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

Rapid archiving?

Why are three hour old threads being archived? ThuranX (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe some answers may be found at User talk:Ncmvocalist#ANI archiving. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I can't say I agree with the argument that posts should be archived quickly if they seem resolved (ones with an actual {{resolved}} template are ok). It's not over, until it's over. People may wish to respond to those discussions. --.:Alex:. 20:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ncmv's idea of manual archiving before the bot's 24 period to get the page size down, but think archiving 2 hour old threads might be over-reaching. People don't check ANI every 2 hours; they should be able to see how long, complicated threads have turned out without wading thru the archives, or (more important) they may disagree with the fact that it's resolved. Surely there's a compromise lurking in there somewhere; say if it's had a {{resolved}} tag or an {{archive}} tag of some kind on it for (say) 8-12 hours, maybe? Some number greater than 4 and less than 24. --barneca (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As the planet spins at very slightly over 24hours per day, I feel (and have suggested) that the minimum needs to be 12 hours to give every chance of a section being seen by most of the English speaking inhabitants. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes that's a valid point. I could go to sleep and find several threads created and archived during the night when I awaken. Maybe a little longer than 12 hours though. --.:Alex:. 20:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been manually archiving threads that have been sputtering (a couple folks leaving sporadic light-hearted throwaway comments can cause a huge thread to sit essentially stale for days and days) but I'll admit I don't do it unless the latest date is yesterday - preferably early yesterday. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's a much better idea; I have no problem at all with manual archiving after even two hours, if the last remotely serious comment was 18-24 hours previous. Most of those undead, zombie threads that stagger on for days could then be put out of their misery. Of course, ANI will get slightly longer with all the "Wknight94 didn't take my comment seriously! Desysop him now!" threads. --barneca (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(Yes, I've already had a nicer version of that on my talk page...) —Wknight94 (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick comment here.. ANI is not the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, so we really don't need to hear from 100% of the voices 100% of the time. In my mind, if a thread appears, is resolved, and archived all while I sleep, that's probably a good thing most of the time ;) I understand the concern that something might got resolved incorrectly, but for me it's about priorities. Right now, I think the "OMFG moar drahmaz!" problem on ANI is much more crushing than the occasional minor injustice. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nod. But so far I've not ever heard anyone complaining about Ncmvocalist archiving things too late. Always it seems to be more about "too soon" or "too vigorously". ++Lar: t/c 23:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

'is resolved' is the key element there. The world won't end if a thread isn't archived and there is even the remotest hint that its not satisfactorily resolved.--Crossmr (talk) 08:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with archiving some threads that are obviously finished, but I'd rather they at least be given 12 hours since last activity. A few of the threads were archived too quickly, IMO. I was away from the computer due to personal obligations, and by the time I come back (8 hours later or so), a bunch of replies are in the thread but it's archived so I can't respond. Enigma ^message 23:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any real problem with sections being archived a few hours after the last comment when the discussion is clearly resolved, but I do have a problem with edits like this one, where sections are wrapped in those pretty little archival templates 2 minutes after the last comment. That...I hate. - auburnpilot talk 23:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Phew, wasn't me :D Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think filing parties are capable of looking at their thread in an archive - a lot of them end up having to do so because they might not login for several days. Between the time I logged off and now, there's been an increase of 16 threads (within 12 hours) if that's anything to go by. If people prioritized on responding to unresolved threads (like the one above this one that has 0 replies, or the thread right at the top of the page that has been open for days), there'd be less of a problem. Instead, with the rate of ANIs being opened, and how big this page becomes, I really don't see the issue with going to the archive to read how it was considered resolved. From time to time, of course mistakes can happen (just like the bot) and things might get prematurely archived, just as things might be left lying around, but bear in mind I have read or skim-read through the thread (unlike a bot) to know if it's resolved - if the bare essential admin action has been taken or admin attention been given, there's no reason to prolong it anymore. If I think there is a chance that more attention is needed on an action, I won't archive it straight way. Certainly some people are going to think it hasn't been resolved - it was very recently I had to deal with 1 individual who proclaimed the dispute is unresolved unless their 'restraining order' is imposed. I don't think we need a full thread to repeatedly tell them, this is not possible as it's punitive or inappropriate or...etc. etc. If there's an issue, contacting the person who dealt with the complaint is probably going to be much more effective. But, if there's major opposition to my archiving with a basis we can agree to, I'll gladly stop or modify my approach. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer you not archive so vigorously. You seem to be saying your judgement of whether something is resolved is adequate and that the archive should be referred to. I'm not sure I agree. We have a bot, let the bot do the work. ++Lar: t/c 20:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. The bot is on a timer for a reason. Unless everyone involved in the thread has whole-heartedly agreed that the thread is resolved there is zero reason to archive it early.--Crossmr (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel the same way. -- Ned Scott 04:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. -- Aunt Entropy (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree also, let the bot do its work. And certainly, don't edit war when another editor reverts your premature archiving. [1] [2] If someone else wants to comment, please be civil and give them the courtesy of doing so. Dayewalker (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently he has a little issue with that. I informed him that several editors had expressed that they didn't like what he was doing and that his uncivil reverts were looking like inappropriate behaviour and his reply was a revert of my comment on his talk page with an uncivil edit summary.[3].--Crossmr (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd also prefer if we just let the bot run its course. –xeno (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not surprised that certain users who have had a history of vocally disagreeing with my views or methods, have responded here indifferently (perhaps with whatever personal motivations), but certainly, it gets the proportionate amount of attention in return. And sometimes, they simply don't get the message the first time around.
• The issue of closing threads, like in the diffs by Dayewalker, is a separate issue. But seeing that it was brought up, no less than 2 admins want that particular thread closed due to how it's being dragged out.
• Anyway, coming back to the matter on hand, I see a clear division in opinion. (I fully dismiss the argument that there is consensus to not archive threads earlier than the bot.)
• I've taken the suggestion made by several users on board in that I give it about 12 hours (often a bit more, occasionally a bit less) after it's resolved, before putting threads in the archives. It's certainly a reasonable request, and I've adhered to it.
• But I'll reiterate, if there's major opposition to my archiving with a basis we can agree to, I'll gladly stop or modify my approach. I also will take this opportunity to thank the several other users who have also been archiving threads recently - it helps clear the mess up here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

And with that, ANI is now over 447,000 bytes. Ooof. Hard to believe no one takes my proposal to split up ANI seriously. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If you insist on continuing to archive, please link the archive to which you will be archiving, as the bot does. However, since opinions are pretty much split on whether it's a good thing, the status quo should be upheld (i.e. leave the archiving to the bot). –xeno (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, threads have traditionally been archived manually too - it's just it would be the odd thread, rather than a few that make the ANI page look less messy/clogged up/whatever you want to call it. But your request is very reasonable - I'll link to the archive threads for reference. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

My own feeling is that if a thread is obviously resolved, it's fine to archive it on the spot. It might be nice to have a section like "Fast track archived threads" or something, which just listed the headers of each section, and a link to the archive. That way anyone really interested in still seeing the thread could do so, but we wouldn't have to lug it around on ANI "just in case" someone in another time zone wanted to see it. --Elonka 19:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There's an idea worth looking into as well - not sure how to implement it myself, but I think it's another way to resolve space issues here. :D

Anyway, Wknight94, we're back down to about 300 000 bytes. :) Ncmvocalist (talk)

So traditionally the odd thread was archived, not massive amounts. That doesn't give you precedent and consensus to suddenly archive tons of threads at once. You don't have consensus to change that. The only thing people support are early archiving is when threads are clearly resolved. Not on whether or not you've made a judgment call on if you think anyone can add anything of value to it. The fact is if someone disagrees with your archiving a particular thread and reverts you, you shouldn't become rude and try to force it through again. You don't own the page and if someone cares enough about a thread to revert it and add something to it, unless it is a fairly useless comment (like a me too! or just some random gibberish), it isn't your place to get rid of it early.--Crossmr (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Real Solution

Simply use the {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. It alleviates the page from crowding, but does not place the thread into the actual archive. The bot will take care of it eventually if no one further posts. Just make sure you put the resolved tag outside of the collapsed box, with a good description of the solution. Also make sure the title/heading is an accurate description of the thread. Problem solved. Beam 01:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the main problem people are having is with the {{PAGESIZE}}, not the visual clutter. –xeno (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that page size can truly be helped. The page size is going to fluctuate heavily dependent on how many actual issues are out there. So while you might be able to archive some truly resolved threads, it could just as easily be filled back up and more with genuine issues just as quickly. Perhaps, some sort of use of subpage with templates (similar to how AfD works) might be useful. All active discussions could be in a category (ANI active discussions) and show up on this page, when a discussion is completely resolved, the category is removed and the discussion is archived. The only real way you're going to keep the page size down is do something that applies to all discussions, not just ones that some people may feel have ended.--Crossmr (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What? Subpages you say? Take a look at my proposal at WT:AN#Solution to size and subpage issues. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Beam, that just makes the problem worse. The discussion is still there, people can still comment on it, yet they are confused because someone arbitrarily said "no moar comments".
  Here's a solution—don't try and stifle discussion, and let the bot do its job. (Interestingly, Ncmvocalist dismissed my asking him to stop it the same way he dismissed most of the above comments that told him to stop it.) —Giggy 12:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

  Regardless of how many people who line up to tell him not to do this, he dismisses them out of hand and uncivilly. Frankly it is growing rather tiresome. If he can't respond civilly to the community that is going to have to be addressed.--Crossmr (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• The problem is the fact certain users love trolling, and continuing to troll in these threads, including this one.
• An example of the problem, ironically right under this very thread: most (if not all 9) of the admins who were responding to the thread, come to the same conclusion, yet 1 editor (and the subject editor of the ANI) persistently insists foul play, refusing to let the thread close and refusing to put up any other evidence in any thread.
• Some of these users upon realizing they can't troll in those threads because they've been archived, decide to exercise exceptionally poor judgement by going to troll on the talk page of whichever user has archived them. Whether it's unreasonable demands, tendentious argument, unfounded claims, or something else that's left on the talk page, they "simply don't get the message the first time around" (as I've stated earlier). Fortunately, they can be promptly given the appropriate level of proportion and tolerance in that venue. One such user has responded persistently above.
• Meanwhile, the concerns in the actual ANI threads have been resolved as far as administrators are concerned, while the page grows increasingly messy and large in size (making the poor machines that access this site, struggle). Most intelligent users are capable of understanding that any additional concerns/evidence they have, or if they want an outcome reviewed or re-reviewed, can all be put in a new section. If they feel (in contrast to those handling the thread) that it's unresolved, they surely can contact the users who handled the incident(s) if they genuinely want more perspective or context or understanding, as most users are willing to provide it.
• Concerns have been expressed by many sysops and quite a few editors, moreso in other venues, but here too, that ANI is becoming either messy, too long and unmanageable - they've supported archiving threads that are done/resolved, rather than waiting for the slow bot to do it. After consciously failing to acknowledge this fact, if certain users (who make unreasonable ill-considered demands) don't expect to be promptly dismissed they're kidding themselves. I certainly would support alternative solutions such as Wknight94's idea or Elonka's idea being enacted, but until such a time, my current method of archiving has sufficient support (without which, I would not have continued). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

*:None of which excuses your inability to assume good faith or respond to users civilly instead of reverting their comments to your talk page with uncivil and rude tones. The fact of the matter is, several users have appeared here and on your talk page to ask you not to continue your behaviour. However you've done so, even as more and more users have shown up and asked you not to do it. The fact that you continually refer to any user who disagrees with you as a troll is a clear indication of why you need to step back and find something else to do. You've already preconceived a judgment about anyone who would dare oppose your will. Any reminder to adhere to those policies is also dismissed out of hand by you as carrying no weight, even though you've repeatedly called several users trolls, simply for asking you to stop what several others have asked you to stop as well. In addition you feel the need to make snarky and rude comments like "Most intelligent users...". The fact is, change your behaviour or the community is going to grow rather bored of it. Maybe you can go chat with betacommand and ask how his snarky responses to users he deemed too stupid for his time has worked out for him?--Crossmr (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• • I think the majority of the community is well aware of my ability to assume good faith, thanks. :) But you're most welcome to continue with your nitpicking, demands and whatever else that pops into your head. You're trying to change this into a game of wikipolitics and I'm not interested in being part of it. The FACTS are as follows
  • There have been users who have shown approval (and users who have shown disapproval) for my archiving for various reasons - I've addressed the reasonable concerns, while addressing those concerns that persuaded me to archive in the first place. I have disagreed with some of those users, and agreed at times on this very issue, or come to agree with those users, and I've certainly interacted with them civilly and assuming good faith. But those that have made unreasonable demands or have continued to be a nuisance or have been trolling on my talk page have been reverted for that reason. There are therefore 2 categories for those I disagree with (on this particular issue) - the category that you yourself in, and the one that you aren't in. I've lost any willingness to spend anymore time hammering this to be written in a way that you can understand, so I hope you get the message this time.
  • Perhaps 'intelligent' was a poor word choice - it probably should read as "most 'well-informed' users...." Maybe you felt a need to compare the situation to the deteriorating one of Betacommand due to your own sensitivity of this word choice - that I might've been referring to you or someone particular. The fact is, I didn't have anyone particular in mind - it was just a scenario out of the blue. If it did affect you or anyone, or was read that, then I'm sorry - that was genuinely not my intent. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

  And as for this comment most (if not all 9) of the admins who were responding to the thread, come to the same conclusion, I see two admins who clearly stated they want the bot to run its course, or did you conveniently ignore that? Both Lars and Xeno stated as such, and a quick check of their user page shows them as administrators.--Crossmr (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

  Perhaps you need to read more carefully in the future - I specifically stated I was talking about the thread below this one. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If someone truly feels an issue that's been archived is not truly "over", they can always start a new thread pointing to the archive, or even copy back the original text if necessary. There have been a few times when it looked like things were being closed a little too quickly, but more often than not you're waiting 12 or 24 hours just for something to finally disappear, which is not the optimal way to operate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again: topic ban of user:Kossack4Truth from Obama pages for review

OK. Briefly, Kossack4Truth (talk · contribs) is an agenda-driven single-purpose account on Barack Obama. He has been blocked 3 times in just over a month for edit-warring and disruption on those pages. After his most recent block, there was AN/I discussion which, I believe, supported a 4-6 month topic ban. Kossack4Truth promptly "retired", so I dropped the issue as moot.

As in the past when he's briefly laid low, his "retirement" was brief and he reactivated the account today by filing an iffy 3RR report, shopping the same complaint at AN/I. Not to mention rather odd comments: [4] and claiming to other admins that he was never officially topic-banned ([5], [6]).

I believe there was and is ample justification and support for a 4-6 month topic ban, and was prepared to implement one after the prior discussion. Kossack4Truth evaded this by retiring. Since he is now active again, I've imposed the topic ban. I'm bringing it here for review and to see if there are substantial objections to the topic ban. Given that these threads uniformly deteriorate into a steel cage match between involved editors, I'd ask that editors actively editing the Obama page refrain from comment here to allow for potentially more objective input. MastCell ^Talk 17:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk about arrogance. Unbelievable. First you try to get me banned. Then, rather than address the real source of the problem, you topic ban K4T and Then come here soliciting support, rather than even looking like you might consider taking action against the real source of the problem: the editors who keep baiting and provoking us. K4T did what he was supposed to do when he saw a problem. He gave an abusive editor awarning and was blocked three days for it. Now he comes to ANI and he gets a topic ban for it? Unbelievable. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll allow my recent posts at Talk:Barack Obama to speak for themselves without MastCell's spin. I've been completely cordial at Talk:Barack Obama, I've discussed the edits rather than the editors, and I haven't edit warred. I wasn't topic banned in the previous attempt. It's not just a claim. It's a fact. I notice your campaign to get community support for an indef block of WorkerBee74 was a miserable failure, and now you've turned your attention to me. MastCell, stop throwing your weight around in this direction and start paying attention to the ceaseless baiting and badgering coming from certain other editors. Show everyone the edit I've made on Barack Obama or Talk:Barack Obama since reactivating my account that justifies this unilateral action or revoke your topic ban. Go ahead, pick the one edit at Barack Obama or Talk:Barack Obama since reactivating my account that you find most offensive, post the whole edit here, and let uninvolved and truly neutral admins judge for themselves without your spin. Furthermore, I'm not a single purpose account. That accusation used to have some legs, but not any more. I've edited dozens of articles and welcomed dozens of new users.

Other admins are encouraged to take a very close look at my recent behavior and try to figure out how MastCell could possibly be justified in doing this. Kossack4Truth (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban of at least three months based upon the disruptive editing practices exhibited by K4T. "Retirement" is no excuse to dismiss earlier conversations and a consensus for such a sanction. Coming out of "retirement" to file a frivolous AN3 report, which was dismissed by four administrators (sorry to bust your bubble ThuranX), and then shop it around at ANI on an old thread indicates that you haven't given up your old habits a bit.

As evidenced in a prior ANI case, I voiced my support then for a topic ban as an uninvolved administrator, and I am voicing my support for it now. seicer | talk | contribs 17:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Fully support a topic ban; "retiring" to avoid sanctions does not magically undo the behavior that lead to the sanctions. A topic ban was appropriate then, it is still appropriate now. — Coren ^(talk) 17:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No objections. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

IF K4T will sign on to the attempt to give clean slates, forget old feuds, and work as an honest broker for consensus that we spoke of above,, then I vote for a clean slate and let bygones be bygones. If he can't do that, then let the community impose whatever sanctions consensus seems fit to met out. Others who have engaged in misbehavior. Lots of editors could use a fresher start there, and he deserves no less. The atmosphere seems to be changing, and if he wants to be a part of that process, now that he is aware of it, great. If he does not, then I imagine your eagle eyes will be on him and he will quickly hang himself.Die4Dixie (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse the topic ban. As far as I was concerned the result of the last K4T topic-ban discussion was that he was placed under restriction. K4T's apparent attempt at evading sanctions by "retiring" makes matters worse in my view. I'd also like to remind involved users that MastCell asked for "editors actively editing the Obama page [to] refrain from comment here." If you want wider input please allow those for us who are uninvolved to review this--Cailil ^talk 18:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• This is a continuing battleground, and it needs to be cooled off. From what I've seen, K4T is a prime instigator in the battles; I'd support a topic ban through the elections. K4T notes above that he has been working on other articles and broadening his spectrum - this is a good opportunity to keep up that effort. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support until after the election. Good editors are spending too much time fighting over the same issue rather than being able to work on the rest of the article. At least one other WP:SPA needs to step back and take on other topics as well to broaden his Wiki horizons. Another editor has taken a recent interest. Please people, do not get hung up in one place only. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

:: I resent your characterization as unhealthy. Which part of civil is the inference. I request that you retract that statement, and I will assume that some momentary lapse has provoked it and charitably forget that it was made. Senseless provocation like that is gratuitous and can't possibly be a part of building an encyclopedia.Die4Dixie (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

For reference, Die4Dixie (talk · contribs) has just edited my comment up above. The context of the statement has been changed because of this. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And they've just warned via a template for it[7]--Cailil ^talk 19:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And I responded to you there. As a new adminstrator, you should know better than to cleverly template an editor with my longevity .19:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

His reply is pretty poor and assumes bad faith. seicer | talk | contribs 19:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that my good faith efforts to work towards a consensus and peace making efforts on the page have been reduced to an "unhealthy interest". Pages that one chooses to edit are chosen by a principle of free association. I have no obligation to edit anything other than what I choose. there appears to be a bandwagon here. I removed an attack here, was templated, and the band wagon was cranked up. This behavior by three administrators, one recent, can only serve to elevate the level of wiki-drama that I and other editors have tried to dissipate on matters related to Obama.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've noticed a recent trend to defend the Obama article against any incursion of criticism. There are/were at least 3 threads in the last ten days or so here on AN/I, plus who-knows-how-many elsewhere. (I didn't count every WP page to check.) WOrkerbee and K4T both have issues, but so does Lulu of the Lotus eaters, and she got off scott-free. There's a lot of bias showing on AN/I and at the Obama pages. Frankly, it really seems like the liberal bias we're so often accused of having is really showing. So many of these conflicts on the Obama page are because there's nothing negative there. I've looked, and EVERY single item of contention has been shrunk to a minimum. The more I look at it, the more I realize any criticism is white-washed or marginalized. A few editors are opposed to that, but they get constantly shouted down because Obama's got tons of internet savvy supporters, who are pushing criticism off the page. It's hard to see how this is defended when the major offense is INCIVIL behavior in light of the POV swaying going on. They may need a CIVILITY PROBATION, but to topic ban people who offer balance and dissenting opinions specifically during the election period, to 'keep the page quiet' shows an agenda is being pushed. Obama looks good against McCain without Wikipedians pushing things. If this were the other way around, a glistening McCain article, I have to say, I believe we'd be seeing a different result here. It may be societal, but when we see such a push going on, silencing the voices that speak out entirely is a black eye for Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse topic ban for K4T, as before. No need for the ongoing disruption. R. Baley (talk) 06:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• As suggested by myself back on 13 June 2008 [8], my position has not changed and I agree that a longer duration (of 4-6 months is warranted). Endorse topic ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY NOT RESOLVED. MCMVOCALIST is the same HIGHLY involved admin in all of these Obama related threads. He closed out the last one, above on this page, in which K4T and others were accused of shit. He dismissed all the pro-Obama editor problems as not problems, then again sanctions those editors seeking to bring balanced criticism to the page. NCMVocalist is absolutely unqualified to neutrally close this section, Especially since his actions were to wait just two hours after a lengthy objection and close it in the position he has previously advocated. Neutral, previously uninvolved editors and admins are needed to review this material. Obama's page is not neutral, and the editors seeking to include balanced criticism are unable to do anything because the pro-Obama editors seek to whitewash all criticism. This is one of the most viewed pages on the project right now, and we are not meeting our responsibilities by keeping fair criticism off the page. I request, formally, that NCMVocalist not touch this thread again. He's got a conflict of interest and, at this point, an apparent vendetta against numerous editors seeking to include balanced criticism. It's a shame that some of Obama's supporters are out to make the rest of us look like partisans, when his good qualities will shien through anyway. but POV pushing needs to cease there. ThuranX (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Your request is denied. Please refrain from smearing me with any part of the title, 'highly involved admin' (a meritless accusation) - you need to take a break and become familiar with (or refamiliarise yourself with) WP:UNINVOLVED, first and foremost.

