. But Papa's decision to not unblock Kuban was clearly within policy. I think Folantin should stop fussing and simple cut down on reverts. Kuban does not seem to be fussing anyway.

If there are indeed reasons to believe that one of the editors did not technically violate 3RR and one or both blocks fall under the discretion block category (that is for general revert warring), this is an entirely different game then. Discretion blocks should not be unilateral and should be suggested here first except in cases of emergency. This not being a discretion block but a clear 3RR block ends the matter, IMO. --Irpen 00:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett blocked, requesting review

Resolved

 – Block has expired

I have blocked G-Dett (talk · contribs) for 24 hours due to continued incivilty after being repeatedly warned about on her talk page. You can find a discussion about it at User talk:G-Dett#Comment. There I reminded her that she was a party in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, explained to her about the "Decorum" section, and told her about commenting on content as opposed other contributors. For those interested, feel free to read the rest of the section - I am requesting a review of this block in order to see if other members of the community agree or not. Khoikhoi 08:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If a contributor is misrepresenting policy, it seems appropriate to point that out, even to "comment on the contributor". --NE2 09:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Support block. G-Dett is under civility restrictions from the ArbCom case, and was repeatedly using uncivil terms ("troll") to refer to another editor, despite repeated requests from administrators to stop. Further, she was using this kind of inflammatory language in relation to articles that are already powderkegs, in the Palestine-Israel topic area. If G-Dett would like to point out concerns with an edit, or editor, she has the right to do so, but she must do this without the incivility and name-calling. --Elonka 20:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is this here and not at AE? Not to mention that truth is always a defence, even in "powder-kegs". Elonka, you've already made at least one article worse through over-application of discretionary sanctions, please don't do so with others. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Truth is indeed a defence, but if it's expressed in an aggressive fashion that raises genuine issues with civility. I'm sorry to see G-Dett get blocked for this, since in my (admittedly limited) experience of her she's been a productive and very lucid editor, but I can understand the reasons for it. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I think Khoikhoi and Elonka acted very decently here, and I agree with Chris' comments above. I do hope that people will look into the situation that sparked this, as it will need to be addressed at some point, with or without my dulcet-toned reminders.--G-Dett (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

User;CarolSpears

Due to recent discussion at WP:AN/I diff the editor was advised that they had been banned from editing. I have a couple of issues with the conclusion;

1. the discussion had comments from editors opposing the action, including an editor who has had extensive contact with the editor, including content disputes.
2. the discussion focused on wikilawyering over how a series information should be labeled PD rather than PD.
3. the most significant issue that the discussion only took place over 2 days, noting that XfD's have 5 days and RfA/RfB run for 7 days

I have some concerns over this though agree that a block was an appropriate action in the short term. What I see is the issue of calling it a ban, especially as one of the issue raised was the lack of response to the RfCU despite being told not to respond[85] go do something else for a while yet in doing just that other editors only inflamed the situation by following her around and revert edits. I'm inclined to unblock now when looking at the way these event have transpired, though I do recognise that there are some legitimate concerns so suggest consideration resetting the block to a specific period. Gnangarra 14:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I come at this from a Commons perspective where I have interacted with the user for some time now. They are a little unusual. Force/bullying/threats really do not work. Interaction has been successful there despite the odd call for a block. A challenge - yes, indef block or whatever - not in my mind. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• You are right - the consensus was for an indefblock, not a ban, and I hope that has now been clarified. Please see my rather long comment on her talk page. I've tried to give her a full explanation of what happened and why - ongoing copyright violations are not a trivial concern, and action had to be taken. However, despite being willing to unblock her myself, I would strongly object to resetting the block until we've had some assurances from her regarding editing and behaviour (preferably including accepting mentoring). EyeSerene^talk 14:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• I am not comfortable with an unblock or a reset until a consensus can be achieved here regarding the matter. We can't keep the charades going for much longer; blatant and ongoing copyright violations are a serious matter, and she has so far refused to modify her behaviour. I would feel comfortable with a reset on a block if she accepts mentoring. seicer | talk | contribs 16:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Please stop accusing me of stalking Carol Spears based on her say so and no diffs ("that other editors only inflamed the situation by following her around and revert edits"). I reverted 5-6 of her edits on new plant articles she created based upon the discussion on the RFC talk page. I told her this. Her edit history shows clearly that these were the only articles of hers I reverted. I did not follow her around to do this, and, in fact, only looked at her edit history after being accused of doing so. I found the articles from the new plant articles, which I monitor and sometimes banner talk pages.
• If the basis for the desire to revert the community ban is solely that she was stalked, provide some evidence. Carol provided none, because there was none.
• Please remember the plagiarisms are a minor issue in comparison to the fact that most of the information she has inserted into articles appears to be factually wrong, except for the taxoboxes. All of this information should be corrected before she is allowed to edit again. She not only refuses to help, but she added these new articles, including one which was a major misinterpretation of the article she referenced. I don't think Wikipedia readers deserve to be given wrong information. This is particularly problematic in the case of plant articles because Wikipedia is a main source on internet source engine returns for plant species articles. All of her wrong information must be removed before she's allowed to add new wrong information. This request is what led up to the ban. --Blechnic (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

  "Block", old bean, block... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Wait a minute, Gnangarra. I'm rather stunned by this and I'm having trouble reconciling this statement with the fact that you previously blocked Carol for one week for this comment. I certainly wish you would look at some of her more recent comments with a similarly critical eye. You say you feel "inclined to unblock now" because you don't agree with "calling it a ban". This makes no sense to me and even less when I see you saying that you agree a block was warranted. You made this statement some two hours after I had already corrected the incorrect non-admin closure and had removed her name from the ban list. If you think it's been closed too early and should stay open for another couple of days, then by all means remove the tags and reopen it but to use a mistake by a non-admin as a basis to lobby for overturning a clear consensus discussion seems like the very definition of wiki-lawyering to me. If such a thing warranted overturning a block in the face of strong consensus, then we're screwed. You compare the discussion length to XfDs. Consider also that an incorrectly closed XfD simply gets corrected and a closing mistake by a non-admin closer does not corrupt the entire process. You say that there was wiki-lawyering in the block discussion but it feels to me like your argument is wiki-lawyering because the issue of the incorrect closure was already fixed. I do believe that there was a consensus for an indefinite block with *only one* person opposing the block. I opposed the initial proposal two weeks ago because I felt that she just needed mentoring and education but she has been resistant to both and I feel this is our last option. The people who have spent the last two weeks cleaning up her copyvios and incorrect information she added to articles should be commended and supported, not blamed. I do not support unblocking now and I would not support a fixed term or unblocking until there was some undertakings from this user, including the acceptance of a mentor. The discussion regarding this user and the extent of her damage to the mainspace took place through at least three separate ANI sections, an RfC and over a period of 16 days; it wasn't simply a two day discussion. Carol needs to be blocked until we have undertakings from her about her future editing and an agreement to accept the mentor, whether that means that she remains blocked for one hour or one year is entirely in her hands but I will not support an unblock without such undertakings. Please consider, instead of doing this, helping carol by helping her see how a mentor like LessHeard could help her and the importance of our copyright, verifiability and other content and behavioural policies. Sarah 20:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this summary. We're dealing with chronic disruption that is going to take weeks to fix, and if the user had had a better attitude about helping to rectify it, we wouldn't be here. If we saw a major change in attitude and a willingness to help fix past matters, then I'd be minded to support an unblock, but I think it will need some fairly solid (and enforceable) undertakings. Orderinchaos 01:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Related issue -- ban template on her talk page

I disagree with a ban template being put on her user page, though, and would like this to be discussed, since so many uninvolved editors feel strongly about templating her page. Is this necessary under the circumstances of this particular ban? --Blechnic (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it back in by error by misreading the talkpage, I have no strong feels about the use of the template otherwise. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. --Blechnic (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now protected the Userpage; the editor has now retired, is indefinitely blocked, and is therefore no longer contributing in any way to the encyclopedia. There is therefore no need to cause any further distress to the departing individual. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, she has said she is considering coming back as a sock [86], but hopefully won't. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Just taking the piss

see here, lock it down, let her email someone if she has a valid reason for unblock. --Allemandtando (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Why? Ignore it, if it irritates you. Perhaps a decreasing audience may encourage her to address the communities concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It shows the utter contempt she has for the community. She posts nonsensical ramblings in response to the clear, well thought out explanation to her block. I can't believe anyone still thinks she will ever work within the community standards. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 14:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Closing down the page is not necessary to protect the encyclopedia. If you dislike what you see when you go there, then I suggest you take the advice of a doctor who replied, when told "It really hurts when I do this!", "Then stop doing it." LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think it's helpful to give this troll a forum? At this point that is all that she is. People keep going to that page to keep an eye on the situation. There are, evidently, people that think that her feelings are much more important than policy and will unblock her as long as she promises not to do it again, but they won't bother to actually follow her and check her work because that would be insulting to the poor abused editor. This is a symptom of a bigger issue on WP. People who operate in contravention of community standards and WP policies are allowed to do whatever they want as long as they are "doing important work". So go ahead and unblock her, but be sure to warn the foundations legal team because you can be certain that she will continue to pass off other people's work as her own because she simply refuses to accept that it's wrong. We'll have lots of pretty plant articles with stolen passages and incorrect information, but Carol's feelings will not be hurt so everything is good. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 15:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

When someone is blocked, they're only supposed to use their talk pages for requests for unblock, or non-controversial stuff. If not, then typically the talk page will be protected, to shut up the whiner. But if the talk page in this case is to remain unprotected, anyone going there should forget about being upset, and simply consider the entertainment value of it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I do see the entertainment value, I mean I haven't heard such disjointed rambling in quite some time. However, as I said, there are some of us here to keep others honest and keep her from being unblocked while she continues to rant and refuses to (or simply is incapable) of seeing what she is doing is wrong. Why does she have so many defenders is my question. She's rude, sarcastic, and obstinate, not the qualities we'd like in a member of a collaborative community. I don't understand how anyone can read the myriad threads about her and still think we can redeem her? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 18:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That user has less chance of being redeemed than Frequent Flier miles from Braniff Airlines. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Any redemption should be mindful of the editors trying to correct her existing garbage. One of her major articles is being edited right now, and, yes, it's full of incorrect information--the article where she said the mountains of Central and East Africa are just like the European Alps because the mountains of northwestern Africa (a different and far more ancient by hundreds and hundreds of millions of years tectonic regime) are like the Alps. These are good editors who could be contributing to Wikipedia in other ways, but are instead deleting pages and pages of misinformation posted by CarolSpears.

In addition, if she can't communicate to others in English designed to convey information, which she apparently cannot, how can she communicate with a mentor? She ought first be required to learn to communicate in a usable English on her talk page before being assigned a mentor.

I do suggest folks stop reading and replying to her until she does that. The problem with getting up in arms against her current level of communication is the assumption that she is trying to communicate. I think she continues in this way because she gets feedback from it. Really, it's not as clever as the space it has consumed, and it wasn't, even the first time. When people willfully choose not to communicate, instead of fighting to understand them, is it too much to ask that they make an attempt? If you really think she can write encyclopediac worthy articles, then how can you think so if you think she can't communicate in colloquial English with her peers writing the same Encyclopedia?

A mentor of her own choosing will, imo, have to be monitored, creating more work for editors already overburdened by her "contribution." How much should Wikipedia continue to be burdened to accommodate one editor whose clean up is going to take months? Let's ask her to learn to use her talk page to communicate with people first. Then, if she can learn that, she might be able to learn to write articles. Her word games are not clever or interesting or part of writing an Encyclopedia. They're just nonsense. What part of writing an encyclopedia includes nonsense? Besides correcting CarolSpears' existing nonsense, that is. --Blechnic (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Good points, and ones on which I will give an opinion - for what it is worth; she has communication difficulties, and I think that may be the case no matter what degree of faith she is currently editing under. Our/My inability to engage with her is no basis on which to close down the page. She has also obviously got access to some very good sources; ones which would be very useful if ever we could persuade her to channel them positively. Penultimately, she has brains - they are not being put to the best use at the moment, but perhaps a little more time will permit her to see that the only way she can indulge herself within the community is to follow the standard practices. Lastly, we iz zee goot guyz unt gurlz; We prefer to give everyone one final chance to contribute usefully. Your patience may be exhausted, and I respect your right to voice your feelings so, but mine is not quite. I think this weekend will be sufficient to see if there is indeed no further point. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I for one would like to see linked evidence of her good sources and intelligence when it comes to writing articles. One of the articles she objected strongly about reverting (earlier than this current incident) she claimed that she mixed up two species on two different continents because she figured insects couldn't tell the difference. Unfortunately, the sources she used for the two species articles were far from the major sources for the species, all of which she ignored. Ignoring them removed the highlights of why her mixing up the two species was so bad, these were two species of plants that have been extensively studied in different locations and are well known throughout the literature for the studies being done on them. One, a British plant that has unique geographical records of its being introduced that go back hundreds of years, and the other a plant that has been famously discussed for its insect pests.