The ban has been imposed with the overall consensus of the community, with full endorsement by 8 uninvolved administrators. Kossack4Truth is welcome to appeal the topic ban in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, you are incorrect. Ncmvocalist is not an administrator. Ncmvocalist, please stop archiving threads. Thank you. Risker (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly why the pages remain a giant mud pit. Restricting Kossack4Truth does not validate the behavior of every other editor on the page. I would be happy to look at other editors' behavior, but not as an excuse to avoid doing something about this particular disruptive user. This line of argument boils down to: "Yes, Kossack4Truth is disruptive, but so are some other people!" The correct response is to restrict this disruptive editor and move on to ask for evidence, in a separate thread, of disruption by other editors. MastCell ^Talk 03:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, some editors (and apparently a sysop) make major allowances for the continued trolling in these threads and refuse to accept that this is a noticeboard - not a complaints dept. This thread was very clearly labelled in a way to be about the conduct of Kossack4Truth, and there was consensus to pass the topic ban. Yet here we still are, tapping our feet at the editors (and sysop) who refuse to put up (as MastCell quite rightly puts it) "evidence, in a separate thread, of disruption by other editors." I no longer wonder why this entire page remains a mess. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Concur with MastCell. It is evident that there a number of disruptive editors in this topic not just one. However we are dealing with just one here in this thread - that does not mean we will ignore / condone bad behaviour by others. Please, if there is evidence of other parties actively engaging in disruption either open a thread here or follow normal RFC/U procedure so that uninvolved users and sysops can review it. The fact that other threads have been closed does not preclude a proper investigation into other users. With that in mind I would move to close this thread and this issue regarding K4T without prejudice to other threads about problematic behaviour by other editors--Cailil ^talk 13:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not how AN/I works. If a student gets into a fight, you don't want the principal punishign just one of the two, you want both punished. When one kid runs to the teacher crying 'he hit me', do you want the teacher to say, 'yeah? you've got detention' and consider the matter settled? No. You expect the teacher to get both sides of the story and act accordingly, usually with detentions for both students. IF we only handle K4T here, we risk never having an opportunity to handle the biases which K4T is discussing, because we keep shutting down those with other POVs. This sort of resolution would result in bully squads on pages, which is already happening on Obama, as I've noted before. A group all attacks anyone who wants any criticism till the new guy invokes IAR and adds it, then gets accused of an edit war, gets blocked for going against consensus, when the consensus is to cover up Obama's critics. The new editor is blocked, and the sick behavior of the pro-obama gang is reinforced, assuring that they'll more confidently run the same dance again. This dance against K4T comes just days after running the same dance on WorkerBee74. Our 'job' here is neutral articles, not pushing 'our guy' forward by wiping his page of problems. To ONLY deal with K4T here, and not investigate what's behind it, is to allow this abuse to continue and grow into systemic bias. ThuranX (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX said:

There's a lot of bias showing on AN/I and at the Obama pages. Frankly, it really seems like the liberal bias we're so often accused of having is really showing. So many of these conflicts on the Obama page are because there's nothing negative there. I've looked, and EVERY single item of contention has been shrunk to a minimum. The more I look at it, the more I realize any criticism is white-washed or marginalized. A few editors are opposed to that, but they get constantly shouted down because Obama's got tons of internet savvy supporters, who are pushing criticism off the page. .....It may be societal, but when we see such a push going on, silencing the voices that speak out entirely is a black eye for Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, you're mistaken. Wikipedia is about consensus-based editing, not 'ignore all rules' editing. One's misconduct does not legitimize another's. Kossack4Truth has engaged in misconduct and measures have been imposed to prevent that misconduct that has the community concerned. ANI is not the place to deal with essentially content issues (for support adding criticism about Obama, or for opposing adding criticism about Obama) that should be dealt with through Article RFC or Mediation, or for forum-shopping. Although Risker (in my opinion) exercised poor judgement in reopening this thread, that's besides the point. If you have evidence of editorial misconduct by other parties in this dispute, why do you refuse to post it in a separate thread? The separate thread would not preclude the consideration of mitigating factors (if any) for the measure imposed here - I'm not sure why you think otherwise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

So your attitude is 'Yes, others did bad stuff, but since Mastcell filed this about K4T, we cannot and will not look at others, even though they're clearly part of the problem'? That's hardly the way to get anything productive done. Further, if I have to go off and file a separate thread, I'll do so, even to the point of being K4T's voice in all that. That's right, I'll go so far as being banned for meatpuppetry, if that's what it takes to keep this thread, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, open until we get some real resolution. Ncmvocalist's attitude of willful myopic behavior persists only with the tacit approval of a pro-obama cabal who seem intent of one by one reipping down all opposition. I'm fucking disgusted by this attitude, and Ncmvocalist's not the only voice by a long shot. To look at ONLY K4T because Mastcell named ONLY K4T is asinine, and Ncmvocalist should lose his admin bits for this vendetta attitude. ThuranX (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Ncmvocalist is not an admin. –xeno (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hrmm. Then he ought to quit closing all the threads related to Obama troubles as resolved and making declarative judgments and so on. Preempting discussions and so on certainly makes him appear as an admin. He needs to refrain from closing any more threads about Obama related topics and any involving Editors tied to such articles, like WB74, K4T, LotLE, and so on. ThuranX (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Any person with a sound mind will not leap to the ludicrous conclusion they'll be banned for meatpuppetry for opening a separate thread at the request of the community, unless they have chronic unfounded assumptions of bad faith. I therefore think you have personal issues you need to deal with first. Almost everyone who has responded here wants to resolve this dispute as effectively as possible, but your persistent shouting is certainly unhelpful. If you have evidence of individual editors disrupting the article there, or even affecting Kossack4Truth's misconduct that brought on this topic ban, we're openly welcoming you to put evidence in a new thread that deals with that editor - I'm certainly interested into looking into it, and so is the community. This was archived as it was about Kossack4Truth and there are moves to close this thread again. All I've seen from you here so far is chronic unfounded assumptions of bad faith against both myself, and the community, and no sign of actually looking into the dispute or having any intent on posting evidence in a separate thread (as opposed to shouting and demanding everyone else to follow your orders) - all it does is further justify why this will be closed soon. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Lots of hot air there, and accusations, but little substance. Frankly, I'm surprised you didn't try archiving right after posting that. There's plenty of evidence of the problems there, and you should know, you've jumped into every report on AN/I about that stuff, loudly shouting and hand-waving that there's nothing to see here, just evil anti-Obama people trying to PVP up the article. Go look at recent threads about Workerbee74, and LotLE. and other threads about Obama, including the subpages specifically about Obama pages. The declarations of a problem of a lack of criticism repeat extensively. and you're at a lot of those, saying there's nothing to see here. As I've said before:leave the closing of these thigns to admins, since you actually aren't one. ThuranX (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't researched the history so I cannot speak for motives or what caused what to happen. Anyone that denies that WP has a liberal bias doesn't understand WP's bad image on the internet. WP is not seen as an unbiased or reliable. We need to improve on this.

Mr. Obama's article does need re-write. There are too many flaws to start. Subtle bias is one as well as the choice of material covered. Unfortunately, this makes Obama look bad to the astute observer (but may fool the casual reader). This is a pity since Obama is a historical figure and the presumptive next President of the U.S.

I call for admins to try to bring civility to the article and to start a new principle for the article, i.e. neutral consideration of edits is very important in this case and that counting votes is flawed since Obama has more supporters than the other guy and every supporter (whether of Obama or the other guy) is sort of a meatpuppet of other supporters. So if 60% of editors say "McCain is Bush", that still wouldn't be WP material even though there would be a consensus. Presumptive (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Support wholeheartedly Kossack4Truth is a clearly agenda pushing SPA and needs to be topic banned. It does not matter that other SPAs are there on the project. K4T has had 3 prior blocks for this exact same thing. He's run out of second chances. We can deal with the other editors too, but that does NOT mean that we should ignore K4T. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that over 3 days there's been near unanimous support for the Topic Ban, I believe that it should be implemented at this time. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It was implemented on 26 July 2008. This should've been closed at that point too, but Risker decided to re-open it based on what ThuranX said. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wah wah wah, NCMVocalist. SwatJester, good, let's get on to that part, where we can examine multiple reports from Wikidemo about Lulu of the Lotus Eaters and SCJessey. Lets also examine all the other slow edit wars going on there, and issue topic bans liberally. Frankly, that page needs all the current warriors topic banned, so a whole new crew can get in there. Most notable is the constant opposition to any criticism of the candidate, citing BLP, no matter how much verifiable criticism on a topic is presented. The edit warring seems most intense between those who seek to add verifiable criticism and those who seek to strip the article of all criticism. What we have here is a major problem for wikipedia's credibility. How long till some newscaster on a slow news day decides to 'report' on how wikipedia covers the candidates? let's deal with this now, in this thread, and not play games about waiting for reports. If we do, I can predict the outcome: Four 'anti-criticism' editors will be seen to have agitated one 'pro-criticism' editor till they can report him. NCMVocalist will declare him guilty, then hover till a block is imposed, and immediately close the thread. I"ll ask about the behavior of the other four. And this will repeated for months and months. Two editors in favor of criticism are already banned from the page. How many more will be banned before we realize we have to deal with this better? Or will we just keep banning until the election, because so many wikipedians lack the ethics and moral fiber to separate their love of a candidate and their responsibilities as editors? Right now, I see a coordinated protection of Obama's page because a lot of people want to see the guy get elected. I see a lot of editors deliberately deciding that it's so important for him to win that their own convictions can be set aside, and so they game the rules, shouting BLP to preclude any criticism. Let's sort all this out now. ThuranX (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Will you kindly cut it out, and not assume bad faith or drag me into this? This discussion is an administrator's ask for other eyes on a topic ban instituted on a disruptive editor. The ban was upheld, and that's that. Yet you're chastising me for my contributions elsewhere on this board. As one of the most frequent, vociferous, and goal-oriented ones on this board of late (you are directly advocating for topic bans, upholding or overturning administrative decisions, etc.), you should know that bringing legitimate behavioral concerns and requests for administrative help here, rather than fighting it out on the article page or talk page is what we're supposed to do. Positioning the Obama pages as a pro-Obama / anti-Obama battleground rather than an attempt to write the best encyclopedia article possible and avoid disruption to the article only takes things in a more contentious direction. Wikidemo (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the number of threads about the Obama pages lately, it's clear that it is a battleground, and that a wider solution is needed. Advocating for proactive attention before we run through the game of attrition is hardly a bad thing. Otherwise, we wind up with a farcical Obama page. Nothing gets done on that page, it takes an AN/I thread to see change, mostly because that results in someone getting banned or blocked, allowing the other side to run roughshod over whatever consensus or objections were raised. I'm simply trying to get the larger problem solved. But since everyone here would rather whitewash and cover up on that page, I'll just wait for the next AN/I and point out the gaming again and again each time it comes up. ThuranX (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we agree that there are serious issues with the editing on Obama pages which are not limited to Kossack4Truth. If I could make a suggestion: instead of waiting for the next thread, collect a handful of diffs and make a case about the editor, editors, or editing behaviors which you feel are contributing most to the problem. I am honestly interested in improving the editing environment surrounding this high-profile featured article - otherwise I wouldn't bother. As a second suggestion, I believe there's consensus for the topic ban at this point, and I think this thread is taking an unproductive turn toward back-and-forth personalized argumentation. Let's all step back from that aspect. MastCell ^Talk 17:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There is consensus for a topic ban in relation to Kossack4Truth, which he was notified of on 26 July 2008. Any actions on behalf of other disruptive editors at any Obama-related page should be dealt with in a new thread. There is nothing more that can be said in this particular thread that hasn't been rehashed here or at the prior threads regarding Kossack4Truth, and there is little to no hope that such a topic ban can be reversed based upon the comments given above. With that, I am suggesting that if you have an issue with another editor on Obama-related pages, bring it up in a separate thread. seicer | talk | contribs 18:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

the problem is that detaching EACH editor's behavior weakens each case, leaving a handful of 'nothing to see heres' which only come together if seen in context and as a whole, but I get the point. Shut up and love Obama. ThuranX (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The counterargument, of course, is that if each editor's defense is "but look what HE did!", then it quickly becomes impossible to sort anything out. Regardless of whether any other editor was misbehaving, Kossack4Truth's behavior was unacceptable, and hence a sanction warranted. Yes, long-term patterns of subtle abuse are difficult to present succinctly. But I would suggest that this establishes a precedent for dealing with disruption. That precedent can usefully be applied to other editors. I don't see how a topic ban for Kossack4Truth "weakens" the case against any other disruptive editor - in fact, I think a presentation that focuses on a specific disruptive user with a specific proposal on how to deal with them is the only way to proceed. Trying to sort out dozens of editors and problems all at once is a recipe for disaster. We need to deal with this in bite-sized chunks - if you'd like to present one, I'd honestly be quite receptive. MastCell ^Talk 18:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/FalconPunch2

I wonder if anyone would care to step in and examine Special:Contributions/FalconPunch2? The user has been involved in edit wars in the fairly recent past, but no warnings or actions were taken. At this point, all of his additions have been reverted as simply WP:OR or not WP:V. I've placed a note on the users talk page, and need to step back, and unfortunately there's no other place for me to bring this up. The 3RR notice board won't work, since I'm not risking an edit war myself, so we won't even get to that point. Advice? Intervention? Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Notify him of this ANi. Beam 03:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yngvarr, have you notified him of your personal complaints that you lobbied in front of this notice board? Beam 19:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Having had some involvement with the editor in question I have notified them of this discussion. Also would like to extend some concerns about Falcon's edits as some are POV pushing. treelo _radda 23:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't, but as Treelo says above, they've been notified. Since nobody seems too concerned one way or another (i.e., only Beam has replied to this ANI thread, the editor in question is quiescent at the moment, and nobody has approached either me or the editor on our respective talk pages), I'm guessing it's nothing to deal with. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I will take the time to look at the situation, I'm just a regular jerk, but I'll still give my recommendation. What action do you want to see? Beam 22:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

My query here was a rather generic can someone look into this, rather than any specific action, for a reason. Three people have raised their eyebrows over this editor, adding unsourced, controversial, and point-of-view material, and getting into involved in edit wars when their contribs are in question (reverted, or brought to the talk page). Since I'm emotionally involved with the subjects at hand, I wanted ask for a deteched person to examine this. That would be a routine review of the editors contribs, talk pages, and interactions with (and from) other users. Since my own messages have not elicited a response, maybe someone else can get some cooperation. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This guy does seem pretty focused on adding unsourced opinion and game guide fluff. He's already been warned for edit warring, though; I'm not seeing any additional actions that can be taken against this user at this time. He would likely benefit from finding a mentor; however, if he continues this behavior, I'd support a short block to get the message across. GlassCobra 22:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Give me a bit, and I'll give it some attention. Beam 22:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley and Lawrence Solomon

• Lawrence Solomon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Lawrence Solomon has criticized, in the press, the actions of User:William M. Connolley in regards to articles on the subject of global warming.[9][10] (The argument has echoed to other places, including the media blog of the American CBS network. Connelley Connolley has nonetheless continued to edit the biographical article on Solomon, despite being asked to leave it to others because of the obvious conflict of interest.[11] Request outside opinions. Kelly ^hi! 23:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - apparently a similar issue regarding this user has been discussed here before. Kelly ^hi! 23:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't spell my name. Have another go William M. Connolley (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I've moved the conversation here due to the possibility of damage to Wikipedia's reputation. We don't need overt battles with the press over ownership of critics' articles by the Wikipedians they are criticizing. I'm just looking for consensus that WMC shouldn't be the person editing Solomon's article. Kelly ^hi! 23:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the last few edits (and there are only a few in the last several weeks), and see no sign of problematic editing. In particular, with such a low number of edits the claim of "ownership" is absurd. Moreover, if we allow any journalist to simply get rid of critical voices on Wikipedia by writing an article on the critics, we will run into problems with WP:NPOV immediately. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, doesn't this open up the possibility of people who have articles about them being able to control, to a certain extent, who edits the article? Mr. X doesn't like what Editor Y has written about him, and would prefer Editor Z, so he criticizes Editor Y to the press and all of a sudden Editor Z's input is no longer balanced by Editor Y. Why Wikipedia want to hand over that kind of influence? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The edits that Connolley has made to that article so far seem fair and uncontroversial. As long as it stays that way there shouldn't be much of a problem. Lawrence Solomon may think differently about it, but that's up to him. Cla68 (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - By way of full disclosure I will point out up front that WMC and I have had our differences of opinion in the past which had become heated. Given that, I would merely point out the following:

• [12] and [13] have already been reverted, the first by me and the second by User:Oren0.
• My reversion of his first edit merely brought the Lawrence Solomon article into conformance with the The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud article where we had extensive discussion, [14], and had already worked out a consensus wording, [15].
• WMC's response was to try and start up the same discussion in the Lawrence Solomon article on the same issue as he had in the deniers article.
• I would hope that WMC would see fit to refrain from editing either of the above two articles given the criticism he has received in the press on this very topic, i.e. using the BLPs of his enemies as a forum. I would submit that whether or not that is even true, if he wishes to avoid even the hint of impropriety this particular BLP would be one to avoid for what should be obvious reasons, lest he prove that criticism correct.
• As you are all aware WMC has many friends and there are many editors who share his views in these areas. Those editors will be more than capable of defending those viewpoints without the obvious entanglements that WMC faces or the potential damage that might result to Wikipedia.

Take these observations for what they are worth and decide for yourself whether WMC is being controversial in his editing of these articles and whether he has a WP:COI in this case. --GoRight (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Having just reviewed WP:COI in some detail, the opening sentence provides a reasonable summary: "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." So, if we are to decide whether a WP:COI exists in this case the first question to answer would be, does WMC have any self interests with respect to editing the BLP for Solomon and/or The Deniers? I think that the allegation of WP:COI here boils done to the following:

1. Lawrence Solomon, rightly or wrongly, has publicly written about the conduct of WMC here at Wikipedia in a strongly negative manner, see [16].
2. It is, therefore, in WMC's own self-interest for Lawrence Solomon and his works to be discredited because this will cast doubt on his accusations regarding WMC.
3. WMC has on several occasions made disparaging remarks regarding Lawrence Solomon's credibility here on wikipedia, see [17], [18], [19], [20] as well as on his personal blog, see [21] and [22].