I have not found this show of good sources in her articles. A good source wrongly applied is worse than a second rate source. If you read a source about the mountains of northwest Africa being like the Alps of Europe and decide that is good enough for saying the mountains of Central Africa are just like the European Alps, you are not using good sources, but wrong sources, and you are not using intelligence, imo. --Blechnic (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please help me with my troll?

OK, so a couple weeks ago while patrolling recent changes, I reverted a simple NN edit to List of computer scientists [87]. I gave the user a basic test1 warning. He then undid my revert. I reverted again, with a more descriptive edit summary [88], and gave him a test2. He then signed out of his account and undid my edit again as an IP user [89]. After that, he began trolling pages that I created or had recently edited, sometime blanketly undo'ing perfectly reasonable edits of mine [90], [91].

I asked him to stop trolling my edits, and that I felt he was harassing me [92]. After this he seemed to stop editing, and I thought everything was over. Until today. He started off his editing today with a pointless edit just to revert something I had fixed [93]. Recognizing my troll's IP, I reverted this edit, and left him a test2 on his talk page [94]. He then proceded to make bad faith edits to articles that I had created [95]. His only edits today have been to articles I created. All of this had been done with absolutely no dialogue from the user.

Attempting to remain civil, I even offered to let him put his name back on the List of computer scientists article if he would just quit harassing me [96]. And now for the first time he's posted something on a talk page, apparently just to further mock/harass me [97].

I'm about to run out of civility with this guy, and I don't know what to do. Could someone please let me know what to do in this situation? A third party's neutral POV would be greatly appreciated, even if the response is that I could have handled the situation better.

Thank you,
Adolphus79 (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The IP's hard to block for long since it's shared and belongs to a US gov agency. It's sad but true that when this kind of thing happens, the most helpful way to get rid of it is to edit as if it doesn't nettle you at all (pay it no heed) and maybe quietly revert a day or so after the vandalism. This will tend to be highly boring for whomever's behind it and you'll likely see less of them soon. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a sad state of affairs, I originally thought this was just some kid getting pissy about my removing his name from a list, but come to find out that this is not only an (educated?) adult, but someone that works for/at the FAA? Your advice is pretty much what I've been doing, wait til he is no longer active, then go through and revert... considering that out of the entire FAA range, this is only coming from one particular IP, I'm considering contacting the FAA themselves about this. It would be one thing if it was a rotating IP within the range, but it looks like there are only 2 IPs in that entire range that have been used to edit wikipedia. - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Per the growing consensus below, Giovanni33 has been banned by the community, in accordance with the banning policy. No need to continue this discussion. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

---

I've just blocked Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 1 month for a 6th infringement of his 1 revert per week editing striction. This time, he used socks to revert twice on socks to revert twice on Glenn Beck. Here as Giovanni, and here with a sock (confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Giovanni33). I've just realised as I've been writing this that the report is completely stale - It's from June which has suddenly given me huge doubts about the appropriateness of the block. But..... Do we really need this here. Giovanni has a huge history of using socks and/or meat puppets, as documented by his latest arbcom case, which he's set to be banned in. Can't we just ban him as a community? I think our patience is used up. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I think he's either got sloppy, or was too clever for his own half. In regards to the latter explanation, Giovanni seems to be arguing that because he would never openly allow a puppet to be linked to his account, this can't be him. So having been exposed to what I would term "Giovanni logic" this would be the perfect ruse to try to deflect evidence of his puppetry at the pending arb-comm case. If these supposed conspirators who are trying to get Giovanni blocked could avoid linking Supergreenred to him, they could have done the same with Ratatoui. Equally if they wanted to get Giovanni banned by linking accounts to him, they could have done that with supergreenred. This scenario is just barmy.

I think Giovanni is taking the biscuit now, but faced with a 1 year renewing ban I think he would try almost anything. I have noted that in the past abusers of puppets have been indef-blocked even with a pending arb-comm case - the arb-comm just ensures that if they're ever given another chance they still have to face at least that 1 year ban. John Smith's (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I endorse an indefinite ban. John Smith's (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse indefinite ban Just look at his block log, it's appalling. You actually have to expand the log to 100 items to see the entire thing. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that ArbCom have very nearly given him a year ban - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Proposed decision#Giovanni33 banned - I would just leave the month block, and then let the ban take effect. PhilKnight (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's foregone by now. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that there are only 6 entries beyond it fitting within 50 and given that about 20 of the entries are unblocks, I'm not sure the description above is completely accurate. That said, it is certainly one of the longest block logs I've ever seen. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse ban in view of that block log. Any ban ArbCom may impose would just run concurrently to the community-imposed one.  Sandstein  20:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC) — Clarifying on request: I endorse a community ban of indefinite duration.  Sandstein  22:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse ban indef ban - in light of appaling POV pushing, rampant sockpuppetry, etc. Enough kiddy glove treatment - the only people not supporting a ban on Giovanni anymore are people who have been supporting his edit wars. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse ban and extend to indef Enough is enough. G33 has shown on numerous occasions that he has no respect whatsoever for this community and it's policies. Jtrainor (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that some of these comments could be a bit clearer. Are people endorsing the one-month ban or the suggestion of an indef-ban? For the record I will check, but from now onwards it might help if people specified. John Smith's (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that if users don't clarify the ban length, it's safe to say that they are endorsing an indefinite ban. The one-month "ban" is not a ban. It is a block. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. John Smith's (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• endorse ban Frankly, I'm a little annoyed that this has taken this long to deal with. Even without the latest behavior I would have likely endorsed a community ban. Giovanni's continued presence is a net negative for the encyclopedia. The most recent edits I can find from him in article space that were productive and not edit warring date to almost a month ago. Giovanni at a fundamental level does not understand that NPOV is not HisPOV and moreover, seems to be consistently unwilling to try to learn. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban. For those who are concerned about process, User:Bluemarine was community-banned while his RFAr was in progress, and the arbcom's one-year ban was added in addition to the community ban which was in place. It appears that a similar situation has occurred here. G33 has clearly exhausted the community's patience. Horologium (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban as per all of the above reasonings. Greg Jones II 23:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban and extend to indef Sceptre ^(talk) 23:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban and extend to indef — Rlevse • Talk • 01:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban and extend to indef Probably holds the record for the biggest time-waster in the project's history (after Mantanmoreland of course). His article productivity is almost zero, and the most frequent argument I encounter against his banning is variations of "his POV needs to be represented". Unfortunately, that's not at argument for ignoring massive sockpuppetry and edit-warring. The 4 ArbCom votes so far to put him under a 1-year self-renewing ban (the first ever) are a big hint what to do here, folks. - Merzbow (talk) 06:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Two things: one, I think it is time that Wikipedia and Giovanni33 (and related socks) part company, and two, leave the thread open, because this place will tolerate disruptive editors endlessly, but close a ban discussion "too quickly" and there will be hell to pay. MastCell ^Talk 07:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• What a load of nonse. ArbCom's considering this very matter, and Ryan decides to step in, guns blazing? Just back off slowly, everyone, the people we elected to handle this are already on the case. Obviously do not endorse ban. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Why? Are you objecting to Giovanni being indefinitely banned, or being indefinitely banned prior to the result of an arbitration case? There is precedent for this - Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Bluemarine#Bluemarine_banned is an example. John Smith's (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• comment the vast majority of editor endorsing the ban are those editors who vehemently oppose the content that G33 has added to articles. If you remove their (Ice Cold Beer, Jtrainor, John Smith, Merzbow, Sceptre, The Evil Spartan - just from the article Allegations of state terrorism by the United States) predictable endorsement of the ban, there are only about 5 non-involved editors endorsing the ban and about 3 non-involved editors questioning the ban.-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you are misrepresenting the situation. As far as I can see only Relato refero actively opposes a ban and he always sides with Giovanni - he is far from being "non-involved". Gwen did not opppose the ban, only saying that it was a foregone conclusion the arb-committee will ban him for a year. Phil said that he would keep the month block, but he didn't say he opposed a ban (there's a difference between opposing something and not supporting it). John Smith's (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, but that's a load of horseshit. I don't "always side with Giovanni", I merely think that sockpuppetry is unlikely here. For the record, I believe the article he most focuses on, State Terrorism, needs to be stubified and rewritten from scratch, focusing only on the highest-quality, directly relevant sources, which is the same approach that WMC is taking, who is hardly on Giovanni's "side". Attempt to avoid misrepresenting people for momentary gain in a trivial argument, please. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Relata, I was talking about when Giovanni has been blocked - not editing. From my memory you have objected to him being sanctioned in the past, and I cannot remember a time where you supported sanctions against him. If that is not the case I invite you to set the record straight with circumstances where you did support them. But certainly on the arb-case you opposed the proposed sanctions on Giovanni.

Maybe you could let me know the answer to my earlier question. Are you opposing the indef-blocking of Giovanni period, or simply before the arbitration case has concluded? John Smith's (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is not votes for banning. We do not vote on the fate of people. A strong case has been made that Giovanni33 has exhausted community patience. No administrator has objected. Therefore, Giovanni33 is community banned, until an administrator objects. Even then, Giovanni will remain blocked until there is a consensus to unblock. Jehochman ^Talk 12:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If this isn't a classic illustration of what Jimbo meant when he said we're too nice to the disruptors I don't know what is. Enough is enough. He's had multipile chances. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Giovanni33

I called it a mistake because I thought it was just a hasty error by Ryan per the RFCU, which confirms user Rataoui as the puppet of banned SuperRedGreen - not me. The arbcom case is currently considering the evidence and arguments of these claims. Since one would think that when an arbcom case is opened to look at the evidence of the claim that one account as likely being another, this supersedes subsequent punitive actions possibly taken by other admins, pending that investigative process and determination of fact by the arbcom proceedings. Otherwise what it the point of the arbcom case?

What seems to have happened in this case is that an admin may have made a mistake but is now saying that it's "likely anyways" that arbcom is going to decide against me so the block should stay anyway, effectively superseding the arbcom process that is charged with making this exact determination. This is procedurally wrong and a previous ANI thread concluded that it would only muddy the waters of the arbcom case. Ryan has said that Arbcom is going to ban me anyway, so it does not matter. I disagree. In practice this just prevents me from even responding in my defense on the talk pages of my arbcom with important counter arguments to the comments of others against me. Yes, there are reasons to believe and not to believe that I have any real connection to this account (SGR), but that is what arbcom is deciding on: Until they do, admins should not jump the gun, and make the determination on their on and block me for it hoping that arbcom will back them up in the end, and that it will be moot if I'm blocked or not. This is not fair, and a violation of due process.

For the record, I've held that SuperRedGreen is an impersonator, and has wikistalked and copied not just me but other editors. I had no problem when that account being indef blocked. Now they come back with a puppet, and once that is confirmed, they should be blocked -- not me! This is obviously a transparent attempt by someone to make me look bad. The user checks confirms the connection of these two accounts, and there is no connection to meGiovanni33 (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, checkuser (technical) evidence has suggested that you are likely Rataoui. It isn't the result of any human error. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The human error is Ryan claiming it was confirmed when it was not. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I realise that this thread was closed with the result that Giovanni33 is banned, and then was re-opened. FWIW, I think that it should remain open at least over the weekend because (1) it is currently 4th of July weekend, so admins/editors in the USA may not be able to comment until the end of weekend (or later...) and (2) the thread was closed after being open for under five hours. --Iamunknown 05:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I note that some people have thrown a wobbler over the fact Ryan started the discussion when he did, implying that he did it deliberately to limit the discussion. Well, guys, from his profile it looks like he's English, not American - so he had no reason to know about US holidays.

I don't disagree with the thread being re-opened for a short while, but unless it now becomes an informal rule to not close threads for community bans over the holiday period of any English-speaking country, I think having to keep the thread open for longer than the weekend is a bit much. John Smith's (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As a long-time Gio supporter and "give Gio the benefit of the doubt"er, I'd like to suggest that too much mercy is as bad as too much severity. Ban him. ^^James^^ (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - It has been my observation that, over the past year or two, User:Giovanni33 has frequently clashed with User:John Smith's, particularly at pages such as Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, in which Giovanni would attempt to skew the article toward portraying U.S. actions in a more negative light, then John Smith's would revert the article to portray the same actions in a positive light. In this case, I'm actually shocked that the very same editor on the other end of the revert warring (whom in many cases was reverting to worse versions) is the one pushing hardest for Giovanni's block. If there is anything political to do with this push (I believe there is), the block should not take place. The pot is equally as black, if not blacker, than the kettle in this case, and I cannot believe that no one has as yet pointed this out. I recommend a look through the archives on this matter to all making their opinions known here. Badagnani (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani, I have reverted that particular article a total of 5 times this year. 3 times against an anon-IP that was making poor changes (and may well have been a sockpuppet) and only twice against Giovanni. Now compare that with Giovanni's edit-warring on the page wth multiple users and his repeated use of puppets (I have never used them myself). He has also been blocked 6 times for violating his revert parole - I haven't been a single time. Yet you still accuse me of being as bad or worse than him? That is not credible. The facts speak for themselves. John Smith's (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to Badangani - Yes, his opponents are going to be the first to notice this chink in his armour. But the fact is, the people who would like to support him based on his arguments, can't because of his behaviour. Too bad. ^^James^^ (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that I had a similar reaction to Badagnani on seeing John Smiths' lobbying on this page and I just reverted his addition of Giovanni to the banned user list. I don't really care if there is consensus to ban Giovanni as I have been watching the problems with his behaviour and his blatant socking and lying when caught out for the last few years and like other longterm editors I've basically had enough but it's absolutely unacceptable for Giovanni's editorial adversary to have any involvement in determining the consensus and then restoring his name to the banned user list. Sarah 14:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, I'm hardly his "editoral adversary". He may have bullied me in the past, but I couldn't care less about his views or editing interests. I would say that people who have suffered from his behaviour in the past have as much as a right to express their opinions as someone who has never come across him, though I have never suggested my views should be taken as a means of establishing consensus. If people wish to oppose a ban they can do so, but I have a right to query their views - I don't see that as lobbying.

As for the list, as an administrator surely you know it's for logging bans. He is banned so I restored the name. Until he is unbanned it should be there. What is more important - waiting for an "uninvolved editor" to put it there, or having it there as a record of the fact he is under an indefinite ban? I guess you would say the first, but I would say the second. John Smith's (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Small addendum to the above: Someone should probably go around and clean up all of G33's socks as well, those that havn't been already blocked, that is. It's odd to leave them unbanned. Jtrainor (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As soon as the ArbCom case closes, I will open a WP:AE for them. Likely those specifically named in the FoF will be banned with the closing of the case; the other major one that needs to go that's not named is Olawe (talk · contribs). - Merzbow (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree completely with Sarah. This is disgraceful. Regardless of the pros and cons of banning this long-time user, the fact that the proposal was made, the "decision" ratified and the discussion archived in less than 24 hours, covering the period of a major US holiday and the traditional "recovery" period cannot possibly be justified. That the majority of the discussion was between traditional "opponents" of the ban-ee only adds to the distasteful nature of an event that once again carries more than traces of the fetid stench of IRC. If you refuse to give the Arbitration Committee remedy the respect, time and patience it needs to work, at least indulge us with the pretense that this is a real community decision and not one patched together by a band of rogues in the pitch of the night. The contributions and style of Giovanni33 may well be ban material, but this is not the way to go about it. 220.236.108.16 (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Subtle vandal

A few minutes ago I noticed this edit to the backgammon article. I googled Patrick Nikodem to see if I could find any evidence of notability. I didn't, but I did find the same name mentioned in completely unrelated articles.[98] [99]. I'm looking through histories as I'm writing this and have found two IP's adding the name to a lot of articles, 128.91.97.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 202.72.240.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I also found the name mentioned at this Wikipedia mirror site entry. I haven't tracked down the IP responsible for that one yet. I suppose I can search for the text string and revert other instances I find, so perhaps no admin action necessary except a heads up.

On a related note, has there been any talk of banning certain text strings from Wikipedia? I know there's been a problem with vandals adding an unlinked URL to a large number of pages. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

See also Grouphappy (talk · contribs) and this edit, which adds "Pat Nikodem" to a list of sea captains. The IP used to add Pat Nikodem to that article is owned by the University of Pennsylvania, where there is a Patrick Nikodem majoring in Finance (email included in Google results). Not sure there's much we can do, but you could always send him an email. - auburnpilot talk 20:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone check if Phil Jagielka's middle name is really Nikodem? (added here by IP) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I see (un)reliable sources stating his middle name is "Nikodem", quite a lot, actually. There's also a Polish tabloid Super Express which uses it: [100]. But nothing reliable - not even Everton's site nor UEFA's. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think that Phil Jagielka's meddle name might be Nikoden, Smith Jones (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)???

I don't know if it's right or wrong, just that there seem to be many places that use "Nikodem" as his middle name. He does have a Polish ancestry, apparently ([101]) and Nikodem doesn't sound English - perhaps his middle name is Polish? x42bn6 Talk Mess 02:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason I ask, Smith Jones, is that Patrick Nikodem is the name that a few IPs have been subtly vandalizing with, as you can see by looking at my first post in this thread. Since that middle name was added to the Jagielka article by an IP, I thought that might be vandalism, too. But now that I've looked into it, it seems quite plausible that someone from that part of the world, might have that middle name. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Threat

What should be done about this. The title says it all, but it was one of a number of foul pages introduced by Volapuks (talk · contribs). Should this threat be acted upon? I have asked for oversight for a number of the pages, but suggest that someone else also sends one as my e-mail can be temperamental. Woody (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

From looking at this (admin only) its apparent he knows this place. RBI. Right thing has been done and he'll probably return again one day doing exactly the same. Rudget (logs) 10:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm the one that deleted them all, I presume oversight don't deem them to be personal information worth deleting then. Woody (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleo123

User:Cleo123 has refused to respect my wishes and remove off topic comments from my talk page. As you can see here, I made it clear that my talk page is not for those comments. Cleo123's comments were then duplicated here, which verifies that they do not need two copies of the same comments especially when it is addressing that other user. Other pertinent information can be found here and here. Could someone please explain to them about talk page respect? This user insists to fight with other members of the community on my talk page, and I do not enjoy it. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove the comments yourself. Since it's your talk page, you can do that. Then tell him to kindly refrain from posting to your talk page and to use article pages instead. If he persists in this behavior, let us know. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Did that, twice. Hence why I am reporting it now. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

For the diffs, see this, this, this, and this. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

They have responded to my alerting of them of this thread here. As you can see, I am accused of posting derogatory remarks and being incivil by removing comments. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Reprinted from my talk page:

":: Well, let me begin by apologizing. I did not intentionally revert your removal twice. I was, in fact, still editing my message when I lost power. I mistakenly thought that it had not posted the first time. You had apparently reverted my remarks unbeknownst to me. I did revert your second removal (which I thought was your first) which occured within one minute of Tendancer's removal of my message from his talk page. Now there is a very odd coincidence! Nice edit summaries - very civil. The time stamps and similarity in tactical strategies, will also undoubtedly be of interest to administrators. [102][103] Perhaps you can explain what would appear to be very uncivil behavior. You and Tendancer post derogatory remarks about me on a notice board with a link to your talk page. When I attempt to respond to these false allegations with facts, both of you seem to be reverting me with in seconds of one another. What's that all about? If you truly object to "our dispute" being on your talk page, please, explain why you haven't removed Tendancer's "off topic" remarks? Cleo123 (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)"

More pseudo legal threats from the above user and claims about "libel" and "defamation" that are not based on actual text found here. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, enough is enough. As the link from the BLP noticeboard clearly indicates, I was explaining WP:LIBEL and WP:BLP to this disruptive editor for the umpteenth time. Can he be blocked for incivility and disruption? This is getting to be ridiculous. Cleo123 (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Enough is enough. Forcibly restoring comments which have been removed by the editor on whose page the comments were placed is unacceptable conduct. The editor in question is under no obligation to explain to anyone which comments he chooses to remove. The above editor's failure to recognize this is troubling. John Carter (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Kossack4Truth disruption on the Barack Obama talk page

User:Kossack4Truth is someone I've generally agreed with on the Talk:Barack Obama page, but this behavior is now more of a hindrance to all of us.

A little while ago, LotLE added a comment on the talk page that attacked me. [104]

I ignored it, and other editors asked him to remove it. [105] and [106]

Wisely, he did. [107]

Today, Kossack4Truth took LotLE's removed comment and added it back to the page, then posted K4T's own message condemning it. [[108]]. Touching LotLE's comments on the talk page violates WP:CIVIL as pointed out here and this kind of behavior is so over the top that the relevant WP:TALK section doesn't even contemplate it.

LotLE then removed his own comment again. [109]

One might get the impression that K4T is simultaneously trying to provoke two editors into a fight. When you think about it, it's actually pretty creative. Also destructive, disruptive and pretty damn far from encyclopedia building. I thought about leaving a note on his talk page, but I'm not going to bother. I'll notify him, and LotLE, that I've left a note here. Admins, please do something about this. If we had administrators continuing to watch the shenanigans going on at the Barack Obama and related articles, this would already have been dealt with. Noroton (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor comments

I'm inclined to block for at least 48+ hours for this kind of provocation, especially as the editor already has two blocks (both for edit warring -24 hrs, and 48 hrs) and the ongoing problems surrounding the Obama article. But I would prefer to get a sense of the community for how long it should be. What say you? R. Baley (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is not the first time he has appeared on ANI and elsewhere, and given this is more of a longer-term abuse issue, I would recommend at a minimum, a 55-hour block that would increase with each offence. seicer | talk | contribs 04:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• • I was thinking it should be higher myself, but given the lack of admins/editors who want to deal with this stuff so far, I'm not sure what the level of community support is. R. Baley (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • I'm uninvolved with the situation -- outside of reading the comments here at ANI and at the talk pages, and wouldn't mind watching the pages when I am back at home. seicer | talk | contribs 05:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Wow, I've seen (and been a part of) a heated discussion in my short time here, but this really surpasses anything I've seen. I agree with the initial post that it appears he was trying to provoke two editors into a fight. This is extremely disruptive, and counterproductive to the mission of the project, which is creating good content. As I'm just dipping my toe into thinking about these kind of issues, I'm not sure how much weight my opinion carries, but I would think a much longer block (on the order of 1 week or so) would be in order. This prevents both further disruption, and would (hopefully) allow the conversation at the page in question to proceed more productively. In the alternative, perhaps a total topic ban might be in order, which would at least accomplish the latter of the two objectives. S. Dean Jameson 05:03, 5 July 200
• Mastcell already blocked for 72 hours. Beat me to it. I'd suggest the next incident results in an immediate page ban of at least one month. Any support for this?. Barak Obama now on my watch list. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  Per my above comment, I'd definitely support a long page ban for this editor. S. Dean Jameson 14:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support 6 month topic ban for Kossack4Truth per MastCell and FCYTravis below. R. Baley (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Involved editor comments

• The other Barack Obama article-related thread on this page is here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WorkerBee74 on Obama page, yet again. It links to some previous ones. I think there have been about six over the past six weeks. I welcome seicer's eyes, but the talk page generates an enormous amount of volume and the bad behavior has sometimes spread to related pages. I've suggested in the past that a group of admins watch it because the page is crazy and big. Noroton (talk) 05:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Noroton and I don't agree on some Obama content issues, but I completely agree with his bringing this here, and with his request for an increase in admin involvement in dealing with disruption on the Talk page which has also included possible vote-stacking. Tvoz/talk 05:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• If it's worth anything, I would advocate for a longer term topic ban—e.g. for three months —instead of any outright block. This duration seemed to be rough consensus of admins on an earlier AN/I report (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Barack Obama pages). K4T has predominantly edited Obama related article, and mostly been disruptive doing so. However, his/her contributions to other areas seem to be productive and reasonable. Ideally, s/he could continue to do useful things elsewhere on WP. LotLE×talk 07:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Since I've looked in on behavioral issues on this page in the past, I've blocked Kossack4Truth for 72 hours, essentially for the reasons outlined by Noroton in the initial post in this thread. In doing so, I note a long history of focused advocacy-driven and disruptive editing by Kossack4Truth on pages relating to Barack Obama. I had previously proposed a topic ban for this editor, and he apparently took a voluntary, though relatively brief, break from Obama-related pages. I would support a formal 3- to 6-month topic ban as well-earned at this point, but will leave that for further discussion and for another admin to implement if there's consensus for it. MastCell ^Talk 07:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Concur with topic ban proposal. The user has shown that he/she is fundamentally incapable of editing articles relating to Barack Obama in a collegial manner. FCYTravis (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This witch hunt is unbelievable. With the exception of this one incident, there is exactly zero indication that since returning from his 22-day "relatively brief" Wikibreak, K4T has done anything except demonstrate exemplary collegial conduct. Here is what actually happened, without the spin-doctoring:

1. K4T takes a Wikibreak from Obama related articles.

2. LotLE posts an endless series of snide remarks, personal attacks and false accusations against Noroton and WB74.

3. Noroton approaches LotLE and requests removal of the false accusation against Noroton. LotLE complies, but he leaves his personal attacks and false accusations against WB74 intact.