I will not offer any opinion here. I leave it to others to weigh this information accordingly and determine whether these issues and WMC's conduct rise to the level of WP:COI. --GoRight (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I will offer an opinion here. This is not a correct application of policy. What if someone notable makes a public statement abusing collectively everyone who edits Wikipedia: can none of us then edit their article? You propose anyone with a blog can CHOOSE who is eligible to edit the article about them just by attacking everyone else. Why don't we stop this sort of silly time waste and get on with what matters, like the vandalism problems etc.?--BozMo talk 06:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to your question: If I beat the shit out of him for his comments about us 'pedians than yes, I should not edit his article. Beam 19:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not weighing in one way or the other. I am only offering up evidence for consideration by others who can be more objective than myself. If this evidence amounts to nothing then simply ignore it.

On the narrow issue of this having an effect on Wikipedia's ability to offer objective criticism, if the criticism in question is only supportable by one individual (or a small handful) I would question whether that criticism belongs in the encyclopedia in the first place. At that point it begins to look very much like someone (or a small group) using the encyclopedia as a forum (basically Solomon's point) rather than it being truly objective criticism. The encyclopedia has many voices and we should rely on them all, not just a few. I very much doubt that those supporting the consensus view are so limited in number as to worry that the elimination of a single voice on a couple of pages is going to cripple their ability to offer criticism. They are, after all, the overwhelming majority as we keep hearing. --GoRight (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI is simply a guideline for editors who have just arrived at wikipedia, who are not yet familiar with the wiki rules who may have a conflict of interest to stick to, in order to make sure they don't violate the usual wiki rules like NPOV when editing wikipedia. If WMC is violating NPOV or does something else which is objectionable, then that should be discussed. WMC is, of course, a very experienced wiki editor, and WP:COI doesn't apply to him. Arguably, WP:COI is redundant and should be deleted. Most editors edit anonymously anyway... Count Iblis (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Count Iblis is correct that WP:COI does not apply, or, rather, that it does not apply directly. However, editors with very strong feelings about a topic are generally advised to exercise caution with regard to it. The situation which is raised by this report is a serious one, and there is an appearance, rather easily seen, of a cabal supporting Connolley. I am not claiming that there is a literal cabal, but it became clear to me when I came across Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight that there was a troubling pattern of what appeared to be tag-team reverts, uncivil edit summaries from the beginning, all the way up to improper blocking by an involved administrator. Attempts to bring this to the attention of involved administrators, on my part, were met with incivility and what I can only describe as arrogant dismissal. I have avoided, so far, forcing any issue, hoping that these editors will recognize the damage that is done to Wikipedia when a group of editors, and especially if it includes administrators, become attached to some POV as being NPOV, with any new editor with a contrary POV being, then, a "POV-pusher." NPOV, actually, is not in opposition to any POV, but transcends them; another way of putting it is that it includes them, though, because of WP:UNDUE, it isn't quite that simple. In any case, I'd highly recommend Connolley avoid editing, in way likely to appear controversial, articles on his critics! While it is not literally a COI, as described in WP:COI, it is, in substance, and it could come back to haunt him. --Abd (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The thing to look at is conduct. If he does anything, then deal with it, but until then, let it ride. WMC is generally a pretty cool guy, or at least he has been in my interactions with him. Jtrainor (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a pattern here of administrative abuse and a lack of consensus in Williams edits.

Based on past edit history, it will not be long before William starts blocking Lawerence as he has before, dozens and dozens of times.

What I can't figure out, is that other administrators get their admin friends block editors they are in edit wars with. I guess some admins can act with total, open impunity on wikipedia.

Lets be honest here, William has enough supporters who will back him up no matter what he does. Those supporters will tell say "let it ride", as above, and this dispute will be quickly forgotten, just like the dozens of others.

PS, please no admin threats on my talk page, lets keep the discussion here. Inclusionist (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, the fundamental problem is that articles on scientific topics are different in nature than articles on politics and require different rules. We have had bad experiences with uninvolved Admins protecting the Global Warming page until editing disputes were resolved.

By consensus we only allow peer reviewed articles as sources. If a few new editors come along arguing that this consensus violates wiki policies and start edit wars, the last thing you want to have is a neutral Admin who has no background in science, who sees this as a content dispute. It is far better to have Admins who are experts in the field like WMC and Raul to use their Admin tools to protect the integrity of the global warming articles.

It may be that this is a bad idea for politics articles, because there you usually have equally valid POVs. But in case of scientific articles the only valid POVs are what you can read in the peer reviewed scientific papers.

On the global warming page itself we don't have problems anymore, because everyone (including the few sceptics) has accepted the consensus and sticks to it. But there are related articles like the one about the book by Solomon, in which ridiculous claims are made. All that WMC has done is to make a few edits directly related to the topic. E.g. he wrote that some of the people Solomon calls scientists are not scientists. This is something that is verifiable. There is absolutely no conflict of interest here.

Conflict of interest can be potential problem. but not in this case. You can e.g. imagine that WMC and Solomon were rival scientist (working on some other topic than global warming on which there is no consensus), supporting different theories. Then you could imagine WMC writing negative things about a book written by Solomon in the wiki article about that topic, citing his own papers. Count Iblis (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The bulk of this comment is, of course, totally off topic and a distraction. You and WMC want to assert that certain people are not scientists yet you offer no WP:RS to WP:V that claim despite your assertion here that this is WP:V. If you have the sources to verify your claims then use them, otherwise the assertion is WP:OR. And if you wish to consider The Deniers to be a "science article" because it is related to global warming science then your sources have to be in peer reviewed journals by your own standards as articulated in your comment above.

We have already noted in the conversation on this topic that if WMC, as a notable person, wishes to level this particular assertion at the people he claims are not scientists, then let him do so and go through the process of having that published. Nothing is stopping him from doing so. And, if he successfully completes that process we will then have the WP:RS source required to WP:V the claim here in wikipedia which we can duly record as his opinion. Absent that, it remains unpublished WP:OR which, as a wikipedian, he is not allowed to introduce into the article. For some reason this basic point seems to escape those trying to assert the claim.

Regardless, this issue is not germane to whether or not WMC has a WP:COI. --GoRight (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Docmartincohen

I previously expressed concern over this user - my concern is, at this point, deepened - it appears to me that the sole or primary purpose of this user's editing Wikipedia is to promote his own work, and denigrate that of people he sees as his opponents. Since having his page '101' as a teaching method for Philosophy deleted, which was a promotional article for a book he wrote, he's been making numerous edits promoting his own work: [23], [24].

In addition, there have been serious problems with him seeming to crusade against other people in his field - tagging two articles as COI with little evidence, and maintaining a page that is seemingly slated for deletion as an attack page.

I'm not sure what to do here - as someone who nominated one of his pages for deletion and tried to courtesy blank the attack page, I feel too close to really step in, but I think somebody needs to. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The attack page has now been deleted per consensus, so that is now moot. With only the diffs provided, I don't see the actions as being self promotional but rather providing a basis on which to hang original research comments into the article - I am stretching the meaning of WP:OR to including material supported by off-Wiki (even if published) references that were created by the editor. As such I feel that the problem is more about introducing WP:OR to effect a bias in the POV, in so much that only Docmartincohen is presenting that viewpoint. Under those circumstances perhaps a request for comments should be attempted to see if there is any consensus for either the viewpoint or its supporting references. Once there is consensus it isn't, then it may be removed and any reverting be regarded as vandalism. At that point the services of a sysop may be required. That is my thinking, FWIW. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's an academic with reputable publications. It's not OR for him to add those - I've added references to my publications into articles that needed discussions of their academic coverage. But I have always been scrupulous about notifying relevant WikiProjects, making mention on the talk page, and clearly flagging my COI. This isn't OR, and it's explicitly not OR.

The difference between his actions and mine are that my contributions to Wikipedia span much more than that. The degree to which this user's edits have been to promote his own publications is problematic, and it is a COI problem much more than an OR problem - I suspect that his work is notable, and that there are areas where it should be discussed. But his involvement in the matter makes it harder, not easier, to figure out how to appropriately engage it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

While commenting that I am unfamiliar with both the subject and the schools of thought (sic), it still seems that the article involves value judgments which are sourced back to self authored references. It would be more appropriate for this editor to reference a comparable publication, if one exists. If one doesn't exist, then my point of the content being OR remains. I took the deletion of the article regarding his publication/theory as being evidence of no independent review establishing notability, but perhaps you could comment on that? However, it is apparent that this is something that a discussion on an Admin board is not going to resolve. I suggested that an RfC may be appropriate, but perhaps you might try for a third opinion instead? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I should declare an interest here. I'm Jeremy Stangroom. I'm the subject of many of the accusations of Docmartincohen. (I should say straight away that they are all absolutely false; I have no interest in my Wiki entry, and to be absolutely honest, not a lot of interest in Wiki. Sorry!) Anyway, I'm building a dossier of his activities because there's a good chance that I'll pursue legal action against him - though not, I should say, Wiki. If you want to get a sense of what's been going on then you should check out the activities of these users - some of them now blocked (note I am not saying that these are all the same people; that is up to other people to decide): Wikigiraffes, Dremeraldgibb, NoPointofView, Wikisquirrels. You might also be interested in IP ranges that begin: 86.220.*.* and 90.17.*.*. If you're really very keen then the User "Flash" on Wikipedia Review also makes for interesting reading. If you want to check some links out then these are worth looking at (just search on my name):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive447#Baggini_and_Stangroom:_The_problem_of_.27living_persons.27

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:90.62.211.186

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/VivianDarkbloom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HandThatFeeds

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Calton#Ophelia_Benson.2C_Jeremy_Stangroom.2C_Nick_Mallory.2C_VivianDarkbloom

I know people tend to think that there are two-sides to every story, that there's no smoke without fire. But actually in this case there is only one story: the accusations against me have not one iota of truth. Happily the evidence supports this proposition, and I also think that I have enough evidence to support a legal action. Thanks.

--Jeremy Stangroom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.75.237 (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Docmartincohen, Wikigiraffes, Dremeraldgibb, NoPointofView, Wikisquirrels all confirmed as sockpuppets and blocked accordingly. The users are a strong match per checkuser, and the consistent attack targets, and those of the associated IPs, make it an idiot certainty. Admins should expect this person not to quit any time soon, and to sigh, revert and block as needed. I would suggest IP blocks be kept to no more than 24 hours, though - David Gerard (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, how does someone get a doctorate in philosophy with spelling that bad? - David Gerard (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I resembel that remark. (Although my doctorate is in Mathematics. Now, a doctorate in Englist literature....) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

In some places and for some people (although I am not saying this is the case here), as long as the signature on the cheque or credit card slip matches the one on the piece of plastic... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Block review for User:Lenerd

Lenerd (talk · contribs) has been editing here for just about a month (with a single edit from one year ago) and has been indefinitely blocked for some minor mistakes, and without any warning. Confusion is understandable, since he did things such as blanking a number of categories from an article, [25] giving a user warning to the editor who reverted this, [26] and making the redirect Pig Empire. He has, however, explained all of these things, [27] [28] and none of them appear to be vandalism.

The first admin to review his unblock request does so pretty blindly, and doesn't even seem to look at his edit history or his unblock request. [29]. The user puts up another unblock request, around the time I was looking at the unblock request category. I leave a note for the original blocking admin User:Sandstein at User talk:Sandstein#User:Lenerd. In this time User:Ultraexactzz asks for a further explanation and Lenerd provides one.

Sandstein reviews, more discussion goes on, and to me it's pretty clear that this editor is not here to cause disruption and understands the basic gist of our rules. See User talk:Lenerd#You are indefinitely blocked for full discussion.

However, for some reason Sandstein has not unblocked this editor, whom shouldn't have been blocked like this in the first place.

So I'm bringing it here for review. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested to hear what others think. Lenerd is not your typical vandal, that much is clear; he has made productive (if generally automated) edits and mostly seems to be here with the intention to do good. However, he's engaged in blatantly disruptive conduct in a number of areas in a relatively short span of time, which is why I have blocked him for the reasons given on his talk page. I've made clear at the outset that I don't mean this to be an infinite block. I have stated that I will unblock him if he convinces me that he understands what he's done wrong and that he won't do it again. That has not happened so far. The gist of his responses on his talk page is that, while he may have been excessively zealous in some areas, in general he feels entitled to do as he pleases. I've also made clear at the outset that I won't object if another admin unblocks him if they feel that he is not or no longer a problem. But in that case, I would expect that admin to continue to watch his conduct and to intervene in the event of continued disruption.  Sandstein  06:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• I support an unblock, but only after Lenerd promises to strictly avoid disruptive editing, and familiarise him/herself with our copyright policy. Also, his TWINKLE access should be disabled for a long time due to[30], which is way too close to outright trolling. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 10:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Over-reaction. I've seen admins leave warnings like this to established users when frustrated. We have no evidence that this is actually an issue. He's been warned, so lets see how he does. -- Ned Scott 07:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• No objection to an unblock, here. I very specifically declined the second unblock request, because it looked like a double-post of the first one - repeatedly making the same request for unblock is forum-shopping-ish. I noted the decline as procedural, in order to avoid prejudicing a future request. I also asked for more detail on the edits that caused the block, as ntoed, and I'm reasonably satisfied with Lenerd's response. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I add, in reference to Sandstein's analysis, that a mentor for Lenerd might not be a bad idea. This sort of thing is indeed disruptive, and Lenerd needs to be aware of what is acceptable and what is not. Having an experienced user to assist with that would be of value, I think. I think it's a good block, but can be lifted under the conditions that Sandstein cites. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I also support an unblock. This user has been far from perfect but indef blocking an editor who seems to be acting in good faith without a single warning seems entirely like overkill to me. Oren0 (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

For the reasons outlined at the user's talk page, I do not believe that most of the edits I blocked the user for were done in good faith. Even if they were, they were still disruptive, and I think we should have some reassurance that the user does not intend to continue to disrupt Wikipedia if unblocked. As I said above, under these conditions, I'm not opposed to an unblock.  Sandstein  06:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

They were mildly disruptive, at best, and he wasn't warned before being blocked. I see no evidence of malicious intent, and it's obvious he understands you now. You're just asking him to jump through hoops at this point. -- Ned Scott 07:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am asking him to jump through hoops. The hoop I am asking him to jump through is labeled: "I understand that I did X, Y, and Z wrong. In the future, I will not do it again, but I will instead do A, B and C." That's because he still seems to think he's mostly done all right.  Sandstein  09:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I can understand the blocked user's frustration - ideally, the entire problem is that there is no prerequisite to read all policies and guidelines (indeed, some users are totally full-bottle on some, while totally clueless on the existence on others, even if it's been over a year since the user commenced editing on Wikipedia). For this reason, more education and counselling is needed when problems like this are spotted, preferrably prior to blocks. To that extent, I'm not comfortable with an indefinite block being imposed as a first resort.

More recently, the blocked user stated on his talk page, "I stand by my claim that I had done nothing wrong." This does nothing to indicate whether he will stop making those edits that are considered disruptive or will continue, and whether he actually does get it. (Ideally, this would be so much easier if Lenerd explicitly stated that he will stop making those problematic edits specified.) But one thing is certain; we've never forced users to make assurances unless (1) they want to be unblocked before their block expires, or unless (2) they've been blocked several times and still continue with the same misconduct (to the point they're blocked indefinitely). In this case, the block should've fallen in the first category, but currently, cannot expire (so there is no way of determining if the misconduct will stop). This is why I think we can give him the benefit of the doubt and the block should be changed to a definite period (like a week) - the user could then still be unblocked the usual way too. But if the problems continued, the next block being indefinite under the current terms (could legitimately fall under the second category due to the variety of issues) and would not not have any legitimate opposition, and there'd need to be a lot more education/counselling - even through mentoring. My view anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I could have issued warnings and/or limited blocks first, and that's what we ordinarily do. I chose to approach this problem editor differently because I believed that such an approach would not have been effective, and his conduct after the block appears to bear me out. However, I'll not involve myself further in this matter if Lenerd does not want to address the concerns raised by his conduct. As mentioned above, I'm fine with any administrator taking whatever action they deem necessary in this case, but I do expect that administrator to attend to any problems that may result from an unblock.  Sandstein  22:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It certainly does seem to be the only effective way of talking to the user and stopping him from making those edits, given that he maintains that he's done nothing wrong, despite counselling during the block to the contrary. To this extent, I can appreciate the action taken here, and therefore, the enthusiasm I have for pushing for modifying the block is quite limited. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• If you take a look at his most recent edits to his talkpage, he still refuses to admit that he did anything wrong. Until that happens, he should remain blocked, in my view. S. Dean Jameson 20:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Technically speaking, he didn't do anything wrong. If the only risk here is that he might give someone an accidental warning, then that's further proof that blocking here is entirely inappropriate. -- Ned Scott 09:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think he did much wrong. I feel it's a bad block based on reading the diffs in this thread. If there is something else I'm missing please illuminate me. I think he should be unblocked immediately. With a dose of Good Faith intevenously I feel he shouldn't have been blocked at all. Just some lessons about templates and reverting, even if you are right, should be given. Unblock asap, imo. Beam 21:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

  Check out the diffs Sandstein provided in his initial rationale for the block at Lenerd's talkpage. They may change your mind about Lenerd's "good faith" in this instance. S. Dean Jameson 02:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I did. Here's the rationale for the record. Yes all those edits suck in their own way, but with some intravenous faith, about 50cc, I think an informational warning or dialog would have been preferred. Beam 04:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, after reviewing the situation at hand, including some of this user's contributions, I'm dubious of his intentions. On one hand, he has made several good contributions and overall appears to want to help the encyclopedia. The removal of the categories, while indeed was not a constructive contribution, was probably done in good faith, or was simply a misunderstanding. However, after close examination of his contributions, I found a few that left me concerned. For instance, edits like these leave me to question what ultimately motivated him to do that - regardless, it wasn't acceptable. But one thing is clear, regardless of his intentions on Wikipedia, he should not have been indefinitely blocked without any form of warning. Therefore, I endorse an unblock on condition that we make sure he understands why his edits were wrong and with his assurance that he will not do it again (despite the appearance of denial for his wrongdoings, I believe it to be a misunderstanding - that should easily be cleared up, for better or for worse). Valtoras (talk) 07:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

We do not hold unblocks ransom for apologies. Jesus people, we should never block anyone for simply leaving a warning template alone. I've probably left someone a vandalism template in the heat of a dispute in my earlier days. Like I said above, if the only risk here is he might leave a mistaken warning on someone's talk page, we'll be able to deal with it. He's a little prideful, so you'll have to excuse him for not wanting to kiss your asses. -- Ned Scott 09:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not about an "apology" (at least not to me), it's about the user at least saying "I won't continue doing the things that caused me to get blocked." If you see that as asking for an apology, then that's what I'm doing. Blocks are used to prevent disruption. Lenerd not only doesn't admit what he did was wrong, he won't even say that he'll stop doing it if he's unblocked. He needs to stay blocked (to prevent disruption) until that happens. S. Dean Jameson 15:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: It looks like a lot of editors are falling into the trap of trying to figure out whether or not this user is contributing in good faith. As I understand it, editors can be blocked for disruption whether they are deliberately vandalising or unintentionally causing disruption. To me, it looks like vandalism at first, then after reading some of the talk page it seems that Lenerd felt justified, which leads me to conclude that this is all good faith disruption. Since blocks are preventative, lifting a block should correspond to some indication that the risk of disruption has lessened. Is there any sign of that? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Block review

I blocked Prisongangleader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a self-evident sockpuppet, likely user:Fredrick Day. This was based on the contribution history:

1. 10:57, July 22, 2008 (hist) (diff) N Young, Gifted and Talented Programme‎ (creating article)
2. 10:58, July 22, 2008 (hist) (diff) Young, Gifted and Talented Programme‎ (fixed cat)
3. 10:58, July 22, 2008 (hist) (diff) Young, Gifted and Talented Programme‎ (+ tags)
4. 10:59, July 22, 2008 (hist) (diff) N Talk:Young, Gifted and Talented Programme‎ ({{WikiProject Education|class= |importance=}}) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
5. 13:39, July 23, 2008 (hist) (diff) N User:Prisongangleader‎ (hi)
6. 13:39, July 23, 2008 (hist) (diff) N User talk:Prisongangleader‎ (hi)
7. 13:43, July 23, 2008 (hist) (diff) N User:Prisongangleader/monobook.js‎ (importScript('User:AzaToth/twinkle.js');) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
8. 13:44, July 23, 2008 (hist) (diff) Thor Halland‎ ({{subst:afd}}
9. 13:46, July 23, 2008 (hist) (diff) N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thor Halland‎ (fails wp:bio and about 100 other policies...)