4. Since he is on Wikibreak, K4T is unaware of Event #3.

5. Upon his return, K4T notices LotLE's attacks against WB74 and starts going through LotLE's diffs on the page, copying all of his snide remarks, personal attacks and false accusations, including the one against Noroton that had been refactored.

6. K4T posts all of these excerpts as part of a warning to LotLE to stop making such offensive remarks or he will be reported.

7. And MastCell blocks ... K4T ?!?!?

That was the last straw. WorkerBee74 (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee74, you're absolutely right that other editors on that page have been responsible for some bad behavior. But K4T's response was essentially to bring a gun to a knife fight. Since some admins have shown a willingness to watch the page and get some perspective, the thing to do is present problems to them and bring along some diffs for evidence. The thing not to do is respond in kind and worse. The Talk:Barack Obama page doesn't function well as a behavior-changing noticeboard, and its function as an article-changing forum is hurt when we use it that way. I blame myself for responding to some bad behavior by occasionally scolding the parties on that talk page in the heat of argument, and I hope that bad example didn't influence K4T. I've apologized for doing that. Wikipedia has a system for dealing with bad behavior. Either deal with the frustrations of Wikipedia's barely navigable, clunky, stalling, backfiring, inefficient, inadequate, bruising, exhausting, often rude and sometimes perverse dispute resolution system or put up with some of the abuse or walk away. Lowering the tone of the page even further is a worse option. Noroton (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec):::During K4T's self-declared break from the Obama article he filed a bogus AN/I report to try to get one editor blocked / banned on a false accusation of lying and edit warring on the Obama page,[110], left an uncivil notice about the foregoing on the editor's page[111] and another involved editor's page,[112], defended an apparent sockpuppet against evidence of sockpuppetry on the pages by repeating an odd hypothetical having to do with racism and rape,[113][114] repeated his taunt that people he opposed on the Obama pages were "Obama fanboys" and accused one of "false allegations" while accusing administrators dealing with the matter of "censorship",[115] accused them of POV pushing, "revenge", and again of lying,[116] asked another editor to represent his interests on the page,[117] agitated on an administrator's talk page over the issue[118] accused then of "whining", holding discussions hostage, bad faith, and lying yet again,[119], and again[120] and again,[121] jumped into an edit war on a related article to support edits for which WorkerBee74 had just been blocked,[122] filed an inaccurate[123] and apparently retaliatory[124] 3RR report against one of the editors WorkerBee74 had been edit warring against leading to that block, got into some kind of edit war in another politics-related article and was referred to AN/I for that,[125] made uncivil accusations and began meatpuppeting yet another tendentious editor,[126] As soon as he did return to the Obama article he immediately began baiting and accusing other editors on the talk page,[127] initiated another edit war (see WorkerBee74 AN/I rerpot above) by breaking the agreement to avoid making changes to a particular section until consensus was reached,[128] then made the edits for which he was just blocked. The "break" from the Obama talk page was in name and form only - he continued the pattern of aggressiveness on the matter of Obama, just on different pages. The time on other articles does not seem to have changed his outlook or behavior on the matter. When he (and WorkerBee74) returned the tone of the page rapidly deteriorated, and the consensus that was building seemed at least for the moment was jeopardized.Wikidemo (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"Since he is on Wikibreak, K4T is unaware of Event #3"

K4T was not on a Wikibreak. He has clearly been monitoring the discussion and contributing by proxy (just 8 days into the "break") so it is not unreasonable to assume he was aware of the comments. Also, these comments were not aimed at K4T in the first place, so I'm not sure why he felt it was necessary to re-light a fire which had already been put out. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the comments occurred on LotLE's User Talk page rather than Talk:Barack Obama, it is most definitely unreasonable to assume he was aware of the comments. But I see that all of the Obama campaign volunteers have arrived to ensure that any admin reviewing the block is deceived into believing it has "broad community support." WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that would seem to be a pretty blatant personal attack. Not everyone who disagrees with you (and Kossack) is an "Obama campaign volunteer." We're just editors who happen to find Kossack's action in this case (and previous ones) completely unacceptable. Before noticing this thread, I was completely uninvolved, just for the record. S. Dean Jameson 18:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It disgusts me that LotLE was the one posting personal attacks and false accusations, but K4T was the one who was blocked 72 hours for warning LotLE to stop. No good deed goes unpunished. And LotLE is still here unblocked, urging admins to take even more draconian action against K4T for warning LotLE to stop making personal attacks. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

He seemed to be intentionally reopening bitter wounds by readding a retracted statement. This combined with his history at Barack Obama makes the block completely justified, in my view. S. Dean Jameson 19:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If you'd bothered to read his explanation on his Talk page, you'd have seen that he was unaware it had been retracted, or that he was reopening anything. But I see that he's deleted all that and hung out a "Retired" sign, so you got what you wanted: K4T is gone, and the Barack Obama Whitewash Brigade remains. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'll ask you again to stop with personal attacks. I've made not one edit to Barack Obama or Talk:Barack Obama. How am I part of the "Barack Obama Whitewash Brigade"? I came to this with an open mind, as a completely uninvolved editor. S. Dean Jameson 20:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

We really need to do something about WorkerBee74 as well. This one has been socking under IP accounts, name calling, incessantly accusing people of lying, edit warring, antagonizing, calling perceived opponents "Obama campaign volunteers", dragging neutral third parties into the accusations for trying to keep the peace, and the like for more than a month and is a large part of the incivility - a few days ago blanking the article inadvertently in an attempt to edit war from a cell phone. The two of them have been enabling and joining in each other's disruption for some time and show no sign of letting up. Repeated warnings and blocks have done no good, obviously. All that is very clear if you look at the edit histories and this page's archives. Wikidemo (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's plausible that K4T made a mistake in not seeing that LotLE removed that comment. It's also a point in K4T's favor that other comments by LotLE remain on the page, even now (something I hadn't realized until now -- the comments K4T were quoting came from 2-3 different spots on the page). It's also true that K4T's decision to post that on the talk page was harmful. I think this is worth considering. I think the subsection "LotLE's recent behavior" that I'm posting below also puts it in some context. I don't claim to know what would be appropriate for a block length or a topic ban. Noroton (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

LotLE's recent behavior

I took a look at Kossack4Truth's (K4T's) recent comments on his talk page (here and here; since replaced with a "retired" sign). I see I was inaccurate in my initial posting here: I thought K4T's scolding post simply added back the single LotLE posting that attacked WorkerBee74 and me. Since LotLE had taken that post down, I thought the problem with LotLE had been solved, at least for now, by LotLE himself. But that's not true.

K4T took LotLE quotes from different spots, and LotLE still hasn't taken down those (they're on the page right now). And they are also venemous attacks:

• I take it the 2-1/2 editors swipe refers to WorkerBee74 as the "1/2", which is a nasty insult; the "condemnatory enough" is impolite. I'm happy to skip 'nonetheless', it probably even reads better without it. 'Although'... well, I suppose 'While' would be OK also. Generally the wording is very nice. It's all moot though, however, since there are 2-1/2 editors who will never be satisfied that wording is long enough or condemnatory enough. LotLE×talk 21:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC) diff

• Accusing another editor of want[ing] the article to be as negative, even slanderous, as possible is a personal attack. LotLE is also urging editors to move away from discussion and simply impose their will on the page, although even when he posted this various editors were working together constructively, so this post was disruptive, as well. I'd forgotten it, but when he talks about his/her goal is to prevent a "rough consensus" is actually a personal attack; have no complaint about his other comments about me, because simply being a bit snide and inaccurate isn't worth considering here, and I was willing to ignore them: Workerbee74—who has happily been blocked for a few days (not long enough, but it's a start)—simply wants the article to be as negative, even slanderous, as possible, apparently out of a political antipathy to its subject. Those "concerns" can most certainly never be addressed within an encyclopedic article, so our only choice is to simply disregard and ignore any comments by him/her. Noroton seems primarily concerned with an avenue for his/her long political essays (probably 30k words on the topic by now, far in excess of every other editor; probably all others combined). I have suggested with a genuine absence of ill-will that a better forum for these long essays is a personal blog, or other opinion publication. A WP talk page is just not an appropriate place for this type of material. In any case, it appears that his/her goal is to prevent a "rough consensus" from settling, because doing so would remove the justification for the continued essays. So please everyone, just let the discussion fall silent. Let's use this talk page for productive discussion, and let the article keep it's perfectly neutral and concise version of the Rezko material. Dont' feed the trolls. LotLE×talk 18:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC) diff

If these were occasional, in the heat of argument, and not representative of LotLE's contribution to the discussion about Rezko (or below, mostly about Ayers), then I'd discount them quite a bit -- but they're a significant proportion of the occasional comments that LotLE has contributed to the discussion about Rezko; they aren't in response to someone attacking him, and the one removal of his one attack, at the request of other editors, wasn't accompanied by removing any other attacks on WorkerBee74, who's made some solid contributions to that talk page (it's obviously not a competition, but WB74's contributions are a lot more focused on the subject matter than LotLE's, from what I've seen).

I've previously brought up two of these quotes at AN/I [129], and I'm posting them again to show that it's a continuing problem, not a flash in the pan (a two-week break from the Obama page was suggested at one point, but LotLE was never issued a block or even a warning for these, and I never asked for one, but I did bring it up):

• LotLE edit that's relatively mild: 17:13, 2 June 2008 diff

• LotLE edit I removed (it was in response to an edit I made which ended with me saying he was guilty of some of what he was accusing others of, it's worth looking at in context on the page) 17:40, 2 June 2008 diff
• LotLE edit I partially removed (quoted because it's short): The problem with Noroton's characterization is that it is at best WP:OR, and at worse an outright lie. [...] LotLE×talk 00:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC) diff of the removal
• Another LotLE edit worth looking at: 08:21, 6 June 2008 this diff seems to encompass the whole comment

On a page that's had a lot of harsh words, these rank with the harshest. In context, they brought down the level of discussion, although just about every contributor to that talk page has probably made comments they regretted (including me). This amounts to continued, disruptive behavior that clearly led to Kossack4Truth's response, and WorkerBee74 is right to be annoyed that it hasn't been dealt with. I think administrators should consider his behavior as contributing to the ongoing bad atmosphere on that page. Noroton (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You're too late, Noroton. You got rid of K4T, which is what they wanted. The only way you're going to get anybody's attention is if you demand sanctions against me too. The people who are here to whitewash the Obama article get a free pass. (No Jameson, I'm not talking about you. Let me spell that out for you.) WorkerBee74 (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You're doing a great job of making sure no one listens to you, WorkerBee. Noroton, I see the issue you're describing; what do you propose we do about it? MastCell ^Talk 23:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I was afraid I'd be asked that. I don't know what to do about it, specifically. I'd like to see what he has to say about it. I'm not an admin and I don't pay much attention to what kind of sanctions tend to be given for what kind of behavior. I do know we need to stop this kind of behavior on that page, and LotLE has significantly contributed to that bad atmosphere. I see an attitude behind these comments that doesn't seem to recognize that people who disagree with him about Obama are sincere and worth listening to (somebody please correct me if there's evidence to the contrary). Either some kind of civility restriction, which would have to be monitored, perhaps with a mentor, or simply topic banning him until after the election. I'd like to see what other editors familiar with the page think about that. If he can't take down the attacks on WorkerBee that are still on the page, I'd give him a block for incivility. I can accept whatever editors on this page want to do about it, as long as the problem is addressed and, going forward, we've got some reason to believe the Obama talk page and related pages will be more civil. Noroton (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This is worth something: I just went to LotLE's talk page to inform him about this new subsection, and I read this there: [...] I apologize for initially making the overly hot-headed comment... the process has been frustrating for many editors, as I am sure you are aware. LotLE×talk 04:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC) That's a good sign. Noroton (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Watch and learn, Noroton. LotLE will get a free pass. He might get another useless warning on his Talk page which will be ignored and deleted. That's it. WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting to address question not directed to me) Thanks to Noroton for thinking to remind LotLE. As I understand it the goal of blocks and topic bans is to stop ongoing disruption and prevent likely future disruption. All to maintain a productive, civil editing environment. Many on the Obama page said something out of frustration, suspicion, etc. But will they cause disruption if they stay, and will removing them quell the trouble? That's a separate judgment to make in each case. We don't ban people out of fairness, punishment, setting examples, trying to be balanced, avoiding perceived article bias, other content concerns, etc. Nor do we avoid blocks simply because someone is a good writer. From my observation, LotLE and to some extent some others have been aggressive in their comments, and have the block history to show for that attitude. My hunch is that LotLE will probably be contentious in an unsupervised contentious environemnt, but will not initiate trouble where none exists. WB74 has had many chances and after a month and counting is still repeating the very taunts that nearly earned a ban a month ago. He/she seems unable or unwilling to edit one of Wikipedia's most important articles without attacking peers. But that's just my hunch. If there's anything short of removing these editors that will ensure calm (and assuming no proven sock puppetry), that's preferable. I can't think of anything but there are wiser editors here than me! Wikidemo (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I respond out of frustration when well-established practice on WP biographies and quotes from WP policy, are ignored in a campaign to keep anything resembling criticism out of the article. A lot of work has been done by Noroton, by me and by others and we have proven WP:NPOV and well established practice require us to give criticism as much space as it's been given in comparable articles. Responses? Relentless personal attacks, false accusations, badgering, baiting, and lies about policy and the facts. When anyone responds out of frustration to the baiting, the lies and the personal attacks, you come running to WP:ANI. WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this editor accusing me yet again of lying and abusing AN/I process? That would be at least the 5th or 6th time in a few days. If not, exactly who is he accusing of lying (not to mention the other things)? Wikidemo (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It's most peculiar how you have always come running to WP:ANI after any real or imagined slight from Noroton, WB74 or K4T, but you never seem to notice the outrageous misconduct of such editors as LotLE until someone points it out for you. Please explain, WD: if you now concede LotLE has been "contentious" (another impressive understatement), why have you never reported him? WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