Very obviously not a new user, then, and pitching straight in to AfDs with a brand-new account looks to me to be disruptive. Feel free to unblock if you think the main account has a legitimate reason for this sockpuppetry. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

One comment. this user seemed to require some help with malformed AfD requests. Unless this was a scheme designed to make us think this account was not a sock, I can't imagine Allemantando/KoC/fred day needing help putting an AfD together. Protonk (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Should be blocked based on username alone. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Without a warning and a chance to change it? Protonk (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• as an update, he's likely editing under Special:Contributions/87.114.2.150. wording is similar. WHOIS resolves to england but not the same ISP or region as fred day. Either way it is enough to submit an SSP. Guess I'll learn how to do that now. :) Protonk (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It might be worth just updating/adding a new request to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fredrick day. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be. The RFCU is here. I personally don't see sufficient evidence to open a RFCU on this user in connection to fred day, but that's me. Protonk (talk) 03:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

A little background:

It is important to note that User:Protonk is not exactly a uninvovled editor.

User:Protonk got involved with Prisongangleader when user Prisongangleader started to attack my changes/merges too Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron‎, which User:Protonk didn't support himself.

User:Protonk has been arguing against PGL's block since then.

Myself and other users have found several other socks, of the same editor:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Prisongangleader

Same:

1. use of the word "bent",
2. same knowledge of wikipedia policy,
3. same edit warring on Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron‎.

Keep in mind that User:87.114.2.150 two contributions:

(00:50, 27 July 2008) (00:47, 27 July 2008)

...were after User:Prisongangleader was indefinitely banned on (18:59, 26 July 2008),[31] so even if User:Prisongangleader is not User:Frederick day, User:87.114.2.150/User:Prisongangleader was still violating his indefinete block.

Inclusionist (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. I don't appreciate the insinuations you make here in the slightest. Protonk (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry is there anything factual incorrect here? I removed the mistake about you being an admin. Again, please respond here, not on my talk page Inclusionist (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. There are errors here. Since you've asked me to continue this on AN/I, I will do so, but I'm not happy about it. First, your continual vague insinuations about me and PGL are totally unwanted. You began them here, here resulted in a request (here) for you to stop these insinuations. Following this request you REPEATED these insinuations above (and elaborated upon them) here. When I asked you to retract these insinuations again you responded only by asking if there were factual inaccuracies. So I'll reply. first, it is an assumption of bad faith to treat my relationship with PGL as a collaborative one. Second, it is factually inaccurate to act as though I did not support the idea of a merger in ARS/WICO/AIW more generally. I assumed from the start (even helping to archive talk pages) that you had consensus to merge these pages and were acting in good faith. I even spent considerable effort messaging Reallyhick and Benjiboi to plead with them to treat you as a good faith editor, not a vandal. I commented in assent with PGL when he noted that merging member lists between projects might be unwise, especially member merges between AIW and ARS (not all ARS/WICU members are inclusionists). I further cautioned you against calling PGL a vandal and a stalker when he had vandalised nothing. Those are the facts. The insinuation on a very public page such as AN/I that I am in league with a blocked user is totally unacceptable. I'm asking for the last time. Please retract it. Protonk (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Protonk, is it not a fact that:

1. you have advised PGL several times how to handle his indefinete boot,
2. that you have argued in PGL's support in the checkuser,
3. that you asked the admin who booted him to retract the boot,
4. that you have been arguing for him here?
5. That I removed/retracted all of the comments against PGL you found offensive.
6. that you and PGL both were opposed to the merger.
7. that you are not an uninvolved editor in this dispute.

If will rewrite this section. But it goes both ways Protonk, if you want me to do what you ask, I ask for the same in return:

1. You gave me a warning for cutting and pasting a warning template which another editor put on my talk page and putting this warning template on his page, but refused to give the same editor a warning who originally gave me this warning template.
2. Don't post on my talk page again. I asked you nicely not to, and you did anyway.

I personally feel that your enforcement of wikipedia rules has been incredibly one sided. Inclusionist (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I see how it is going to be. Protonk (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

87.196.144.26 (talk · contribs) AKA 87.196.216.116 (talk · contribs)

87.196.144.26 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) The person using this IP is being really disruptive. S/he keeps making undiscussed genre changes on a lot of pages about pop singers and their albums. According to Realist2,this IP address has actually been doing this genre thing for months. This is really disruptive. If the IP has been "doing it for months",s/he has probaby been blocked before and they keep changing their IP. If this IP has been blocked before,please block it again. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to hear what he has to say. Of course, if someone feels that his editor is a lost cause, he can have his say using the unblock template. Beam 21:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems like the first step in proper bold/revert/discuss editing. If there is evidence of edit waring please bring it back here, but I don't see any blockable offenses through my cursory look at the edit history. Also be aware of WP:OWN. There is no rule that edits need to be cleared first. --Selket ^Talk 21:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Gee, another content dispute unnecessarily brought to ANI by this editor? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well,the IP is clearly being disruptive. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What the...? This IP still hasn't been blocked? What are you sysops waiting for,an invitation? XxJoshuaxX (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive, the IP had stopped editing half an hour before you made this thread, and hasn't edited since. And please watch your tone. –xeno (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well,if the IP starts being disruptive again,will s/he be blocked? XxJoshuaxX (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As someone mentioned above, changes to articles do not need to be discussed before hand. This flows from WP:BE BOLD. Just because the editor is an IP does not make his suggested changes to the articles any less worthy of being properly considered within the Bold, revert, discuss cycle. Since you only talked to him twice about it, I'd like to see some further discourse with them about it, but if they edit-war to put their changes through, then I could see them being blocked. –xeno (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Usually,changes don't need to be discussed,but genre changes always do. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say that? (sincere question, don't work in music much) –xeno (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well,I used to get reverted for making undiscussed genre changes,but when I discuss them,I never get reverted,so I assume it works like that for everyone. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
UPDATE: As I added to the title,this IP has changed their IP once again (to 87.196.216.116),and is making undiscussed genre changes to Good Girl Gone Bad again. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

← If it's not a guideline then I don't see how we can hold making seemingly good faith tweaks to genres over an IPs head as a blockable offense. I never really considered Rihanna to be "hip hop" either On further consideration, Jay-Z's parts of "Umbrella" could be considered hip-hop - nonetheless - talking with the IP should be your first step. –xeno (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

User:SLJCOAAATR 1

Myself and A Man in Black have been harassed by him for a while, due to conflicts at various talk pages. He also thinks we are both the same person (just because we edit the same places, and disagree with him). I've brought this up to an admin, here: User_talk:Xenocidic#User:SLJCOAAATR_1_causing_problems_still, which caused the admin to leave a note. The note didn't stop the user. See User_talk:SLJCOAAATR_1#Comment for more information. His user page here: User:SLJCOAAATR_1#Wiki_Friends.2FAllies_in_Editing, right by my name on his user page: "So totally AMIB's alt!". Also see: [32] for more proof Skeletal just seemingly ignored what the admin said. Other links (which were posted on the admin's talk page, before the admin left a note on his talk page), include: [33] and [34]. So besides the accustations, poor attitude, insults and bad faith, he talks about hacking people. I've tried talking to him a few times in the past, but he wont listen. I'm simply fed up with his behavior and his poor attitude. I've tried to ignore it, but he responds to just about every post I do with a rude comment or an accustation. When he's not doing that, he's posting on his friends talk pages with the same type of thing. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Fun stuff. I'm giving him a little warning and pointing him at WP:COOL. That should help, but a block isn't in order quite yet, I don't think (but I find I'm a bit soft with the blocking...). I might watchlist the page as well, but I think I'd need to expand how many changes it shows... Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 02:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm SLJ's friend, and the only reason why he's popping his lid is because AMIB's getting away with murder. If you look through the WT:WikiProject Video games archives on the talk page, you'll see him swearing his head off, also on the talk page of List of characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games), he swore to me when I was pointing out evidence that he didn't know that much about a group of articles and shouldn't have made major edits on something he doesn't know that much about. If anyone deserves blocking it's him. I'm not saying his edits were in "bad-faith", I'm saying he didn't know enough about the subject at hand. And why wasn't SLJ informed about this? If a user has a chance of getting blocked he has the right to try and explain himself/herself and prove himself/herself innocent. As for the case of suspected sock-puppetry, why can't he suspect that someone's a sock-puppet? Or are you saying it's bad to try and prove someone's going against Wikipedia policy?Fairfieldfencer FFF 12:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks to Xeno for directing me here!

Rob, once again, before trying to get rid of me (Which you keep denying) take a look at the full story. All you've done here, is try to build a puzzle with 10 out of 100 pieces, read a newspaper article that has white-out spilled over 5 out of 7 paragraphs, etc., etc., etc. And again, you've proven my point further. AMIB & Co. are allowed to editwar, swear/curse, be uncivil to users, etc. BUT, the second me, or anyone oppossing AMIB & Co. does, it's the end of the world. Some of you have even gone as far as pleading for help. As for my suspection of you being a sockpuppet of AMIB, sure, I don't have any proof that you are, but, I don't have proof that you aren't either. And the fact that you two never post anywhere near the same time period makes me all the more suspicious. Good day Rob, and read the full headline in the paper today. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 20:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You just need to calm down, instead of being so angry all the time just because we disagree with you and your friends. Yes, AMIB has sworn and done some edit warring. However, I haven't, so don't group me in with him (just because we both don't agree with you). Also, what is all this AMIB and co. about? I don't see anyone regularly disagreeing with you, except for myself and AMIB. Provide some evidence, otherwise it looks like you are overreacting on the matter. All I've done is disagree with you, and you got upset and had to drag it this far. I've dealt with your false accustations, uncivility, bad faith attitude long enough. As for the sockpuppet nonsense: there is a check user feature on Wikipedia. Ask someone to do it on me and him, I have nothing to hide. Once it's done, then you can stop that nonsense. Anyway, here is some new links that show his continued poor attitude: [35], [36] and [37]. The first is an accustation I'm lying, the second is him yelling at people and the third is another false accustation. Also note: Lifebaka posted a note on his talk page, which he obviously ignored. He hasn't changed his behavior, dispite the fact many people have told him to calm down, keep his cool and so on. Lastly, making a section here isn't about blocking. It's about getting help with a user and problem. So stop assuming I'm out to get you blocked, because that's far from the truth. I just want you to calm down, instead of harassing myself and AMIB, as well as anyone else that disagrees with you now (or in the future). All these garbage accustations and comments towards me need to stop. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Another link: [38], more nonsense. I have never once said I wanted him blocked, he is just assuming. I'm very sick of this. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

AMIB & Co. is simply what I call the group of people that are for the merging, as AMIB seems to be the leader. Sheesh. As for over-reacting? Lololololololololololololololol...Can't...stop...laughing!!! AHAHAHAHA!!! Rob, the only over-reacting here, is you. lol. Like I keep telling you, don't build the puzzle with only 1 tenth of the pieces. Before you suddenly came into action, AMIB was harrasing all of us, and using VERY foul laguage with us all, and whenever someone told him to relax, he only got more violent. When you came into play, he started playing the "Innocent little boy" act. If you don't believe me, I'll dig up some proof. So, seriously, Rob, relax, and find the missing pieces of the puzzle. K? Thx. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 00:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and, Rob, you should've told me about this, instead of letting an admin tell me. It's "uncivil" as you would say. :P Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 00:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the hacking, that has nothing to do with this. See Triple F's talk page, for more information on that. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 00:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A neutral hand to guide SLJetc. away from treating WP as a battleground might be nice. I am obviously not the right one for that job, for numerous reasons that should be apparent. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

More links of his rude behavior: [39] and [40]. Then there is this: [41], instead of responding to my comment, he just blanks most of his talk page. Then there is this: [42], more uncivil behavior. I think someone needs to mentor him, and let him know how policies work here. This isn't the place to just attack whoever you want. Stop spouting on about puzzle pieces. Whatever happened in the past, doesn't give you the right to be rude to me. I've disagreed with you, and agreed with a person you hate: that does NOT justify your attitude towards me. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've found it more than obvious that you're trying to get rid of me. Stop denying it. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 05:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Get over it. I want you to settle down and leave me the hell alone. This has nothing to do with getting you blocked. Either stop being paranoid about it, or LEAVE ME ALONE already. I'm not going to stop denying something I'm not even doing. I have every right to disagree with you about how articles are edited, you just wont accept it in a mature manner. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If he needs a mentor on how to keep his cool, I'd be happy to do that. But I'm not all that familiar with Wikipedia policies, just good mannered. All he needs to do is before typing, is just take a little think about what he's putting in and if it will get him in trouble or not. You are overreacting about Rob SLJ, and AMIB is no gang leader. Randomran supports the merge and he seems a pretty good guy. So what if these articles are merged? There's always the Sonic News Network. You could even copy all the info from Wikipedia and stick it there, so you've saved the articles.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Now he is resorting to abusive edit summaries: [43]. I would've put a template on his page, but I know it wouldn't have helped. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that he labels any user who does not completely agree with him as an "enemy" is a definite sign of immaturity on his part. Its friggin' Wikipedia, not World War III. Jonny2x4 (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Anna Quist (talk · contribs · logs) and The Anarchist International

Anarchist International was AfD'd to death and re-created more than once (similarly, but differently), and salted. (I was completely uninvolved, as far as I recall.) It recently popped up as The Anarchist International, which to me smells like a wrong title at best. It had already been userfied so I deleted it. I didn't salt it, and while I was writing my reasoning for deleting it, it was re-created. I don't have any strong feelings about it, and I have to say that everybody involved is being polite; there's no big drama (yet). Another unrelated admin should take a look. -- Hoary (talk) 08:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

HI. I recreated whilst trying to remove the CSD#G4. This appears to be a substantially different article from the AfD and may not be G4. WP:DRV does not apply. The original AfD is NOT CONTESTED. Instead the editor has tried to improve. I am also neutral (but I did CSD the last version). A number of experienced editors have been involved in guiding this editor (User:Delldot, User:Maxim). I think more discussion should take place. See the chat at User talk:Anna Quist. --triwbe (talk) 08:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflicted with the above) Interesting case here. Anarchist International, written by User:Anna Quist was deleted as unverifiable/possible hoax as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarchist International, and subsequently deleted twice more as a repost when she tried to reintroduce it. It was userfied to User:Anna Quist/Anarchist International where Anna partially rewrote it, adding many external links such that admin User:Maxim granted her permission to publish it, which she has at The Anarchist International. The article has a decided lack of claim to notability or reliable sources. A person using the same pseudonym was banned from Anarchism.net for trolling, and I strongly suspect our blocked editor User:74.208.16.12 to be the same individual behind the Anna Quist identity (cf. search for "ochlarchical").

In the meantime, Anna has been adding comments to anarchism-related articles with absurd claims about the following supposed groups: "The probaly largest anarchist organization in the world today is the Anarchist International", "The probably largest anarcha-feminist organization in the world is the Anarchafeminist International", "The probably larges green anarchist organization in the world is the The Green Anarchist International Association (GAIA) ", who all, strangely enough for such prominent organizations, all link to the same website. A possible explanation from the actual International Federation of Anarchists which Anna's group appears to impersonate is here (denial here). The picture that emerge is that this is a group of a handful of people who have been operating for decades now, inventing fronts for themselves to appear as a prominent organization, and spamming themselves everywhere in sight.

(Some optional additional context: "Nobel Peace Prize 2006 and Anarchy.no" and "anarchy.no" from Libcom.org;"Wow, you folks are amazing!", and "AI on Wikipedia"/"In case you've been wondering what the AI-lings have been up to" by our very own Zazaban (talk · contribs) on Anarchism.net. When the anarchist communists and anarcho-capitalists are in agreement, it really must be something.)

So what is to be done here? WP:AGF and take this to deletion review, with a caution to Anna to be more careful adding unreliably sourced content from a conflict of interest to articles? Or cut to the chase with a block? Disclaimer: I am a participant in the Anarchism task force and misguidedly tried to make sense of the Anarchist International article. Notifying Anna of this thread. Skomorokh 09:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think one more AfD should do the trick. Documenting all of this, and the past AfD's, and notifying the admins who have deleted or otherwise salted it, and anyone else who has a connection. Synergy 09:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As I have been posting on anarchism.net and if Anna Quist's behaviour on that forum is any indication on how she it(we on anarchism.net is not sure if Anna is actually a woman or even if it is only one individual posting under the login Anna Quist) will behave here. It will ignore any warnings and it will keep posting the same thing over and over no matter what. Per Bylund the owner of anarchism.net has a strong policy of not banning for any reason but was forced to ban Anna Quist for a week which didn't work in the end as other alleged Norwegian people such as Jorgen V. likewise allegedly involved in Anarchism International(though we think it is the same person or persons as in Anna Quist just on another account and computer) came and haunted the forum. I see no other remedy other than a block. If User:Anarcho-capitalism deserved to be banned(a solution that seem to have solved a lot of conflict). Anna Quist definitely deserves a block at first sight of distress. Lord Metroid (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we get some more input on this? The article is currently back at Anarchist International; should it go to AfD or DRV? I'll take Synergy's advice barring dissent. Skomorokh 13:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I have asked Anna if she would prefer the article to be speedily deleted #G7 so that she may try to improve it and recreate it later. A 2nd AfD, the other choice, if it gave a del decision, would be the final death of this article. Can we give her time to respond ? --triwbe (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, but I would like to see some action against her other behaviour, specifically copypasting heaps of text in irrelevant locations (see the section immediately below this, WP:ATF), and the obvious falsehoods she has introduced about the supposedly most popular anarcho-whatever groups as shown above. I think we need to ask whether she is an asset to the project as things stand. Skomorokh 14:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I moved The Anarchist International to the very salty title Anarchist International, because I'm sure that if the article is to exist the latter is the right title for it. (I tried to say this earlier but couldn't get a connection to WP.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is no response to the CSD/AfD question in 24 hours I will ask for CSD so that Anna can have another chance and save it from a risky AfD. --triwbe (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. It's being torn to shreds in the mainspace. Skomorokh 18:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Enough time has already been wasted on this. I don't think that the article should have been allowed to reemerge; but since it was allowed to do so, let it go to AfD again, and sooner rather than later. -- Hoary (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

And off to AfD it has gone. -- Hoary (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The so called "anorg-warning" is entirely false

The reason for the deletion of the first AI-wiki-page was the so called "anorg-warning": This document is entirely false, quoting from my talk pags: "[edit] Anarchist International Anarchist International (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log) De-prodded, posting on behalf of Zazaban. Prod summary was "Per WP:HOAX; http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/anorg-warning.html and WP:NOTABILITY, WP:OR" delldot talk 02:01, 28 June 2008

The http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/anorg-warning.html is a total hoax, the stuff on this link is about 100% rejected and turned down at " The so called "Anorg-warnig is false" at http://www.anarchy.no/anorgwarning.html . (Anna Quist (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)) (UTC)

Strong Delete Per above. There is strong reason to believe this organization consists of only User:Anna Quist and at most 2 or 3 others. No evidence has ever been offered up of otherwise. Zazaban (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC) delete in favor or anarchy, lets delete it!Myheartinchile (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Strong Delete: No verifiable evidence of the existence, let alone notability of AI. Significant amounts of the material on the anarchy.no site have been shown to be plagiarized, and other material simply copied from Wikipedia itself. Libertatia (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Vanity/COI issues as well. History page shows that two primary editors are self-proclaimed members of the "International." Libertatia (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC) This is also false and rejected and turned down at " The so called "Anorg-warnig is false" at http://www.anarchy.no/anorgwarning.html .(Anna Quist (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC))"

---

If you have any questions about AI I will answer

(Anna Quist (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC))

Problematic user Rjecina

• User:Rjecina seems to be engaged in problematic behaviour for quite a while - persistant habit of personal attacks against other editors, edit warring, deletion of referenced material, removal of warning tags related to this, repeated personal attacks and disqualifications of other editors in edit summaries, refusal to talk to other editors etc. Could someone please try to cool him down and make him follow the basic wikipedia rules. Joka (talk) 11:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Evidence, please. Also note that this user has few, if any, edits, and that User:Rjecina has a recent history of being stalked by brand-new accounts. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina has in particular made offensive remarks against me (calling me "nationalistic editor", "nationalistic SPA account" etc. He repeatedly removed my warnings (related to these remarks, and also related to removal of valid referes) [44], [45]. He repeatedly removes valid references, in particular, article Srbosjek that has been nominated for deletion (he has asked User:DIREKTOR to nominate the article as evident from their talk page, but this user has honourably admited that returned references are valid and prove the item existed; similar thing happens in article Miroslav Filipović‎ and Petar Brzica - for instance, he puts misleading information in edit summaries, saying that only english language references are valid [46], and keeps removing valid references despite being warned of the wikipedia policies (and srbosjek article has been kept since references provided have been deemed credible by wikipedia comunity; similarly, DIREKTOR has refused to follow him in other articles in which he is edit warring despite the references provided). He seems to be thinking every one user who is restoring the references is one user who he is obsessed with; that he is engaged in edit war with some users (like User:J. A. Comment who he has slandered claiming he is a banned user), some of whom might also be problematic, is certainly no excuse for this incivil behavior. I have not been editing wikipedia since last year when I put references to Srbosjek, and recent deletion proposal has drawn my attention to this again - I am certainly not a new user, as I have edited wikipedia occasionaly since 2003 (I have added some photos that are now deleted and described them, and was more active in the past as evident from my talk page); in any case, no editor should be exposed to personal attacks, slander, accusations, and referenced material should not be removed like that. Joka (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

My two red cents - from [47] you can see this

Also, his harassment of other users is already noticed by an administrator and proper warning is given here [48],[49] which reads:

You, however, Rjecina, are very clearly engaging in a campaign of harassment in order to get as many opposing editors blocked as possible. You're apparently even keeping a list of trophies ([50]). I'll wait for comments from others here, but I'm seriously considering handing out some fresh sanction under WP:ARBMAC against you at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, see from the archive where Rjecina was harrasing others - baselessly claiming that the others are someone's sock-puppets:

• Procrustes_the_clown: [51], Marechiel, Votec: [52], Mike Babic: [53]

[54],

Removal of references and complete contributions without any explanation, or on baseless accusiations that these contributions were made by banned users:

• Srbosjek: [55], Ljubo Milos: [56], Miroslav Filipovic: [57], Petar Brzica: [58]

--66.217.131.99 (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: two IPs added the previous comment: this is the first IP's only edit on Wikipedia, the second IP deleting the first one's signature has one more edit from 2006.