As I mentioned to Noroton before much of this current AN/I discussion happened, I regret having adopted an uncivil tone at some points in the discussion. I think he did not see my talk page comments until the last couple hours. The comment on my talk page was this:

Thank you! Your report on ANI is very reasoned and calm, and I appreciate that you are working toward a good article and willing to consider compromises. I apologize for initially making the overly hot-headed comment... the process has been frustrating for many editors, as I am sure you are aware. LotLE×talk 04:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If there are any comments I have made on Talk:Obama or elsewhere that any editors feel continue to inflame the discussion, I authorize their removal, and will thank editors for doing so. LotLE×talk 01:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Translation: "I don't want be bothered. Clean up my mess." Would this be an awkward time to bring up the fact that LotLE retaliated against an editor who disagreed with him in a content dispute, by posting that editor's real name? Isn't that some sort of serious policy violation? WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

reporting possible vandlaism, WP:CANVASSING, or other vioatlion of WP: policy???

Resolved

 – Straightforward vandalism, already blocked 24 hours

8 (UTC) User:68.248.74.14 has ben making a handful of wierd and offensive posts to myslef [130] and [131] <--- dozens of other users with schauch speed that her posts seem tobe automated. I am not sure twer this report should go since i am not sure wehther or not this is a result of some sort of edit dispute i was invovled in the past or some sort of vandalism/spamming atempt or a WP:CANVASS scheeme. Any help rendered here wil be appreciated and thasnk you for reading. Smith Jones (talk) 05:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

Do IP's not require warnings before being blocked (even if it is blatant vandalism)? Angrymansr (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Not commenting specifically on anything, but as this section of the blocking policy states, warnings are not an absolute requirement for any blocks, of any users. Although, most people (including myself) find it courteous to make sure the users know what they're doing wrong, and to inform those users by means of a warning or warnings. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The link you provided seems to highly urge warnings but not require it. I was confused because back in my vandal fighting days I would report IP's to AIV and a few times the responses from admins were the user did not have sufficient warnings recently, though many times the page was filled with them over a long period of time and no action would be taken until many warnings were issued within a few days. Thanks for the information. Angrymansr (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That range does not require a warning, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal information. They have been at it a while now. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Andycjp ignoring policy

User:Andycjp knowingly disregards Wikipedia's overlinking guideline, and to a far less problematic extent, that on red links. When other users ask him to reconsider his modus, he merely argues. My interaction with him consists of User talk:Andycjp#Overlinking and his replies on my talk page. I don't know what to do; the reason I seek intervention is that it seems easier than reverting the massive numbers of unconstructive edits he makes on a daily basis. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added a request to his talk page, asking that he read the WP:CONTEXT and WP:RED pages. He's replied to my message, saying that he will read them. -- The Anome (talk) 09:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

He has indeed been reading: he has tried to edit the policy subtly, in addition to continuing with his nonstop link edits (Special:Contributions/Andycjp). I had already made it clear that he must use the guidelines' talk pages in order to challenge them. He has kept up his argument with me, including the cheeky overlinking ("'Relevant' is subjective"), although he mollified his plea of innocence. Given his activity since your message, I can only see his reply to you as devious. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

CPP

Please keep an eye on the article Communist Party of Pakistan. Jamco (talk · contribs) repeatedly fill the article with promotional coi material, and possibly hoaxing. Except for perhaps seeking to make the user understand wiki norms (a previous posting by another user on his talk page hasn't resulted in any change so far), perhaps some disciplinary action is suitable. --Soman (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him. The content is not appropriate and his edit warring to try to force it in and then claiming some kind of special privilege as the "spokesman" of CPP is not acceptable. Sarah 14:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal information

Resolved

 – Range softblocked one month, hopefully this stems the tide of vandalism.

68.248.74.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) posted someone's phone number in a bunch of talk pages. Should this be taken out of the history, or just reverted? (Note:similar vandalism has come from similar IPs) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Just an Anon IP with nothing better to do. If the number is a issue an Admin will remove it from the history. Bidgee (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an ongoing problem from this IP range. See User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Friendly IP and the history. They have been hitting several pages. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to force the IP range to edit with an account and not via an Anon IP? Then again we may still have the same issue. Bidgee (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've softblocked that range for one month. That range is in Southfield, Michigan, on AT&T's DSL network--has anyone contacted them yet? Might not do much good, since we've got a lot of abuse from anons on that network (most notably Mmbabies)--but it's worth a try. Blueboy96 17:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted them twice over the past week but nothing seems to have happened. I think they had a few accounts, Blackbeltpussy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Blackbeltstinky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Blackbeltsmelly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but I'm not sure. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Palestinian Exodus 1949 to 1956 Ceedjee is claiming that the article is AfD while making incorrect allegations. The events occurred as referenced. Secondary sources have been used. Exodus does not imply war. also he has not notified me by placing the tag on my talk page and I can't find it on the AfD log page. So where do I get to argue my case?

The Afd page is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian Exodus 1949 to 1956. – ukexpat (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please. I assume numerous people went from here to go and give their mind. There numerous references in that article but not a single one of these talks about a Palestinian Exodus that would have occured from 1949 to 1956... Ceedjee (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC).

I am me93 (talk · contribs)

Hi. Please see here here, I'm not suggesting they are, but they seem similar and I am just putting this here to your attention if nessecary and to see if you think that they are similar enough or not so that if nessecary. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 18:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggest a topic ban for Levine2112

I suggest a topic ban for User:Levine2112 from articles having to do with alternative medicine. This user has exhausted community patience. See the incessant disruption at Talk:Quackwatch, Talk:Atropa belladonna, and Talk:Chiropractic. He seriously prevents discussions from moving forward, is tendentious, and generally one of the worst examples of an editor we have. We've discussed this option before, but Levine2112 has just gotten worse. Please, someone needs to do something. He's driving good editors away. Also note that many of the article talk pages that Levine2112 has been disrupting are covered under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy and Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I took a quick look at those pages, but didn't see the "incessant disruption" that is being referred to. I'd also point out that anyone who says that such an editor is "one of the worst examples of an editor we have," needs to get out more, because I see much much worse, dozens of times a day. Or in other words, ScienceApologist, can you please provide a few specific diffs? Otherwise this would seem to be a violation of the "bad faith" ruling from your ArbCom case. Thanks, Elonka 19:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious, Elonka? Editors who make flagrant abuses are much easier to control than the civil POV-pusher that is Levine2112. Check it out, he is Wikilawyering right now at Atropa belladonna. I have patiently explained to him that we need to establish WP:PROMINENCE for a fringe subject to be included in an article that is not strictly about the fringe subject. There are megabytes worth of text where he essentially thrusts his fingers in his ears. We have policy on it. Levine2112 rejects for reasons I cannot begin to ascertain. The last few sections of quackwatch is basically a case study in how he trolls on Talk:Quackwatch. What has he added to the project? What is his purpose EXCEPT to disrupt? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidence that Levine exists solely to disrupt

• just a revert
• just a revert
• threatening another user
• WikiLawyering a closed case
• just a revert
• just a revert
• WikiLawyering a closed case
• Reporting a user for 3RR that he baited
• Removing comments from a user he is baiting as vandalism
• A disruptive comment, to be sure

Etc., etc.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know all the ins and outs of it, but I do know how you have described the diffs above is your own interpretation and in the case of what you call a threat, I can't see how that can be seen as a threat as all. Even if you disagree with Levine, he has been here for years, and to survive here this long he clearly has not been seen as being here solely to disrupt. Sticky Parkin 21:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see these prior discussions:

1. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Levine2112 (Durova's comment towards the end is particularly apt)
2. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive287#real-life_identity_outted
3. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive380#Vandalism_by_Classic_Tendentious_Editor

Levine2112 is an inveterate edit warrior and single purpose account whose purposes on Wikipedia revolve around pushing pro-altmed

POV and painting Stephen Barrett in the most negative possible light. In addition to several blocks, he was

de-Twinkled for using automated tools to edit war. There have been several prior

discussions about what to do about him, none of which came to consensus. This is a real problem. It is driving serious, encyclopedia-minded editors away from the articles he camps out on. Skinwalker (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I have looked through those diffs, and I'm not seeing the same thing that ScienceApologist is. I did see one place where Levine2112 got into an edit war on his own talkpage, where Ronz kept putting a comment there, Levine kept removing it, and in one of those removals, Levine called it vandalism. Levine then reported the situation at 3RR, which both I and another admin felt was unnecessary. Both Ronz and Levine have been cautioned, and I don't see any further action required at this time.

It is my feeling that ScienceApologist is skating the line of his ArbCom restrictions right now, so my advice to SA would be to drop this, unless he has a new and blatant violation by Levine2112. If not, take it somewhere else please, as ANI is not the proper venue for this dispute. --Elonka 23:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(followup) ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 24 hours by Scarian (talk · contribs), for edit-warring. I recommend closing this thread. --Elonka 23:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your careful attention to the issue. I recommend reading Talk:Quackwatch and its associated archives, if you can summon the time and patience. Skinwalker (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the time and patience to do a full on defense of Levine, nor do I really have a ton of experience with him, but I do have experience with SA. I've yet to see him add a reference. A reading of the diffs that he provides (we might assume that he's posted the worst of them) shows him reacting fairly civilly to insults and edit-warring.

• what SA calls "a threat" is actually Levine counseling Ronz to be try and be more civil (diff).
• Wikilawyering a closed case? If an editor has an interest in keeping up discussion on something, it is not closed.
• Several of the reverts deal with Levine reverting the hiding of Levine's comments. Per Talk, messing with other user's comments is highly discouraged.
• The 3RR is, as Scarian noted, an example of silly behavior by both Ronz and Levine, but that has nothing to do with Alt. Med. disruption.

An illustrative example of SA's behavior happened at Quackwatch the other day: ScienceApologist reverted back a couple dozen edits, which used sources and RS/N for outside counsel, using Twinkle (so it was automatically tagged minor). When we objected that these would have to be taken apart piece by piece, he proceeded to edit war until he was blocked. I opened a "Compromise" discussion a couple days ago, requesting that we start discussing the offensive material piece by piece. The responses have been done without even reading what I've written, and no sources have been brought up. II 23:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is the proper venue for discussing Levine2112's behavior. He has an extremely long and consistent history of misbehavior in Wikipedia, breaking policies and guidelines too numerous to list here. The fact that he gets away with misrepresenting others in this case is nothing compared to his other misbehavior. I'll participate in any RfC/U (or the eventual, necessary ArbComm) about him to detail the many, many times he's been cautioned, warned, etc for misbehaving. --Ronz (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

User Cali567

Since Cali567 started adding a very controversial genetical study on every argentine article in reference to demographics: (eg. Argentine American, Demographics of Argentina, etc) there has been several edit wars every day, that is why I requested the full protection of Demographics of Argentina. Though there was a consensus on Demographics of Argentina[132] she continues making her edits. User Jersey Devil and I told her that this kind of issues have to be solved on talk pages, still though she continues making her edits.

This user has been warned more than once, nevertheless I have given her the last warning for disruption. If she continues the disruption please block her. Regards, --Fercho85 (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

User Arcayne & His Multiple Oxford Degrees

Where is the proper place to discuss the posturing use of "Superior Authority" on Wiki? Arcayne, a self-proclaimed poly-degreed Oxon with 18,000 edits in 22 months can be, indeed is, a formidable Wikipedian exerting a vast influence on the quality and tone of this entire project. Here is the meat of the complaint:

Editor Arcayne (talk · contribs) has claimed not one, but Two, degrees from Oxford - and has claimed to have written several books [The two, of several he lists on his User page that he claims to have been published are Love Songs and Other Mysteries (1991) and Bad Choice (1989) - For which no ISBN numbers exist to link to ...] and has made just a hair under Eighteen Thousand edits[133] in 22 months at Wiki.

As he has frequently invoked the "Superior Authority" of his multiple Oxford degrees and education and on numerous occasions brandished his Oxford academic honors to defend and enshrine his edits in Wikipedia and to eliminate the need for discussion, this is having a very strong influence on many articles and editors - and are riddled with ignorant errors:

"With respect, I went to Oxford, so i am fairly well aware of Brit English...penultimate being the climax of the story."[134] - Arcayne

"Regarding the 'penultimate' stuff - not worries - as I said, it's just a word. I always thought is was used as next to the end, as in right before the ending. A slightly different meaning has become popular, like how the original phrase "buck naked" (meaning, naked as a male deer) becoming mispronounced so often that now people say "butt-naked". It would render me a crabby old man to decry the loss of the word meanings. It was also make me something of a jerk. Words evolve. - Arcayne 14:34, 3 July 2008"

"I did attend Oxford. I did graduate from there with the two degrees I have previously noted"[135] - Arcayne

These are the two degrees Arcayne previously noted:

the EU is not a single nation, nor is the UN or UAE. They are actually something called NGO's, or non-governmental organizations. - Arcayne

The EU is nothing BUT a governmental organization. Its purpose is to politically unite the countries within the European Community. ... it is a united entity. Ditto the UAE. Kapowow

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the EU is not an NGO? ... If you consider me throwing my political science and international relations degrees at you to be derogatory, then I have to say that I am sorry you feel that way. I am not a potted plant; I know the policies of which I speak,'' ... - Arcayne[136]

Surely Wikipedia has a policy for those such as Arcayne, who are able to place 18,000 edits in 22 months using his Superior Authority" as an Oxfordian with multiple degrees to bluff and cajole in an effort to "Win" for winnings sake.

Wiki must have greater, more idealistic, purpose than to simply be a place to facilitate and support fantastical self-aggrandizement. 75.57.205.135 (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

[citation needed] - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

How come al of these nonregistereds hate User:Arcayne so much?? Its kind of creating me out!!! Smith Jones (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to take a giant leap of faith and assume the initial post here is sincere. If so, the solution is simple. Cease being intimidated when people mention their degrees and the institutions at which they've studied. It's not that hard, especially on Wikipedia where the default position is suspicion of any sort of real-life expertise. MastCell ^Talk 23:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe I'm the only non-registered user to post here RE:Arcayne. My purpose in participating in Wiki is to move the project forward without regard to the Social Networking uses of the site. My complaint regarding Arcayne is that he damages the mission through the false and self-centered nature of his words and actions. Fraudulently misrepresenting oneself in an effort to further ones effectiveness and "win" - while employing patently false arguments based soley upon ones claim to "Superior Authority" is a violation of all social norms and is a gross violation of Wiki trust. It is unacceptable behavior that harms the very foundation of Wikipedia. It is in and of itself a profound violation of the communities trust that one operate in "Good Faith". 75.57.205.135 (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that in each and every one of the examples from Arcayne above, he brandishes his purported advanced academic credentials to support a position that has no greyness - he is simply, utterly, and childishly wrong. The EU is not an NGO, Arcayne's multiple post-graduate Oxford Degrees in Political Science and International Relations to the contrary. Nor does Penultimate mean Climax, no matter how much Arcayne wished that it did. Utterly and completely wrong, told so by large groups of fellow editors and he still forces the point based upon his "Superior Authority" as an "Expert." It harms the Wiki mission and violates the communities trust that others operate in Good Faith. 75.57.205.135 (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Talking about "Wiki trust" is quite interesting when we take under consideration that you have been using a lot of IP addresses to edit war with him, you wouldn't believe how many times I have seen the "sysop abuse" drama-magnet being used here. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've claimed all of my Dynamic IP's. As was fully noted in your link. There is no violation of the rule, or even the spirit of the rule. All I am guilty of is not joining the Social Networking side of Wiki. My edits stand or fall on the merit of the idea's contained in them. After overcoming the institutional skepticism placed upon them as anonymous contributions. 75.57.205.135 (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not claiming sockpuppetry, you already admited working on these addresses. However, when the contributions of these accounts are reviewed its obvious that you aren't a victim like you claim in your argument, its evident that you two are involved in a content dispute. That being the case this is not the place to work with it, after all "this is not the Wikipedia complaints department", try WP:DR. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no content dispute. It's simple: Arcayne claims multiple advanced degrees from Oxford and uses this as the basis to close discussion and "win". The claims he has put forth are ludicrous and make a mockery of his purported intellectual pedigree.

That he makes these claims and by doing so forces false information into the Encyclopedia while bullying his fellow editors with lies is harmful to the mission, principles and spirit of Wikipedia. 75.57.205.135 (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what you expect to hear from someone involved in a content dispute, it should be noted that I actually reviewed the contributions of your other addresses, there are a lot of "Undid x version by Arcayne..." in them. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the anon's fifth unwarranted AN/I complaint against me. Clearly, he doesn't like me (not that it really matters to me, but I guess the 500-lb gorilla in the room needs to be noted). In each of his prior AN/I whine sessions, he has been advised, somewhat stringently that he needs to stop interacting with me. I have not sought him out. I have not created multiple IP account after multiple IP account - almost a dozen that I could find. And each one, almost without exception are attack pages directed at me. For an assumed superiority I feel from having attended the Ox and worked my ass off for two undergraduate degrees. Honestly, the only reason I would feel superior to any user is if they are solely content to use Wikipedia as an attack forum or to grind ut a personal agenda. This person has been proven to be using it as both since at least April of this year.

I would like to propose for the second time that, as the user 75.(et. al.) has used his post block time to create attack pages and generally disrupt Wikipedia, that his IP range be blocked. His continued personal attacks are simply disruptive. No one creates five ANI's against a specific user and devotes 8/10's of all their posts in attack. The most recent canvassing at the [of Oxford] and well as adding a saccharine apology to my user page with the Oxford userbox pretty much proves the point. I would very much like this particular troll shoved back under the bridge and the span covered in an indef ban. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Why would anyone be impressed by someone having a mere two college degrees?Edison (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Current events

There is a lot of trouble with at least one IP removing perfectly good entries from the portal. Trouble is, they defend their actions and seem to feel that they fall within policy. Can someone more delicate than I (I'm getting kinda anoyed by now) have a go at putting things straight? Because the portal is rapidly ceasing to be the good at-a-glance update that it has always been. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted entries restored. Reasons given by IP are too vague to warrant such action. If the IP elaborates, then we'll reconsider, but in any case, the IP can't revert or it's a 3RR violation. —Kurykh 22:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Block review of User:Betacommand

per discussion here I have blocked Betacommand indefinitely for edit-warring until he addresses the issues raised in that discussion. As an interested party, I bring this block here for review. Cogent arguments have been advanced for fair-use but have not been addressed. Two admins disagree with his his interpretation of policy, yet he persists in failing to address the arguments, relying solely on opinions which are inapplicable to the issue at hand. His edit summaries have also been borderline uncivil. This is not the way to build an encyclopedia. --Rodhullandemu 22:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Without looking at the merits of the edit war, you've just blocked somebody with whom you are in a content dispute. Never a good idea. - auburnpilot talk 22:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but you've blocked someone who was trying to uphold policy. Makes Cryptic's block (discussed ad nauseam above) look positively righteous. 86.152.216.116 (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a good block. Betacommand was obviously trying to uphold policy as he saw it, and AuburnPilot is correct about blocking someone with whom you are in a dispute. Kelly ^hi! 23:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got to say, I think it was a bad block - he was enforcing NFCC, exempt from 3RR. IMO, his edits were legit as well - he was removing images that were against policy. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If a user won't discuss his actions, blocking is definitely called for. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No it does not. Whatever happened to coming here first? —Kurykh 23:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

So who are you responding to? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm responding to you. I'm not saying that he's allowed to not explain his edits, but this block is unnecessary, and it even violates policy. —Kurykh 23:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Since Betacommand couldn't care less about policy (other than smacking down anything he sees as a fair use violation), that's rich. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

So you're entitled to break policy yourself because "he did it too"? This isn't kindergarten. —Kurykh 23:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What policy am I breaking, other than speaking up against that character's autocratic attitude? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Essentially defending a block made by an involved editor, which is explicitly forbidden by policy. —Kurykh 23:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does everyone else have to follow policy and Betacommand doesn't? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You're going in circles. Refer to my "kindergarten" comment above. And I never said Betacommand doesn't have to follow policy. Stop putting words in my mouth. —Kurykh 23:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You have yet to answer the question about why he is exempt from policy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Straw man. Your question makes no sense whatsoever because I never said that, nor have I even implied that. You, however, are defending a blatant policy violation, and that needs explanation. —Kurykh 23:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

And your kindergarten comment doesn't make sense either. The blocking admin says the guy won't talk to him. Betacommand is not god. If he won't discuss issues, he should be stopped, like any other user who stonewalls. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems like I have to quote Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disputes for you, so I will do so:

Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators.

It's in plain English; this is what I'm referring to; this is to be followed by all admins. This is why I oppose this block, not because of your mistaken assertion that I believe BC can break policy, but because this block is contrary to policy. If you don't understand this, or choose not to, then I don't know how to further explain why. —Kurykh 23:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand why you're complaining about the block. I still want you to explain why Betacommand is exempt from following the rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

For at least the third time, I never said that; will you stop spewing that straw man argument? You only discredit yourself by doing so. —Kurykh 00:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if you specifically said it, I just want to know why Betacommand does not have to answer to anyone. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Then you're asking the wrong person. Ask Betacommand himself. I never said or implied it, so stop asking me. —Kurykh 00:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

What, ask him why he won't talk to us peons? That's a good one. Tell me another one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Wish granted; I will tell you another one. Stop asking me to explain what I did not say. —Kurykh 00:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you both stop? This isn't doing either the discussion or either of you any good... _TalkIslander 00:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It may yet prove that he's not above the law. We'll see who wins the "on track" debate - which, if nothing else, confirms his arrogant attitude. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Not when he's enforcing policy. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Eh, who are you responding to? —Kurykh 23:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops, that was misthreading - I was responding to BB. Apologies Kurykh, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Except he did, quite clearly. He even pointed out, as Ryan Postlethwaite says, that his actions were exempt from 3RR. 86.152.216.116 (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does he get to be exempt? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Enforcing NFCC is an exemption to 3RR (for everybody). I do agree, however, that editors should be expected to stop and discuss things, without further reversions, if their interpretation of policy is questioned. - auburnpilot talk 23:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Basically that guy refuses to answer anyone's questions. By what authority does he get to assume god-like status? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

except he did reply, twice actually. Can you read? 86.152.216.116 (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he responds to admins. To us peons, he basically responds "F.U." And I don't mean "Fair Use". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec x4) I'm not endorsing Rodhullandemu's block, but here Betacommand was taking his stance on the NFCC rules, and imposing them regardless of the ongoing discussion on the talk page (in which one editor thought that the images violate NFCC, whereas two didn't think so). Rodhullandemu was involved in the 'warring', so shouldn't have blocked, but neither do I think Betacommand's edits should be considered exempt from 3RR, as the violation is not clear - he's interpreting the images as violations, but they're not necessarily. _TalkIslander 23:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Theyre clear violations, in a "List of" type article, therefore they are things that aren't important enough to have their own article, therefore don't justify a nonfree image. QED. 86.152.216.116 (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Eh? That's entirely your opinion - nowhere in the policy does it state that something non-notable for it's own article is non-worthy of a non-free picture. The rules can all easily be sumarised in two points: a) if it can be described in words, don't use a non-free picture, b) don't over use non-free pictures. Neither are being done here. Regardless, this shows that discussion is needed, and Betacommand refuses to partake in these discussions. All that aside, who are you? You seem to be very clued-up about all this, yet here you're hiding behind an anon-IP. Why, exactly? _TalkIslander 23:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't assume BC gets a free pass here. WP:NFC says fair-use can be used, but very judiciously. Alien races in sci-fi shows are explicitly given as an example where fair use images can be used in list articles. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, some sci-fi editors changed the policy when no-one was looking? Did I miss a meeting? They're not important, they don't get images, get over it. 86.152.216.116 (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

And who exactly are you, 86.152.216.116? - auburnpilot talk 23:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

My question also. Mighty opinionated for someone whose first entries are just now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Quack, quack. (and FYI, that part of NFC has been up for at least five months. Nice try.) Sceptre ^(talk) 23:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm me. *waves* I like copyright policy. It's easy to understand. (Well I thought it was until a number of experienced contributors in this thread proved they didnt understand it - Sceptre, go back and read NFC - guideline - and NFCC - policy - again, there's a good boy.) 86.152.216.116 (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