Also note: in the case of Mike Babic see the diff:

Probably unnecessary, case is obvious. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

which is also confirmed by another admin.

So please check the diffs above. Squash Racket (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is the same anon user, who is editing from dynamic IP; I have noticed that user in the 66.xxxxx range is one of the people who Rjecina is warring with so my guess is that it is that person; certainly, there are a few users that Rjecina has been harassing for a while; I only got involved in this after noting that srbosjek is up for deletion again, and got attacked by Rjecina - his issues with other editors should not be excuse for attacking me or anyone indeed, and comments from people who he was edit warring with for quite a while before are indeed helpful here; my strongest objection is to removal of warnings and personal attack-type edit sumaries, that I have experienced, but certainly Rjecina issues go much deeper. Disruptive behaviour like that seems to go against anyone who disagrees with his removals of sourced material. Joka (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me see.... User Joka has not edit Wikipedia 11 months (his edits in Template:The Holocaust are reverted with RFC). After all that time he is going to wikipedia to start deletion discussion and shortly after that to harass me and other users from Croatia (user DIREKTOR [59] and Jesuislafete [60]). It is funny that this nationalistic SPA account is deleting article where every statement is confirmed by source [61] and then write vandal warning on other users talk pages because of sources deletion [62] (can this be called NPOV ?)!!!!

My question about deletion discussion is how this user has discovered discussion ?? I am ulmost 100 % sure that he is puppet but we need evidence...

Only reason why I have not asked banning of this user like other harass accounts which are attacking my edits from 9 July ( PravdaRuss and his puppets) is that user Joka is old nationalistic SPA account. Now this mistake can be changed.... Only edits of this account in all 2008 are revert of my edits and warning on my talk page and talk pages of users which support me against his attacks--Rjecina (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Taekwondo and JJL

Unresolved

 – Someone familiar with the subject needs to take a look at this. –xeno (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A rather difficult situation has been playing out on the Talk:Taekwondo page over recent months, and I'd welcome administrators' comments on how best to proceed:

Context: The Taekwondo article has a history section in which theories concerning the martial art's origin are cited: that taekwondo is of Korean origin, that it's of Japanese origin, and that its origins are a mingling of influences. Edit wars and protracted debates have focused on this section, with the two extreme positions being represented by User:JJL and User:Manacpowers. JJL asserts that taekwondo is essentially Japanese karate and that no reliable sources say otherwise; Manacpowers asserts that taekwondo is Korean, and that sources support that.

Problem: Gaming the system. While neither have comported themselves well, JJL has been particularly disruptive by questioning the appropriateness and reliability of nearly every source that presents the Korean position. This usually takes the form of asserting that the source doesn't meet WP:RS[63], doesn't satisfy WP:NPOV, that its author is unqualified or biased[64][65], or that its inclusion is inappropriate under a host of Wikipedia guidelines (WP:UNDUE, WP:SOURCES, WP:NONENG, etc.), sometimes a bit rudely.[66][67] While raising questions is fine, the volume and intensity of such questions (and the effort required to respond to them) has ground productive editing nearly to halt and to me suggests an effort to game the system.

I, User:Omnedon, User:Nate1481 and other editors have sought compromise and have tried our best to accommodate JJL and to address the points he raises. The position JJL supports is presented neutrally in the page along with the others and is backed by reliable sources, some of which I researched and added myself. However, he won't stop debating and seems to have as his goal the preferred placement of the Japanese view[68] above the opposing "myth".[69] I'm happy to do anything I can to ensure a fair and well-cited presentation, but months of discussion and two attempts at mediation have so far been fruitless, and he seems no closer now to acknowledging opposing theories than when we began.

What is an appropriate step at this point? I welcome any assistance! Thanks, Huwmanbeing ☀★ 14:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid things are now turning a bit hostile, with JJL trying to characterize me as a belligerent. (The latest is in this thread.) Things are certainly spiraling and I'm at a loss to know how to proceed! Thanks, Huwmanbeing ☀★ 20:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Heather Mills article

Does every section need this? [70]. Does my head in just looking at the first two <!-- Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia - do not delete referenced sentences --> and <!-- This aricle is up for a GA review - please respect that --> . Bidgee (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

seems like something best brought up at Talk:Heather Mills. –xeno (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Hopefully this will be discussed on the article talk page but meanwhile I've removed the hidden messages as clever, good faith GA spam. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

They were reverted back in. I took them out again. Twice. That someone would think this was appropriate, let alone necessary, is a bit depressing. Nandesuka (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I gave up after one try. Anything I could think of to say about it seemed too shrill. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any guideline anywhere on Wikipedia about when hidden text should or should not be used? I see it in lots of different articles. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Not that I know of but come to think of it, I think there's something to draw from in WP:OWN. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Large amount of Rangeblocks by Raul654

I have notified Raul654 (talk · contribs) and two other checkusers about this thread. I didn't contact him first because frankly I didn't think it would do much good, as I've expressed concerns about blocking patterns by Raul.

Raul has been blocking a simply ghastly amount of IPs in order to try to snuff out blocked Scibaby (talk · contribs). I've already expressed concern before that Raul is misusing his administrator tools with people he has a content dispute with (the thread was duly ignored: please note this does not include Scibaby, a sockpuppeteer). However, this blocking is simply above the pale; I don't have a checkuser tool, but I do see the several requests for unblock-auto affected by this every day, and I do have an IP range contribution tool which shows other editors on most of these ranges.

Range blocks include: /16:

1. 72.254.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
2. 207.67.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
3. 72.62.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
4. 68.27.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
5. 72.61.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
6. 198.172.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB after same block overturned by another checkuser
7. 128.241.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB after same block overturned by another checkuser
8. 72.58.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
9. 70.6.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB after same block overturned by another checkuser
10. 205.212.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB, overturned by another checkuser.
11. 99.204.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
12. 99.203.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
13. 99.200.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
14. 66.215.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB, overturned by Raul.
15. 68.26.0.0/16 - 1 year AO ACB
16. 207.195.128.0/17 - 1 year AO ACB, overturned by another checkuser.
17. 66.215.64.0/18 - 1 year, AO ACB, ACB overturned.
18. 207.195.224.0/19 - 1 year ACB
19. 209.59.48.0/20 - 1 year AO ACB, overturned by another checkuser.
20. 99.204.37.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
21. 72.62.103.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
22. 68.27.123.0/24 - 1 year ACB
23. 205.212.78.0/24 - 1 year ACB
24. 128.241.109.0/24 - 1 year ACB
25. 71.196.216.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
26. 209.59.44.0/24 - 1 year ACB
27. 64.215.225.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
28. 207.67.151.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
29. 209.59.56.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
30. 207.195.244.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
31. 130.94.134.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB
32. 128.241.107.0/24 - 1 year AO ACB

This is a lot of IP addresses, and it only includes the ones designed to get Scibaby (there are others that have been problems, such as 213.249.0.0/16 - 1 year, overturned by the Office).

I believe these IP ranges should be unblocked. WP:RBI works best when dealing with one banned editor, not hard blocking over a million IP addresses. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Concur This is quite a large block. I like to hear from Raul, but absent any comments, I think these should be removed. This is something not even IP block exemption can scale to relieve, at least that was not the intent of the policy when I proposed it. Yeah, these blocks need looked at. As an aside, Raul does some good work on the project. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• Addendum to above: All this for one sockpuppet? NonvocalScream (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• Too much collateral damage, methinks. –xeno (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This is an impressive ammount of ranges, how come this was done for Scibaby AKA Obedium, when it hasn't been done for the puppeters with 200+ registered accounts and countless IP addresses? - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Curious, what was the original block reason? –xeno (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have brought this kind of thing up before (as can be seen from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive399#Improper_block). From what I can tell, User:Obedium - sockmaster- was blocked because Raul determined he was POV pushing on a global warming article and blocked him (the only people Raul ever blocks are people who POV push against global warming and for intelligent design). The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems the answer to my question is: "Scibaby was community banned for using massive numbers of sockpuppets to push POV." –xeno (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently I missed that in the block log. But I thought this was obvious given the nature of the case :). The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It was a quote from that thread you linked me to. –xeno (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Raul tends to prefer a ridiculous "shoot-first-ask-questions-later" approach, and apparently is intolerant of any criticism of it. Just a heads-up; I've had a run-in with him in the past over a similar issue. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not the first time I ran into Raul's enthusiastic range blocking; and I see their effects at regular interval on unblock-l— there is such a thing as unacceptable collateral damage, and I think this has crossed that line. I would hope Raul would acknowledge the fact that he may have been a little overzealous and that he might want to ease up on the /16 blocks a bit. — Coren ^(talk) 22:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

He won't, although he should. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Solutions

For this particular instance, is there a consensus, or can we discuss unblocking these specific ranges? NonvocalScream (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

We need to wait to hear from Raul what the reason for the blocks are. Some time ago when he detected increased scibaby activity he protected all the Global warming related articles. So, perhaps something similar is going on and he has tried a different tactic.

This is necessary to prevent the editors at Global Warming page from wasting their time reverting an Armada of scibaby socks. When that happens their editing pattern betray them and they are banned without doing a checkuser per WP:DUCK, and WP:Waste of Time as happened to User:Shenstar :) Count Iblis (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that we could be turning away potentially valuable contributors with these rangeblocks, as evidenced by the numerous unblock-auto requests that come through. It seems we're making a trade-off of user time spent protecting a small set of articles and potentially losing valuable contributions to a larger set. –xeno (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

While some banned users are real pests and require drastic action to keep them off of the project, I wonder if these blocks are the best way. In my experience, banned users who have access to many IPs usually stop using an IP after it's been blocked, even if only for a short time. Unless he keeps returning to the same ranges perhaps shorter blocks would serve the same purpose while signifciantly reducing the collateral damage. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

A wonderful solution would be to desysop Raul. Unlike Bedford, Raul actually did something wrong--and so the community (and only the community) should endorse desysopping him. He's caused way too many problems. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, he is only causing problems for the global warming denial propagandists. Anyway, this is the previous case and my proposed solution, which admittedly is not so easy to implement. Count Iblis (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

And the unfortunate souls who happen to use ISPs that are allocated IP addresses in that same range and who would like to contribute. Why do you refuse to acknowledge this? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't they just ask for the block to be overturned? In these cases one could allow them to create an acount and then notify Raul about that created account so that the new editor can be monitored to see if it is not Scibaby slipping through the net. Count Iblis (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a lot of hoops to make a potential good faith contributor jump through. I would gather a good number of them say "sod it" and are lost forever. That proposed solution sounds like it could benefit from the stable revision enhancement. –xeno (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Raul's Response?

Has anyone been able to contact him? Has he made edits since being notified, is he ignoring this? Email? Does anyone know his usual log on time? I think there shouldn't be any mass revet action taken until we hear from him. Unless he's ignoring this, than I say some further discussion is warranted immediately. Beam 01:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

He most certainly has edited since; his last was just over an hour ago. I was looking at this earlier. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Raul doesn't usually edit wikipedia on Sunday. Count Iblis (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Tile join blocks

Just a note that Raul has also blocked large ranges of UK dynamic IPs when it would be simpler to just protect the articles that this one attacks. There are swathes of the most popular IPs blocked for 1 year, including BT, Tiscali and Sky. The thing is that even these rangeblocks are completely pointless, because short of blocking the entire ISP (tens of millions of addresses in some of these cases), one can just reboot the router and end up with a completely different IP anyway. I am on BT and my IP bounces between absolutely dozens of /16 blocks every time I switch off my PC and router. Examples;

• 81.153.64.0/18 (BT)
• 79.76.0.0/17 (Tiscali)
• 90.200.0.0/16 (Sky)

Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Half-cocked

Let's not go off half-cocked here. I just handled an unblock request from 207.195.224.0/19. There were only about 8 active IPs on that range, so I took a closer look. That range is owned by a hosting company. Hosting companies frequently host misconfigured web servers that act as open proxies and many hosting companies don't give a flying fig about the security position of their clients. Every IP on that range that has recent edits is an anonymous proxy, so I've reblocked the range with a different reason. Anyone who unblocks Raul's blocks without a damn thorough check and who thereby enables vandalism or socking is going to get a personal trout slap from me. Thatcher 01:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Raul's reply

First, I'd like to start this out by noting that The Evil Spartan has a history of making false and/or misleading statements about my actions, based on either ignorance or a distorted understanding of them. He has apparently chosen to continue this trend here. Above, he says that Obedium was the sockpuppet master, and that I blocked him because I disagreed with him. This is false on several counts - Scibaby was the sockmaster - he was the first one discovered, based on a checkuser request , and was blocked by William M. Connelley. I had nothing to do with that particular block. Months later, I did block Obedium for vandalism, and a few days thereafter (following some checkuser queries) I changed the block reason to include being a scibaby sockpuppet. All of this is available in the Scibaby and Obedium block logs - had Evil Spartan bothered to check them. Apparently these thing are "obvious" to him, the actual facts of the case not withstanding. It's not the first time he's leveled that particular false claim either.

Now, about the range blocks -- The Spartan suggests that we Revert-Block-Ignore Scibaby's misbehavior. There are several problems with this approach - first, that it demonstrably doesn't work. He simply creates new accounts and comes back. It's been almost a year since he was first caught and blocked, but several hundred socks later, he shows no signs of stopping. The only method that has proven even half effective is to prevent him from registering new accounts. Second, constantly dealing with Scibaby's nonsense burns out the people who actually have to clean up the damage (Raymond Arrit quit over it). I'm sure it's easy for Evil Spartan to suggest that people RBI, given that he hasn't actually done a scintilla of work dealing with Scibaby. Those who do edit these articles, however, are quite clear in their desire to keep them Scibaby free. He wastes a great deal of time and effort from other contributors that could be better spent writing articles. Third, the ranges do not affect anyone with an account. People who do not have accounts can contact unblock-en-l and ask for one. Fourth, the ranges above were not blocked willy-nilly. I avoid blocking highly active ranges - if a /16 is active, I block the /24. Thatcher has already noted this elsewhere in this thread.

To reply to Will Beback - I started instituting year-long range blocks in place in or around February. (After shorter ones failed to stop Scibaby) He still hasn't stopped. Therefore, if after 6 months of consistent range blocks he's still coming back, it stands to reason that shorter blocks will not stop him either.

And lastly - I'm not even going to get into how ludicrous Kurt's comments are. Anyone who's seen his participation elsewhere on Wikipedia should have a pretty good idea of the soundness of his judgment. But to rebut one thing he said, he claimed (falsely) that I edited an hour before he did - several hours after I got Spartan's notice on my talk page. Apparently Kurt has issues reading dates and times. My last edit prior to this one was a full 20 hours before I got The Spartan's note on my talk page, not (as Kurt said) an hour before his edit at 01:32, 28 July 2008. Raul654 (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• There are several hardblocks, could they be tweaked to anon-only? –xeno (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Use of carefully applied, anon-only range blocks to help control this level of disruption is fully justified. Volunteer burn-out is a serious issue when dealing with serial sockpuppeteers, and it's dismaying to see those who aren't actually dealing with the sockpuppeter giving back-seat advice on what would actually work to those who are dealing with it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If the options are spend all our time cleaning up after jerks, or just quitting and doing better things with our time, because we can't take serious measures to stop said jerks, I think it's obvious what most people will be doing. ThuranX (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Based on Rauls experience, and vested nature into the project, I'm inclined to give Raul the benefit here. The rationale sure makes sense. I apologize Raul. Continue the work you do. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think that the fact that people/IPs can request to be unblocked is enough to determine that this did not belong on AN/I, as this is a topic that does not deserve to have anyone waste their time on, let alone should Raul, with his constant dedication and experience here, be questioned in such a strange way. Can't this be closed and killed already? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Have the hardblocks been tweaked yet? –xeno (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone is requesting unblock for any of those IPs to create an account, why would it matter? Wikipedia acts preventively, and so far this has been effectively preventive. Your concern seems unwarranted and would not stop the socks from being created. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

People are requesting unblocks from those IP ranges. Tweaking the blocks to anon-only would stop us having to create a new account and hand it IP block exempt at the same time. –xeno (talk) 11:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"People are requesting unblocks from those IP ranges. " Then that shows that they are perfectly capable of doing so, and the system works. Therefore, you have no argument and your complaint is moot. Please strike accordingly. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond, Raul. — Coren ^(talk) 03:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You guys are missing the point. It isn't that an ip couldn't request an unblock, it's that an actual new editor, the most valuable resource in all of the lands of the 'pedai we hold so dear, might not know what a template is, or even where the { symbol is on their keybaord. And when they realize they are actually blocked, they're already gone. Beam 04:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it's turning away new editors. As an editor whose ip (from one of the places I regularly edit from) falls into one of the blocked scibaby ranges, I can attest to the fact that I'm unaffected by the block once I log in. I'm not aware of what particular disruption scibaby has caused, but I do know that a disruptive sock farmer can cause frustration enough to inspire an exodus of existing volunteers, so it makes sense to take aggressive measures to halt the disruption in order to not lose valuable editors. There's enough information on the block message that comes up for a potential new editor who hasn't created an account yet to contact the blocking admin to ask for help to proceed--I know there was enough info for me to email Raul the first time I got hit with the scibaby block message just to let him know the block was hitting a regular editor's ip. I don't see any real negative effects caused by these blocks, especially if it's effective in stopping the disruption. --MPerel 05:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I support Raul's range blocks, and I want to note for the record that Raymond Arrit isn't the only editor who has been damaged by scibaby. For some strange reason that I have yet to figure out, an administrator named Madman decided to block me for 48 hours for helping to revert the damage caused by one of scibaby's accounts in September 2007. [71] Madman claimed that I had violated the 3RR (no such violation occurred), was being disruptive (helping to revert SPA is not disruptive), and that I was edit warring (edit warring with a banned user?). NonvocalScream (then called "Navou") and Nishkid64 supported the block. It would be nice if administrators would actually do their homework before using the tools. Blocking the correct account is somewhat important here. Viriditas (talk) 06:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Your editing was disruptive, lets not get twisted over 2RR versus 3RR. :| NonvocalScream (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing disruptive about reverting a scibaby account in September 2007, and there continues to be nothing disruptive about reverting their edits now. It appears that you don't understand the word "disruptive" as it used on Wikipedia, and I suggest you actually read WP:DISRUPT. You supported a bad block, and sadly enough, you have not learned from your mistake. If you are at all interested in correcting your error, you are welcome to take a look at this page and scroll down to 02:31, 25 September 2007 and below. It's pretty clear who is being disruptive here, and it's not me. Amazingly, User:Obedium was allowed to continue to edit until 28 November 2007 when he should have been blocked in September. Instead, you chose to support blocking me. Viriditas (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was a ridiculously inappropriate block, I remember that now. All the more reason to be aggressive blocking abusive SPAs. The collateral damage to a highly productive top 100 editor like Viriditas is case in point that an SPA permitted to run amok is far more damaging to existing editors than an ip block that might possibly discourage a potential new account in the SPA's ip range. --MPerel 14:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It makes no sense to me. It doesn't appear the blocks are working, since Raul deems it necessary to continue blocking vast numbers of IP addresses. If Scibaby continues indefinitely, does that mean ranges will continue to be blocked as a consequence, obstructing and potentially deterring other users from participation? Isn't there a certain point at which the collateral damage exceeds what is acceptable in attempting to prevent one person from making easily-reverted POV edits? Also, has semi-protection been tried? Wouldn't that be a much simpler solution? Everyking (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, Scibaby creates multiple accounts at staggered intervals, so any attempt at SP results in a sleeper account coming out of the sock drawer. He recently attempted to do this with his last account, and he did it in full view while registered from another account. This is what sets him apart from other accounts; take a look at some examples where he creates one account after another: [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], and many more. Take a look at this one where he uses one account to create two. It's easy to break the the day/edit threshold by creating a new account every x days and making y number of edits. The solution is to block on sight, and since the modus operandi is obvious (same type of edits, almost no use of talk pages), this should be easy. Viriditas (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Raul is blocking dynamically handed out IP ranges making them ineffective

More than one person has pointed out on Raul's talk page that he is blocking some small portion of Sprint Mobile Broadband's dynamically handed out IP range.