And just how did you happen to come straight to this discussion? Who are you when you're not being anonymous? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop being condescending. You know full well NFC is a guideline about application of NFCC. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• NFCC is open to wide interpretation, BC's interpretation is a strict one. Many others interpret it more leniently. Until the NFCC policy is worded in such a way that excludes interpretation, disagreement will be ever thus. RMHED (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pointing out that reversions are exempt from WP:3RR does not make them so. Assuming good faith, clearly Betacommand believed that his reversions were within existing policy. However, the [WP:NFCC|policy]] has been criticised as being vague; this does not help editors in deciding whether images should be acceptable in articles. I have set out, on the talk page of the article in question, a detailed argument as to why not only is the policy vague, but also how I think it should be approached, and discussion about the images in question in relation to their validity in the article. My impression, althouth I'm open to correction, is that policy is just that- policy. It is not a monolithic weapon to be used for deletion of images; it's very much more subtle than that, and again, my impression is that Betacommand doesn't see that subtlety, and maybe why he didn't address it despite being given ample opportunity so to do. Furthermore, edit summaries threatening blocking for questioning a policy interpretation that's moot doesn't help. As I've already said, Betaccommand may very well be experienced at applying policy in clear cases; but when that policy is vague enough to be open to interpretation, he is not the arbiter of that policy. And he was not enforcing policy, he was enforcing his interpretation of policy regardless of the detail. --Rodhullandemu 23:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Rodhullandemu, could you please address the concern of blocking someone with whom you are in a dispute? Kelly ^hi! 23:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
    • You still haven't explained why you blocked someone you were in dispute with, nor why you haven't unblocked them yet. 86.152.216.116 (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Who are you that anyone should explain anything to you? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Because I haven't logged in? You anon-ist, you. 86.152.216.116 (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
          • That makes you gutless as well as arrogant. Be proud. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
            • Please tone it down, both of you. People may edit anonymously if they wish. Kelly ^hi! 23:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
              • From WP:SOCK: "it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts — or to edit anonymously without logging in to your account — in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions." - auburnpilot talk 23:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
                • I was going to raise the de fact sockpuppet issue. You beat me to it. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
                  • Per the Wikimedia privacy policy, When you publish a page in the wiki, you may be logged in or not.. Kelly ^hi! 23:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
                    • • That's a bit short sighted and naive, my dear Kelly. It's one thing to edit without being logged in (I do so on occasion myself) but it is quite another to do so in order to deflect scrutiny from your registered account. - auburnpilot talk 23:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
                      • Pardon my myopia and naivete. :-) There's no need to assume bad faith. Why do you think the anon here was trying to deflect attention from their main account? Kelly ^hi! 23:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
                    • Forget it. I am obviously deflecting attention from RodHullandemu's shitty block, so I'll bow out now anyway. Night! 86.152.216.116 (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Hmmmm, I've used that range and it looks like a couple of other users have as well. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  Yeah. It's BT Wholesale broadband. Fat lot of good WHOIS does. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand was reverting to remove Image:HelenMorgendorffer.jpg, an image without a fair use rationale, from List of characters in Daria, so I think his actions probably were exempt from 3RR, especially considering he provided edit summaries to explain his actions. PhilKnight (talk) 23:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we're all in agreement here that this was a not so good block. I'm going to go ahead and unblock now. . Just to clarify, this does not mean I don't disagree with any actions of the administration involved or the opinion of any users; I too place a FIRM request for civility and the avoidance of personal attacks going forward. -Pilotguy contact tower 01:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, interesting definition of 'agreement' you've got there. Have you actually read the discussions below this? _TalkIslander 01:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That unblock is just about as bad as the initial block. Awful. - auburnpilot talk 01:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• It's worse. There seemed to be a clear consensus that the block itself was justified. The only debate centered on whether the blocking admin should have been the one to levy it. Pilotguy chose to simply ignore the consensus developing here. S. Dean Jameson 02:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Back on track

Is there any opposition to Betacommand being unblocked if he agrees to stop reverting as well as stop removing images from list articles? That seems to be the next logical step here, in addition to somebody starting a discussion on the list issue. - auburnpilot talk 23:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yup, sounds good. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Not until Betacommand actually agrees to address the blocking admin's issues. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Yup, he should be unblocked - his actions were exempt from 3RR. PhilKnight (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • They weren't, as at least two editors agree that the images weren't in vioaltion of NFCC. _TalkIslander 23:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• As long as he definitely agrees to stop reverting and removing images from list articles, without discussion and reaching consensus, I see no reason not to unblock. Agreement to this is, in my opinion, essential, to avoid more 3RR-esque behaviour. _TalkIslander 23:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, good proposal. Kelly ^hi! 23:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Why does Betacommand get to be above the rules? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, but only with that caveat. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  Absolutely unacceptable conduct by BC. I cannot support an unblock until the threat is rescinded. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

  That's not going to happen - he thouroughly meant it. *LeSigh* - yet more Wikidrama to follow... _TalkIslander 00:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• I would support an unconditional unblock as I see the original block as having weak reasoning unfortunately, GDonato (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Unconditional unblock preferred, but this is also good. —Kurykh 23:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Update: Per Betacommand's comment I cannot support an unblock. - auburnpilot talk 00:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• (ec) It would appear that that's a no then - BC still fails to understand what he's doing wrong, and still insists that his own narrow interpretation of a wish-washy policy is correct. _TalkIslander 00:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• I'd hold off on the unblock until he at least gets that he's not exempt from 3RR. RxS (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• These comments from Rodhullandemu should definitely be taken into consideration before anyone unblocks. _TalkIslander 00:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Those type of demands are clearly unacceptable. Isn't BC on some sort of civility parole? -MBK₀₀₄ 00:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • He used that quote with MBisanz as well - this certainly has to be taken into consideration. Threats of taking someone to arbcom every time they get blocked is not acceptable. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Perhaps we'd be better off if administrators who blocked editors that they are in a content dispute with were taken to ArbCom every time they did that sort of blocking. HiDrNick! 00:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Not commenting on the merit of the block, but reacting angrily to what many other editors also considered an improper block (by an involved admin) doesn't seem that out of line. It seems like this situation has turned into quite a few other conflicts, roadblocks, and other tangent discussions, which unfortunately happens with blocks sometimes here at ANI.

are we realy going to clog up the ArbCom by reporting EVERY adminw ho blocks someone who feel sthat they shouldnt have be blocked?? Smith Jones (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Getting back to the original issue (and the start of the thread), the original problem is a blocking by an involved admin. I'd suggest an immediate unblocking by that admin, and then a continuance of the discussion here at ANI to decide if another blocking is deserved due to other factors. That essentially removes Ryan's problem of blocking an editor they were in a conflict with, and puts the responsibility back on other, uninvolved admins. Dayewalker (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
        • We don't need to go unblocking/reblocking just for the sake of appearances. If the block is warranted, even if placed by an admin who shouldn't have made the block, it should stand. Admins are not infallible, and I see no case for ArbCom here. - auburnpilot talk 00:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Betacommand is also under arbcom restrictions/guidelines to be more open and to discuss his actions with the community. His talk page response to the block and his threat to the blocking admin show his attitude in this area has not changed. The blocking admins reduced from indef (which I agree was way too much) to 31 hours. I support leaving it at 31 hours. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If that's the case, shouldn't this discussion be at Arb Enforcement, and the block logged at the Arb case page? Kelly ^hi! 01:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd say yes, but it's here, so I'd leave it here. BUt the block should be logged on the arb case page. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ban proposal for Betacommand

While I've been a bit more supportive of Beta, I think his threat to Rodhull crossed the line - especially since he's on civility parole. Threats tantamount to blackmail, legal or not, should not be tolerated on Wikipedia because of the chilling effect they create. Until he rescinds the threat—and I doubt he will—I cannot support him editing Wikipedia. Thoughts? Sceptre ^(talk) 01:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose ban. While it was definitely an uncivil e-mail, it wasn't blackmail. Not to justify it, but Rodhull isn't completely a blameless victim here. Kelly ^hi! 01:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

  "If you don't do this, I will take you to arbcom" sounds like blackmail to me. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Too extreme, especially considering some believe that he should be unblocked now. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. Circumstances of this situation do not warrant that. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• This is not going to fly, due to opposition from multiple administrators. Jehochman ^Talk 01:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, in my opinion we shouldn't have seen the e-mail as posting of e-mails is discouraged/prohibited by policy. The alleged edit warring alone does not justify banning. GDonato (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • POint of order: That which you linked to actually states that there ISNT a policy on the matter. Viridae^Talk 01:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Removal of private correspondence. Daniel (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Block, not ban. Yet. IMHOTEP. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with Sceptre. Too many problems with him editing. Al Tally ^talk 01:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. For starters, that wasn't blackmail, but a threat to invoke process. We make much stronger threats to vandals all the time, more or less worded in civil ways. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• I tend to find Betacommand's presence to be more of a hindrance to progress than a help, but I don't see a ban winning favor. The current 31 hour block should be served, fully, and escalating blocks should be placed if he returns to the same behavior. In place of a ban, a community enforced restriction (1RR or similar) would be a more viable option. - auburnpilot talk 01:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't know enough about the underlying facts (and haven't learned enough in the short time I've looked inot it) to support or oppose an outright ban. At first blush, there appears to be a bit of a double standard with how Betacommand is treated. In my short time here, I've seen others violating 3RR explicitly as he did blocked without controversy. And he does seem to behave uncivilly toward other users on a rather frequent basis. This type of behavior shouldn't simply be overlooked, at least in my view. S. Dean Jameson 01:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - It isn't "blackmail" to threaten to do something you have the right to do. Someone could threaten to take me to arbcom for any reason at all, but obviously arbcom doesn't have to accept it if the complaint has no merit. The same reasoning should apply here. VegaDark (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, we're not talking about "Unblock me or I will hunt you down" here. Every user has the right to petition ArbCom to take a case, and if it's meritless, ArbCom will reject it. If someone feels threatened by a statement of intent to request ArbCom involvement, that tends to indicate they did do something questionable; if not, why would they care if it goes there or not? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked

Pilotguy (talk · contribs) has taken it upon himself to unblock Betacommand, rather than join the discussion. [137] - auburnpilot talk 01:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Great. Betacommand wins again. I bet this taught him a lesson he won't forget. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully nobody is going to re-apply a block until a consensus emerges. PhilKnight (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say, well hot-diggity-dog, and so much for consensus, and so much for community! But I won't. I don't want to see Betacommand banned, just for him to realise that he's enforcing a very badly-framed policy, and he should realise that there are grey areas in which it is wise to tread carefully. --Rodhullandemu 01:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This is bull, why does BetaCommand get a pass? For his information, there is ongoing discussion to revise or eliminate portions of NFCC which are being abused. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Question: Are there any admins who have not been in a content dispute with beta? I can't name any. (I thought the ArbComm restrictions allowed any uninvolved admin to block him for not communicating, with "involved" being defined in a narrower manner than usual, but I haven't checked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Presumably, the ones who keep defending him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus for this unblock. And especially not by an admin who did not even find the time to participate in this discussion, very poor form. One admin cannot hold this process hostage like this...this is such a clear cut case that a reblock is indicated unless there are compelling reasons not to (unrelated to process that is). RxS (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:WW is policy. An immediate reblock would be committing to a wheel-war, and itself would be a blockable offense. Doing so may well set off a chain of blockees-unblocking-themselves and blockers-being-blocked-by-others that frankly we don't want to see. I suspect that reblocking would change the threat into accurate prophecy. Please reconsider. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not considering it myself, just stating an opinion. RxS (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't do anything that would irritate Betacommand. He is god. He answers to no one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The attitude isn't making anyone take your opinions seriously. Stick to facts, not sarcastic emotional appeals. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec with Kylu)Please let it go, BB. You're either totally misunderstanding the context of "not under 3RR" (I think you are far too smart for that) or you are simply venting because you disagree with Betacommand's interpretation of NFCC policies. If it's the latter, your snarkiness does not do your position on the issue any favors. Horologium (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the accusations that I am an incivil Wikipedian and ignore consensus are certainly nothing short of a blatant lie. I also don't appreciate being personally attacked on my talk page. I did as a matter of fact, review the discussion. The discussion itself pointed out on several occasions that the block was clearly inappropriate because it was done by a party directly involved in a dispute. I have talked to Betacommand about this and he will be posting a statement here after he agrees to cool it. His behavior will not continue and he has assured myself as well as fellow admins of that fact. If it does, then we know what to do. Betacommand just needs to know how to work with others. Now, I am willing to further participate in this discussion, and come to an agreement here, only if this situation will stop being treated as a soap opera and we can change said discussion into a professional, forgiving, civil one. Can we at least agree on that part? -Pilotguy contact tower 03:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu: refusal to discuss

Normally, I would try to discuss this with Rodhullandemu before bringing it here, but with others attempting to influence their behavior and a wholly unsatisfactory response so far, I think it's safe to say that deescalation will not be a particularly fruitful strategy.