His blocks there are as simple to get around as clicking "Stop" and clicking "Go" to the Sprint broadband application.

So his blocks there do NOTHING to stop scibaby, and do LOTS to stop less sophisticated editors that don't realize Raul's tantrum is ineffective.

Raul should either a) Block ALL of Sprint Mobile Broadband because NO effort to stop scibaby is too great, or b) unblock ALL of Sprint Mobile Broadband because a block that harms users and doesn't harm scibaby is a worthless and harmful and ugly thing to behold.

Raul has been told all of this repeatedly by more than one user on his talk page, and invariably he deletes the discussion.

Raul should be desysopped at the very least. I personally think he should be banned.

Yours truly,

70.1.16.129 (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Me again, on a different IP. Note the timestamp. I had to cycle through two IPs, that is, two clicks on the Stop/Go button to get a working IP.

Now, personally I think most wikipedian administrators smell like ass. But if at one point in your life you weren't bullies, then you would also consider why your IP blocks or Raul's IP blocks are for a year at a time. Most of you smell like ass. Raul is an ass.

70.7.28.51 (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"...invariably he deletes the discussion" ROFLMAO!  :) Count Iblis (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"Hagger"

I randomly chose to browse Wikipedia by different languages and noticed that Tigrinya (spoken by Eritreans and northern Ethiopians) was on the list. As I have an interest in languages that developed alongside with Coptic, Greek, and Ethiopic, I decided to check it out.

I saw that the main page said "HAGGER" at the top, and that sort of freaked me out, because User:Grawp, who has a sort of obsession with typing "hagger" and using socks, sent me an email filled with disturbing spam, and prompted me to email an alert User:B, the guy who blocked Grawp from emailing others. I was also surprised because main page in other languages can be edited anonymously.

...It turns out that it was a single revision made by an anonymous edit authored by 67.83.35.73—here's the diff page.

In fact, in that page, the screen is still covered by the edit, so better yet, here's the history.

What makes the whole thing even worse is that it took six hours for someone to spot it, and it just happened to by myself.

Now I really think there should be some sort of common protection for different languages—something that covers vulnerable pages like George W. Bush, the main page, and so forth.

...does anyone know how connected these languages are and how they are currently regulated??? Also, is there a way to intercede in such matters in different language versions? ~ Troy (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Other language Wikipedias are common targets for them as security and response time increases here. I believe there is, or was, a discussion regarding global sysops ongoing, which would speak to the issue of under-represented other-language projects. –xeno (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but why the heck can someone edit the main page? I've never heard of it. One other question: when you say that there was a discussion, what would be the conclusion on that? Regards, ~ Troy (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Poorly configured, I suppose. See: meta:Metapub/Archives/2008-07#Global_sysops_.28poll.29_.28closed.29 - The results of the poll are yet to be announced. –xeno (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a dead link to me. ~ Troy (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC) :/

Try again, or this direct link. –xeno (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

About editing the main page -- some wikis don't have full protection on the main page or don't have the full protection cascaded --> the az.wikipedia's main page got hit by Grawp a couple days ago too. And what happened to global rollback? I thought there was a discussion about that too? Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 22:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You've read my mind. There should be global rollback.

You should know that some languages have no admins or only one admin, though, so it's quite complex.

There should still be semi-protection at least—I'm willing to pressure for some sort of solution if I have to. ~ Troy (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

And BTW, if there are few or no admins, rollback should still be granted to someone. ~ Troy (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollback is really just an easier way to simply load up an old version of the page, edit it, and click save... Just in case you didn't know. Also, cross-wiki vandalism can be reported here (meta:Vandalism reports)–xeno (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• It appears that the Tigrinya Wikipedia has zero admins, and zero admins is too few for any Wikipedia. I note that it's no longer possible to get a realistic view of the ratio of users to admins, though, because of global login. Apparently I'm now considered an editor at the Tigrinya Wikipedia, because I clicked over there, even though I don't even have a Tigrinya font on my computer to display the language, much less could I read it even if I did. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually there was a proposal at Meta to implement a global sysop bit, which would have addressed cross project abuse of this type and worse. English language Wikipedians prevented it from passing, and when a modified version got proposed that would have exempted English language Wikipedia, English language Wikipedians shot that down too. And many if not most of these cross project abuses originate at English Wikipedia and migrate elsewhere. If it sounds like this project is collectively behaving illogically and making life harder for the other WMF projects' volunteers, well--imagine what the volunteers on those other projects think. Durova^Charge! 01:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it failed? I didn't realize. Where is the decision? –xeno (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

At Meta. Durova^Charge! 02:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes , the same link I linked above I suppose. They left the "poll closed - results unannounced" banner up for whatever reason. –xeno (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I just saw the same vandalism at the Tigrinya main page and reverted again. I think the proposal Durova mentions should be reconsidered. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Durova is correct, there isn't much we can do about the smaller wikis since proposals keep getting shot down front, right, center, but a new proposal will be brought to meta soon just after a severe bug gets fixed...--Cometstyles 10:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW: I protected the main page and blocked the IP responsible there. If anyone happens to notice vandalism on a small wiki where there don't seem to be active sysops, bring it to either the Small Wiki Monitoring Team's attention via the #cvn-sw channel on Freenode, or to the stewards, via the #Stewards channel, for attention. Stewards have sysop powers globally now and can easily revert or block as needed. Global Rollback is in the process of being granted to some very hard working and capable SWMT members (such as Cometstyles, for instance, really a good chap) as well. ++Lar: t/c 13:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A thought recently came to my mind that we should make the Cluebot recognize the word "hagger". Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would help. He frequently uses H...A...G...G...E...R, where each "." is a different unicode character. (I think they're different. None displays on this PC, probably due to local security configurations, so I don't know what Unicode characters they are.) I don't think we can come up with a bot which will recognize everything that LOOKS like HAGGER. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Theserialcomma and Tucker Max, part 2

Previous AN/I thread

User:Theserialcomma's tenditious editing continues unabated since the last AN/I I filed a little under two weeks ago. He continues to wikilawyer points into the ground. Occasionally he is right, generally he is not - see Talk:Tucker Max and note that most discussions have been instigated by Theserialcomma.

User also demonstrates ownership issues - his talk page edits and edit summaries frequently contain things such as "will be removed" [79] [80] [81] [82].

However, the real problem with this user is his unwillingness to refrain from personal attacks against me. Even if the personal attacks are not strictly "flames", they definitely violate the policy of discuss the argument, not the person.

These difs are not in chronological order, sorry. [83] [84] [85] [86].

When I requested that the user refrain from personal attacks [87], he ignored [88], prompting me to perhaps inappropriately lash out at him [89], however, I stand by every last word of the "lash out". Speaking frankly, what I've tolerated from this user would test the patience of anyone.

User also failed to follow the RfC directions and write a neutral statement in the RfC, instead stating his PoV on the disagreement as the RfC summary. I don't have a dif for this as the RfC has ended.

As a concluding note, although there is no policy called WP:DONTBEAHYPOCRITE, Theserialcomma has engaged in hypocritical behavior. Here is a (correct) statement that discussion of individual users does not belong on article talk pages [90], yet, even in the diffs which while antagonistic, I didn't think warrented inclusion in an AN/I writeup, are alway addressed directly to, and about, individual users.

McJeff (talk) 06:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

New dif, posted while I was writing this - manages to hit both incivil and OWN at the same time. [91] McJeff (talk) 07:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if people are allowed to agree on here, but I figured I would give it a shot. It's almost farcical difficult he has been and it's a shame that he's using Wikipedia's own rules against itself. McJeff has been more than patient on this and the article is suffering. He's fighting to have decent sources removed simply out of malice and attempting to drive people away from creating a quality article by making it a frustrating experience - so he can use it to say as he pleases. If something can't be done about him, I think it needs to be locked down. TheRegicider (talk) 07:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? McJeff (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the policy is for an AN/I discussion that falls off the page without having been addressed by an administrator. I am reposting it. McJeff (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussions seem inappropriately personal for an article talk page, but fall short of what would be termed personal attacks, so I cant see how to intervene as an administrator. I'd suggest simply treated them as if he meant to comment on the article by saying the same thing, but didnt know how to word it. DGG (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying hard to increase the civility of the discourse between myself and Theserialcomma, but it's not working very well. I admit I started this discussion incivilly, but I am trying to amend that - he is not reciprocating yet. [92]McJeff (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

TSC's editing is a bit brusque, but in light of soem of what's going on at that page, like the hiding of an RfC, and contravention of the results, which read like more of a R3O than RfC (in that only one commenter appeared), I can understand the frustration. For clarit,y the 3O went for TSC's position, so three other editors asserted a consensus that TSC was opposing, and did exactly what they wanted before the RfC. Basically, there's a group of Tucker Max fans who won't let anything bad be said about the guy, and an editor seeking to include fairly reasonable criticism: That When confronted for proof, tucker max could provide no evidence of the truth of some of his stories. As Max is pretty much famous for telling such stories, proving him a liar about those stories is certainly notable. ThuranX (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculously off-base. First of all, there was never a 3O - Theserialcomma filed the 3O and RfC at the same time, and the 3O was deleted before it could be addressed. And, the reason the criticism section isn't included is because no sources that met WP:BLP could be located, not because "a bunch of editors won't let anything bad be said about the guy". And there was no "hiding" of any RfC's - the RfC is over, finished, and Theserialcomma's side won, the My Election Analysis article is no longer included as a source. McJeff (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A nationally syndicated radio show is a reliable source. The worst fault there is that it's probably closer to a primary source; additional sources might be needed. However, that's not the same as a lack of any sources. ThuranX (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Response: i could spend hours searching up diffs and trying to prove mcjeff wrong, and try to show that he's guilty of the the same things he's accusing me of, but i feel that would be an inefficient use of my time. if any admin takes these cherry-picked claims from mcjeff seriously, i suppose i will have to respond. but until then, i don't think the claims look strong enough to really respond yet. by the way, mcjeff had to bump this ANI from the archives because literally no admins responded the first time. it really makes me seem like he has some personal animosity against me. to any unfortunate soul willing to look at the Tucker Max situation and take the time and effort to really examine the reality of the situation, i will honestly salute your efforts regardless of the outcome. it's messy. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

McJeff claims "the rfc is over, finished, and ... (the article in question) is no longer included as a source." what he fails to mention is that he simply moved the anonymous blog from a source, down to an external link, and now firmly reverts any attempt to remove it. those are the facts, which were not mentioned Theserialcomma (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protect request for Bleiburg massacre

Hi all. There's an exceptionally stubborn IP (89.164. ...) constantly removing the entire "Background" section of the Bleiburg massacre article and claiming its a "lie!" and that he knows The Truth. Pretty standard in these kind of articles, and normally they give up quickly enough, but this guy has been annoying other editors and me for weeks now. Could someone lend a hand by semi-protecting the article? The User ignores warnings and shifts his/her IP.

• Bleiburg massacre History page: [93]

• Used IPs (on Bleiburg massacre):
  • 89.164.37.8,
  • 89.164.1.50,
  • 89.164.27.224,
  • 89.164.5.220,
  • 89.164.0.246
  • 89.164.13.113
  • 89.164.7.135

• Warnings:
  • [94],
  • [95],
  • [96]

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism is only occurring every few days and there does seem to be another legitimate IP address there. Plus, he only started on the 16th, so I'm just going to watch it and suggest more eyes on the article. Also, I suggest going to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for a faster response next time and try going to the IP addresses' talk page (especially if he just edited); he might not be seeing the edit summaries. I realize it's highly doubtful but still worth a try. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, I'll do that. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Shorty b

Twinkle misfire. The article is indeed a copyvio of this webpage. I was using twinkle to csd the thing but instead of speedy tagging it, it made me delete it. So do you think I need to restore it and tag it for speedy or should I leave it alone?--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

So you wanted to just tag it to get someone elses eyes on it? Twinkle ought ask an admin if they want to tag or delete, because I know sometimes I'd rather tag things than delete, when I'm not sure. If it's blatant copyvio with nothing salvageable, I'd say leave it deleted. –xeno (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a few eyes won't hurt. But I think your advise is sound so I'll just leave it alone.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please block this editor User:Shannonvanity

Resolved

 – Indefinitely blocked as a vandalism-only account, User page deleted per WP:CSD#G10. –xeno (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why I have to put up with this [97]. Also their actual user page looks suspect also - references to rape? Exxolon (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, this is inappropriate, and this user should be blocked immediately. -- iMatthew _T.C. 01:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know this guy but, you're trying to block a user ecause he's gay, and admits to it? That's discrimintory, and serves no place on Wiki! Some of you people are pathetic! Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 01:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? Pray tell why he was using MY userpage to announce it? Exxolon (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Look a bit closer, Skeletal. It was vandalism to the reporting user's page. –xeno (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, the vandalism refers to the vandal accusing the reporting user of being such, and making it seem as if the reporting user placed that on their userpage. -- iMatthew _T.C. 01:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! Didn't notice that! Would've been nice if you had said that... Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 01:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The link clearly show's the editor (Shannonvanity) and the page edited (My Userpage) - if you can't even work that out then you've got a real problem. Exxolon (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please AGF, Exxolon. It was obviously a mistake, and Skeleton SLJCOAATR is sorry. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 01:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

My AGF goes a little when I'm accused of being a "pathetic" homophobe. However I've accepted SLJ's apology on my talkpage and consider this matter resolved. Exxolon (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Sexual orientation edit warring

Resolved

 – CoolJuno blocked for 48 hours (block later extended for incivility on talk page)

Could someone please look at this. I would hope we could have full protection of the template on the version without all the references and contested content. Regardless I've reverted twice so will hold off for now. There is concerns of OR as well. Banjeboi 01:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

So glad to see the talk page was respected. Looks like "Cooljuno" is at it again, ignoring consensus and the rules. Wasn't CoolJuno just here for the same behavior? ThuranX (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Answer: Yes. See there for more on this same problem. ThuranX (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently they've been blocked for editing-warring on this template before but I don't know if it's just them or not. As far as I'm aware there should be consensus before adding material and the footnotes on templates seems like a terrible idea. Banjeboi 02:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, before I even saw this, I just blocked him for 2 days for edit-warring on this template. CIreland (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Could someone consider reverting the template back to the uncontested version? Banjeboi 02:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. CIreland, could you please review the history here and on that page and reevaluate if your block should be longer, given the lengthy build up and prior issues? ThuranX (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

And this comment by the blocked user: [98] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just by the way, is it acceptable for Cooljuno's sig to look like this --Cooljuno411 (talk)? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about that, But I reccomend extending the block to 72hrs for the last message he left on his talkpage. Chafford (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the system lets him do it, then it's implicitly "acceptable". And they already doubled his suspension. He'll be back in action on the 1st, with plenty of time in the interim to get himself re-oriented. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"Since the system lets him do it, then it's implicitly "acceptable". " Actually, no. Take a read through WP:SIG, and you will see that there are many things that the systems allows us to do, that are completely unacceptable in signatures. Considerably larger text, which effects surrounding text, is one of the things that is not acceptable. He needs to change it. - auburnpilot talk 15:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If wikipedia doesn't want oversized signatures, then it shouldn't allow them to be created in the first place. But given that guy's friendly attitude, I'm sure you'll have no trouble convincing him to shrink it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding personal attacks, disruption and continued assumption of bad faith by User:Inclusionist

I'll be as brief as possible. I became aware of Inclusionist's actions when I noticed changes to the Article Rescue Squadron page. Inclusionist began a merger which was opposed by a number of editors (the details are archived on AN/I). That problem itself is basically smoothed over. In the ensuing discussion, Inclusionist made a series of unhelpful edits and unpleasant personal attacks listed below:

• here, resulting in a warning from me here
• The second warning here referred to this edit.
• Inclusionist received a "vandalism" warning from User:Realkyhick (Which I felt was out of place) and responded by "forging" a template message to Realkyhick here. The third warning followed here.

Since then, Inclusionist has continued to assert some that some vague relationship between me and User:Prisongangleader exists over my continued requests for explanation and retraction. The first two comments (on my talk page and on An/I) resulted in this request for him to stop. since then he has continued to assert that such a relationship exists, even going so far as to make statements such as "User:Protonk lost a supporter of his position when Prisongangleader was indefinitely booted, and has been arguing passionatly against his block since then." I have asked him to stop twice, first on his talk page (as I didn't want to cloud the block review AN/I with that discussion, then on AN/I. In response to this he has responded with some claims to further the assertion.

Given this user's block record, which includes blocks following accusations that another editor was a sock/vandal/etc, I would ask that this user be enjoined from making these accusations against me or blocked for some period. I don't consider this a matter for the dispute resolution continuum as it does not strictly involve me and another editor (though a bulk of the accusations do). I also do not consider this a "content dispute" broadly defined (despite the different content stances we have). I'm asking that the community be given some relief from disruptive editing, accusations and personal attacks. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(removed response)

Protonk is correct, I should be blocked. Can the next administrator block me indefinitely please? Along with my sock User:RWV. (I am very serious). Inclusionist (talk) 11:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC) AKA RWV (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"::You know I filed the current checkuser on him, right? diff Protonk (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)" the removal of this was most likely unintentional, so I'll just replace it. Protonk (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Update User was blocked at his (her) own request. I won't mark this resolved but it does seem to make the subject moot. Protonk (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

blocked user 210.231.12.98 (talk · contribs) edit...

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

this user blocked 18:26, 25 July 2008 for 48 hours by his personal attacks.[99]

Blocked period 18:26, 25 July 2008 ~ 18:26, 27 July 2008

But this blocked user created new accounts and edited as a newbie accounts for blocked period.

Webcamera (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

Pabopa (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

anther Adminstrator worried about this,[100]

"I find it reasonable that User:Pabopa is a reincarnation of 210.231.12.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account which was edit warring on Taekwondo until he was blocked 48 hours for disruptive editing."

and admin worry about he is a possibly member of meatpuppet campaign which anti-Korean editing. [101]

I reported this to another admin Stifle. admin said "report his disruptive incidents at WP:ANI". [102]

This blocked user edited Taekwondo, Kowtow, Samjeondo Monument‎ for Blocked period.

Now, Pabopa created new accounts. Webcamera [103]. exactly same behaviot of Pabopa[104]

210.231.12.98[105] and 210.231.14.222[106]. this two similar IP range IPs are exactly same behavior of Pabopa[107], too. He make a disruptive edit war by multiple IPs and Accounts.

Webcamera (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

Pabopa (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

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

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

Manacpowers (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of these accounts have not edited in the last 12 hours. Since many throwaway accounts seem to be involved, it could be more useful to consider semiprotecting or watchlisting the set of articles (for instance Taekwondo, Kowtow et al) that are the most likely to suffer anti-Korean meatpuppet editing from 2channel.com. (This issue was discussed in a previous ANI report). Such a list would help the admins focus their thinking. Can anyone propose which articles should be on the list? EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please No personal attacks.--Pabopa (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit war over Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo

There's an edit war at Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo between User:Longchenpa and User:ZuluPapa5. Both seem to have agendas in mind and both of them seem to be trying to own the article. However, Longchenpa is at least being relative reasonable and backing up his edits with sources, while ZuluPapa seems to be trying to whitewash the article by any means necessary. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. The war was about whether she has had trouble for "10 years" or "23 years"? I just put it at "trouble for years" and left it alone. One of the lamer wars ever. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Editor Wilhelmina Will's no holds barred DYK race -- I propose a temporary ban for her

User:Wilhelmina Will has resorted to personal attacks in edit summaries,[108][109] for which she has been warned on her talk page, and to reverting substantive edits in articles in order to obtain the correct number of words for DYK.