We have here an administrator who blocked somebody with whom they were edit warring, for "persistent edit warring", and indefinitely no less, under the aegis of the aggrieved party refusing to respond (this, that and the conversation here notwithstanding). Not only that, but their response to the concerns of being too involved are being completely ignored; instead all we get is rules lawyering regarding what exactly isn't exempt from 3RR, when the community's best practices for years have been to look leniently on behavior such as Betacommand's. A refusal to discuss the propriety of your actions cannot fly. To top this off, Rodhullandemu doesn't seem to respect the sanctity of private correspondence: if he felt so injured and harassed, why could he just not forward it to ArbCom, like everything else involving non-public information?

Was there any reason Rodhullandemu chose not to report the unseemly behavior he saw to uninvolved administrators instead of shooting from the hip and then trying to hide the body in the river? It sure would have avoided the appearance of impropriety of blocking somebody for having the temerity to revert their edits. Surely he can see the sense in my concerns and why this kind of action is a problem and endeavor to avoid such warlike use of the tools in the future. east.718 at 01:48, July 6, 2008

• FWIW, East718 wrote the above comment at the same time I wrote mine below and we were merged by MediaWiki. I agree with his points, and wouldn't written quite as much below had I seen his post first. --Gmaxwell (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Haven't had any communication from East718 about this, for some reason. If I had tried to "hide the body in the river" (ugh!) I would not have immediately after blocking come here to report it, would I? If "the community's best practices for years have been to look leniently on behavior such as Betacommand's", then that is a piss-poor "best practice" because it can inculcate too much trust on one hand, and laziness on the other. In fact it's not a best practice at all, it's an abdication of responsibility. Exactly the point of this issue, without personalising it. --Rodhullandemu 02:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu

Regardless of the merits of BC being blocked, I think it we need to discuss the appropriateness of Rodhullandemu performing the block. From my view of the history Rodhullandemu had been edit warring against BC, who was clearly making a good faith effort to enforce policy and even under the least favorable analysis BC's actions were not entirely unsupported. Rodhullandemu's made several reverts [138] [139] and had a long argument with BC on the talk page[140]. Due to of Rodhullandemu's involvement BC command perceived the block to be made as a continuation of the edit warring. I do not condone the entirety of BC's behavior related to this subject, but I believe that we would have all been better off if Rodhullandemu had an uninvolved third party perform the block. If another Wikipedian experienced with licensing had intervened the escalation may have been halted and the block might have been avoided resulting in an improved outcome for all involved parties. Especially in cases of arguments between experienced editors administrators deeply involved in the argument should seek the assistance of others rather than blocking on their own. --Gmaxwell (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The indef block was quickly reduced to 31 hours, and while Rodhullandemu shouldn't have been the one to place the block, Betacommand's actions were far from innocent. The block should have been brought here before being placed, rather than as a review after the fact, but I don't see any suggestion that Rodhullandemu's behavior is part of a pattern. I also don't see this as a "warlike use of the tools" (as East suggests above). Inappropriate, no doubt, but Rodhullandemu seems to have acknowledged that. What more can we ask for? I don't see it happening again. - auburnpilot talk 01:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Need attention on Barack Obama talk page

An IP-hopping editor who has struck before is editing Talk:Barack Obama to add the n-word to discussions and edit summaries.

The editor struck a few days ago too. Playing whack-a-mole by blocking the IP accounts after warnings isn't doing any good. For the moment we probably need semi-protection of the talk page and/or immediate blocks on the affected IPs. We ought to delete the edit histories as well. As Hate speech this is hurtful, particularly given the subject of the article. Wikidemo (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I don't think deleting the edits is necessary, and given the size of the page history it would be painful. MastCell ^Talk 23:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks! Maybe we do something about the one edit that uses the N-word in the edit summary? Just being there is hurtful.Wikidemo (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Practically impossible without developer intervention. With 12479 edits to the page, it surpasses the maximum number of a revisions that an admin can delete (5000). Oversight is possible, but there's no personal information or libel in the comment (even though it is a disgusting comment), so I doubt they would be willing to use the tool for that edit. I'm suggesting we ignore it, but someone may disagree. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm okay ignoring it but it must be disheartening to African Americans (and some others) to be called racist names in a public forum. You can't see them without being reminded that you're not fully welcome or safe. The thing about hate speech is that like libel, threats of violence, privacy breaches, etc., the words themselves are the injury by their presence. I guess we're done then, assuming it doesn't pop up again. Thanks again. Wikidemo (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If more people archived by phsycially moving the talk page over, this wouldn't be a problem. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Violation of WP:OWN on WP:RADWP

On Wikipedia:Radio Wikipedia, User:StewieGriffin! is trying to own the project. Among many other things, he has

• Raised the minimum of Episodes completed to be considered an actual staff member when Vhoscythe and I joined from 1...to 2...to 5 full episodes.

• Got mad at Gears of War because he couldn't listen to them via the internet, but "could comment about putting it on iTunes".

• Didn't want to put it on iTunes because "we can't track listeners there". Non-starter argument.

• "Didn't like it" because "You don't have my permission."

• Not in favor of uploading to iTunes, but "wanted to do it himself".

• And also made a childish poll with one of his arguments against saying, "one of the staff is against".

Would a topic ban be appropriate? Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban on what exactly? RADWP? Considering he's the only broadcaster, it would end the project. However, WP:OWN is a policy, and I will speak to the user about this again. No one can grant permission once it's released into the public domain; it's there for public use (hence the term). PeterSymonds (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

me, User:Red Thunder, User:Xenocidic and User:Vhoscythe contribute to the project. We can certainly carry on.

And yes, a topic ban from the page of WP:RADWP. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 00:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Stewie: Here are the options open to you:

• Broadcast only off Wikipedia from now on. If you wish to own your work, don't upload it here; simple.
• The same cannot apply to your previous broadcasts. You released those under a free license. You even said, and I quote, "this sound file is in the public domain".
• Permission is not something that exists for public domain work. PD is without limitation.
• If you do decide to withdraw your work, it will likely be continued in your absence by the contributors above.
• Let's see where this goes before a topic ban is implemented.

--PeterSymonds (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed stalkish attack post

Resolved

 – Ranges blocked by Maxim and myself.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• 72.76.8.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 72.76.0.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) posted some seemingly concerned comments about David Shankbone who was sadly driven away from this project by wiki and real-world stalking. It directs to an offsite blog which seems to be nothing but the attack site of the stalker likely responsible for driving him away. Banjeboi 00:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Help please. 72.68.117.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is now attacking me as well. Is this a case of floating IP so we just have to revert and ignore? Banjeboi 01:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree as do many people with Benjiboi's description of why david left, this site and blog are unlikely to be his. If you do a 'whois' search on the domain it reveals that it was only created a month or less ago, and the person does not disclose their name etc even setting up the site, but use a proxy email or something which doesn't show their location. Sticky Parkin 02:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

David's own account of why he left (linked from his talk page) explains that he was being stalked. I don't dispute his account and indeed got residual nonsense likely from the same person who now seems to be back. Banjeboi 02:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Help please! they have nothing better to do apparently. Could someone at least semi-protect Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies? Banjeboi 02:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

A block on 72.76.8.234 would also be in order here. Banjeboi 02:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Maxim and myself have blocked the two Verizon ranges he had been using tonight to vandalize this thread and post the unwanted content at the talk page of the WikiProject.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, hopefully it's over. Banjeboi 03:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I semi-protected the wikiproject talk page for 36 hours before I learned of the range blocks. Accordingly, if the project wants to undo the protection just let me know and I'll unprotect or anyone else can. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Baseball Bugs

Resolved

 – No admin action required. —Travis^talk 02:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

At Talk:Chris Long (American football) there is bee na lot of rancor. Now, in an effort to achieve real consensus an Adminstrator editor, User:Baseball Bugs, made an WP:UNCIVIL personal attack against me. I ask that since he is an Admin and should be held to a standard that he be civil and that this incident not go unpunished. Saying it is obvious that English is not my first language us unhelpful, untrue, uncivil, un-wiki and un-becoming of an adminstrator editor. This makes it impossible for the past to be the past. In a heated atmosphere which Bugs has done little to dimish that. As an Admin he can reduce the rancor by being civil. The old axiom applies, if he's not part of the solution he's part of the problem. It makes me wonder if he's reall interested in the Long article or if he is there to stir sh!t. I cannot assume good faith with an Admin edit taking a personal shot about my lack of language skills.72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Bugs isn't an admin. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

My error, I thought he was. For that mistake I apoligize. My complaint against him still stands.72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything actionable here. It may not be the best observation to verbalize, but questioning whether or not English is somebody's first language is not a personal attack. - auburnpilot talk 00:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Beg to differ. It was not "questioning" is was a statement:

"Well, it's obvious English is not his first language. That hasn't stopped him writing long, incomprehensible diatribes. That's why I'd like him to explain in 25 words or less. In English or Spanish, either one is OK. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC) "

A statement is more than a question. It was a cheapshot, no? I am not suggesting a block, just a warning or something72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really. It appears to be in response to Ksy92003's comment "I'm anticipating about 95% of that response to be in Spanish".[141] - auburnpilot talk 00:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

As AuburnPilot says, not actionable but I will concede his comments could have been more civil, GDonato (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The basic problem, as I and others have told this guy, is that he writes lengthy diatribes that don't make sense. I would just like for him to explain in 25 words or less why the item he keeps pushing for is special enough to be in the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Generally, he can post as much as he wants. When I see something that I can't be bothered reading then I simply don't read it, GDonato (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't know this guy's history with this article, or you wouldn't be saying that. He's in constant battles over it, with a variety of users. Someone asks him why some obscure speech is notable, and he responds with a broken-English, rambling essay that makes virtually no sense. That's why I would like for him to explain briefly and then maybe it will make some sense. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The user's address is in New Mexico, I don't think that Spanish is his/her mother language. Ksy92003's comment was out of place, even if the user speaks Spanish mocking him won't make him disappear. Anyway, was resquesting help from a Spanish-speaking user that hard? - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't want him to disappear, I want him to explain in a way that's readable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with GDonato, although I tend to be a little more proactive. I don't see a problem with asking people for brevity, so long as it is done in a civil manner. - auburnpilot talk 01:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This being the English wikipedia, it is reasonable to expect its users to write readable English. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

In kind of an ironic twist, the IP address has now bought himself a 3-month block. [142] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

He says I'm mocking him further, but all I wanted was a straightforward answer to a question. I'm not sure why he was specifically blocked, although it does come on the heels of a 3RR block about - you guessed it - that same article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

He was apparently caught in a range block trying to net trolls, and has now been unblocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say this is resolved and I will withdraw this report of this incident. I think there were a coupld of folks who said that Bugs should have been more civil and I think that serves as a warning enough. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I likewise agree it's resolved, as I'm done talking to this guy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the talk page and 72.0.36.36 appears to speak English acceptably well. Most of the errors I saw were more consistent with a failure to proof-read than with poor ESL fluency. Either way, if you know somebody is sensitive about their level of fluency I would suggest not provoking them. Of course if you really have no idea what they are saying you might ask them to rephrase it, but I had no difficulty understanding the general meaning of any of his posts. Of course his attitude is a whole other story... — CharlotteWebb 01:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

He writes the way Bush talks. Either way, it's painful to hear. I tried to get him to answer a simple question, and he won't do it, so we're done. I'll let the collection of other users that he's annoyed deal with him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I see my comment has been called to attention. I didn't intend to insinuate that the IP doesn't speak English. My comment was in reaction to Baseball Bugs asking the IP to explain the situation in 25 "English" words or less, and I joked that he might respond in another language to circumvent that request. I didn't intend to offend anybody or to infer anything. I apologize that my comment was misinterpreted, albeit understandably. Ksy92003 (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Can someone who knows about copyright/images take a look at this

See this revert: [143]. The images are claimed as permission obtained but *shrug*. Viridae^Talk 01:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

(oh and I got edit conflicted when starting a new section - I thought that wasn't supposed to happen) Viridae^Talk 01:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a copyvio/unfit fair use to me. Commercial URL on the image, no license, no fair use rationale, everything about these images seems wrong. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've speedy deleted them, and warned the uploader. PhilKnight (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted the rest that the supposed author removed. The Other two images seem suspect too, but I've tagged them with nld instead of speedying them right off the bat. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)