Apparently she feels so secure in doing this that she is willing to admit that is her sole purpose for reverting.[110][111] I posted before on AN/I about her plagiarizing articles, and talked to her about it, but she did not respond other than to warn me away from her and admit she didn't understand what she had copied.[112]

This editors reason for being at Wikipedia appears not to be to write articles, but rather to get the DYK medals (I still can't believe this is a community issue that people would destroy the encyclopedia's reputation for an anonymous award in cyberspace).

Based on this I have asked that the Mesodermochelys article be removed from candidates for DYK.[113]

She admits she is editing solely for the purpose of the number of words to get the article on DYK to get an award. She plagiarizes but isn't bother about it. The Mesodermochelys article has had to have almost every sentence reworded due to Wilhelmina Will's inability to read scientific articles accurately.

Is this what Wikipedia should be featuring on its main page? I don't think so. I think the main page needs a break from Wilhelminia. --Blechnic (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the DYK criteria are much stricter than the criteria for inclusion, an editor whose entire purpose is to create articles for DYK and rack up "medals" wouldn't seem to be bad on face. I can't speak to the specific problems this editor is generating but the underlying act should not be suspect in any way. Protonk (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Willing to edit war, revert edits that increased accuracy and clarity in order to have the right number of words, and calling another editor "revolting" are fine by you if used for DYK, then? Ugh. --Blechnic (talk)

(ec) Oh please, Protonk, you seriously think that adding pointless verbiage to an article just to jack up its word count for DYK (which she admits doing - follow Blechnic's links) is serious, useful, appropriate editing? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't know anything about the specific actions the editor in question has done. I'm just contending the general premise of this statement "This editors reason for being at Wikipedia appears not to be to write articles, but rather to get the DYK medals (I still can't believe this is a community issue that people would destroy the encyclopedia's reputation for an anonymous award in cyberspace)...She admits she is editing solely for the purpose of the number of words to get the article on DYK to get an award." Protonk (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

She certainly did edit war for the purpose of the number of words for DYK: "My reason is to keep the main body of this article above 1500 bytes. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

then the problem is the edit warring, not the motivation. the solution (DYK topic ban) is a unique and probably helpful one. I'm just defending the notion that an editor may edit to only contribute to DYK. If we had a (hypothetical) editor that did so without introducing factual innacuriacies, without edit warring and without plagarising, we would lavish them with praise. the underlying motive isn't the problem here, though it is probably key to the solution. Protonk (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Perhaps something like a topic ban? No further DYK submissions from Wilhelmina until the community decides to lift the ban? If that's all she's here for, she's not doing the encyclopedia any favors. (Disclaimer: I have not evaluated Blechnic's post on the merits, but if his factual claims are accurate - which I have no reason to doubt - some kind of a circuit breaker ought to be tripped) (Another disclaimer:I am not an admin) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I suggest, no DYK submissions or credits for Wilhelmina. I'm more concerned now, after working on this latest article, about her accuracy. She clearly does not understand extinct organisms--what she is currently writing about. --Blechnic (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Perhaps the stated DYK criteria are stricter than the criteria for inclusion, but in practice, an editor can plagiarize an article from another source and have it included in DYK--then we have a big fat copyvio linked from the main page. Wilhelmina Will's behavior is sufficiently problematic that I think she (?) should be given a temporary time-out from DYK--there are credible concerns of plagiarism, and the personal attacks aren't helping. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a shame - there are oodles of straightforward stubs (especially in geography and botnay) just itching to be expanded out there without having to get mired in technical detail. I note Fritzpoll has offered to mentor, which may be constructive (?) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think any kind of ban is the answer. Wilhelmina, though a little unorthodox, is a quality contributor; we should not be persecuting her for adding new content. Further, I see little difference in the diffs you've presented, Blechnic; there is no need to go searching for a conflict merely because you dislike a user. I see no inherent problem with trying to get a lot of DYK medals; the end result is lots of high-quality articles for the project. GlassCobra 05:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't dislike or like her. Her contributions are not quality, most I've seen are copyvios or wrong. Her science is really bad. --Blechnic (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There certainly was no reason to revert just to get the article up to the correct size. More can be added to the article, if that's the only DYK concern. The personal attacks while reverting to the ever-so-slightly longer version are problematic. Not to mention the factual accuracy of DYKs "extended" in this manner. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

GlassCobra, follow Blechnic's links, look at her edit summaries and talk page comments. Wilhelmina clearly admits that she's making changes for the sole purpose of jacking up the article's word count just to fulfill her "dream of having made 5000 DYK articles". That is just not on. A DYK ban is the least disruptive way of dealing with this. She could still edit the rest of the encyclopedia to her heart's content, but her incentive to commit copyvio's and insert useless verbiage would be gone. And the ban could be lifted as soon as she sees the light about her conduct. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the history of Mesodermochelys, I agree that there are problems with Wilhelmina Will's conduct. But can someone point me to a diff illustrating the copyvio/plagiarism issues that people are talking about above?  Sandstein  05:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That was another AN/I, not this one. She copied a few phrases for this that should be, in my opinion, in quotes, but the article has mostly been entirely rewritten at this stage. I'll see if I can find a link to the other AN/I.--Blechnic (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to at least most of the discussion.[114] I think her latest response to this AN/I thread[115] will pretty much say it all, along with her calling me a "revolting" editor in her edit summaries while reverting substantive edits to keep the number of words high enough for DYK. She didn't respond to the first AN/I, and her initial response to me expressing concern about her copyvios, as I noted above, was to warn me to never "cross paths with her again."[116] --Blechnic (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's start a tally, then:

• Support DYK ban for Wilhelmina at least until she tells us she understands and is willing to abide by copyvio rules and stop treating DYK medals as an end in themselves.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Until editor gets her act together and accuracy is part of it. --Blechnic (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Based not only on the attacks in the edit summaries, but even moreso the reversions to simply keep it at the right technical length (versus actually improving the article), I support a decent-length topic ban from DYK for WW. S. Dean Jameson 05:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Per Dean Jameson's reasons (personal attacks in edit summaries, accuracy issues, edit wars based on article length for DYK), I think I'd also support a temporary DYK ban for WW. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support DYK ban for Wilhelmina until she clearly starts producing accurate quality articles and shows more civility. (I also think that DYK encourages this sort of thing, earlier this year I found and dealt with multiple issues of copyvio from an editor collecting DYKs). Doug Weller (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Mesodermochelys isn't the only palaeo article created by her that has been a problem. I've made to make major changes to Mystriosuchus and Corsochelys to make them in anyway accurate. In addition, many of the palaeo articles created by her lack any information altogether (see her sea turtle creations). She seems to be trying to increase the number of articles out of the article request process, which is commendable; however all her palaeo article either are lacking in information or have serious accuracy issues and some copyvios. Mark t young (talk) 10:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - everytime Wilhelmina has been brought up here, it seems to be you, Blechnic. Just stop it, okay? Sceptre ^(talk) 11:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, it seems that Wilhelmina Will may have been brought up on AN/I more than the twice I brought her up ("everytime Wilhelmina has been brought up here" implies a larger number than two including this one). However, I did not bring her up these other times she was brought up here at AN/I. --Blechnic (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think Blechnic deserves great credit for persistence in refusing to let an unpleasant problem be swept under the carpet. JohnCD (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with JohnCD.ThuranX (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support for the short term per Mark T. Young, taking his owrd (and others) on copyvios and inaccurate material. I wonder if the situation could be saved by close monitoring and am opne to the idea. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support both a DYK ban and a possible overall short term block. As someone who has a few DYKs under the belt, her actions to attempt to rack up more is not only insulting to other DYK editors, but shows a complete lack of full respect for the rules regarding a DYK. In the last AN/I thread, I was ready to give Wilhelmina the benefit of the doubt, but the continuing on going problems and her responses to these issues make me feel that something more needs to be done here. I was suprised the last thread did not result in a block as she seemed to be ignoring all comments and the offer of mentoring to help correct a major issue with the use of copyrighted material, posting of blatantly false information, and the use of herself as a source. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support, both a DYK ban, for a couple of months, and a short block for civility violations. Editing Wikipedia should be about improving the encyclopedia, not collecting awards. When someone edits an article with an edit summary indicating that the goal of the edit is simply to increase the word count to the DYK minimum rather than to improve content, this clearly demonstrates problematic and unproductive attitude both to DYK and to Wikipedia in general. Also, the edit summaries in the first two diffs provided by Blechnic are really unacceptable. There is no excuse for deliberately insulting other editors and the fact that the sole purpuse of WW's edits, according to those edit summaries, was to insult Blechnic, makes it even worse. I would think that a short civility block for WW is warranted just for that. Nsk92 (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support DYK ban as proposed, plus mentoring/adoption if anyone is willing - I seem to remember that someone offered, but I can no longer find that on her talk page. We need to find out whether this editor's undoubted energy and enthusiasm can be channelled towards helping to build an accurate encyclopedia, rather than accumulating number-of-articles-created points and DYK credits. (In view of the amount of trouble it seems to be causing, I wonder whether the whole DYK system is maybe more of a hindrance than a help to WP?) JohnCD (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support; DYK are not an ends, and savaging articles to make them qualify, quality be damned, is not acceptable. — Coren ^(talk) 17:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support civility block, not just topic ban. This bald-faced lie in regards to the personal attack diffs provided by Blechnic is an insult to the entire community. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It is incivil to accuse others of lying. Blechnic's diff's prove that there was a "code" used. However, unless you can prove what that code means, which is impossible, then you are being incivil. I recommend that you strike your inappropriate accusations now. Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"5o 7h8t 1 d0n'7 5e3 th3 n8m3 of 7h87 r3v0l7ing 3d1t0r" is hardly a code. it's Leetspeak. 5 = s 7=t 8=a 0=o. Claiming it's not obvious what she's saying is facetious at best. –xeno (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

And where is the target mentioned in your "translation"? For something to be a personal attack, there needs to be a person. So far, all you have done is prove that Jaysweet has acted incivil by calling someone a liar. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The target (as mentioned in the above discussion) was User:Blechnic. She made the somewhat obvious personal attack three times whilst editing Mesodermochelys (see [117] from between 22.53 yesterday to 00.04 today). Mark t young (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is something that is impossible to prove, as "Blechnic" does not appear, and any claim otherwise is a clear contradiction to what was provided. Now, could you please stop attempting to rationalize a clearly incivil accusation as made above, which only provides support that people are here not because they are in the interest of the community. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that she tried to claim that the phrase (whether or not it was a personal attack directed at Blechnic - as it seems to be, since she's using it when undoing his edit) was some reminder to herself justifies Jay's comment. –xeno (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what you don't understand is the difference between "lying" and "mistaking". Calling someone a liar is incivil. Claiming that they were personally attacking someone, i.e. "provided by Blechnic is an insult to the entire community", and their claim that they wont is a lie has nothing to do with what you stated above. This is about her supposed "lying" about attacking Blechnic. This cannot be proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottava Rima (talk • contribs) 18:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No, she lied. She claimed it was her own personal code, when it's been proven beyond any doubt that it was Leetspeak. S. Dean Jameson 18:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

To spell it out, for anyone who hasn't looked up the references: the message was "5o 7h8t 1 d0n'7 5e3 th3 n8m3 of 7h87 r3v0l7ing 3d1t0r", repeated three times in edit summaries, each time immediately following an edit by Blechnic. That is easily read as Leetspeak for "So that I don't see the name of that revolting editor". Wilhelmina claimed it was code for "Reminder: Work on Jamie Howarth's page today." That's the entirely reasonable basis for the accusation of a "bald-faced lie". JohnCD (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support DYK topic ban and civility block. Plagarism is unacceptable, as are personal attacks. -MBK₀₀₄ 17:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support, per all above. –xeno (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• SupportDYK Topic Ban and Civility Block, and civility and plagarism probations. ThuranX (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

likely ban-evading sockpuppet of Ideogram

User:Slashem is a likely sockpuppet of User:Ideogram. Slashem earliest edit was [118] (attacking Giano) and his experience in his earliest edits strong suggest that it's not a new account [119]. User:Ideogram was community banned for 1 year last August [120] after a series of policy violation. His longtime grudge toward Giano and his friends (Geogre, Bishonen, etc) are long-documented. see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Evidence#Reply_to_Bishonen for example. (full disclosure: I was a named party in that arbCom case, but I'm being completely objective. see User:Bishonen/ArbCom_appeal_for_Certified.Gangsta for background) I urge admins to look at this matter carefully. I think ban-evading sockpuppetry is very evident.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 06:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible, but I don't see proof. On objectivity: You certainly profited greatly from Ideogram, as his poor behavior and trolling during the ArbCom case drew attention away from your own egregious edit-warring, which you appear to have resumed. I consider your edit warring to be a more urgent problem than whether Ideogram has returned. Kusma (talk) 06:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please try our best not to shift the topic. All people are entitled to their opinions and you are obviously more pro-China than pro-Taiwan. (On objectivity: we had a history on that, didn’t we?, Kusma. which article was it?) I have been working productively with other editors on baseball related articles and have been engaging in active discussions regarding name changes and categories. Consider these edit warring is frankly WP:BITE. The evidence is nearly a slam-dunk if we understand the history between Giano and Ideogram. It would be great if Giano himself can come forward to inspect and comment on this issue.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You are obviously wrong on my views on cross-straits issues. And you're not a newbie that I could bite. Kusma (talk) 06:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I hate to point out that you were in a pretty big edit war in Chinese a few years ago. Again, that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. I hope objective admins who has no opnion on Taiwan vs. China and have knowledge on Ideogram's tactics and behaviors can step forward.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Notified Slashem so he can respond if he wants. Kusma, if you want to talk about Certified, either made a subheading or just a new topic. This is not the place right now; he's right about not mudding the waters. No opinion either way, but has anyone at least tried a checkuser? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that "I'm being completely objective" could not stand without a correction. I agree that a checkuser might help clarify things. Kusma (talk) 07:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I already made my history with him clear. I see no point in your correction other than implying that since Ideogram's POV pushing and edit warring endeavors please you while my edits don't, you rather see me banned than him even though the arbCom and other admins have determined that he maliciously scheming ran me out of the project for over half a year.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

To declare my political bias, I support the self-determination and the current independence of Taiwan and oppose Chinese and Taiwanese nationalism. Your China-related edits displeased me because they were mostly uninformed, not so much for their political content. Ideogram seemd to think that scheming was the only way to "deal with the CG problem", which backfired on him. The scheming was bad, and probably it was right to ban him. But being a victim of his schemes does not make you an angel. Kusma (talk) 07:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with his current ban-evasion. You also commented on the very arbCom case supporting Ideogram. My edits were not "uninformed". I strongly believe ethnic Taiwanese have the right to self-identify as only Taiwanese without the ugly name-tag of "Han-Chinese", which is itself a very vague concept with no unifying DNA. (in fact, some Koreans are closer to Chinese genetically than Taiwanese) Culturally, I support Taiwanization and to roll back the forced-brainwashing (forbid to speak Taiwanese, suppressed Taiwanese culture, and forced to learn Chinese language/culture/history) that Chiang Kai-Shek imposed on ethnic Taiwanese. Lastly, I believe the ultimate goal of ethnic Taiwanese is to rectify the name of the nation to Republic of Taiwan or Republic of Formosa because the Republic of China is a slave name that signifies foreign occupation and suppression during the Chiang dictatorship and fail to represent the majority of the country's population. I resent Chinese editors who like to classify Taiwan Vs. China a "political situation", I see it as a cultural, political, and racial clash. These views enjoy widespread support in Taiwan and are not in anyway uninformed. I tried to stay objective when writing encyclopedia but Ideogram pushed the pro-Chinese expansionists view a bit too far. And I don't think we had a "CG problem", but we certainly had a "Ideogram problem." I’ve been carefully avoiding Taiwan vs. China articles as best I can since the arbCom case. And to make partial statements such as Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Kusma doesn't make you an angel either. Again, what I stated here has nothing to do with the issue of Ideogram’s ban-evading sockpuppetry.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 08:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just dropping by to let you know that the people of Taiwan have voted overwhelmingly for the foreign occupation Kuomintang party in the 2008 presidential and legislative elections. Blueshirts (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There are 3 fundamental reasons for this lamentable outcome. 1. The successful brainwashing of ethnic Taiwanese during Chiang Kai-Shek and Chiang Ching-kuo's regime from 1949-1988. And the subsequent failed attempts to eliminate China-centric history, language, and geography curriculum in the last 8 years. This causes certain confusion is personal identity among ethnic Taiwanese who were born in the '50s, '60s, '70s, and '80s, especially in Taipei where descendants of Chinese nationalists veterans account for 40% of the population. Schoolchildren nowadays are not also given adequate coverage on 228 Incident, Formosa Incident, Chiang's White Terror campaign against ethnic Taiwanese, Wang Sing-nan, Shih Ming-teh, assassination attempt made on Chiang Ching-Kuo, and other Taiwanese patriots. 2. The lack of a strong Taiwanese-oriented policitical party that could supplant the foreign occupation Kuomintang under the current two-party system. When Democratic Progressive Party flounders, Taiwanese is left with no alternatives other than Kuomintang as of now. 3. Resistance from the Chinese nationalists/colonizers old guards, a low percentage of descendants who fail to embrace mainstream Taiwanese culture, and brainwashed sample of ethnic Taiwanese to fully "Taiwanized" (ie. culturally-independent, politically-independent/soverign, ethnically-distinct) Lastly, since it was called the election of the "Republic of China", it was a "slave" election. Until Chinese nationalists go back to China, where they rightfully belong, such election results are not surprising. Again this is not a forum, so please return to the issue of Ideogram's ban-evading sockpuppetry.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think even the DPP and TSU themselves would buy these delusional excuses. And I agree that wikipedia is not a forum for vast conspiracy theories, so I suggest you troll somewhere else. Blueshirts (talk) 09:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't noticed, I have repeatedly made plea for experienced admins to take a look. If anyone is trolling, I suggest you look the mirror. Frankly speaking, your input in this matter is counterproductive. Since one of Taiwan's biggest parties is committed to sell Taiwan out to the enemy and commit treason/terrorism against the very people who elect them, my reason is definitely not delusional.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 09:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly urge admins familiar with Ideogram's antics to step forward and further investigate this matter. Given my less-than optimal record, I could not do this by myself.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Has there been an SSP or RFCU anywhere? I'm looking, I don't seem to find it. NonvocalScream (talk) 10:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see one yet either. This user obviously does have a history under a different name, though. His first edit under this name was to this noticeboard, relating to Giano, and showed familiarity with long-running issues. And the style reminds me of Ideogram. Jonathunder (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest marking as resolved for losing control and letting someone start a new thread that stays focused on the point. Given the current size, this section isn't going to be read by most admins anyways. What was the purpose of telling everyone about the elections and the commentary therein? If the concern is really about the block-evader, focus and stay focused on that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand and newbie-biting

Resolved

 – User blocked 1 week per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2#Remedies

Can I get one of those mythical uninvolved admins to review Betacommand's recent interactions with a newbie? I find them to be a clear violation of his civility parole.

It began when he reverted an edit of Hexhand's that was well-meaning but against NFCC as "vandalism". [121] Hexhand had been making a gallery of his uploaded images in his userspace, but the gallery included some non-free images. Removing the images (or converting them to links) with a helpful explanation would have been appropriate, but Betacommand's response was not.

At User talk:Betacommand#Excuse_me, Hexhand asked politely for an explanation and kept a remarkable amount of cool. Betacommand responded with gems like this: "how about get a clue and read the linked policy. Non-free content is not allowed in userspace. it was clearly removed TWICE under policy. your actions are clear vandalism and ignoring the non-free content policy. Further breaches will result in a block. As for BITE its a strawman argument." [122]

This is the exact kind of behavior that Betacommand has been asked so many times to stop, sometimes being blocked for it, but with some admin always unblocking him because he "wouldn't do it again".

I believe this merits a block under Betacommand's arbitration enforcement. I would place the block myself, but I am as "involved" as anyone who has watched Betacommand's behavior over the last several months. His previous block was for 72 hours, incidentally.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I was watching this by way of my watchlist but didn't have the time to deal with it - I agree that that is exactly what he has been told repeatedly not to do. Viridae^Talk 06:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

if 72 hours didn't get it through, go for a week. Its become extremely clear after all this time he is not learning to work well within the community. There is no amount of good or usefulness that can outweigh that.--Crossmr (talk) 07:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone block him. He could easily have explained his actions without using the word "vandalism", and that's just the tip of the iceberg. —Giggy 08:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This edit is a grossly, and I mean grossly inappropriate response to a reasonable, polite request from another user who called him to task about his response. I would endorse any 72+ hours block on that edit alone, but since it's really late (going to bed soon), I won't implement the block myself. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Note I informed Betacommand. Enigma ^message 08:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I personally feel that this user has been allowed to get away with too much, and should have been indefinitly banned months ago. Chafford (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've left a message on Betacommand's talk page. It's nothing that hasn't been done before, but I just don't see what the "block for an increasingly long time" strategy will do. If we start going to week-long blocks, we're one tiny step away from giving up on him entirely. -- SCZenz (talk) 08:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was trying to get at, I just worded it badly, it's like groundhog day, he's blocked, he comes back and continues behavior that got him blocked in the first place, he gets blocked... Something needs to be done, and fast. Chafford (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

In view of that talk page thread and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2#Remedies, I have blocked Betacommand for a week. We do not (or should not) accept conduct of this sort, particularly by someone who has apparently been cautioned innumerable times about it.  Sandstein  09:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh-oh, another Betacommand thread. Can we just move this to a subpage now? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a dozen or so people could get together and volunteer to answer questions FOR him? I mean, we probably spend more time dealing with the WAY he answers questions than it would take to answer them ourselves. Other than that the only possible outcomes would seem to be that Betacommand develops a calm and forgiving demeanor OR he eventually gets himself indefinitely banned. --CBD 12:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That masks the root cause however. Whilst Betacommand does good work re: images for wiki, there are numerous issues where experienced editors have had conflicts. Some over the whole legalese, some over his bot. If even experienced editors can sometimes get excused over the legal niceties, then so too can new editors. Biting them, as he's done in this case cannot be allowed to continue, a line in the sand has to be drawn. He received zero abuse in this instance to trigger retaliation, the editor was fairly polite, clearly needing the arcane rules explained simply. Beta instead came out with the usual snarky comments, aimed at making someone feel stupid for not being as clever as beta. People are not making unreasonable requests of Beta, in terms of moderating his language and comments. Minkythecat (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Since Betacommand does good work and has a bad attitude, maybe another bot is needed, to automatically block Betacommond for a day or so, whenever he bites someone too hard. That would save a lot of time and space here. There will still be plenty of things left to delete when he gets off his once-a-week-or-so suspension. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Absolutely no amount of good cancels out an unwillingness to change inappropriate behaviour. If someone does a lot of good and they slip up, I'm all for second chances. If they instead response by repeating the same behaviour or becoming worse, they've burned any good faith they earned. Especially when we're on to the nth chance.--Crossmr (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the never-ending "Betacommand's doing good work" trope. Betacommand's not doing good work, he's doing copyright paranoia. Good work would involve helping people follow our policies. What Betacommand does these days consists of flipping out (it used to consist of flipping out and going on image-deleting rampages, but we said he couldn't do the second part anymore). rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

He's under stress from saving wikipedia... and from being blocked frequently. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"Saving Wikipedia"? Please. Wikipedia is not going to shut down because a newbie creates an image gallery. That would be a textbook example of copyright paranoia if it had anything to do with copyright -- it's really EDP paranoia, which is even sillier. Wikipedia does not need to be "saved" from minor violations of Wikipedia rules that were written by Wikipedians, nearly as much as it needs to be "saved" from people who shrink our community by making it suck to be a newbie. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I used to be one of Betacommand's biggest critics. Now I'm one of his biggest supporters. There are countless pending lawsuits against wikipedia due to attempts to post postage-stamp sized photos that are also available on thousands of other websites. If it weren't for Betacommand and others like him, we'd be shut down by now. Wikipedia thrives due to free content. Why get something attractive when a snapshot will do? Consider this photo of Carmen Electra, which was the article's main photo for a long time. If they'd had an attractive photo, think of the suits that would have been filed. Aim-and-shoot snapshots are the lifeblood of wikipedia. P.S. What is it that Charlie Brown says to Lucy every year in A Charlie Brown Christmas? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I imagine the lawsuits are for actual copyright violations, not how good we are at enforcing our own EDP. Also, Betacommand's actions don't encourage free content, they just make the non-free content policy look unreasonable. Both free content and fair use have a place on Wikipedia. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The Foundation has given us a rather wide open playground to play in but have only asked for a small number of very specific rules to be followed to the letter, one being how non-free content is dealt with. We have to be aggressive about how non-free media is handled - not to the level of incivility that Beta often gives, but we do need to be rather blunt as there's no exceptions to the EDP. --MASEM 17:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're trying to make it look like I'm saying the EDP shouldn't be followed, don't. I'm saying that enforcing the EDP the way Betacommand does -- with "gotcha!"s and angry rants -- does not constitute "saving Wikipedia" or "doing good work" and has nothing to do with preventing lawsuits. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, User:Anthere, chairperson of the WMF board at the time the resolution was adopted, already commented on this extensively over at wikinews about the invocation of foundation resolution as a means to prevent discussion and compromise. The foundation does not set the restrictions, the home wiki does. For one thing, trying to set policy from the foundation level brings the foundation into troubled waters WRT the safe harbour provisions that are granted to it as a 503.1c non-profit. So, it is absurd for image specialists to point and scream foundation resolution whenever they are annoyed that they aren't getting their way. No, it is the English Wikipedia community decides what our EDP should be and no you can't say that reasonable discussion is off the table due to foundation resolution. As to the issue at hand, I think we are just addressing the symptom of a largely WP:CREEP instigated by hysterical copyright paranoia. The fact of the matter is that non-free content in the User: namespace is no different in the eyes of the law than non-free content displayed in main namespace. So someone wants to decorate their user page with fair use? Who cares? Does it really do any harm? It doesn't seem like an urgent problem and certainly not one which requires the nastiness of BC proportions. It seems to me that incidents such as this could just as easily be avoided if we got rid of overly-paranoid rules such as this. I still believe, and continue to believe, that there are legitimate encyclopedic building purposes for transcluding fair use into User: namespace - namely sandbox article construction and formatting - which alone make this policy absurd. If we get a complaint, then remove it, but just biting people over this nonsense is really pathetic. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Bingo. If you're looking for a one-word description of this situation "pathetic" does as well as anything. Although "paranoia" works too. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Threatened in email

Someone went to my profile and from there, visited my website and threatened me in email. Where can I forward this email? RainbowOfLight ^Talk 08:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:ARBCOM would be best. MBisanz ^talk 09:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere. If they didn't do it on-wiki (or via-wiki, such as Special:EmailUser, there's nothing Wikipedia can (or should) do. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

^demon is right. RainbowOfLight, it is not a right thing to display your website on your user page. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with linking your website from your userpage. It's a common practice. WilyD 14:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I advise everyone to be very careful about what kinds of links to personal contact information they put up. Best to remain anonymous here. Chillum 14:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Just in case the community is unaware, User:Jbmurray has also been counselling Rainbow and the anon (who is the subject of this complaint). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Put it this way, if you don't want to be contacted off-wiki, don't give anyone the means to do it, which also goes for your identity and Wikipedia username: If it's trackable elsewhere on the Internet and you do any meaningful editing here, you could have some nettlesome contacts and references about yourself elsewhere online. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:SSP

Not an admin, but I wanted to let you all know that there's a serious backlog at WP:SSP right now, something close to 50 open cases at the moment. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This kinda stuff really belongs at WP:AN, and there's already a thread there: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Can_anyone_help_at_WP:SSP.3F –xeno (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, should have checked there first. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Guess it can't hurt =) –xeno (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the sad part was a bunch of myopic editors felt the need to really dig into Shalom during his most RFA to the extent that he quit. Sad, really. Well maybe you'd appreciate Shalom more now that he's gone? --Dragon695 (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Interpersonal issues with Editors

Being basically new to Wikipedia's and the maze of "where to go", but also needing help in addressing open hostility by editors, I'm posting this here (hopefully it's the right section). I've monitored some infighting over topics over the months more because the arguments than whatever content they're arguing about, as I'm a stickler to "facts and figures" and the presentation of it as a body of knowledge (so third parties, like myself, can actually read and enjoy it!). That said, when I followed links to here [123] I found the sausage making more than tedious, and posted my view accordingly. The result is one faction is accusing me of being sympathetic or even being in the other faction, and using the page to duke it out as some "fact". [124] [125] The examples are nitpicking, and now it's even escalated into accusing me of making legal threats (the definition of libel is false accusations in print, and pigeon-holing me into whatever camp, and publicly stating so, based on personal bias, is indeed libel). Because Wikipedia is a working environment of 1000001 editors, this bad faith effort by now three editors has gotten too far, and needs to be addressed before it turns into a bloodbath. I'm not a party to whoever their ghosts are, and at this rate will probably join both warring camp societies in a good faith gesture to prove it, but I'm an third party more interested in "facts and figures" and "readability" than whatever they're into. I would like to request help in finding a 'living' guide who can help me navigate this site's many Wikisms, as reading half the food fights I'm lost to the terms (and god, if this is the response of being a third party, will need help on creating a better userpage!). Help and advice? FResearcher (talk) 12:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're looking for someone to show you the ropes (which is what I think you requested), you can check out Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. If you're just having trouble with the slew of new terminology, Wikipedia:Glossary might be appropriate.-Wafulz (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Wafulz, for the link. Main problem I'm having is navigation, as the site has many links going in 8 different directions, and with formatting styles (never thought this would be like programming itself!). Will need a human's help on the work flow. Again, thanks! FResearcher (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• If you have specific questions the help desk or the village pump can be very useful as well. Regards, S. Dean Jameson 17:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Good faith is a two-way street. Your first edit in 9 months was a lengthy diatribe against certain editors, which showed a significant familiarity with them, well in excess of your limited edit history. You went on to ascribe a variety of nefarious motivations to these certain editors in your second post, followed up by accusing people of libel. You then repeated your accusations of bad faith and offered to hold the "fort" for a longtime warrior in this particular WP:BATTLEground. You're clearly familiar enough to cite RfC's, AGF, criticize block lengths, and so forth, so you're certainly experienced enough to realize that accusing others of assuming bad faith while manifestly doing so yourself is a red flag to many editors here. MastCell ^Talk 17:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

And good faith is to know that 1. This wasn't necessary (as he's following my posts) [126] and notice I posted here to discuss it; 2. Nor your false accusation. I think this really needs an admin's attention, because now even you are accusing me of knowing anyone on Wikipedia. You need to stop thinking ghosts are under every bed, Mastcell, as it's looking very paranoid in that world, especially when you have to really DIG for something, and something that doesn't show anything at that! lol FResearcher (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion ignorer

Resolved

 – Nothing for admins to see here. 14:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Zocky has twice redirected the article Central South Slavic diasystem to Serbo-Croatian language, without explaining it on the talkpage.
He also never contributed to the article.
Here's the history of edits on the talkpage [127] (only my two edits). Despite my explicit recquirement for discussion, that user ignored that (or he hasn't read the articlecontent and especially the discussion, which is also the violation of rules in heated topics).
Here's the history of edits on the articlepage [128].
At last, there're separate articles about this diasystem on other Wikipedias (and I'm not the author).
I ask admins to prevent any further ignorant redirects (I still don't want to use the term troll or vandal, but after this notice I'll change that, if necessary) that "kill" unwanted article and unwanted topic. Kubura (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really the place for content disputes, and Zocky hasn't done anything requiring any sanctions on himself, you, or the page itself. He's since posted at the talk page of the redirect in question, and I suggest you work it out there. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 14:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Agreed, there isn't anything for administrators to do here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Template deleted

Resolved

It appears that the template {{Average and record temperatures}} was deleted, despite the fact that several articles (e.g. Flagstaff, Arizona) are using it. I noticed that MJCDetroit added a new template {{Infobox weather}} to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Richmond, Virginia this morning, but I still see that there are issues with the infobox, and deleting the older one without replacing it in all affected articles is not the way to do things. If it's possible, I think the older template should be recreated, at least until the articles that were affected can be changed. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted per Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 18#Template:Average and record temperatures. I do agree, however, with its apparent restoration until all articles are converted to use the other template. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Appears to have been fixed already. So, nothing for admins to do here. Cheers, guys. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible legal threat in BLP case

Resolved

 – IP clarifies that this is not a threat.Jehochman ^Talk 18:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

IANAL, but this sounds to me like it might be a legal threat. In addition, the context is in a BLP case which needs some eyes on. Note also the mention of Google news on the talkpage— a quick search finds evidence of off-wiki activity to IMO violoate BLP policy no now someone posted the (factually challenged) nonsense on the talkpage.

Some eyes and/or action may be prudent over there. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"You're making Wikipedia look the fool because you'll allow in the Larry Craig accusations, but not this. I understand your lawyer training has you all up in arms about the "letter of the law" but come ON man...I'm about to file a 12(b)(6) motion and get this over with. " Not sure about this. Have you asked for clarification on what was meant by it? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's a legal threat. However, I've never dealt with one from an IP before. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI [[129]] the 12(b)(6) term is a motion to get a lawsuit dismissed not start one. I don't think it's a threat.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully someone has some insight around here. It's a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a valid claim. Here I'm saying that I want /Blaxthos' claim about NPOV and BLP to be dismissed because he fails to state a valid claim about why the Edwards controversy shouldn't be reported but the Lenny Craig controversy should. It's not a legal threat, I'm, parodying the absurdity of the Wikilawyering going on here. Don't get so freaked out. 72.72.203.224 (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism or copyvio?

An editor has alert me to a "similarity between [[130]] and [[131]] and would you consider it plagarism from wikipedia?" Bearian (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Lacking authorship information, it is a violation of GFDL, so, yes it is a copyvio, and, yes, it is also plagiarism. :) I'll make sure attribution is properly handled. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I dug out my old log-in for Wikia (created to transwiki following an AfD) and recorded GFDL attribution at the Wikia article, in its edit summary and at its talk. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite block of Craigkeefner‎

Would someone review the block of Craigkeefner (talk · contribs)? (I'd ask Hu12, who did this on June 12th, but he/she is on a wikibreak and his/her user talk page says "Talk page messages will not receive a response".)

From what I can tell, the "spamming" involved here is to an industry website (on kiosks) and to the editor's own website; the latter in the context of providing a source (a page on the history of kiosks) for some text that the editor added to an article. It's clear that the editor doesn't understand when it's proper to add an external link, nor our conflict of interest guideline (the latter of which has never been pointed out), but it also seems clear that this is a well-meaning, knowledgeable guy whose had a first posting to his user talk page of an incorrect accusation (as far as I can tell) that he had posted a link to kiosk.com (but he says, and what I saw, is that he posted links to kiosk.net, something completely different).

In short, I think shorter block would have been more appropriate; and I note that when the individual returned (yes, in violation of policy) under a new username (user|[[User|Ckeefner}}, he apparently didn't spam. While it may be too late to get this individual back (he said he's leaving), unblocking the first account would be at least a gesture that says that sometimes we do overreact to what looks like spam but is just a lack of understanding of the rules. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Request review: protection of John Edwards

I've just protected John Edwards for 48 hours. In addition to a fairly pronounced edit war involving multiple parties, there was what I consider to be a significant WP:BLP issue which led me to protect a specific version. Hence I'm submitting the action here for review.

Background: the National Enquirer, a tabloid, recently alleged infidelity on Edwards' part, an allegation which he has denied. Thus far, a number of reputable media organizations are covering the brouhaha over these allegations, though they have taken care to avoid comment on the veracity of the allegations themselves, which appear to be confined only to the Enquirer. There has been a dispute/edit war at John Edwards over both whether the allegations should be included, and if so, how the material should be phrased.

I've left a lengthy rationale on the Edwards talk page for the 48-hour protection and reversion. The protection itself is justified by the edit-war, but the protection of a specific version is always controversial. To summarize: the essence of WP:BLP is that Wikipedia is not a tabloid; that we are not Wikinews and getting these issues right takes precedence over getting them in the article right now; that the mainstream sources covering this issue are themselves seemingly skeptical or iffy about the allegations; and that while this material may certainly warrant inclusion, the dispute over the material needs to take place on the talk page, not in the form of edit-warring in articlespace.

Potentially relevant WP:BLP/N thread here, though input was fairly limited.

I'm posting this for feedback and a sanity check from uninvolved editors and admins. Also, as a minor administrative issue: should this be logged as a special enforcement action under the provisions of WP:BLPBAN? I'm hesitant to be the "test case" there, but I believe this protection/reversion are in keeping with that decision. MastCell ^Talk 17:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

On the least important point, I'd only log it under WP:BLPBAN if you are intentionally using that as the basis for your action. GRBerry 17:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd looked earlier at the talk page, in response to a thread above. Nothing relevant has been said since, yet the edit warring continued. The edit warring in and of itself merited protection, regardless of the BLP issue. It seems reasonable to have removed the paragraph also under WP:BLP. The final version before protection was arguably worse than the version being revert warred over. Hopefully in 48 hours there will be additional evidence relevant to determining the appropriate amount of coverage. I'd consider extending the protection to a week however, with a note on the talk page to use {{editprotected}} if an actual consensus version has emerged. GRBerry 17:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I was initially thinking of 3-5 days, but thought I'd err on the side of less protection. I agree about extending it if the same issues persist. I suspect that at the moment Reliable Sources(TM) have their fact-checkers and legal department working on the matter, and the appropriate level, tone, sourcing, etc should hopefully clarify itself shortly. MastCell ^Talk 18:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

See also this recent addition [132] to Story of My Life (novel) by 216.136.25.72. It has twice been re-added since its removal - once [133] by 216.136.25.72, and again [134] by 72.72.203.224. Voceditenore (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotected for 1 week. MastCell ^Talk 18:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean fully protected? ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 19:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

At Story of My Life (novel), the questionable material had been inserted solely by IP's, so I've only semiprotected it at this point. MastCell ^Talk 19:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Stalking (- and trollism)

Hi there, I am afraid there is an editor with a special interest in me who seems to care much about my badges and wikistars. Here is the history of it [135] and here [136]. The facts have been explained in the edit history given above but he seems to have a (political?) agenda and I don't know how to treat him (or her). Please advise on my talk page here [137] to keep it as private as possible. Thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.242.209 (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I restored the badge. The dispute seems to be that SSZ is counting edits he has made from IPs in his edit count when tallying whether he "qualifies" for the badge, and the IP that removed it isn't counting that. However, the whole thing is moot because in my experience people are allowed to put whatever badges and barnstars they want on their user page, regardless of veracity. I reverted the IP. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Currently nothing admins need to be involved in, but you could probably fix the problem by explicitly linking your IP and account together with notes on the user or user talk pages, and logging in is always good (what with the perks and all :) ). Unless those sorts of edits persist there's nothing that needs doing. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Persistent IP jumper vandalism at Talk:Harry Potter

Is there anyone familiar with range blocks that could look into the history of this talk page? There's been fairly consistent IP vandalism from the 62.158.xxx.xxx range since May. Would a range block be overkill? --Onorem♠Dil 18:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Poor user behavior from out of the gate

Please take a look at FResearcher‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He has been ignoring the warnings of administrators, has been referring to me personally at such venues as WT:FRINGE and User talk:Martinphi and seems to be on the path to making Wikipedia into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. We need some outsiders to review his last dozen or so contributions, responses, etc. and guide him appropriately. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I did a bit more research and now think that this is actually our old friend Profg. However, any outside input we can manage would be appreciated! ScienceApologist (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What administrators? And when did I refer to you "personally"? Search SA, search as you won't find it, until you addressed me personally. You guys love "upping the ante", especially when the intented reaction isn't what you planned. How long will this soap opera go on now, as it's almost 4pm and I'm looking for dinner. BTW, did posting to MartinPhi get you upset and Mastcell et al filled with this conspiracy idea, too? Well, he's the only guy I remember besides you, and I know how touchy [looks at this entry] you can get, so never bothered to post to you directly. Now that I have, why don't you get a chill pill? Being uptight is bad for you, even conventional medicine knows this! Sockpuppet now? PARANOIA CITY!! FResearcher (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)